Roe V Wade overturned!!! Leaked, SCOTUS SHOULD BE IMPEACHED

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

5 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Nice diversion attempt. We’re talking about paying for the kids you want to force people to have. Sure a few of them can probably do it on their own but often times we’re not talking about the cream of the crop here. Are you willing to pay more taxes to feed, clothe, house and educate these kids where the parents can’t or won’t?

What happens to those kids now? Who pays for it? 

[IGotWorms 3,317]

Just now, TBayXXXVII said:

It's not a diversion, its called a solution.

Well it’s an asinine one. First I believe most abortions are paid for or it comes through a non profit. My understanding is that “taxpayer funded abortion” is not the norm. But regardless, let’s go with your little straw man and assume they’re all paid for with your personal tax dollars. You want that stopped. Ok great. Now the folks that can’t or won’t pay for it on their own—what happens there? Don’t give me that pull yourself up by your bootstraps garbage, they’re not going to do it. I’d love it if they did and I certainly encourage everyone to do so, but you’re a willful idiot if you refuse to acknowledge that there are some people who simply cannot or will not. And what happens with the kids of those people?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

Just now, IGotWorms said:

Well it’s an asinine one. First I believe most abortions are paid for or it comes through a non profit. My understanding is that “taxpayer funded abortion” is not the norm. But regardless, let’s go with your little straw man and assume they’re all paid for with your personal tax dollars. You want that stopped. Ok great. Now the folks that can’t or won’t pay for it on their own—what happens there? Don’t give me that pull yourself up by your bootstraps garbage, they’re not going to do it. I’d love it if they did and I certainly encourage everyone to do so, but you’re a willful idiot if you refuse to acknowledge that there are some people who simply cannot or will not. And what happens with the kids of those people?

Then people who are pro choice can start a charity to pay for it. Like people do with food banks. Seen anyone starving in America lately? 

[wiffleball 4,645]

I mean fried mashed potato balls with gravy inside? That is freaking genius.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

What happens to those kids now? Who pays for it? 

Not you, you b1tch and whine and moan and vote for any two-bit righty who claims he’ll cut your taxes (but mostly just cuts them for billionaires).

Plus now it’ll be a lot more. You cool with that? I am, but I’m not the one forcing this reality.

[TBayXXXVII 2,118]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Well it’s an asinine one. First I believe most abortions are paid for or it comes through a non profit. My understanding is that “taxpayer funded abortion” is not the norm. But regardless, let’s go with your little straw man and assume they’re all paid for with your personal tax dollars. You want that stopped. Ok great. Now the folks that can’t or won’t pay for it on their own—what happens there? Don’t give me that pull yourself up by your bootstraps garbage, they’re not going to do it. I’d love it if they did and I certainly encourage everyone to do so, but you’re a willful idiot if you refuse to acknowledge that there are some people who simply cannot or will not. And what happens with the kids of those people?

LOL, yeah, non-profit.  I have a bridge to sell you.  It's in San Francisco.  You intersted?

So, you're telling me that adoption is an asinine option... yet you're saying that if a person can't get an abortion because they won't pay for it, they're only option is to keep it and what, go on welfare?  Give me a break.  You want a willful idiot, look in the mirror.

In my personal experience, when my son's mother was pregnant and we went to her OB/GYN doctor, they had a health advocate person there who talked with us and gave us options.  They told us about abortions, about the adoption process, about raising the kid on our own, about family help, and about welfare.  Planned Parenthood does the exact same thing.  I'd find it very hard to believe that any person who goes to get an abortion, doesn't have the same information available to them.  No one is blind going into the process.  The ones who "want" an abortion because they don't want to be bothered with the kid, just chooses the cheapest way out.  If you tell them there is no cheap way, they'll go through the process in which is provided.  They're not just going to sit in the bathroom with a coat hanger.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

18 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Not you, you b1tch and whine and moan and vote for any two-bit righty who claims he’ll cut your taxes (but mostly just cuts them for billionaires).

Plus now it’ll be a lot more. You cool with that? I am, but I’m not the one forcing this reality.

 Nope, I would not Want any tax cut that leaves kids vulnerable.  I think I have stated enough times here about my feelings on taxes for the investor class and mega wealthy.  Capital gains as presently constituted are an insult to me, along with all the other carve outs for our elites. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,118]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

 Nope, I would not Want any tax cut that leaves kids vulnerable.  I think I have stated enough times here about my feelings on taxes for the investor class and mega wealthy.  Capital gains as presently constituted are an affront to me, along with all the other carve outs for our elites. 

I think it's funny that Worms thinks it's only Republican's who cut taxes for the wealthy.  Or is it sad?

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

19 hours ago, jerryskids said:

I believe you are referring to the Obergefell decision where SCOTUS decided that same-sex marriage is a protected right?  If so, in the draft, Alito specifically referenced that and said it is different and not associated with this decision.   

