This is all predicted, same as overturning Roe. These are real conservatives on the court, they are going to rule as such. You’ll see.
Supreme Court to Overturn Roe v. Wade
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
This is all predicted, same as overturning Roe. These are real conservatives on the court, they are going to rule as such. You’ll see.
I actually am not telling you what I am ok with as I am keeping this a pure legal discussion as abortion disucssions rank right up there with politics and religion as far as topics to avoid at the dinner table haha
I have problems with what the states will do because of Dobbs and hte example below. That is why I said this may not be over as extremely restrictive laws on abortions are still subject to serious challenges. removing the SC protection that Roe afforded means it will be bat shit crazy for a while until Congress or the next court challenge on full bans or dumbfuck laws such as requiring a committee or forced counseling.
Republican state Representative Jean Schmidt of Ohio, the author of a highly contentious anti-abortion measure that does not include exceptions in cases of rape or incest, was criticized after she argued a pregnancy from rape is actually an "opportunity" for a woman to raise a child, send them to live with a family member or put them up for adoption.
There are States that will take Dobbs as a blank check for this kind of bullshit and that does worry me considerably because there are just some fucked up beliefs in people who got elected from some small town who has a voice in the state legislature and will want to push through some shit like this.
I accept the basis for why the SC punted on this issue alone but the State legislatures are far worse than Congress in many ways and there will be a shit storm for years on this issue.
Right now, there are 4 Constitutionalists on the bench and only 2 of those are strict Constitutionalists. We need more of them.
Every side reacts with "slippery slope" arguments. Except we have been sliding down the leftist slippery slope for decades now.
Since Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson in fact. Great posting.
Just doing some searching and I can't find anything on the conditions in Texas except they had a life of the mother exception going back to the 19th century. GA's requirements for major hospitals, not clinics and a committee seem to stand out.
Another thing though I remember mom explaining was that it was a mistake to think all the laws were explicitly anti-abortion but intended to save the life of the woman as prior to antibiotics, the fatality rate from abortions was very high, a national scandal. Perhaps this was the intent of Georgia with the main hospital requirement.
Antibiotics changed what was possible as did the transition of women from being chattals/property to complete entities under the constitution.
Good news for Buy1.
Mind you his mind collapsed when I pointed out I could negate his vote for little more than the price of a happy meal. Living vicariously like a neo-Roman made him fragile, nuggets a trigger for Buy1 now?
Last edited:
I am not sure what that means. Can you decode?
There was also some interesting parts of the decision when it discussed viability. In colonial times, a fetus had to hit like 30-32 weeks before it could survive outside the mother at all. In recent times you hear of premies being taken out at 26 weeks and being in NICUs kept alive.
The medical technology forced a change in the definition of viable so if viable was the defining legal standard, then it changed over time. Also medical advances to save the life of the mother are more improved versus 1970s when more abortions were truly needed to save the life of the mother.
Medical advances have effects on certain laws that make things quite difficult to legislate at times...
Just a gedankenexperiment: pair of Siamese twins. One more developed, one less. One can survive if separated, one cannot. Should the more developed twin be allowed to decide to proceed with the separation procedure - is it just between him and the doctor?
And obviously it is not the same thing - if you consider the baby not a baby but a clump of cells. But if you do consider it a baby, then it is pretty similar. In fact, the abortion is even worse than the above example from that point of view, because in the example, the second twin will never be able to be separated without killing him, while with the abortion all you have to do is wait several months.
And obviously it is not the same thing - if you consider the baby not a baby but a clump of cells. But if you do consider it a baby, then it is pretty similar. In fact, the abortion is even worse than the above example from that point of view, because in the example, the second twin will never be able to be separated without killing him, while with the abortion all you have to do is wait several months.