Supreme Court Draft Decision Would Strike Down Roe v. Wade

originally posted by: loam
So when are they not just a clump of cells?

Then I'm not for abortion.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Boo.

Now youre just petulantly misrepresenting my statements.



Was fun while it lasted.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: loam
So when are they not just a clump of cells?

Then I'm not for abortion.

I know my English may not be the best, but what does that mean?

I thought you answered direct questions?

originally posted by: JinMI
Now youre just petulantly misrepresenting my statements.

Bro, you're all over the place.

You're anti-abortion, but not really.

You want people to stop doing things they've always done voluntarily but feel it needs moral legislation.

You want to have the issues addressed but can't admit it will cost money.

There's more but that's most of the main issues.

originally posted by: loam
I know my English may not be the best, but what does that mean?

I thought you answered direct questions?

I'm not for late term abortions. Clear enough?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Huh. So how late term?

originally posted by: loam
Huh. So how late term?

To the point where they could be viable outside the mother.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So in other words, we largely share the same position (at least theoretically from my perspective), but you've spent the last several hours spewing vitriol?

Must be grappa night.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Bro, you're all over the place.

You're anti-abortion, but not really.

Yes! Safe, legal and rare. As in not used for contraception because karen and chad cant afford toothpaste but insist on unsafe sex because reasons.

You want people to stop doing things they've always done voluntarily but feel it needs moral legislation.

No. I want folks to take prophylactic solutiona as seriously as they take abortion issues. I also want endless coffee and whiskey.

You want to have the issues addressed but can't admit it will cost money.

Do I look like a mathamagician?

Serious question. Why are we, the nation, fighting over the result of a leisurely behavior? The root of the problem?

I get it, sex is awesome. Everyone wants a piece. Hell, even half of the covid marketing dedicated to using safe sex measures could make a huge dent.

And in support of his argument Alito references Sir Arthur Hale multiple times. A 17th century English jurist who had two women executed for “witchcraft,” wrote in defense of marital rape, and believed capital punishment should extend to kids as young as 14.

So this guy's opinion on abortion is relevant how?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Then why did you bring it up? You brought up Loving v. Virginia; I replied to you with the differences.

You inserted yourself into a conversation in which 2 posters were discussing it, when I interjected.

originally posted by: Brassmonkey
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”

to which timewarpedbrain7 replied, in part:

As a white male married to a black female I find that talk utterly ridiculous and enflaming, they want people to get mad at this point.

To which I replied,

As long as Clarence Thomas is on the court, interracial marriage will remain legal. Same sex marriage, though, is definitely in the right's crosshairs. So is "Griswald", i.e. the right to access contraception.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Understand now? I didn't bring up racism. This isn't about racism. It's about privacy rights.

How is abortion "private"?

How is any medical condition/ procedure private, covered under HIPAA, and between you and your doctor?

It's about the law, and whether or not Roe v. Wade should stand.

The conversation into which you inserted yourself wasn't.

I didn't source it because I happened to have it on my hard drive. No matter: you want an online source, here ya go...

You source doesn't back your quotes. However, this unsourced quote of yours does completely contradict Alito's statement on the subject.

It is thus apparent that, at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early pregnancy..

Abortion was unhindered and legal, at the time of the adoption of our constitution, until the "quickening", that time when one can feel the fetus kicking, which is at around 18-22 weeks.

Nevertheless, there is nothing in the Roe ruling, even among the words you posted, that proves that Roe was decided based on the idea women were inured to being able to access abortion.

For as hostile as its going to get I actually like this more and more.

Blue State Go!

California: Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, tweeted less than an hour after the Supreme Court memo was leaked, emphatically supporting the right to an abortion. In March, Mr. Newsom signed legislation to eliminate out-of-pocket costs for abortion services. Though abortion rights are already protected by a right to privacy in the State Constitution, Mr. Newsom and other lawmakers proposed an amendment to bolster said protections that would be put in front of voters in the November election. The state has positioned itself as a “refuge state” of abortion rights, including more funding for abortion providers and improving access for those seeking abortion services.

Connecticut: Lawmakers passed a bill to allow health professionals beyond doctors, nurse-midwives and physician assistants, to perform certain types of abortions. Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat, says he intends to sign it. The proposed legislation would also protect abortion providers and patients from lawsuits from states that have banned or are planning to ban abortions. The law would allow the abortion provider or patient to countersue in Connecticut court, and be reimbursed for legal fees or costs after a successful suit.

New York: New York lawmakers condemned the Supreme Court news. Four bills have been introduced in the State Senate to further strengthen abortion rights, including protecting doctors who perform abortions and creating an abortion access fund and allowing taxpayers to contribute to it. In 2019, Andrew M. Cuomo, the governor at the time, signed the Reproductive Health Act, securing New Yorkers’ access to abortions regardless of the status of Roe v. Wade.