Alito can that all he wants in the draft, but if the decision is based on the premise that the 14th Amendment doesn't give rights to privacy, by which Obergefell, the rights to conception, the right to gay sex, the right to interracial marriage all are derived from---there is no stopping a states to sue that those are not protected rights based on this decision. There is no right to privacy and all of the above are not part of the “history and tradition” of the United States, not mentioned in the Constitution and therefore are not rights people can be afforded without an amendment saying otherwise.

[Thornton Melon 544]

2 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Alito can that all he wants in the draft, but if the decision is based on the premise that the 14th Amendment doesn't give rights to privacy, by which Obergefell, the rights to conception, the right to gay sex, the right to interracial marriage all are derived from---there is no stopping a states to sue that those are not protected rights based on this decision. There is no right to privacy and all of the above are not part of the “history and tradition” of the United States, not mentioned in the Constitution and therefore are not rights people can be afforded without an amendment saying otherwise.

The right to privacy comes from the 9th Amendment 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

2 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Alito can that all he wants in the draft, but if the decision is based on the premise that the 14th Amendment doesn't give rights to privacy, by which Obergefell, the rights to conception, the right to gay sex, the right to interracial marriage all are derived from---there is no stopping a states to sue that those are not protected rights based on this decision. There is no right to privacy and all of the above are not part of the “history and tradition” of the United States, not mentioned in the Constitution and therefore are not rights people can be afforded without an amendment saying otherwise.

So equal protection has no meaning? 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

8 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I think it's funny that Worms thinks it's only Republican's who cut taxes for the wealthy.  Or is it sad?

Many leftoids have yet to come to grips with the fact that they are now the party of the wealthy, Wall Street and the biggest corporations. Biden just gave a 10 Billion contract to Union Busting Amazon, even though he vowed not to give contracts to union busting corporations. The Washington Post hasn’t covered it. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

nasty pelosi has done pretty well for herself since being in office.

[Hawkeye21 1,855]

16 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

nasty pelosi has done pretty well for herself since being in office.

Ugh...  Haven't they all?  They all suck.

[jerryskids 5,209]

28 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Alito can that all he wants in the draft, but if the decision is based on the premise that the 14th Amendment doesn't give rights to privacy, by which Obergefell, the rights to conception, the right to gay sex, the right to interracial marriage all are derived from---there is no stopping a states to sue that those are not protected rights based on this decision. There is no right to privacy and all of the above are not part of the “history and tradition” of the United States, not mentioned in the Constitution and therefore are not rights people can be afforded without an amendment saying otherwise.

Well Mike, a lot of things can happen in the world.  All I can tell you is that Alito specifically differentiated it.  I'm glad you are embracing slippery slopes though; I'll keep that in mind the next time the Left tells me I'm nuts for worrying about them. 

 

[GutterBoy 2,281]

 

[Voltaire 4,564]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye21 said:

That's just dumb

No, it's not. It's the cleanest way out of the box.

(90sbaby had said to have it so that abortion would be legal in blue states and illegal in red, which makes a lot of sense to me)

[TimHauck 1,802]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

 No I don’t. We live in a republic. The federal government isn’t supposed to have this much say. It wasn’t drawn up that way. 

 

 

[IGotWorms 3,317]

8 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

 

 

Of course it’s possible. The federal government outlaws many things. I suppose the question would be whether they have the jurisdiction/power to do so under the constitution, but if it’s truly murdering babies then it seems pretty difficult to say the federal government couldn’t do a damn thing about it

[Hawkeye21 1,855]

5 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

No, it's not. It's the cleanest way out of the box.

(90sbaby had said to have it so that abortion would be legal in blue states and illegal in red, which makes a lot of sense to me)

This doesn't make much sense to me if you are truly against abortion then.  You're saying it's alright for others now?

[jerryskids 5,209]

53 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Alito can that all he wants in the draft, but if the decision is based on the premise that the 14th Amendment doesn't give rights to privacy, by which Obergefell, the rights to conception, the right to gay sex, the right to interracial marriage all are derived from---there is no stopping a states to sue that those are not protected rights based on this decision. There is no right to privacy and all of the above are not part of the “history and tradition” of the United States, not mentioned in the Constitution and therefore are not rights people can be afforded without an amendment saying otherwise.

Also FYI, Ginsburg even thought Roe was bad law:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/

Quote

The Supreme Court probably wouldn’t have the votes to overturn the right to abortion in Roe v. Wade, as a leaked draft opinion proposes, if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were still on the court. But Ginsburg was not a fan of the reasoning behind the 1973 ruling.

