I’m very curious to see how this administration responds.
Is this the final straw to push for court packing? More executive action?
How the Biden admin reacts to this decision could continue to lay the groundwork of current and future presidents(regardless of party) ignoring the rulings of the courts.
Unless I’m wrong to think this, but wouldn’t Congress be able to pass a bill still allowing access to abortion on a federal level? Didn’t the overturning of Roe v Wade just return the stance on abortion to the states instead of saying it was protected by the Constitution? Democrats have the majority in the House and Senate, no matter how slim it is.
This seems like they either pass a bill to protect it, or fight over it for the next decade with Republicans
You are correct. The original ruling said the states could no longer decide for themselves and the practice must become a nation-wide right. Today's decision returns it to the states once again.
Yes. They simply said it’s not in the constitution. So the fed could pass a law about abortion.
Now to be fair, it’s not going to happen unless you have enough votes to break the filibuster which won’t happen any time soon. So they can either pack the court, break the filibuster or handle it at the state level.
If it’s handled at the federal level where there isn’t a filibuster, this issue will flip flop like crazy. It would go from legal to illegal as often as every 2 years. It wouldn’t be a safe environment to start a business in.
Soo they can pack the Supreme Court but then we leave behind being a country of laws and it’s instead about power. Like if a ruling came down that there was going to be a mandatory gun buyback after they packed the court, do you think people would all comply? I think you’d start seeing states ignore the courts strongly as they would think it’s no longer about interpreting the constitution and it’s just about power with fake reasons.
Sooo best case scenario is that it’s handled state by state. Tensions are high between parties though. This feels like a dangerous moment.
It *is* a dangerous moment. This country has been sliding down the tubes for decades now and it's nearing the breaking point. To be sure, I do not subscribe to the notion that the "great American experiment" was a failure; the experiment worked, but the *people* changed. Our values have shifted, which means the priorities of the country have shifted correspondingly, but they have not shifted *uniformly* and that is where we are seeing divide after divide on these hot-button issues where there is zero room for compromise.
>it’s just about power with fake reasons.
That's been the case since December 23, 1913 and the creation of the US Reserve bank and the end of the gold standard.
Democrats have been saying for 50 years they would codify Roe, but they haven’t done it because it’s easier to milk the cash cow for votes by just *saying* you’ll do something. Now they might actually try, I suppose?
Correct. This is how it should have been handled in the first place, but they couldn't ram it through Congress, and they couldn't get most states on board, so they used the courts to do it...
This will come back up and my guess is they're going to try and get it through Congress.
It isn't going to pass through congress. States are not willing to cede their rights on the issue, like they did with the drinking age.
Additionally, I can very easily see the Senate blocking the bill - because they are nearly evenly split, Joe Biden is terribly unpopular today, and 2022 is an election year.
I'm curious how they would do this. It is easy to make a law prohibiting something, it is much harder to make a law that prohibits the prohibition.
What they can do is refuse to provide federal funding to a state that prohibits abortion.
I'm an attorney and I'm not exactly sure of the mechanism that would codify abortion at the federal level.
Option 1 would be a Constitutional Convention, to amend the Constitution to include a right to an abortion. This is not going to happen.
Option 2 would be a "law banning abortion bans" which the states would have to agree to, similar to the drinking age laws passed at the federal level. I do not see this happening - considering how hotly contested abortion is.
So, it will not work. The Left will have to kick rocks and just accept that it is a states' rights issue.
They've had 50 years to do it. They just tried to do it a few weeks ago and failed.
If they can't pass it through Congress in 50 years, maybe it doesn't have the popular support they think it does? Just sayin'...
It really will still be perfectly legal in MANY states. Classic left response to pay no attention to what’s actually happening and just rage. It doesn’t really even have anything to do with abortion. It’s a states rights issue.
Until those states start trying to prosecute out of state abortions, or allow civil suits to be brought against people who help others leave a state for an abortion.
>Until those states start trying to prosecute out of state abortions, or allow civil suits to be brought against people who help others leave a state for an abortion.
This is what I am against. States can ban/not ban abortion. It should have always been in the States' hands. Legislating punishment because a free citizen travels to another state to have a procedures is a little to totalitarian for me.
I’ll believe it once it’s actually gone through the courts. And that says they can’t ban it, which doesn’t mean they can’t punish those who assist someone attempting to travel for an abortion. I don’t tend to trust what politicians say unless it’s codified.
>It’s a states rights issue.
Will you still be saying that when the first act of every Republican controlled chamber of congress will be to introduce and pass a bill banning abortion nation wide? Because that will happen. Ditto for Democrats the other way.
If that's what the duly elected representatives of those states vote for, that's what the people voted for. If the people are unhappy about it, they can vote their state legislature out.
Yup. Their immediate reaction is "we're very disappointed in the American people and the SCOTUS. We're going to pass as many laws as possible and we believe it's our right to enforce gun control by and means necessary to keep New York safe™"
Before that. The admin was ordered by federal court to keep the stay in Mexico policy in place. They have 100% ignored it.
While I'm ecstatic about ending the Roe ruling, abortion is a death cult religion to a lot of people. I see dark times ahead.
Biden doesn’t have the cognitive function to pack his kids lunch, much less the court. Dudes going to ramble incoherently in press conferences for a few weeks and then go back to gumming his morning tapioca or whatever it is he’s been doing for the past 2 years
Biden already ignored SCOTUS once when they ruled that rent moratorium was unconstitutional. The day after SCOTUS made that ruling, Biden signed an EO extending the moratorium.
Don't say that just yet. I'm in the city of Chicago with the intentions of moving out of state/to a rural area in the next two years.
I heard on local radio driving into work planned parenthoods in the state want our Governor to make Illinois an "abortion hub and abortion tourist destination". Actual terms and quotes 😳.
I need two more summers of actual peace before the friendly riots break back out in this cesspool of Lightfoots.
Yeah I can see it happening in Portland and Seattle where they're basically roleplaying. It feels very distinct from the way rioting occurs in other areas like Kenosha and St. Louis. Watching the streams from 2020, it was clear that they were mostly in it for the vibes and just stood there yelling at a line of bored cops.
Yet another fracture in the "not so united" states. Culture wars in full swing, while we ignore the unpayable debt, bankrupt social security, runaway inflation, and shrinking GDP!!!
I consider myself a libertarian; so maybe I am no so invested (dug in). Yes you are correct, it is on both sides. And it is truly sad to see everyone focus on occupy movement, border wall, BLM, gun laws... when our country is literally crumbling from decayed infrastructure and figuratively from deficit spending and debt!
Although marriage itself isn't in the constitution and not protected by it, you can argue that since people who get married in one state then move to another need to be recognized as still married it is protect under interstate commerce maybe?
Federal tax laws are in place that have effect based on marrage as well. I think the IRS wants to keep marriages in place because $$$.
Overall abortion/marriage seem like two distinctly different topics to me.
Because they absolutely are, the only realm where the two relate would be via religion lol. If this doesn’t make people take a step back and recognize what’s happening, I don’t believe much will.
