Supreme Court to Overturn Roe v. Wade

[Bugenhagen]

And self-awareness can only be validated by memory recall! Without memory recall, there is no self!

I think I am not getting my point across clearly, because clearly this is a complicated and deep issue to tackle.

One thing I do know is that you really suck at using Python to make your point.

After all, this thread is about abortion.

C'mon Bugen, you can do better!

I think you were one of the kids sent for medical experiments It's fairly clear you were not involved in raising a baby but they do have memory recall being able to say early words and all.

As you didn't step up with this in the thread about Trump and his dangerous fruit deposition, I figured somebody had to make up for it.

 

[exGOPer]

Marc Johnson and Robert Saldin: “Republicans have effectively harnessed the grievance that comes with a feeling of being cheated, leaning on it to mobilize, organize and consolidate the conservative movement that has fueled the GOP ever since.”

“But if the court overturns its line of decisions protecting abortion rights in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, it will leave a very different set of Americans aggrieved. Supporters of abortion rights will fume over something long taken for granted being suddenly stripped away. And a fight in deeply conservative Idaho three decades ago indicates that their anger could scramble the politics of abortion.”

 

[kandlekid]

Law enforcement is preparing for violent protests re: possible Roe overturn. I suspect most of the protests
will occur in the blue states (i.e. those that will continue to allow abortions). I guess my point is, that if these
states will continue to allow abortions, why the protests?

 

[UsualName]

Kamala may be stretching it a bit because the right to privacy is guaranteed by the Constitution, the right to an abortion is not according to the Dobbs decision as written. That is all they tried to say. Abortion, according to DOBBS is a competing decision between the woman and the State on the decision on the fetus and therefore a legislature should be addressing it. The Court concedes that there is also nothing in the constitution that prohibits abortion.

One key issue is both the ROE and DOBBS courts recognize the interests of the State due to existence at some point of a fetus or baby depending your belief or science, which is a 3rd party. All other rights to privacy involve the person or people together and their decisions free from government intervention as long as no accepted laws are broken.

Therefore to say that this court will go after gay marriage or similar rights is a big stretch bordering on hyperbole and could backfire for the Dems. The DOBBS decision says:

None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion. They are therefore inapposite.

Other decisions refer to rights to privacy in marriage for example or who to marry. The Dobbs author says:

‘These attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one's “concept of existence” prove too much. Casey, 505 U. S., at 851.

The Court is implicity recognizing the right to autonomy in decisions of marriage, procreation, child rearing etc... These simple sentences are basically upholding the precedent that this decision specifically addresses abortion and will do nothing to undo decades of precedent on establishing the right to privacy.

Therefore the Dems need to realize that claiming DOBBS will be precedent to undo gay marriages or other rights is just not true.

It is a privacy issue because it is inherently a issue of a woman’s body, hence “my body, my choice.” If it were a moral decision as in a question of personhood then the federal government would certainly have the authority over the states, as it does in issues of the mentally incompetent and the death penalty. There’s a lot of problems with the Dobbs draft like that and I see Alito is trying to find a balance to try to push this back to the states.

As to liberals saying this is an expansive decision that threatens love v Virginia and oberfeld, etc, maybe. Those are also privacy and equal protection issues but this court doesn’t necessarily need precedent from Dobbs to strip those rights.

Try to understand, we are looking at 10 to 30 years of a majority to super majority conservative Supreme Court. They got all the time they need to turn us into Iran.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Going from memory of this in the early '90s, wasn't there something about Georgia (Doe) requiring a committee to approve an abortion? This effectively made privacy a practical impossibility

Edit: sorry you mentioned the committee, but it does make privacy impractical.

yeah Doe had a whole series of hoops and a committee and a doctor and then you had to demonstrate proof of medical reasons. Also GA limited abortions to residents of the State only. Roe wiped out all of those but it was way more restrictive than TX I think.

 

[El OchoCinco]

It is a privacy issue because it is inherently a issue of a woman’s body, hence “my body, my choice.” If it were a moral decision as in a question of personhood then the federal government would certainly have the authority over the states, as it does in issues of the mentally incompetent and the death penalty. There’s a lot of problems with the Dobbs draft like that and I see Alito is trying to find a balance to try to push this back to the states.

As to liberals saying this is an expansive decision that threatens love v Virginia and oberfeld, etc, maybe. Those are also privacy and equal protection issues but this court doesn’t necessarily need precedent from Dobbs to strip those rights.

Try to understand, we are looking at 10 to 30 years of a majority to super majority conservative Supreme Court. They got all the time they need to turn us into Iran.

The Court made a clear distinction of the abortion issue and marriage. There is no SC that could ever find justification to overturn Loving or Oberfeld and DOBBS specifically mentions them by name as falling under the right to privacy and protected.

The Roe decision always had major issues with its legal reasoning and took a route of compromise between the woman's right to choose and the State's right to regulate health and well being of the fetus/viability.