Ginsburg, who died in 2020, criticized the 7-to-2 decision both before and after she joined the high court. She argued that it would have been better to take a more incremental approach to legalizing abortion, rather than the nationwide ruling in Roe that invalidated dozens of state antiabortion laws. She suggested a ruling protecting abortion rights would have been more durable if it had been based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution — in other words, if it had focused on gender equality rather than the right to privacy that the justices highlighted.

Ginsburg actually didn’t think Roe was the best case for establishing abortion rights. She would have preferred a case she worked on as a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union in the early 1970s.

In that case, Ginsburg represented an Air Force captain who became pregnant while serving as a nurse in Vietnam. In a twist, Ginsburg championed the woman’s right not to have an abortion; an Air Force rule at the time dictated that pregnant women had to terminate their pregnancies or be discharged.

Ginsburg challenged the rule on behalf of the woman, Susan Struck, in a case called Struck v. Secretary of Defense and won a stay preventing Struck’s discharge while the courts reviewed the case. In December 1972, two years after Struck gave birth to a baby and shortly after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the suit, the military changed the policy and let Struck remain on active duty.

The court agreed to drop the case as moot. The following month, it issued its Roe v. Wade ruling.

 

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Also FYI, Ginsburg even thought Roe was bad law:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/

 

There is a massive difference between saying it's  bad law and she didn't like the reasoning behind it.  RBG did not think a women's right to choose whether to have an abortiton was a bad law.

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

37 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Well Mike, a lot of things can happen in the world.  All I can tell you is that Alito specifically differentiated it.  I'm glad you are embracing slippery slopes though; I'll keep that in mind the next time the Left tells me I'm nuts for worrying about them. 

 

It's far from a slippery slope.  If it was discovered there was a fundamental error in Einsteins theory of relativity, it would be accepted that all theories based on that would have to be reevaluated based on this new evidence.  Any law that uses the same basic premise as Roe surely can face the same scrutiny now.

And as far as what Alito specifically said...he and 4 other justices also said under oath to the Senate that Roe was settled law...so excuse me if I take what Alito says with a giant grain of salt.

[Baker Boy 1,485]

'Pro-lifers Don't Care About Babies After They're Born', Says Person Who Just Destroyed Free Pregnancy Resource Center
 

PORTLAND, OR—Abortion activists are criticizing the pro-life movement for caring nothing about the health and care of babies after they've been born, and they are expressing their extreme displeasure by destroying free pregnancy resource centers that provide for the health and care of babies after they've been born. 

"Anti-choicers only care about people while they're still in the womb," said activist Zimvox Guzzatrix (he/him) while throwing a Molotov cocktail through the window of Tender Mercies Pregnancy Center, which offers free food, clothing, daycare, education, and counseling to struggling single mothers. "Once people are born, they don't care about them at all. We know this because they don't vote for Communist policies, which studies show are the only possible way to cure all human suffering forever."
 

https://babylonbee.com/news/pro-lifers-dont-care-about-babies-after-theyre-born-says-person-who-just-burned-down-free-pregnancy-resource-center

[Hawkeye21 1,855]

3 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

'Pro-lifers Don't Care About Babies After They're Born', Says Person Who Just Destroyed Free Pregnancy Resource Center
 

PORTLAND, OR—Abortion activists are criticizing the pro-life movement for caring nothing about the health and care of babies after they've been born, and they are expressing their extreme displeasure by destroying free pregnancy resource centers that provide for the health and care of babies after they've been born. 

"Anti-choicers only care about people while they're still in the womb," said activist Zimvox Guzzatrix (he/him) while throwing a Molotov cocktail through the window of Tender Mercies Pregnancy Center, which offers free food, clothing, daycare, education, and counseling to struggling single mothers. "Once people are born, they don't care about them at all. We know this because they don't vote for Communist policies, which studies show are the only possible way to cure all human suffering forever."
 

https://babylonbee.com/news/pro-lifers-dont-care-about-babies-after-theyre-born-says-person-who-just-burned-down-free-pregnancy-resource-center

The percentage of nut jobs in Portland seems extremely high.

[Utilit99 4,099]

Who came up with "Pro-Choice"? 

Choice of life or death should be accurately detailed in the term. Pro-BabyGonnaMostLikelyDieByRippingItApartInTheWomb

[TimHauck 1,802]

35 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Of course it’s possible. The federal government outlaws many things. I suppose the question would be whether they have the jurisdiction/power to do so under the constitution, but if it’s truly murdering babies then it seems pretty difficult to say the federal government couldn’t do a damn thing about it

The question will be whether the GC righties still think that’d be “government overreach.”  I’d guess no.

[jerryskids 5,209]

18 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

It's far from a slippery slope.  If it was discovered there was a fundamental error in Einsteins theory of relativity, it would be accepted that all theories based on that would have to be reevaluated based on this new evidence.  Any law that uses the same basic premise as Roe surely can face the same scrutiny now.