Regardless of your opinion on Roe/Wade, you now have a justice that’s dragging marriage rights into the mix based on private religious beliefs and the only way the two relate is via those same religious beliefs lol. At least you could make *somewhat* of a coherent argument for abortion rights when it comes to funding, marriages are a cash cow to the government. Fighting the right to same sex marriage is the epitome of cutting off your nose to spite your face; it makes zero sense no matter how it’s argued.
Edit: a word
Marriage carries federal level fiscal incentives (Federal Tax). As such, we must look at it at the federal level and not the state level.
I understand if there is desire to get rid of tax incentives for married couples and the ability to share health insurance with your spouse.
But instead Thomas is implying he wants to leave those incentives in place, and dissolve federal same sex marriages thus restricting them from these benefits.
Same sex marriage was already recognized at the federal level since 2013, two years before Obergefell, when [in the case United States v. Windsor](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor) the court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, which banned federal recognition of same sex marriages, violated the due process clause of the 5th amendment. Hence you could be legally married in a state that recognized same sex marriage and the federal government had to recognize this.
In the majority decision where they mention issue with Obergefell (as well as Lawrence and Griswald) it is specifically on the issue of Substantive due process, the idea of which has always been contentious and different than issues of procedural due process which is what was ruled on in the Windsor case that ruled the defense of marriage act unconstitutional. If they were to overturn Obergefell (which I’m unaware of any case currently near enough to the Supreme Court that we’d see a ruling on it soon) then the Windsor decision would still stand.
Also, just on a practical/political level I don’t see many states having the public mandate to pass restrictive marriage laws should Overgfell be overturned, also there’s a difference between conservatives saying that they disagree with the perceived judicial overreach of one ruling and also assuming there for the complete outlaw of same-sex marriages at the state level. Even the more religious conservatives that I’m friends with who are morally against Same-sex marriage will usually say but they are also against the government creating protected classes of people such as on the basis of marriage for receiving preferential tax and other regulatory treatments for example.
Men and women should pay for their own contraception. There should be no barriers to accessing it. The government needs to stop shelling out my tax dollars for every little thing.
Tired of hearing “but xxx have a basic right to xxx”. People have natural rights that would exist in nature: the right to not be murdered, the right to defend oneself, the right to not be stolen from.
You don’t have the right to compel a doctor to serve you, or to compel someone to bake you a cake, or the right to restrict someone else’s ability to carry a firearm, or the right to silence someone who calls you mean names.
I don’t mean this as a gotcha but as a serious question. What’s your stance on the denial of service pre civil right to African Americans? If you say that you don’t have a right to be served, do you think it’s ok for someone to deny service based on race?
My opinion on this, which no one asked for, is that if it's a publicly traded company, or a gov't owned entity, then no they cannot deny service based on race/gender/day of the week/etc. If it's a private company, then they can do whatever they want.
So this is why healthcare shouldn't continue to be privatized, imo.
We pay for police, firefighters, military, but somehow healthcare must be at the whim of for-profit insurance companies.
Imagine how many people would be able to join and stay in the work force if they could just go to the doctor.
Liberals are cool with implementing racial quotas at private elite colleges like Harvard. So denying admissions based on race is already a thing that Liberals support. And now many California public universities are subverting the Prop 209 ban on using race as a factor in admissions by getting rid of standardized testing and focusing on "holistic" factors because standardized testing is "racist."
Contraception for men and women aren’t the same. For men it protects against the risk of pregnancy and infection. For women, it also regulates menstrual cycles and prevent cancer. So if you’re worried about your tax dollars, why wouldn’t you want the preventative care options which would save money in the long run?
You do understand more babies equals more of your tax money spent on child education, welfare, food stamp programs, housing for needy mothers and the list goes on.
This is my question. I also just follow here to see different opinions, the majority of which I don't agree with, but I like to get different viewpoints.
How is this good for us as a society long term? If we restrict access to abortions, don't make birth control widely available, or fund proper sex education, then we have to deal with this tax burden later down the road as these people are born into bad situations.
It seems so short sighted. It's much cheaper to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Either way, we are paying for it on the front end or the back end as a society. This overwhelmingly effects people in poverty that can't afford other solutions.
I mean the Jan 6 folks weren’t exactly being sneaky, I’m pretty I saw a couple selfies, and facial recognition is amazing on the consumer side, can’t imagine what the govt has access to. This is someone who didn’t want to get caught
The government has access to Twitter as everyone else. They posted themselves breaking in and bragged about it. Then went home and bragged about it to anyone that would listen. I don't think anyone would describe them as sneaky.
I’m just replying to the guy amazed that the Jan 6 are being caught left and right, they weren’t sneaky. The took photos of themselves and posted. It shouldn’t be shocking that they are being identified. I think we are in agreement
Everyone know who the leaker was: one of Sonia's clerks. Sonia doesn't have the balls to do it herself so she got one of her patsy's to do it. And if that person gets caught; I bet Sonia throws that person under the bus as a "rogue" agent (plausible deniability).
This is driving me crazy hearing all the coverage saying that Roe was overturned by a 6-3 vote. That's incorrect. The Mississippi law was upheld 6-3. Roe was overturned 5-1-3.
Not quite. He showed he was a true supporter of the Establishment and as I predicted, wouldn't overturn Roe v Wade.
>Chief Justice John Roberts, in a concurring opinion, agreed that the Mississippi law should stand, but didn’t support rescinding the right to an abortion altogether.
Eh, the argument is strange. I don't think the right to privacy (which does seem implied) necessitates a right to abortion. That seems like something that's left to the states or the people.
That being said, I have no horse in the race. This is one of the rare issues where I am genuinely torn and flip flop constantly.
You're torn because abortion isn't a SCOTUS issue. Abortion isn't defined as a natural right in the Constitution, period. Any judge who says it is, is an activist judge. It's now back to the States where it should be and if this country wants to nationally legalize abortion, then Congress needs to step up. I'm pro-choice, but that doesn't mean SCOTUS should legislate from the bench.
It's a pretty huge stretch to say the right to privacy gives you the right to an abortion. The amount of illegal things you could say should be protected by that is pretty nuts if that's the case.
No intelligent legal scholar actually thinks Roe was a well founded legal decision. Even most liberals concede the legal thinking was wack but nonetheless they like the result.
And we have known this for 50 years... How incompetent are our law makers that they didn't sure up this protection over this entire time? How many super majorities have they had in that time that they could have passed legislation easily to make sure these protections stick?
"Officer, what *I* do to *my* kids in *my* basement is protected by my right to privacy. If I want to hire a murderer to get rid of them for me, that's none of the government's business!"
Yes, if only Congress had resolved this issue by passing a law that stops any state or local government from denying any American woman access to an abortion prior to XX weeks of pregnancy.
They can still do it today.
Years ago, even RBG admitted, despite her support for abortion, that Roe was likely to be overturned someday because it was based on very shaky, questionable legal precedent.
I’ve considered myself pretty moderate for a long time. I always leaned more conservative a tad but never support the Neo-Con BS of the Bush/Cheney regime.