The court understands the "woman's body" argument of course but simply decided that abortion is not one of those rights because even Roe acknowledged that there is a compelling State interest because of the fetus which convinced the Roe court to come up with the trimester approach to when a law can regulate abortion and when it cannot.

For example the Death Penalty is in line with the constitution simply because of the Due Process that is afforded the convicted prior to a decision of death penalty is handed down and that is still a state by state decision. However every state still is subject to the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses when upholding death penalty provisions.

Now I am speaking merely on the legal argument not discussing abortion.

The Alito Court made a point to say that the right to privacy in areas such as marriage and who you love still exists and are almost untouchable. I would be worried if they did not make such a distinction.

Now we can feed into the fear mongering that a slippery slope exists that will allow the court to overturn gay marriage rights, inter racial marriage and even school segregation but those cases are on firm constitutional bedrocks. Abortion decision was always criticized by legal scholars no matter the view on abortion.

We should not be upset at the potential of the SC but states like MISS and TX who will be the ones passing the extremely restrictive laws. The SC simply said the States and their elected representatives should address this issue.

NOW the real legal issue is if Texas says we ban all abortions no matter what- a 100% ban. That raises many issues that where abortion was legal for decades at a minimum in the first 12-15 weeks or in cases of medical emergencies or rape and incest, now a state has gone fill blown to strip away a right that existed. I think here is where a state can run into a legal challenge because one can easily prove that the law was not 100% supported by the people represented in that state and it would be unreasonable to move past the restrictions that were commonly accepted.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

View attachment 283758

Actually that's a panel on getting to the bottom of the leak and why SCOTUS leaking is a negative development for the country.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

Duh, once the personality is developed, the human is an individual. If they lose said cognizance late in life they are still a personality, and have an established life. Social security number, family bonds, memories...Those can be salvaged. But a fetus in a womb has none of that.

B1, do you have pre-birth memories, man? Why the hell are you so against abortion?

It's murder. Your logic would have us executing Alzheimer's patients.

 

[UsualName]

The Court made a clear distinction of the abortion issue and marriage. There is no SC that could ever find justification to overturn Loving or Oberfeld and DOBBS specifically mentions them by name as falling under the right to privacy and protected.

The Roe decision always had major issues with its legal reasoning and took a route of compromise between the woman's right to choose and the State's right to regulate health and well being of the fetus/viability.


The court understands the "woman's body" argument of course but simply decided that abortion is not one of those rights because even Roe acknowledged that there is a compelling State interest because of the fetus which convinced the Roe court to come up with the trimester approach to when a law can regulate abortion and when it cannot.

For example the Death Penalty is in line with the constitution simply because of the Due Process that is afforded the convicted prior to a decision of death penalty is handed down and that is still a state by state decision. However every state still is subject to the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses when upholding death penalty provisions.

Now I am speaking merely on the legal argument not discussing abortion.

The Alito Court made a point to say that the right to privacy in areas such as marriage and who you love still exists and are almost untouchable. I would be worried if they did not make such a distinction.

Now we can feed into the fear mongering that a slippery slope exists that will allow the court to overturn gay marriage rights, inter racial marriage and even school segregation but those cases are on firm constitutional bedrocks. Abortion decision was always criticized by legal scholars no matter the view on abortion.

We should not be upset at the potential of the SC but states like MISS and TX who will be the ones passing the extremely restrictive laws. The SC simply said the States and their elected representatives should address this issue.

NOW the real legal issue is if Texas says we ban all abortions no matter what- a 100% ban. That raises many issues that where abortion was legal for decades at a minimum in the first 12-15 weeks or in cases of medical emergencies or rape and incest, now a state has gone fill blown to strip away a right that existed. I think here is where a state can run into a legal challenge because one can easily prove that the law was not 100% supported by the people represented in that state and it would be unreasonable to move past the restrictions that were commonly accepted.

This is a well put together and thoughtful post but please believe these MFs are lying. The same justices that voted to overturn Roe are the same justices that gave public and private assurances they wouldn’t.

Alito drafted some language in this opinion that seems reassuring for other issues like marriage and employment protections because the overturning of Roe has implications on those federally protected rights.

Look, you may be ok with abortion going to the states and that’s alright, we can agree to disagree- you’re very thoughtful and considerate- but I am telling you this court is not done. Lots of issues with race and discrimination, and church and religion, and worker protections are coming and in a 5 or 10 years you’re going to be looking back like this is not what I thought it would be. And all of this coming down the pine is as predictable as overturning Roe was. It was known Roe would be first. Next affirmative action then public funding for religious schools (aka vouchers). On and on.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

but I am telling you this court is not done. Lots of issues with race and discrimination, and church and religion, and worker protections are coming and in a 5 or 10 years you’re going to be looking back like this is not what I thought it would be. And all of this coming down the pine is as predictable as overturning Roe was. It was known Roe would be first. Next affirmative action then public funding for religious schools (aka vouchers). On and on.

You don't know any of that and are just reacting with emotion. Grow up.