Supreme Court Draft Decision Would Strike Down Roe v. Wade

a reply to: Xcathdra

I've been trying to find a direct answer, but so far no luck. Can you happen to cite the specific criminal statute that would operate in this situation?

It would be a monumental irony if this one branch of government had no such protection.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Leaked to Politico.

What would the outrage look like if it was Fox....or Project Veritas?

If it was infact a justice , im sure they are insulated.

Also, there is another hotbutton issue pending.

Bruen Vs NYRPA

a reply to: Xcathdra

Wow! I am impressed, and that's not sarcasm! A well-thought-out, well-presented argument based in facts!

Thank you!

There is concern that if SCOTUS over turns Roe, it could be extended to also outlawing birth control.

You know, back during the gay marriage debates I expressed a concern that churches could be forced to abandon their principles by being forced by law to marry gay couples. I was laughed at, similar to the way I am laughing at Sookiechacha. My concern never materialized, and I seriously don't think this one will either. There's a HUGE difference between abortion on demand and birth control.

Justice Alito brought up in his opinion that Roe v. Wade was based on a false assumption that abortion was not regulated during the history of the country (the opinion even includes a list of states and their restrictions on abortion prior to Roe v. Wade). That false assumption, he claimed, served to make the Roe v. Wade decision tenuous at best in establishing abortion as a common, unenumerated right inherent to the right of privacy (which Roe v. Wade is ultimately based on). Contraception HAS been in wide use since the beginnings of the country... ever hear of abstinence? That would allow birth control to be considered an unenumerated right according to the opinion.

And I support that conclusion that contraception itself could be an unenumerated right... or thought I did. You'll have to ask Sookiechacha what I support, since she has already stated several things I didn't think I supported but she claimed I did.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck

You claimed that contraception would become illegal. I said no, because people could order contraceptives. Now you want to say they can't order abortion pills.

They can order abortion pills too.
I'm just wondering where your line is when it comes to advising women to break the law.

See infringements of the 2nd ammendment and the creation of the ministry of truth.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

They can order abortion pills too.

Abortion pills are not contraceptives.

You really don't know the difference between an abortion and contraception? Really?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: JinMI

This is the first time in SCOTUS history where a draft was leaked. An law enforcement investigation into how it was leaked and who leaked it is underway.


My guess it was done by one of the liberal justices or the chief justice.

If its a justice then they need to be impeached / removed from the bench.

Already there is evidence that Alito himself leaked it.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: JinMI

This is the first time in SCOTUS history where a draft was leaked. An law enforcement investigation into how it was leaked and who leaked it is underway.


My guess it was done by one of the liberal justices or the chief justice.

If its a justice then they need to be impeached / removed from the bench.

I'm guessing a leftist clerk who got pissy.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: JinMI

This is the first time in SCOTUS history where a draft was leaked. An law enforcement investigation into how it was leaked and who leaked it is underway.


My guess it was done by one of the liberal justices or the chief justice.

If its a justice then they need to be impeached / removed from the bench.

Already there is evidence that Alito himself leaked it.

Source?

a reply to: olaru12

Really? What evidence?

Speculations emerging about why (D)s arranged the leak on purpose. Now States like CA can offer free(er) abortions to out of state customers at taxpayer expense and NGOs like PP make millions and can donate to specific election campaigns !!! 🥥

Everywhere in the MSM I look on the TV and Internet I am hearing and reading how this opinion draft

“ Won’t stop at abortion and sets the precedent for making inter-racial marriage and and gay marriage illegal”

The amount of mental gymnastics it takes to have this type of false equivalency is astounding. Hello it’s called the civil rights act of 1964. The court has ruled on gay marriages and I see no connection legally at all.

Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
Forget about the 33 billion to Ukraine but 1 billion for 100k fentanyl DEATHS last year due to Chinese and Mexican Drug Cartel smuggling.
Forget about 8.6% inflation and $4 gas

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

They can order abortion pills too.

Abortion pills are not contraceptives.

You really don't know the difference between an abortion and contraception? Really?

TheRedneck

The left sees abortion AS a contraceptive.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Speculations emerging about why (D)s arranged the leak on purpose. Now States like CA can offer free(er) abortions to out of state customers at taxpayer expense and NGOs like PP make millions and can donate to specific election campaigns !!! 🥥

The SCOTUS Decision on Abortion will Stand for Now . Fetuses Rejoice !