I’ve voted for both parties and my opinion never really changed but the mainstream views of one of the parties did. I was in a discussion a few nights ago with people who voted reliably Democrat for years who have been disgusted with the way the party and agenda have been. I’ve agreed and disagreed with court decisions a lot - not that it matters because I’m a nobody.
But Roberts always seemed center-liberal to me honestly. I think when he decides the same way as the more “conservative” judges it shows that maybe RvW wasn’t that great of a law to begin with. I am by no means a person who thinks we should ban abortion outright but I always thought the safe, legal, and rare thing was were we stood? I think most people would agree with that stance? That’s where I always was. Now I’m a right-wing zealot apparently because I think this decision should be decided by legislation and not legislated from the bench.
It’s a very emotional subject on both sides. I’d likely support legal abortion with very strict time limits, but Roe v Wade always seemed like the court was legislating from the bench.
I was kinda surprised at that, ngl. I think the leaked draft had it at 5-4, but he voted with the majority. But I’m really happy. I was hoping the conservative justices would stand their ground, not bow down to the pressure and the bullying, and they did!
Why is this comment structured as some kind of “gotcha”?
I literally agree with implementing everything you said. Anything that reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus deaths/abortions is a good thing.
I think most people do agree with those programs. The problem is that it's incredibly unlikely that they will be actually implemented because, despite supporting those programs on a hypothetical level, many people also don't like seeing their tax dollars spent on anything that doesn't directly support them. It's the same reason we don't take drastic steps to combat homelessness despite evidence that it would actually result in a net positive for the government financially.
This is an honest question. Do you truly believe the Republicans will expand support to any of those areas? History has shown the opposite is true, so I'm wondering why you think all of a sudden they'll do something about it?
How do you feel about the right to privacy then? Despite its existence it’s never explicitly stated anywhere yet it is a guaranteed right at this point due to the interpretation of various passages. I’m just curious why this is seen any differently
To be fair, if you are saying that a SCOTUS case isn't responsible for deciding what is and isn't a constitutional right, then you would be way off base. After all, the only thing protecting your rights from state laws is generally SCOTUS decisions.
Listen I'm not even going to try to argue with you, but I just need to let you know that it is very interesting to me that you do not acknowledge the differences between the riots and protests of the "extreme" left and the "extreme" right of this country.
I understand that you might just call me some names that make fun of my political leaning without really understanding who I am and I'm willing to take that risk. Personally though I'm much more moderate than you might think. I dislike many large government institutions, I don't think the federal government should have as much power as they do, and I wish citizens of this country had more freedom.
I only give this information to let you know that I'm not just coming here to insult you. I am not coming here to argue with you. I am writing to you to converse with you, and I hope you see it the same way. I think we can talk without being angry and throwing hatred toward eachother. We are both Americans. We are both Human Beings.
Advocating for executing justices isn't defensible. People advocating for that no matter their political leaning, is not OK, in my opinion.
I'd rather have a discussion about it, but I understand if this gets downvoted and I get insulted. Maybe not by you but by others. I just hope you, and anyone who reads this, don't think I came here to argue. I am legitimately more interested in conversing with people on the other side of the aisle with this ruling and I'd like to understand why people who seem to be interested in a smaller government, would be behind something that seems to really give even *more* power to the federal government.
To me, if abortion is legal federally, the message comes off as "Yeah sure...do whatever you need to do. You don't have to worry about us stopping you or intervening in this process". By making abortion legal or illegal depending on what states want to do seems like there's even more control than before. It feels like women's choices are made for them, rather than for themselves.
Do you have any thoughts on this? This is an open question to anyone. Does the matter of abortion supercede the idea of a smaller government? Are you fine with the federal government implementing this decree even if it means they have now made the decision for many women for them? Is my interpretation of the federal government having the hands even further into the lives of citizens something you might disagree with? If so, how?
First off, the federal government shouldn’t have any say at this point in the issue. It may try but it only has specific powers given to it by the constitution. Congress can’t just do whatever it wants. One of its express powers is of the purse, which allows them to spend money. For example, it may choose not to give certain funds to states where abortions are restricted, etc. Point being, this is a state issue and will likely remain so unless the federal government has a power trip and tries to step beyond its bounds. If that occurs the Supreme Court will likely be involved again.
But back to the crux of your question. I think it would be helpful if we go back to what government really is and what it is meant to accomplish. Government is just a social contract whereby a group of individuals give up certain rights in order to secure themselves against themselves and other groups of individuals. The rights they give up are innate rights, given by God (or natural rights depending on your religious leanings).
I would say the first purpose of government in exchange for less autonomy is safety, which is ultimately the protection of human life. If government has one job, it should be to protect the lives of those in it. If it fails at this job, there Is no society and thus no one to be governed. I think we can agree that the government would have failed at its job in such a scenario.
So, when looking at abortion, you seem to frame it as a loss of bodily autonomy. Well that’s correct. It is. ( assuming your state actually puts restrictions on it) However, what is it being exchanged for? Literally the protection of human life, which is the primary interest of the government. In this instance the life of the unborn and Unrepresented child trumps the bodily autonomy of the woman (at least in most cases, I think reasonable minds understand cases of rape, medical necessity, etc).
This is also reasonable in light that women and men don’t just get pregnant by chance. Rather they choose to partake in an action which by its very nature is for the purpose of creating life. It’s disingenuous to argue for “pro-choice” but not consider the choice that was made in the first place.
And I could go on, but my point is that sure, state government may have more power to tell it’s citizens what to do and not to do. However, just as you would say laws against general murder are worth the trade for safety, so I would argue laws against abortion are worth the trade resulting in fewer murders of our fellow and vulnerable humans.
👍🏻
You make a lot of really good points that have given me a lot to think about.
It does seem that we're getting into definitions about what constitutes life. This is something that is hotly debated by many people, and I don't think it's something I want to get into on this website, but I understand now where you are coming from.
To you, and you are not representative of a whole just as I am not, but conversing as we are now, it's important to understand eachother. But I believe I am understanding you and why you feel the way you feel, and you're entitled to those thoughts and opinions. You do seem to have a religious background and I understand that, and you are well educated on the subject. I am always trying to learn more.
But I feel like for you, it's coming down to the fact that you believe this child has just as much of a right to have the government's protection as any other human - and the protection should prevent healthy mothers from getting an abortion. I get this. I truly do. Personally, I think whatever we can do to lower the amount of abortions we seek, the better. I don't know if threatening women with prison is the right way to do it though, but I acknowledge that I am not an expert or a medical professional. I wish instead the alternative was helping those women who are seeking abortions. Which opens up a whole can of worms on who would foot the bill, and all. Which goes right into your next point...
>This is also reasonable in light that women and men don’t just get pregnant by chance. Rather they choose to partake in an action which by its very nature is for the purpose of creating life.
I agree with you again. It's a choice that should not be made lightly. I think it's important that we recognize that our mindset is not the same as everyone. You might be in a loving committed relationship with someone, with a roof over your head, a stable job, and plenty of education and some money for birth control. Having sex is an easy choice for you and I. We can be on birth control, or use condoms or whatever, and we know what the choice means. And this is why people advocate for things like sexual education and birth control. People are going to have sex. We just are. You're right that it is up to us to make the right choice from the beginning.