Vermont: In February, Vermont lawmakers voted to move forward on an amendment in the State Constitution to guarantee the right to an abortion, regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision on Roe v. Wade.

Colorado: Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, signed the Reproductive Health Equity Act into law in April, protecting a Coloradan’s right to an abortion regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision on Roe v. Wade.

New Mexico: In February 2021, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, repealed an abortion ban from 1969.

Maryland: Maryland became the 15th state to allow medical professionals, other than doctors, to perform an abortion through the abortion protection bill, which will take effect on July 1. The law also requires most insurance providers in the state to cover the costs of the abortion and will provide $3.5 million in training. State lawmakers overrode the veto of Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican.

Oregon: The Legislature approved $15 million in March to help pay for abortion expenses for patients coming from outside the state.

Washington: Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, signed a law in March protecting anyone seeking an abortion or providing an abortion from a lawsuit, in response to the Texas ban.

Red States Go!

Arkansas

Arkansas has a law on the books that would ban nearly all abortions in the event that Roe is overturned, except for in the case of a life-threatening medical emergency. A medical provider who violates the law could face up to 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $100,000 or both.

Last year, a federal judge blocked another bill passed by state legislators which aimed to block nearly all abortions and made no exceptions for rape or incest.

Idaho

Idaho's trigger ban would make providing abortions a felony punishable by up to five years in prison if Roe is struck down. Exceptions are provided to prevent the death of the pregnant person or in the case of rape or incest.

In March, Idaho legislators passed a separate bill modeled after Texas' restrictive law, which prohibits abortion once fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which can happen as early as six weeks. The law also allows family members of the fetus to sue the medical provider who performed the procedure.

The ban was temporarily blocked by the state Supreme Court last month after abortion providers challenged it in a lawsuit.

Kentucky

Kentucky's legislature passed a bill in 2019 which would ban abortions and make performing them a felony offense if the Supreme Court overturns Roe. Very limited exceptions would be provided to prevent the death or serious injury of the person giving birth.

Louisiana

Louisiana has a law in place that would ban a medical provider from performing an abortion procedure or providing drugs intended to induce an abortion in the case that Roe is overturned. The ban would not apply to life-threatening or serious medical emergencies, but requires the physician makes "reasonable medical efforts" to preserve the life of the adult and the fetus.

Mississippi

Mississippi law states that within 10 days of the state attorney general confirming Roe has been overturned, abortions are prohibited in the state. Limited exceptions are provided in cases of rape or when the procedure would preserve the mother's life.

Mississippi passed a separate 15-week abortion ban in 2018, which is the source of the case currently in front of the Supreme Court. The court is expected to announce its decision in June, but a draft opinion revealed by Politico suggests a majority of the justices may be poised to strike down Roe.

Missouri

Missouri approved a law in 2019 that would make it a felony for medical providers to perform or induce an abortion except in cases of medical emergencies if Roe is struck down.

North Dakota

A law approved by the North Dakota legislature in 2007 would ban abortion and make it a felony to perform the procedure except in cases when it would save the life of the mother. The law would go into effect "as a result of new decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States" that would make the provision constitutional.

Oklahoma

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a bill last month that would make performing abortions illegal in the state, only allowing exceptions to save the life of the pregnant person. The measure makes performing an abortion or attempting to perform one a felony punishable by a maximum fine of $100,000 or a maximum of 10 years in state prison, or both.

A second bill signed into law last week sets a timeline for provisions to go into effect, depending on how the Supreme Court rules.

South Dakota

South Dakota has had a trigger ban on the books since 2005, when a law was passed to set up an almost outright ban on abortions in the event that Roe is overturned. The law would make it illegal to perform an abortion except in life-threatening medical emergencies and would become effective "on the date states are recognized by the United States Supreme Court to have the authority to prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy."

And also Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wyoming.

Everyone making moves for that new normal.

Which will reset to states. The tactics will change from crying to the Fed to tell your state what to do, to trying to change you home state, and then crying at how unfair their interpretation of constitutional privilege is when it fails.

That's compromise.

Louisiana is currently pushing through HB813 in which a non lawmaking Reverand help write which bans abortion from the moment of fertilization and anyone that has or assists in an abortion will be charged with murder. There does not appear to be any exceptions I can find in it.

The bill can be downloaded here: Legiscan

It was voted 7-2 to move forward to the house.

Justice Alito makes this very important statement in the opinion draft:

And I am paraphrasing….

“ The decision of whether the people want to make abortion legal or not legal or how abortion will be regulated should be returned to the people at the voting booth. In a DEMOCRACY the people should decide such a controversial and opinionated subject by debating with each other and voting”

So I ask how can anyone on the left be against DEMOCRACY?

