Where's the Pro-Life thread?

[KUTradition]

stalkers gonna stalk

[japhy]

Hysteria!

But what's this all about?

https://news.yahoo.com/rubio-introduces ... p_catchall

So, deductible medical expenses will now be only for those medical expenses that your local politician thinks are "moral"?

Comstock Laws, check 'em out. In 1965 birth control was illegal in 26 States. In the near future after Roe is overturned, there will be 26 States that will effectively ban abortion. Sodomy laws....but, but this is a unique situation based upon the complexities surrounding abortion! That coming from the same mouths that said Roe was settled law. In the preliminary opinion it says, “We cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public’s reaction to our work,”, in other words we don't care what the majority wants or believes. Rule by minority is constitutional. “In deciding whether a right [is protected], the Court has long asked whether the right is ‘deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition’ and whether it is essential to our Nation’s ‘scheme of ordered Liberty," Think about that statement. This I think breaks down the reasons why you might want to wonder "what's next?" in a reasonable way.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/r ... e%20draft.

But don't worry, it can't happen here. There's no way an angry mob will show up at the Capital and try to stop the peaceful transfer of power in a country as civilized as ours. There's no way there will still be politicians claiming the election was stolen 2 years after it has been proven numerous times not to have been and they won't still be trying to "decertify" the election whatever the hell that even means. I've been checking it out, and it can't happen here. Who could imagine, that they would freak out, somewhere in Kansas.

[twocoach]

If you read the leak, it says right within the draft that this is a unique situation that doesn't apply to other rights because of the complexities around abortion.

You'll still be able to buy condoms, don't worry.

And if you read previous statements by some of SCOTUS you'd see that they said that Roe v. Wade was settled law that won't be revisited. People say shit all the time that they flip on down the road.

[Deleted User 863]

If you read the leak, it says right within the draft that this is a unique situation that doesn't apply to other rights because of the complexities around abortion.

You'll still be able to buy condoms, don't worry.

And if you read previous statements by some of SCOTUS you'd see that they said that Roe v. Wade was settled law that won't be revisited. People say shit all the time that they flip on down the road.

I've seen the videos of those comments. They were "gotcha" questions. They all answered exactly how they should have. Why would they speculate? At that point in time it was settled law, technically it still is (since this was a leaked draft that could very well still change). None of them said they would "never" revisit past rulings they were asked about iirc. They were asked if they believed roe v wade was law and they all said yes. Because it is (at least right now).

I am still skeptical that 26 states will ban abortion. 70% of the country disagrees with banning abortion. Whatever win the abortion banners think they are getting will be short lived at best. Times are a changin'. Most of the country 70% (and growing by the day) agrees with a womans right to choose and a womans right to privacy.

[twocoach]

If you read the leak, it says right within the draft that this is a unique situation that doesn't apply to other rights because of the complexities around abortion.

You'll still be able to buy condoms, don't worry.

And if you read previous statements by some of SCOTUS you'd see that they said that Roe v. Wade was settled law that won't be revisited. People say shit all the time that they flip on down the road.

I've seen the videos of those comments. They were "gotcha" questions. They all answered exactly how they should have. Why would they speculate? At that point in time it was settled law, technically it still is (since this was a leaked draft that could very well still change). None of them said they would "never" revisit past rulings they were asked about iirc. They were asked if they believed roe v wade was law and they all said yes. Because it is (at least right now).

I am still skeptical that 26 states will ban abortion. 70% of the country disagrees with banning abortion. Whatever win the abortion banners think they are getting will be short lived at best. Times are a changin'. Most of the country 70% (and growing by the day) agrees with a womans right to choose and a womans right to privacy.

30% of the country creating the rules the other 70% of the country have to live with. Now where have I heard this one before...

We will pay for the Donald Trump administration for decades. Fucking Bernie supporters.

[jfish26]

What does 26 states have to do with it? The point of constitutional rights is that they can't be abridged by any state government, whether one or fifty. That's the entire idea.

The dicta in the draft opinion - the language stating that the opinion is limited to this issue - is laughable. That's just not how precedent works. The underlying logic carries the weight of precedent going forward.

If you truly believe the opinion can't and won't be used to further chip away at rights that the religious right does not want people to have, then I have beachfront property in Kansas* to sell you.

* NOT Wescoe. That's my bomb shelter.

[Deleted User 863]

And if you read previous statements by some of SCOTUS you'd see that they said that Roe v. Wade was settled law that won't be revisited. People say shit all the time that they flip on down the road.