" White House Concedes Dems Lack Votes to Codify 'Roe v. Wade' "

www.newsmax.com...

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Byeden just made a statement, effectively motivating Ds to vote.

Anyone surprised?

a reply to: DBCowboy

The party of diversity and inclusion has a habit of defining people as undeserving of society's benefits and protections.

Fetuses are not human beings in the same way that conservatives are not human beings in their eyes.

Take note. It's the bedrock upon which all genocides rest.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Xcathdra

I've been trying to find a direct answer, but so far no luck. Can you happen to cite the specific criminal statute that would operate in this situation?

It would be a monumental irony if this one branch of government had no such protection.

18 U.S. Code § 1905 - Disclosure of confidential information generally

Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, any person acting on behalf of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or agent of the Department of Justice as defined in the Antitrust Civil Process Act (15 U.S.C. 1311–1314), or being an employee of a private sector organization who is or was assigned to an agency under chapter 37 of title 5, publishes, divulges, discloses, or makes known in any manner or to any extent not authorized by law any information coming to him in the course of his employment or official duties or by reason of any examination or investigation made by, or return, report or record made to or filed with, such department or agency or officer or employee thereof, which information concerns or relates to the trade secrets, processes, operations, style of work, or apparatus, or to the identity, confidential statistical data, amount or source of any income, profits, losses, or expenditures of any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or association; or permits any income return or copy thereof or any book containing any abstract or particulars thereof to be seen or examined by any person except as provided by law; shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and shall be removed from office or employment.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 791; Pub. L. 96–349, § 7(b), Sept. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 1158; Pub. L. 102–550, title XIII, § 1353, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3970; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 601(a)(8), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3498; Pub. L. 107–347, title II, § 209(d)(2), Dec. 17, 2002, 116 Stat. 2930; Pub. L. 110–289, div. A, title I, § 1161(d), July 30, 2008, 122 Stat. 2780.)

Also -
18 U.S. Code § 401 - Power of court (contempt of Court)

A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—
(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.

I am sure there are other laws that were broken, but the 2 above leap to mind.

Department of Justice archives - 1665. Protection Of Government Property -- Disclosure Of Confidential Government Information
The above discusses whats covered and cites 18 USC 1905 - leaking confidential info

a reply to: DBCowboy

The left sees abortion AS a contraceptive.

It does appear that way, doesn't it?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xcathdra

FFS, its a misdemeanor.

Risk v reward is apt unfortunately.

a reply to: TheRedneck

There are people who assert that certain contraceptive methods are actually abortifacients.

What exactly is “abortifacient” birth control?

Contraceptives are methods of birth control that place a physical barrier between sperm and egg, such as condoms and diaphragms. By contrast, abortifacients are hormonal-based methods of birth control that often cause early abortions. In 2015, about 7.4 million American women were using such methods.1 The principal method of abortifacient birth control is “the Pill,” which first became widely used in the late 1960s and helped fuel the Sexual Revolution.

www.hli.org...

As Donna Harrison has explained at NRO, an IUD’s manipulation of the hormone progesterone causes a woman’s body to reject any embryo that might be formed after ovulation, rather than wholly stopping ovulation from occurring.

Meanwhile, ella — if taken during or after ovulation, as opposed to just before, which is the only time it could prevent an egg from being released — often allows an embryo to be conceived even after ingestion of the drug and nearly always kills that embryo.
...
Plan B, like ella, often fails to prevent conception when it is taken outside a five-day window in a woman’s cycle (as it often is, because women use it as an emergency contraceptive regardless of where they are in their cycle). If the drug fails to prevent conception, it nearly always goes on to kill the embryo that has been conceived.

www.nationalreview.com...

Mark my words...The states that ban abortion outright will also ban certain contraceptive methods, including The Pill, Plan B and IUDs.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: DBCowboy

The party of diversity and inclusion has a habit of defining people as undeserving of society's benefits and protections.

Fetuses are not human beings in the same way that conservatives are not human beings in their eyes.

Take note. It's the bedrock upon which all genocides rest.

I've stated that the slave owners dehumanized black people so they could keep and kill them.

I've stated that Hitler and the Nazi Party dehumanized Jews and people they found less than human so they could kill them without remorse.

I see the same thing when they talk of an unborn human as "a bunch of cells" (aren't we all just a bunch of cells?) or as a pericyte.