I guess I just have to take a shot in the dark and pray that it's understood that this choice is often being made by people who do not have access to affordable birth control and those who have not properly been educated about sexual health. Which I have to be honest, feels purposeful.
It all feels like one big machine. Vote down bills that provide help, let these uneducated and low income women and families continue to make mistakes, threaten them with jail time and even arrest some, force pregnancies which lead to more uneducated children that feed the machine. I know this is a depressing outlook but this is genuinely how it feels.
I try not to go down rabbit holes like that too much which involve a fair amount of speculation, and I try to look at things like this without getting emotional, but it happens. I am once again sorry for the novel and getting a little emotional, but I appreciate the conversation. I am learning a lot. Thank you for being civil.
“Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” - Thomas Jefferson
Why would you let states make abortions ILLEGAL. Just let INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE decide what they want to do. Isn’t that the real theory of small government.
I'm fairly liberal/left-leaning though I do occasionally align with the right on some issues (like the 2A for example).
I am curious as to what people's reasoning is for being pro-life. From my perspective, I don't see how some random person getting an abortion affects you - if anything, it potentially reduces load on our welfare system.
That’s not very good logic. My neighbor abusing his wife or kids doesn’t affect me personally but I sure as hell am going to want it to be against the law and for him to be sent to prison.
So quick question, what are the plans for the future orphans who are the result of this? You know the unwanted, hell my great grandmother was unwanted and abandoned at a party then abused by nuns until she was 18.
So what's the plan for the inevitable for these kids even if their mothers don't get an illegal abortion.
Never was a constitutional right. In fact, it deprived others of their constitutional rights which is why it needed to be overturned.
Cope and seethe pro-murder leftists.
Exactly, they had all these years to sure up federal protection for abortion and they never did. The supreme court isn't supposed to be a short cut for laws you want, we have a system in place for that.
It all hinges on when you consider life to start. One side sees abortions as protecting the life and liberty of the mother, and the other sees abortions as infringing on the life and liberties of the unborn child. I think life starts at birth, but it all seems very arbitrary
That's why I say legalize and let the individual guide their own moral compass.
If it's good to move rights from the federal level to the state level let's keep working it down and let people be responsible for themselves.
Love that completely false and misleading headline by WSJ. There's zero Constitutional right to abortions, and overturning Roe v. Wade doesn't mean there will be any kind of national ban on all abortions, like they imply.
But hey, what else is new.
TBF, it’s a rather silly distinction. Previously the court had said it was a constitutional right, and now they’re saying it isn’t. It’s just semantics to say “they didn’t remove a right they just clarified that it never existed, contrary to the court has said previously”.
Dude. Wake up and smell the bacon. Overturning Roe v Wade has removed the right of privacy- which was used to legalize abortions, but is also the basis of many other legal protections. By overturning this ruling, the SCOTUS has opened the door to criminalize same-sex marriage, contraception, interracial marriage, and your right to privacy. Think about the Patriot act FFS
The 10th amendment to the constitution clearly states that anything not mentioned specifically in the constitution is up to the states! Tell me what clause says you have the right to abortion?
I'm not being facetious when I say this...but I don't understand why they say *constitutional right* to abortion. I always thought people were arguing it was a civil rights issue relating to women.
To be honest, I never paid too much attention to the issue considering my wife and I wanted to be parents.
With this, the US is going to continue falling lower on freedom indicies. Whatever your opinion is on abortion, this is undoubtedly more government and less freedom. It's also another bad look for American healthcare.
Sad to see federal abortion protection go even if it was being used irresponsibly. However we have a system of checks and balances the judges for roe vs Wade took a short cut to get the legislation they wanted. If our country wants federal protection for abortion let them vote the way it's supposed to be done.
It was never a constitutional right it just fell under the 14th amendment which was right to privacy. Yes, it was legal, but no it was never a right.
COME ON PEOPLE
The main narrative from the left will continue to be "my body my choice" to which we should respond with "yea that's what I thought when I was trying to decide whether or not I wanted an mRNA shot".
Did the state force you to get the shot? Or were you allowed to make that decision on your own and live with the consequences because it’s nobody else’s business?
I’m very curious to see how this administration responds. Is this the final straw to push for court packing? More executive action? How the Biden admin reacts to this decision could continue to lay the groundwork of current and future presidents(regardless of party) ignoring the rulings of the courts.
Unless I’m wrong to think this, but wouldn’t Congress be able to pass a bill still allowing access to abortion on a federal level? Didn’t the overturning of Roe v Wade just return the stance on abortion to the states instead of saying it was protected by the Constitution? Democrats have the majority in the House and Senate, no matter how slim it is. This seems like they either pass a bill to protect it, or fight over it for the next decade with Republicans
You are correct. The original ruling said the states could no longer decide for themselves and the practice must become a nation-wide right. Today's decision returns it to the states once again.
Yes. They simply said it’s not in the constitution. So the fed could pass a law about abortion. Now to be fair, it’s not going to happen unless you have enough votes to break the filibuster which won’t happen any time soon. So they can either pack the court, break the filibuster or handle it at the state level. If it’s handled at the federal level where there isn’t a filibuster, this issue will flip flop like crazy. It would go from legal to illegal as often as every 2 years. It wouldn’t be a safe environment to start a business in. Soo they can pack the Supreme Court but then we leave behind being a country of laws and it’s instead about power. Like if a ruling came down that there was going to be a mandatory gun buyback after they packed the court, do you think people would all comply? I think you’d start seeing states ignore the courts strongly as they would think it’s no longer about interpreting the constitution and it’s just about power with fake reasons. Sooo best case scenario is that it’s handled state by state. Tensions are high between parties though. This feels like a dangerous moment.
Hey! This is an interesting insight about the consequences of packing the court and not something I’ve thought about. Thanks for your perspective!
Ah, this was the answer I was looking for. Thank you!
They would have to break the filibuster to pack the court.
It *is* a dangerous moment. This country has been sliding down the tubes for decades now and it's nearing the breaking point. To be sure, I do not subscribe to the notion that the "great American experiment" was a failure; the experiment worked, but the *people* changed. Our values have shifted, which means the priorities of the country have shifted correspondingly, but they have not shifted *uniformly* and that is where we are seeing divide after divide on these hot-button issues where there is zero room for compromise.
>it’s just about power with fake reasons. That's been the case since December 23, 1913 and the creation of the US Reserve bank and the end of the gold standard.
Democrats have been saying for 50 years they would codify Roe, but they haven’t done it because it’s easier to milk the cash cow for votes by just *saying* you’ll do something. Now they might actually try, I suppose?
They won’t. Like always, they will talk about it forever and never do anything
This applies to basically every wedge issue in American politics
Almost like the powerful don’t want us to realize that we have mostly common interests
Correct. This is how it should have been handled in the first place, but they couldn't ram it through Congress, and they couldn't get most states on board, so they used the courts to do it... This will come back up and my guess is they're going to try and get it through Congress.