I've seen the videos of those comments. They were "gotcha" questions. They all answered exactly how they should have. Why would they speculate? At that point in time it was settled law, technically it still is (since this was a leaked draft that could very well still change). None of them said they would "never" revisit past rulings they were asked about iirc. They were asked if they believed roe v wade was law and they all said yes. Because it is (at least right now).

I am still skeptical that 26 states will ban abortion. 70% of the country disagrees with banning abortion. Whatever win the abortion banners think they are getting will be short lived at best. Times are a changin'. Most of the country 70% (and growing by the day) agrees with a womans right to choose and a womans right to privacy.

30% of the country creating the rules the other 70% of the country have to live with. Now where have I heard this one before...

We will pay for the Donald Trump administration for decades. Fucking Bernie supporters.

Could also say it is 9 individual people making rules (or ending rules) for the whole country. Which is becoming equally as problematic because of the politicization of the supreme court. So much for separation of powers.

We definitely agree about Bernie supporters helping give us Trump. But that's on the Dems being shortsighted.

I hate all of it. Roe being overturned does nothing to improve our country (if it happens).

I am pro-choice.

[TDub]

they have been chipping away at rights for years.

the division is amplified and it will continue. I feel like we've had this conversation before and I was called crazy.

the pandemic gave them the boost they needed to firmly plant government overreach as a standard form of rule. Many cheered it on. All depends on your perspective I guess.

fuck this shit...all of it.

[MICHHAWK]

it's not gov't overreach if the gov't is reaching in your direction. it's only gov't overreach if they are reaching in the other direction.

[jfish26]

it's not gov't overreach if the gov't is reaching in your direction. it's only gov't overreach if they are reaching in the other direction.

Even in this very stupid example...I think you have it backwards.

[ousdahl]

technically it still is (since this was a leaked draft that could very well still change).

but they're in a tight spot now, especially after having the draft leaked.

if any of the conservative justices DON'T go all in on banning Roe, the "pro-life" crowd is gonna want them hanged.

[MICHHAWK]

nobody can gin up the hysteria machine quite like the social medias whackjobs. 0-110 in no time flat.






because of this leaked opinion piece all of our rights and privelages are going to go away. all of them. you watch.

[Deleted User 863]

technically it still is (since this was a leaked draft that could very well still change).

but they're in a tight spot now, especially after having the draft leaked.

if any of the conservative justices DON'T go all in on banning Roe, the "pro-life" crowd is gonna want them hanged.

And if they do the pro choice crowd will want them hanged.

[MICHHAWK]

at the very least, this leaked draft of an opinion paper gives the lunatics something to do this week.

[jfish26]

technically it still is (since this was a leaked draft that could very well still change).

but they're in a tight spot now, especially after having the draft leaked.

if any of the conservative justices DON'T go all in on banning Roe, the "pro-life" crowd is gonna want them hanged.

And if they do the pro choice crowd will want them hanged.

It seems as likely as any other explanation that the purpose of the leak was to keep at least one conservative justice from walking back from the starkness of the opinion.

[ousdahl]

it'll be interesting if we ever learn more about who leaked it and why.

I think you posted that tweet thread that suggests liberal clerks tend to not be activists and are more risk-averse, and it's much more in the style of the conservative playbook these days to breach norms and public trust, not to mention how the consequences for such breaches are likely not as bad for a con than a lib.

[ousdahl]

also, I'm curious to read any dissents here.

and just flesh out the actual legalese it took to reach the drafted opinion, and how it reconciles with actual settled law, the legalese in Roe to begin with, etc.

[jfish26]

it'll be interesting if we ever learn more about who leaked it and why.

I think you posted that tweet thread that suggests liberal clerks tend to not be activists and are more risk-averse, and it's much more in the style of the conservative playbook these days to breach norms and public trust, not to mention how the consequences for such breaches are likely not as bad for a con than a lib.

The BUT HER EMAILS-ish appeals to the base were sure quite ready.

[dolomite]

https://www.worldometers.info/
abortions this year: 14 million+ and counting
abortions today: 58 thousand+ and counting
deaths of mothers during birth this year: 104,000+ and counting
deaths of mothers during birth today: 400+ and counting
Just sayin', (can't stop'em).

[KUTradition]

https://www.worldometers.info/
abortions this year: 14 million+ and counting
abortions today: 58 thousand+ and counting
deaths of mothers during birth this year: 104,000+ and counting
deaths of mothers during birth today: 400+ and counting
Just sayin', (can't stop'em).

https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/l ... -emergency

you’re absolutely right…you can’t stop them

so why in the world would you want to criminalize them and go back to making them unsafe?

Just sayin’