Or does the left only like DEMOCRACY when their side wins?

a reply to: Brassmonkey

That's the thing about constitutional rights, they aren't voted on. They just are. In order to send abortion issues back to states, which was the goal, the Supreme Court needed to find that there was no Constitutional right in the first place.

So here we are right back where we started, with women being autonomously subjugated in some states and autonomously free in others. They will no longer enjoy the equal protection under the law or the due process and privacy rights they've had for the past 49 years.

I am pro-choice, and I support decriminalising abortion in New Zealand. But people placing their full support for abortion on Roe vs Wade is a terrible idea. First, abortion is a legislative issue, and that is where gross failures occurred at or state Washington D.C. levels of government. Second, Roe vs Wade is on shaky constitutional grounds, so objectively, it is a terrible supreme court ruling.

Concerning the leak of the draft legal opinion, the motivation was to use mobs led by the MSNBC crowd to intimidate justices into ruling in their favour.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Brassmonkey

They will no longer enjoy the equal protection under the law or the due process and privacy rights...

I thought all of that was white-supremacy?

Let's face it, you folks haven't been very strong on any of those rights for at least a decade or more when it suited you.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Brassmonkey

That's the thing about constitutional rights, they aren't voted on. They just are. In order to send abortion issues back to states, which was the goal, the Supreme Court needed to find that there was no Constitutional right in the first place.

So here we are right back where we started, with women being autonomously subjugated in some states and autonomously free in others. They will no longer enjoy the equal protection under the law or the due process and privacy rights they've had for the past 49 years.

So your statement that constitutional rights aren’t voted on is incorrect based on the history of this country. The Bill of Rights are the first 10 amendments to the the constitution and they were voted on by representatives of the people of the first continual congress of the 13 former British colonies.

The constitutional amendment to end slavery to African Americans didn’t just appear or happen. It was voted on by the peoples representatives in congress and then it was passed.

If so many many people are pro choice in this country as the media likes to make it seem then why hasn’t there been a constitutional amendment voted on and passed by 2/3rd of the state legislatures?

Remember we are the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NOT THE UNITED STATE OF AMERICA.

Weed is legal in some states and illegal in others
Stealing up to $900 in merchandise from cvs and Walgreens is a crime in most states but not in California.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Ill take hypebole for 500 Alex.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes, you said this:

As long as Clarence Thomas is on the court, interracial marriage will remain legal. Same sex marriage, though, is definitely in the right's crosshairs. So is "Griswald", i.e. the right to access contraception.

Saying that Justice Thomas is the only reason for interracial marriage is absolutely ridiculous. Justice Thomas was not even a Justice when Loving v. Virginia was decided! He certainly is not some "linchpin" to maintaining legality of interracial marriage. The very idea that it requires one black Supreme Court Justice to maintain legal interracial marriage is about as racist and ignorant as one can get.

And, just in case you haven't figured it out yet, I WILL CALL OUT YOUR RACISM EVERY SINGLE TIME! After so many times, one would think you would figure that out. It's not going to change; I despise racism in all its forms. So you have one of only two choices available to you: either deal with me calling you out, or stop spouting racism.

OK, maybe you don't have a choice... you seem to spout that same old racist crap every time you start posting, so maybe you can't help it.

How is any medical condition/ procedure private, covered under HIPAA, and between you and your doctor?

It's not. HIPAA makes quite a few allowances where that medical information can be shared without patient consent. And don't forget, your vaccination status is now public and can be demanded if one wishes to do anything except sit at home and starve in the dark.

All HIPAA does is restrict some of the medical records from being used against a patient in specific circumstances. Contract a contagious disease and you get to watch that information presented to everyone around you.

You source doesn't back your quotes.

Hahaha! Liar... it's word for word. I even gave you page numbers.

However, this unsourced quote of yours does completely contradict Alito's statement on the subject.

Of course it does! This is the section that Alito said (and showed in his appendix) was false!

My GOD, can you not read?

Abortion was unhindered and legal, at the time of the adoption of our constitution, until the "quickening", that time when one can feel the fetus kicking, which is at around 18-22 weeks.

At that time, it was difficult to even detect pregnancy before the quickening. Believe it or not, the drug store pregnancy test and ultrasound were not invented in the 1780s.

That was Alito's point: there was no need to criminalize something that couldn't be detected. As soon as the pregnancy was detectable, abortion was not permitted.

Nevertheless, there is nothing in the Roe ruling, even among the words you posted, that proves that Roe was decided based on the idea women were inured to being able to access abortion.

11 pages of the decision, specifying the history of abortion, had no basis? I suppose the Justices wrote all that for kicks? Extra credit, maybe?

I get it: you are going to deny anything that goes against your personal interpretation of what you want the decisions to say. OK, fine; you do that. I am going to point out your ignorance at every single turn.

And that's not going to change either.

TheRedneck