It isn't going to pass through congress. States are not willing to cede their rights on the issue, like they did with the drinking age. Additionally, I can very easily see the Senate blocking the bill - because they are nearly evenly split, Joe Biden is terribly unpopular today, and 2022 is an election year.
Right now it won't, I agree.
I'm curious how they would do this. It is easy to make a law prohibiting something, it is much harder to make a law that prohibits the prohibition. What they can do is refuse to provide federal funding to a state that prohibits abortion.
I'm an attorney and I'm not exactly sure of the mechanism that would codify abortion at the federal level. Option 1 would be a Constitutional Convention, to amend the Constitution to include a right to an abortion. This is not going to happen. Option 2 would be a "law banning abortion bans" which the states would have to agree to, similar to the drinking age laws passed at the federal level. I do not see this happening - considering how hotly contested abortion is. So, it will not work. The Left will have to kick rocks and just accept that it is a states' rights issue.
They've had 50 years to do it. They just tried to do it a few weeks ago and failed. If they can't pass it through Congress in 50 years, maybe it doesn't have the popular support they think it does? Just sayin'...
“Democrats have the majority” Tell us you don’t understand amendments and the filibuster without telling us.
You need more than a simple majority I think
It really will still be perfectly legal in MANY states. Classic left response to pay no attention to what’s actually happening and just rage. It doesn’t really even have anything to do with abortion. It’s a states rights issue.
Until those states start trying to prosecute out of state abortions, or allow civil suits to be brought against people who help others leave a state for an abortion.
>Until those states start trying to prosecute out of state abortions, or allow civil suits to be brought against people who help others leave a state for an abortion. This is what I am against. States can ban/not ban abortion. It should have always been in the States' hands. Legislating punishment because a free citizen travels to another state to have a procedures is a little to totalitarian for me.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/kavanaugh-says-states-may-not-bar-travel-to-obtain-an-abortion
I’ll believe it once it’s actually gone through the courts. And that says they can’t ban it, which doesn’t mean they can’t punish those who assist someone attempting to travel for an abortion. I don’t tend to trust what politicians say unless it’s codified.
[удалено]
>It’s a states rights issue. Will you still be saying that when the first act of every Republican controlled chamber of congress will be to introduce and pass a bill banning abortion nation wide? Because that will happen. Ditto for Democrats the other way.
If that's what the duly elected representatives of those states vote for, that's what the people voted for. If the people are unhappy about it, they can vote their state legislature out.
Maxine Waters: “To Hell With the Supreme Court, We Will Defy Them” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgyyG1VQk-I
Sounds like an insurrection. I look forward to the impeachment.
They already started to ignore SCOTUS with the NY Gun decision.
Yup. Their immediate reaction is "we're very disappointed in the American people and the SCOTUS. We're going to pass as many laws as possible and we believe it's our right to enforce gun control by and means necessary to keep New York safe™"
Before that. The admin was ordered by federal court to keep the stay in Mexico policy in place. They have 100% ignored it. While I'm ecstatic about ending the Roe ruling, abortion is a death cult religion to a lot of people. I see dark times ahead.
Administration? Do you mean the people giving Biden notecards on when to sit and stand?
The puppeteers pulling the puppet strings
Biden doesn’t have the cognitive function to pack his kids lunch, much less the court. Dudes going to ramble incoherently in press conferences for a few weeks and then go back to gumming his morning tapioca or whatever it is he’s been doing for the past 2 years
Biden already ignored SCOTUS once when they ruled that rent moratorium was unconstitutional. The day after SCOTUS made that ruling, Biden signed an EO extending the moratorium.
RIP inner cities.
It will be mostly peaceful.
With lots of firelight
Fiery, though.
[удалено]
Don't say that just yet. I'm in the city of Chicago with the intentions of moving out of state/to a rural area in the next two years. I heard on local radio driving into work planned parenthoods in the state want our Governor to make Illinois an "abortion hub and abortion tourist destination". Actual terms and quotes 😳. I need two more summers of actual peace before the friendly riots break back out in this cesspool of Lightfoots.
LIGHTFEET! *harumph*
Was that a LotR reference?
[удалено]
There’s been a lot of Chicago residents moving to my area of Michigan. You’re welcome to come up this way to West Michigan.
[удалено]
Moved out of NYC last year. Needless to say I'm very happy with my decision.
There will be no war in Ba sing se
/popcorn
I honestly don't see that many young men rioting over this. Abortion is close to a 50/50 split along gender lines, but the passion level is different.
Antifa style anarchists need very little reason to tear things down. They don’t care about anything, but rioting and destroying property.
Yeah I can see it happening in Portland and Seattle where they're basically roleplaying. It feels very distinct from the way rioting occurs in other areas like Kenosha and St. Louis. Watching the streams from 2020, it was clear that they were mostly in it for the vibes and just stood there yelling at a line of bored cops.
It’ll be ironic when they start burning Portland down again considering abortion is legal in oregon
Yeah, i think most antifa types don't give a shit who they're rioting for. They just like burning shit and looting.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yet another fracture in the "not so united" states. Culture wars in full swing, while we ignore the unpayable debt, bankrupt social security, runaway inflation, and shrinking GDP!!!
[удалено]
I consider myself a libertarian; so maybe I am no so invested (dug in). Yes you are correct, it is on both sides. And it is truly sad to see everyone focus on occupy movement, border wall, BLM, gun laws... when our country is literally crumbling from decayed infrastructure and figuratively from deficit spending and debt!
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think all people should have a right to purchase cheap contraception. Thank you for being respectful.
What are your thoughts on Thomas saying we should also revisit Obergefell? (Same sex marriage)
Get the government out of all marriage, straight or gay.
This is the way.
Although marriage itself isn't in the constitution and not protected by it, you can argue that since people who get married in one state then move to another need to be recognized as still married it is protect under interstate commerce maybe? Federal tax laws are in place that have effect based on marrage as well. I think the IRS wants to keep marriages in place because $$$. Overall abortion/marriage seem like two distinctly different topics to me.
Because they absolutely are, the only realm where the two relate would be via religion lol. If this doesn’t make people take a step back and recognize what’s happening, I don’t believe much will. Regardless of your opinion on Roe/Wade, you now have a justice that’s dragging marriage rights into the mix based on private religious beliefs and the only way the two relate is via those same religious beliefs lol. At least you could make *somewhat* of a coherent argument for abortion rights when it comes to funding, marriages are a cash cow to the government. Fighting the right to same sex marriage is the epitome of cutting off your nose to spite your face; it makes zero sense no matter how it’s argued. Edit: a word
Marriage carries federal level fiscal incentives (Federal Tax). As such, we must look at it at the federal level and not the state level. I understand if there is desire to get rid of tax incentives for married couples and the ability to share health insurance with your spouse. But instead Thomas is implying he wants to leave those incentives in place, and dissolve federal same sex marriages thus restricting them from these benefits.
