Supreme Court Draft Decision Would Strike Down Roe v. Wade

the way i see it;.......

the Democrats are concocting this scam of overturning Roe-v-Wade

so they get voters out his mid-term.... needlessly Scared Voters ... because the SCOTUS flipping on Womens Rights to an abortion is a False-Flag, scare-mongering Operation (on par with the mail-in-ballot fraud of last vote count)

a reply to: St Udio

It’s sad that the only way democrats can get votes is through fear.

a reply to: LSU2018


Cute, it's called research and no not from those sources. You want some sources? I'd be happy to oblige.


ETA: a few links to get you started.
Origin s

The Atlantic

Cap

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Weed is banned nationwide for example.

However states have legalized it.

I'm not seeing your point. What does have to do with the fact this isn't necessarily a states' right issue...that Alito's draft opinion doesn't exclusively hand over abortion issues to the states because, as written it doesn't proscribe new federal laws banning abortion or codifying Roe.

Better phrased would be, how is this a federal issue?

a reply to: LSU2018

And some health plans are exempt from the birth control mandate. Employers with moral or religious exceptions are not required to comply, thanks to a rule put out under former President Donald Trump. (The Biden administration is currently revisiting that rule and is expected to narrow — but not eliminate — that exception.) Also unaffected are employer-sponsored health plans that have existed since before 2010 and were “grandfathered” in and not subject to the ACA’s consumer protection requirements. In 2020, about 14 percent of workers were covered through a grandfathered plan, according to data collected by KFF.  

The 19th

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You did realize that there are also STATE LEGISLATURES? Literally, there are 50 of them, composed of elected officials, one for every state!

I cannot believe i am having to explain this...

TheRedneck

a reply to: JinMI

How is it a state issue and NOT a federal issue?

How is it that a woman can have bodily autonomy in one state of the union and not in another? Shouldn't all women have equal rights in every state?

SCOTUS upheld the federal government's right to enforce drug prohibitions. Why wouldn't SCOTUS uphold the federal government's right to ban or codify Roe just like it upheld the federal government's right to prohibit certain drugs?

a reply to: St Udio

The decision is expected to be made next month, so it's going to affect the midterm regardless. The fact that Roberts has ordered an investigation to determine the source of the leak would indicate the leak is legitimate.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You did realize that there are also STATE LEGISLATURES? Literally, there are 50 of them, composed of elected officials, one for every state!

I cannot believe i am having to explain this...

TheRedneck

That's not the question.

FACT: Alito's draft opinion hands the issue over to elected officials. That means Congress as well as state legislatures. However, even though states have already put laws in place, should Congress pass a bill that bans abortion or codifies Roe, that newly enacted law will trump all state laws.

So, all this hullaballoo about states' rights is a big nothing burger, as far as Alito's draft opinion is concerned, because it doesn't exclusively hand the issue over to the states. It invites Congress to enact abortion laws.

We'll see how reads once the real ruling comes down, next month.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

How is it a state issue and NOT a federal issue?

How is it that a woman can have bodily autonomy in one state of the union and not in another? Shouldn't all women have equal rights in every state?

SCOTUS upheld the federal government's right to enforce drug prohibitions. Why wouldn't SCOTUS uphold the federal government's right to ban or codify Roe just like it upheld the federal government's right to prohibit certain drugs?

Federal drug legislation is authorized under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy
And already it has begun.

(and so it begins. . . )


The de-humanization of the unborn human.

Because if you don't think of them as living, growing, humans, then you can do whatever you want to them.

Explain to me why impregnation is considered a human right and abortion isn't. By law, any consenting adult of any background with any qualification or lack thereof is granted the ability to reproduce but not the ability to terminate gestation. If I didn't know better, I'd say this isn't about enforcing family values but making sure the population stays at peak numbers regardless of how many children are removed and rehoused by the state. If abortion is unethical and borderline sinful because human rights, it reasonably follows that parenthood must be licensed and regulated by the state to ensure the maximum welfare of children nationwide...because human rights. Unless that kind of thing stops being relevant the moment they are born?

Laws are put in place to follow. It's up to the people whether or not they want to follow them. Everyone knows that if you break the law, there are consequences to pay.

It's almost like you either didn't read my remarks or didn't really think about your response.

It was in response to this: "it reasonably follows that parenthood must be licensed and regulated by the state"

Yes. If regulation of the reproductive process is noble and righteous while the fetus is developing then it's noble and righteous from birth to adulthood. It's for the welfare of the kids, regardless of how intrusive it is to parents. We can trust the administration to do what's best.

That's sarcasm in case my tone wasn't obvious.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

 Shouldn't all women have equal rights in every state?

Yep, as should the life being carried inside the mother, yea?

How can you compare drugs to abortion constitutionally?

a reply to: loam

Without looking it up I can tell you that the Commerce Clause refers to trafficking drugs. It has nothing to do with growing pot at home, or picking magic mushrooms in a field.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

 Shouldn't all women have equal rights in every state?

Yep, as should the life being carried inside the mother, yea?

How can you compare drugs to abortion constitutionally?

Keeping in mind this is the same administration assembling and distributing crack pipe care packages for drug addicts. But let's keep talking about constitutionality and ethics.

originally posted by: St Udio



the way i see it;.......

the Democrats are concocting this scam of overturning Roe-v-Wade

so they get voters out his mid-term.... needlessly Scared Voters ... because the SCOTUS flipping on Womens Rights to an abortion is a False-Flag, scare-mongering Operation (on par with the mail-in-ballot fraud of last vote count)

Letting each state decide is not making baby-murders illegal. That FACT needs to be repeated over and over in liberal forums, threads, in response to their panics, etc.

a reply to: JinMI

Yep, as should the life being carried inside the mother, yea?

No.

How can you compare drugs to abortion constitutionally?

That was not my comparison, it was yours.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

How is it a state issue and NOT a federal issue?

How is it that a woman can have bodily autonomy in one state of the union and not in another? Shouldn't all women have equal rights in every state?

Let's reword that... how can a baby be a valid human life with rights in one state and just a lump of cells in another state? I agree with you... Abortion should be banned across the board on the federal level, not a state's rights issue at all.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Yep, as should the life being carried inside the mother, yea?

No.

How can you compare drugs to abortion constitutionally?

That was not my comparison, it was yours.

Oh, so not equal rights then, special rights.

Yea, ill pass.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Show me. Because I'm reading Alito saying the issue belongs in the hands of elected officials.

I just did. The entirety of Alito's opinion in the draft establishes that there is no right to abortion enumerated or implied in the US Constitution. The 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America says, specifically:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Last time I checked, Congress was comprised of elected officials.

So are all 50 state legislatures.

You did know you have a state legislature?

What do these Congress members know that you do not?

Reverse that. Apparently they do not know what the US Constitution says.

Maybe they never learned to read?

Of course, we're talking about Schumer and Pelosi, right? I distinctly remember Schumer promising last election to decriminalize marijuana at the Federal level. What happened to that? He probably was too busy crying about something to do it... and it seems he never read the Constitution because he couldn't see through all the tears.

Pelosi is probably just drunk... as usual.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No, but it'll damn sure stop anyone from ever again paying attention to all the bitching.

That'll be a good thing.

TheRedneck