And as far as what Alito specifically said...he and 4 other justices also said under oath to the Senate that Roe was settled law...so excuse me if I take what Alito says with a giant grain of salt.

It's still a slippery slope; you just think it's less slippery.  That being said, yes I agree that a state could bring a case against say interracial marriage... wait, that's focking stupid, sorry.

Also, I've already explained my opinion on the  "judges lied, babies... umm, lived!" argument, those questions during confirmations are idiotic and based on (as the time) non-existent hypotheticals and absence of any specific arguments, so the job of justices during those hearings is just to get through.  Perhaps you've heard that our latest nominee can't define a "woman"?  

Where do you get this stuff, Vox?  Kos?  

[Utilit99 4,099]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

It's still a slippery slope; you just think it's less slippery.  That being said, yes I agree that a state could bring a case against say interracial marriage... wait, that's focking stupid, sorry.

Also, I've already explained my opinion on the  "judges lied, babies... umm, lived!" argument, those questions during confirmations are idiotic and based on (as the time) non-existent hypotheticals and absence of any specific arguments, so the job of justices during those hearings is just to get through.  Perhaps you've heard that our latest nominee can't define a "woman"?  

Where do you get this stuff, Vox?  Kos?  

Hey!! She's not a biologist, damn you. How the fock can you expect her to know what a woman is?!!!

[IGotWorms 3,317]

8 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

The question will be whether the GC righties still think that’d be “government overreach.”  I’d guess no.

Obviously not

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

56 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

 

 

So how will he do that? A constitutional amendment? That’s in the constitution and the states have to agree to it. Next. 

[Voltaire 4,564]

47 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

This doesn't make much sense to me if you are truly against abortion then.  You're saying it's alright for others now?

Never at any time in my twenty years of posting here, including many times in this thread, have I ever indicated that I give a fock about Roe v. Wade one way or the other. Not my issue. I guess I'm supposed to have an opinion, and my opinion is always to agree with the last person I talk about it with. Since I am mostly in line with the GOP lately, I guess I'm default Pro-Life but when I was voting mostly Dem, I suppose I was default Pro-Choice.

 I see both sides as making equally compelling argument and I never was comfortable choosing one. It's the absolute last thing on my mind when casting a vote.

 At best, I do get schadenfreude when leftoids get their toys broken and go berserk. So HaHa. Leftoids can suck a lemon. At worst I see it as a legitimate strong campaign issue for the Dems to grasp on to, because otherwise they are in deep trouble, and I hope they lose badly in November. Were it not for this abortion issue, I'm sure HalfWit would lose the Michigan governor's race, so I'm not particularly keen on giving her this powerful campaign issue.

[TimHauck 1,802]

9 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

It's still a slippery slope; you just think it's less slippery.  That being said, yes I agree that a state could bring a case against say interracial marriage... wait, that's focking stupid, sorry.

 

I don’t think they’d touch interracial marriage.  Gay marriage maybe…

[Hawkeye21 1,855]

1 minute ago, Voltaire said:

I see both sides as making equally compelling argument and I never was comfortable choosing one. 

This is how I feel as well.

[Voltaire 4,564]

3 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

This is how I feel as well.

So this brings us full circle to 90sbaby's point. Let the blue states have abortion, let the red states band it, let the pruple states battle it out. Split the baby Soloman style. (I wish I could say I came up with that line myself but I stole it from somewhere in the last couple of days)

[jerryskids 5,209]

5 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

This is how I feel as well.

I agree that it should be legal, and in the words of the great conservative Bill Clinton, "safe, legal, and rare."  I would argue we've lost way with the "rare" part of that. 

[Voltaire 4,564]

9 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So how will he do that? A constitutional amendment? That’s on the constitution and the states have to agree to it. Next. 

He needs the presidency and 62 votes to overcome a filibuster since Murkowski and Collins won't have his back and he's not going to get anywhere near there.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

13 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So how will he do that? A constitutional amendment? That’s in the constitution and the states have to agree to it. Next. 

Why would you need a constitutional amendment?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

6 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Why would you need a constitutional amendment?

To have a federal ban of abortion, over riding the states, that now possess that power? Then how else. Besides passing a law, also in the constitution and the 60 pct of the representatives of the states would still have to go for it. The what ifs are silly. Besides, god willing, McConnell will be long gone before there is enough to make it law. Pay no mind. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

Just now, Voltaire said:

So this brings us full circle to 90sbaby's point. Let the blue states have abortion, let the red states band it, let the pruple states battle it out. Split the baby Soloman style. (I wish I could say I came up with that line myself but I stole it from somewhere in the last couple of days)

Companies like Amazon are already taking into account the different state laws. Their insurance will pay for women to fly to states that allow abortions if her state doesn't allow it.