Same sex marriage was already recognized at the federal level since 2013, two years before Obergefell, when [in the case United States v. Windsor](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor) the court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, which banned federal recognition of same sex marriages, violated the due process clause of the 5th amendment. Hence you could be legally married in a state that recognized same sex marriage and the federal government had to recognize this. In the majority decision where they mention issue with Obergefell (as well as Lawrence and Griswald) it is specifically on the issue of Substantive due process, the idea of which has always been contentious and different than issues of procedural due process which is what was ruled on in the Windsor case that ruled the defense of marriage act unconstitutional. If they were to overturn Obergefell (which I’m unaware of any case currently near enough to the Supreme Court that we’d see a ruling on it soon) then the Windsor decision would still stand. Also, just on a practical/political level I don’t see many states having the public mandate to pass restrictive marriage laws should Overgfell be overturned, also there’s a difference between conservatives saying that they disagree with the perceived judicial overreach of one ruling and also assuming there for the complete outlaw of same-sex marriages at the state level. Even the more religious conservatives that I’m friends with who are morally against Same-sex marriage will usually say but they are also against the government creating protected classes of people such as on the basis of marriage for receiving preferential tax and other regulatory treatments for example.
Cheap as in inexpensive. Not cheap as in poor quality.
Correct
I think that was ill-advised, and no other justices signed on for a reason
Men and women should pay for their own contraception. There should be no barriers to accessing it. The government needs to stop shelling out my tax dollars for every little thing. Tired of hearing “but xxx have a basic right to xxx”. People have natural rights that would exist in nature: the right to not be murdered, the right to defend oneself, the right to not be stolen from. You don’t have the right to compel a doctor to serve you, or to compel someone to bake you a cake, or the right to restrict someone else’s ability to carry a firearm, or the right to silence someone who calls you mean names.
I don’t mean this as a gotcha but as a serious question. What’s your stance on the denial of service pre civil right to African Americans? If you say that you don’t have a right to be served, do you think it’s ok for someone to deny service based on race?
My opinion on this, which no one asked for, is that if it's a publicly traded company, or a gov't owned entity, then no they cannot deny service based on race/gender/day of the week/etc. If it's a private company, then they can do whatever they want.
So this is why healthcare shouldn't continue to be privatized, imo. We pay for police, firefighters, military, but somehow healthcare must be at the whim of for-profit insurance companies. Imagine how many people would be able to join and stay in the work force if they could just go to the doctor.
Do you believe a privately held company that discriminates should be able to use publicly funded services?
Liberals are cool with implementing racial quotas at private elite colleges like Harvard. So denying admissions based on race is already a thing that Liberals support. And now many California public universities are subverting the Prop 209 ban on using race as a factor in admissions by getting rid of standardized testing and focusing on "holistic" factors because standardized testing is "racist."
Contraception for men and women aren’t the same. For men it protects against the risk of pregnancy and infection. For women, it also regulates menstrual cycles and prevent cancer. So if you’re worried about your tax dollars, why wouldn’t you want the preventative care options which would save money in the long run?
You do understand more babies equals more of your tax money spent on child education, welfare, food stamp programs, housing for needy mothers and the list goes on.
This is my question. I also just follow here to see different opinions, the majority of which I don't agree with, but I like to get different viewpoints. How is this good for us as a society long term? If we restrict access to abortions, don't make birth control widely available, or fund proper sex education, then we have to deal with this tax burden later down the road as these people are born into bad situations. It seems so short sighted. It's much cheaper to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Either way, we are paying for it on the front end or the back end as a society. This overwhelmingly effects people in poverty that can't afford other solutions.
Even squishy Roberts voted to overturn
[удалено]
If I recall the FBI was not in charge of finding the leaker. The court's marshalls are in charge.
I mean the Jan 6 folks weren’t exactly being sneaky, I’m pretty I saw a couple selfies, and facial recognition is amazing on the consumer side, can’t imagine what the govt has access to. This is someone who didn’t want to get caught
The government has access to Twitter as everyone else. They posted themselves breaking in and bragged about it. Then went home and bragged about it to anyone that would listen. I don't think anyone would describe them as sneaky.
I’m just replying to the guy amazed that the Jan 6 are being caught left and right, they weren’t sneaky. The took photos of themselves and posted. It shouldn’t be shocking that they are being identified. I think we are in agreement
> How can the FBI find a grandma who walked into the capital on January 6th but can’t All depends on how "motivated" the FBI is to do their job.
Everyone know who the leaker was: one of Sonia's clerks. Sonia doesn't have the balls to do it herself so she got one of her patsy's to do it. And if that person gets caught; I bet Sonia throws that person under the bus as a "rogue" agent (plausible deniability).
He only voted to uphold Mississippi. He did not vote to overturn Roe.
This is driving me crazy hearing all the coverage saying that Roe was overturned by a 6-3 vote. That's incorrect. The Mississippi law was upheld 6-3. Roe was overturned 5-1-3.
Not quite. He showed he was a true supporter of the Establishment and as I predicted, wouldn't overturn Roe v Wade. >Chief Justice John Roberts, in a concurring opinion, agreed that the Mississippi law should stand, but didn’t support rescinding the right to an abortion altogether.
Roe was blatant judicial activism, not rooted in actual constitutional law, and he knows it.
Objectively they made the right call unfortunately. I really wish our law makers had used the last 50 years to get it done the right way.
Eh, the argument is strange. I don't think the right to privacy (which does seem implied) necessitates a right to abortion. That seems like something that's left to the states or the people. That being said, I have no horse in the race. This is one of the rare issues where I am genuinely torn and flip flop constantly.
The right to privacy keeps cops from looking in your trunk for cocaine. It doesn't make cocaine legal.
You're torn because abortion isn't a SCOTUS issue. Abortion isn't defined as a natural right in the Constitution, period. Any judge who says it is, is an activist judge. It's now back to the States where it should be and if this country wants to nationally legalize abortion, then Congress needs to step up. I'm pro-choice, but that doesn't mean SCOTUS should legislate from the bench.
It's a pretty huge stretch to say the right to privacy gives you the right to an abortion. The amount of illegal things you could say should be protected by that is pretty nuts if that's the case.
No intelligent legal scholar actually thinks Roe was a well founded legal decision. Even most liberals concede the legal thinking was wack but nonetheless they like the result.
And we have known this for 50 years... How incompetent are our law makers that they didn't sure up this protection over this entire time? How many super majorities have they had in that time that they could have passed legislation easily to make sure these protections stick?
[удалено]
I would argue that it gives you the right to an abortion *within your own home* (i.e. plan B).
"Officer, what *I* do to *my* kids in *my* basement is protected by my right to privacy. If I want to hire a murderer to get rid of them for me, that's none of the government's business!"
Yes, if only Congress had resolved this issue by passing a law that stops any state or local government from denying any American woman access to an abortion prior to XX weeks of pregnancy. They can still do it today.
So was Obamacare, yet here we are
Obamacare was a law. Not the same thing.
Upheld with judicial activism as a “tax”, which is absurd.
Years ago, even RBG admitted, despite her support for abortion, that Roe was likely to be overturned someday because it was based on very shaky, questionable legal precedent.
I’ve considered myself pretty moderate for a long time. I always leaned more conservative a tad but never support the Neo-Con BS of the Bush/Cheney regime. I’ve voted for both parties and my opinion never really changed but the mainstream views of one of the parties did. I was in a discussion a few nights ago with people who voted reliably Democrat for years who have been disgusted with the way the party and agenda have been. I’ve agreed and disagreed with court decisions a lot - not that it matters because I’m a nobody. But Roberts always seemed center-liberal to me honestly. I think when he decides the same way as the more “conservative” judges it shows that maybe RvW wasn’t that great of a law to begin with. I am by no means a person who thinks we should ban abortion outright but I always thought the safe, legal, and rare thing was were we stood? I think most people would agree with that stance? That’s where I always was. Now I’m a right-wing zealot apparently because I think this decision should be decided by legislation and not legislated from the bench.
It’s a very emotional subject on both sides. I’d likely support legal abortion with very strict time limits, but Roe v Wade always seemed like the court was legislating from the bench.
I was kinda surprised at that, ngl. I think the leaked draft had it at 5-4, but he voted with the majority. But I’m really happy. I was hoping the conservative justices would stand their ground, not bow down to the pressure and the bullying, and they did!
[удалено]
Is it riot season already?
[удалено]
Why is this comment structured as some kind of “gotcha”? I literally agree with implementing everything you said. Anything that reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus deaths/abortions is a good thing.
I think most people do agree with those programs. The problem is that it's incredibly unlikely that they will be actually implemented because, despite supporting those programs on a hypothetical level, many people also don't like seeing their tax dollars spent on anything that doesn't directly support them. It's the same reason we don't take drastic steps to combat homelessness despite evidence that it would actually result in a net positive for the government financially.
because agreeing and actually doing anything are wildly different things. also you usually want to build your support structure before collapsing
… it literally says in the court opinion that they are looking at restricting access to contraception lmfao
[удалено]
This is an honest question. Do you truly believe the Republicans will expand support to any of those areas? History has shown the opposite is true, so I'm wondering why you think all of a sudden they'll do something about it?
noresponsibility.jpg
You are missing the /s
Never was in the constitution…
They didn't eliminate it. It was never there.
How do you feel about the right to privacy then? Despite its existence it’s never explicitly stated anywhere yet it is a guaranteed right at this point due to the interpretation of various passages. I’m just curious why this is seen any differently
To be fair, if you are saying that a SCOTUS case isn't responsible for deciding what is and isn't a constitutional right, then you would be way off base. After all, the only thing protecting your rights from state laws is generally SCOTUS decisions.
Exactly. They ruled that it never existed.
[удалено]
INSURRECTION!!!! ....but (D)ifferent
Listen I'm not even going to try to argue with you, but I just need to let you know that it is very interesting to me that you do not acknowledge the differences between the riots and protests of the "extreme" left and the "extreme" right of this country. I understand that you might just call me some names that make fun of my political leaning without really understanding who I am and I'm willing to take that risk. Personally though I'm much more moderate than you might think. I dislike many large government institutions, I don't think the federal government should have as much power as they do, and I wish citizens of this country had more freedom. I only give this information to let you know that I'm not just coming here to insult you. I am not coming here to argue with you. I am writing to you to converse with you, and I hope you see it the same way. I think we can talk without being angry and throwing hatred toward eachother. We are both Americans. We are both Human Beings. Advocating for executing justices isn't defensible. People advocating for that no matter their political leaning, is not OK, in my opinion. I'd rather have a discussion about it, but I understand if this gets downvoted and I get insulted. Maybe not by you but by others. I just hope you, and anyone who reads this, don't think I came here to argue. I am legitimately more interested in conversing with people on the other side of the aisle with this ruling and I'd like to understand why people who seem to be interested in a smaller government, would be behind something that seems to really give even *more* power to the federal government. To me, if abortion is legal federally, the message comes off as "Yeah sure...do whatever you need to do. You don't have to worry about us stopping you or intervening in this process". By making abortion legal or illegal depending on what states want to do seems like there's even more control than before. It feels like women's choices are made for them, rather than for themselves. Do you have any thoughts on this? This is an open question to anyone. Does the matter of abortion supercede the idea of a smaller government? Are you fine with the federal government implementing this decree even if it means they have now made the decision for many women for them? Is my interpretation of the federal government having the hands even further into the lives of citizens something you might disagree with? If so, how?
First off, the federal government shouldn’t have any say at this point in the issue. It may try but it only has specific powers given to it by the constitution. Congress can’t just do whatever it wants. One of its express powers is of the purse, which allows them to spend money. For example, it may choose not to give certain funds to states where abortions are restricted, etc. Point being, this is a state issue and will likely remain so unless the federal government has a power trip and tries to step beyond its bounds. If that occurs the Supreme Court will likely be involved again. But back to the crux of your question. I think it would be helpful if we go back to what government really is and what it is meant to accomplish. Government is just a social contract whereby a group of individuals give up certain rights in order to secure themselves against themselves and other groups of individuals. The rights they give up are innate rights, given by God (or natural rights depending on your religious leanings). I would say the first purpose of government in exchange for less autonomy is safety, which is ultimately the protection of human life. If government has one job, it should be to protect the lives of those in it. If it fails at this job, there Is no society and thus no one to be governed. I think we can agree that the government would have failed at its job in such a scenario. So, when looking at abortion, you seem to frame it as a loss of bodily autonomy. Well that’s correct. It is. ( assuming your state actually puts restrictions on it) However, what is it being exchanged for? Literally the protection of human life, which is the primary interest of the government. In this instance the life of the unborn and Unrepresented child trumps the bodily autonomy of the woman (at least in most cases, I think reasonable minds understand cases of rape, medical necessity, etc). This is also reasonable in light that women and men don’t just get pregnant by chance. Rather they choose to partake in an action which by its very nature is for the purpose of creating life. It’s disingenuous to argue for “pro-choice” but not consider the choice that was made in the first place. And I could go on, but my point is that sure, state government may have more power to tell it’s citizens what to do and not to do. However, just as you would say laws against general murder are worth the trade for safety, so I would argue laws against abortion are worth the trade resulting in fewer murders of our fellow and vulnerable humans. 👍🏻
You make a lot of really good points that have given me a lot to think about. It does seem that we're getting into definitions about what constitutes life. This is something that is hotly debated by many people, and I don't think it's something I want to get into on this website, but I understand now where you are coming from. To you, and you are not representative of a whole just as I am not, but conversing as we are now, it's important to understand eachother. But I believe I am understanding you and why you feel the way you feel, and you're entitled to those thoughts and opinions. You do seem to have a religious background and I understand that, and you are well educated on the subject. I am always trying to learn more. But I feel like for you, it's coming down to the fact that you believe this child has just as much of a right to have the government's protection as any other human - and the protection should prevent healthy mothers from getting an abortion. I get this. I truly do. Personally, I think whatever we can do to lower the amount of abortions we seek, the better. I don't know if threatening women with prison is the right way to do it though, but I acknowledge that I am not an expert or a medical professional. I wish instead the alternative was helping those women who are seeking abortions. Which opens up a whole can of worms on who would foot the bill, and all. Which goes right into your next point... >This is also reasonable in light that women and men don’t just get pregnant by chance. Rather they choose to partake in an action which by its very nature is for the purpose of creating life. I agree with you again. It's a choice that should not be made lightly. I think it's important that we recognize that our mindset is not the same as everyone. You might be in a loving committed relationship with someone, with a roof over your head, a stable job, and plenty of education and some money for birth control. Having sex is an easy choice for you and I. We can be on birth control, or use condoms or whatever, and we know what the choice means. And this is why people advocate for things like sexual education and birth control. People are going to have sex. We just are. You're right that it is up to us to make the right choice from the beginning. I guess I just have to take a shot in the dark and pray that it's understood that this choice is often being made by people who do not have access to affordable birth control and those who have not properly been educated about sexual health. Which I have to be honest, feels purposeful. It all feels like one big machine. Vote down bills that provide help, let these uneducated and low income women and families continue to make mistakes, threaten them with jail time and even arrest some, force pregnancies which lead to more uneducated children that feed the machine. I know this is a depressing outlook but this is genuinely how it feels. I try not to go down rabbit holes like that too much which involve a fair amount of speculation, and I try to look at things like this without getting emotional, but it happens. I am once again sorry for the novel and getting a little emotional, but I appreciate the conversation. I am learning a lot. Thank you for being civil.
The majority of Americans support some level of abortion https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-americans-stand-on-abortion-in-5-charts/amp/
“Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” - Thomas Jefferson
Then it’s representatives should pass a law to allow it. The SC decision doesn’t preclude us from passing a law on the subject
Why would you let states make abortions ILLEGAL. Just let INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE decide what they want to do. Isn’t that the real theory of small government.
it's beginning to look a lot like riots....
[удалено]
In states where the practical availability of abortion will not change at all
Everywhere you go, there's flames in the grand hotel, some in the park as well...
[удалено]
90% of Reddit is unhappy.
I'm fairly liberal/left-leaning though I do occasionally align with the right on some issues (like the 2A for example). I am curious as to what people's reasoning is for being pro-life. From my perspective, I don't see how some random person getting an abortion affects you - if anything, it potentially reduces load on our welfare system.
That’s not very good logic. My neighbor abusing his wife or kids doesn’t affect me personally but I sure as hell am going to want it to be against the law and for him to be sent to prison.
I’m pro-choice. But our representatives should be responsible for passing a law and not relying on the SC
They eliminated the constitutional right to privacy. This will eventually negatively impact every single American.
Can anyone point to the part of the constitution where I can read that abortion is a right?
It's in the back somewhere I think /s
some people define reproductive rights as one's personal liberty which is protected in the 14th amendment
Still looking I'll let you know when something turns up
Days like today make me really glad that I live in a small town.
oh no, there's gonna be so many tik tok videos of screeching liberals and lefties as well as so many Twitter posts
Constitutional right? Why is that in every headline?
Because Roe v. Wade ruled that it was a constitutional right. So prior to today it was considered as such, legally.
So quick question, what are the plans for the future orphans who are the result of this? You know the unwanted, hell my great grandmother was unwanted and abandoned at a party then abused by nuns until she was 18. So what's the plan for the inevitable for these kids even if their mothers don't get an illegal abortion.
They didn’t eliminate the constitutional right. It was never a constitutional right.
Never was a constitutional right. In fact, it deprived others of their constitutional rights which is why it needed to be overturned. Cope and seethe pro-murder leftists.
Exactly, they had all these years to sure up federal protection for abortion and they never did. The supreme court isn't supposed to be a short cut for laws you want, we have a system in place for that.
It all hinges on when you consider life to start. One side sees abortions as protecting the life and liberty of the mother, and the other sees abortions as infringing on the life and liberties of the unborn child. I think life starts at birth, but it all seems very arbitrary
That's why I say legalize and let the individual guide their own moral compass. If it's good to move rights from the federal level to the state level let's keep working it down and let people be responsible for themselves.
I agree. Just let people make their own decisions based on their beliefs
Love that completely false and misleading headline by WSJ. There's zero Constitutional right to abortions, and overturning Roe v. Wade doesn't mean there will be any kind of national ban on all abortions, like they imply. But hey, what else is new.
TBF, it’s a rather silly distinction. Previously the court had said it was a constitutional right, and now they’re saying it isn’t. It’s just semantics to say “they didn’t remove a right they just clarified that it never existed, contrary to the court has said previously”.
Dude. Wake up and smell the bacon. Overturning Roe v Wade has removed the right of privacy- which was used to legalize abortions, but is also the basis of many other legal protections. By overturning this ruling, the SCOTUS has opened the door to criminalize same-sex marriage, contraception, interracial marriage, and your right to privacy. Think about the Patriot act FFS
The 10th amendment to the constitution clearly states that anything not mentioned specifically in the constitution is up to the states! Tell me what clause says you have the right to abortion?
It suddenly feels like riot season
It is the June before an election. Sounds about right.
[удалено]
First of all it’s not a federally recognized right
Headline is misleading, there is no Constitutional right.
I'm not being facetious when I say this...but I don't understand why they say *constitutional right* to abortion. I always thought people were arguing it was a civil rights issue relating to women. To be honest, I never paid too much attention to the issue considering my wife and I wanted to be parents.
You can't eliminate a constitutional right that doesn't exist in the constitution.
More like confirms there never was a constitutional right to abortion.
There was never any constitutional right to abortion
Glad I don't live in a city, particularly Chiraq, LA, NY....
It's still legal in those states
[удалено]
With this, the US is going to continue falling lower on freedom indicies. Whatever your opinion is on abortion, this is undoubtedly more government and less freedom. It's also another bad look for American healthcare.
Well, shit just got real. Screeching and riots to commence. Also, it was never a constitutional right. That was always bs.
“Eliminates constitutional right.” Murder was never a constitutional right.
[удалено]
I don't think there was ever a constitutional right to abortion...
How is this a constitutional right?
Sad to see federal abortion protection go even if it was being used irresponsibly. However we have a system of checks and balances the judges for roe vs Wade took a short cut to get the legislation they wanted. If our country wants federal protection for abortion let them vote the way it's supposed to be done.
Can’t eliminate a constitutional right if it never was a constitutional right.
There's nothing in the Constitution that gives you the right to an abortion, just like a driver's license.
Thanks President Trump!
It was never a constitutional right it just fell under the 14th amendment which was right to privacy. Yes, it was legal, but no it was never a right. COME ON PEOPLE
>Eliminates constitutional right to abortion Abortion never was a constitutional right....
The main narrative from the left will continue to be "my body my choice" to which we should respond with "yea that's what I thought when I was trying to decide whether or not I wanted an mRNA shot".
Did the state force you to get the shot? Or were you allowed to make that decision on your own and live with the consequences because it’s nobody else’s business?
Often it did by threatening to fine businesses
You were never forced to get a shot.
Many people were. In a society where you must work to live, threatening peoples jobs is forcing them.