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

[MDC 7,470]

15 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I... don't think so.  I tried googling it and saw one reference in a WaPo article from a year ago, but I don't see mention of it in recent articles.  For example:

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/24/texas-abortion-law-supreme-court-ruling/

I'm open to being shown wrong though, in which case I would also ask if anyone had been sued under that law.  As I had said, I can't imagine it would stand judicial scrutiny.

I dug around for five minutes and can’t find anything definitive except that a proposed TX law allows private citizens to sue people who “facilitate” an abortion. Not sure what exactly that means or if it’s the law that passed.

If you’re in TX and I here are bans in OK, LA, MS etc. you could be looking at traveling several states away to get an abortion. 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

4 minutes ago, MDC said:

I dug around for five minutes and can’t find anything definitive except that a proposed TX law allows private citizens to sue people who “facilitate” an abortion. Not sure what exactly that means or if it’s the law that passed.

If you’re in TX and I here are bans in OK, LA, MS etc. you could be looking at traveling several states away to get an abortion. 

There is precedent that any law that forbids you from crossing state lines to engage in federally legal behavior is unconstitutional. 

Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 - Wikipedia

Still the backbone of all interstate law.

[MDC 7,470]

Just now, TimmySmith said:

There is precedent that any law that forbids you from crossing state lines to engage in federally legal behavior is unconstitutional. 

Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 - Wikipedia

Still the backbone of all interstate law.

Okay fair enough. What I read was a lot of speculation I guess.  

Still, if it’s banned in TX, LA, MS etc. and you’re in say Austin or New Orleans, you could be looking at a 10-12 hour drive to NM or CO to get an abortion. Which is going to affect the people who shouldn’t be having kids (poor) a lot more than people who can.

Heckuva job Christians.

[Mike Honcho 5,287]

43 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I... don't think so.  I tried googling it and saw one reference in a WaPo article from a year ago, but I don't see mention of it in recent articles.  For example:

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/24/texas-abortion-law-supreme-court-ruling/

I'm open to being shown wrong though, in which case I would also ask if anyone had been sued under that law.  As I had said, I can't imagine it would stand judicial scrutiny.

 

20 minutes ago, MDC said:

I dug around for five minutes and can’t find anything definitive except that a proposed TX law allows private citizens to sue people who “facilitate” an abortion. Not sure what exactly that means or if it’s the law that passed.

If you’re in TX and I here are bans in OK, LA, MS etc. you could be looking at traveling several states away to get an abortion. 

The law was passed pre Dobbs(not proposed, but passed), not a trigger law. Citizens can report, sue anyone who gets or facilitates someone getting an abortion after 6 weeks. Essentially it was an end-run around Roe v Wade which prevents states from putting unreasonable restrictions on abortion, since it's the state who has to enforce it.  The Texas law was basically a bounty for citizens informing.  Since state officials weren't involved it wasn't unconstitutional according to the 5 of the justices.  It's one of the craziest end runs around federal laws ever.  IIRC, Newsom may have put forth the idea of doing the same thing with high capacity weapons, since it wouldn't  be the state enforcing the law, but the citizens.

 

Quote

 

NPR

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday refused for a second time to block a Texas law that has virtually brought abortions to a halt for anyone more than six weeks pregnant, a time so early that many women don't know they are pregnant. Separately, the court dismissed as improvidently granted the Justice Department's challenge to the law, meaning the court should not have accepted the case in the first place.

In a fractured opinion, four of the court's conservatives--Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, plus Justice Samuel Alito left the providers a single tenuous route to challenging the law. Justice Clarence Thomas went further, saying that in his view, the providers could not challenge the law at all. And Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the court's three liberals, would have allowed a full throated challenge to the law to go forward.

At issue in the case is S.B. 8, a law enacted by the Texas legislature to make constitutional challenges to the state's newest anti-abortion law impossible. It was avowedly written as a way to skirt more than a half century of Supreme Court precedents establishing that the way to challenge the constitutionality of a state law is to sue state officials. So S.B. 8 removes enforcement of the state law from the hands of state officials and instead delegates enforcement to private citizens, empowering them to sue anyone who "aids and abets" an abortion after roughly 6 weeks, and putting a high price in damages for each abortion.

As the chief justice and the court's liberals saw things, "The clear purpose of the law was to nullify the court's constitutional rulings," something that the high court has, since the founding era said is unconstitutional. Roberts drove his view home by quoting decisions from the founding era written by Chief Justice John Marshall.

 

It's one of the craziest end runs around the Constitution i've ever heard and  IIRC, Newsom may have put forth the idea of doing the same thing with high capacity weapons, since it wouldn't  be the state enforcing the law, but the citizens.

[jerryskids 6,825]

11 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

 

The law was passed pre Dobbs(not proposed, but passed), not a trigger law. Citizens can report, sue anyone who gets or facilitates someone getting an abortion after 6 weeks. Essentially it was an end-run around Roe v Wade which prevents states from putting unreasonable restrictions on abortion, since it's the state who has to enforce it.  The Texas law was basically a bounty for citizens informing.  Since state officials weren't involved it wasn't unconstitutional according to the 5 of the justices.  It's one of the craziest end runs around federal laws ever.  IIRC, Newsom may have put forth the idea of doing the same thing with high capacity weapons, since it wouldn't  be the state enforcing the law, but the citizens.

 

It's one of the craziest end runs around the Constitution i've ever heard and  IIRC, Newsom may have put forth the idea of doing the same thing with high capacity weapons, since it wouldn't  be the state enforcing the law, but the citizens.

Thanks.  Given that NPR has become an unabashed Left wing source (my tax dollars at work, yay!), I'm intrigued by their feeling the need to include this tidbit, surrounded by scary words like "fractured" and "tenuous" and "Trump appointees":

Quote

In a fractured opinion, four of the court's conservatives--Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, plus Justice Samuel Alito left the providers a single tenuous route to challenging the law. Justice Clarence Thomas went further, saying that in his view, the providers could not challenge the law at all. And Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the court's three liberals, would have allowed a full throated challenge to the law to go forward.

I wonder what that tenuous path is; it sounds like they told people how to beat it if they came back again.  Only takes one of them (probably not Thomas!) to make it happen.  And nobody seems to be talking about it as an impediment after Dobbs.  And I presume that if anyone had actually sued anyone, we'd know about it.

Speaking of this, presuming nobody has tried to implement it, perhaps part of the court's issue was a lack of standing, on multiple levels.  One, without an actual case, they have nothing to adjudicate.  Two, and I'm stretching my pretend lawyer knowledge here, I don't see how a random person would have standing to sue somebody else for damages because they drove somebody to NM to get an abortion.  Now if, say, the father sued, now THAT might be an interesting case.   

[Mike Honcho 5,287]

11 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Thanks.  Given that NPR has become an unabashed Left wing source (my tax dollars at work, yay!), I'm intrigued by their feeling the need to include this tidbit, surrounded by scary words like "fractured" and "tenuous" and "Trump appointees":

I wonder what that tenuous path is; it sounds like they told people how to beat it if they came back again.  Only takes one of them (probably not Thomas!) to make it happen.  And nobody seems to be talking about it as an impediment after Dobbs.  And I presume that if anyone had actually sued anyone, we'd know about it.

Speaking of this, presuming nobody has tried to implement it, perhaps part of the court's issue was a lack of standing, on multiple levels.  One, without an actual case, they have nothing to adjudicate.  Two, and I'm stretching my pretend lawyer knowledge here, I don't see how a random person would have standing to sue somebody else for damages because they drove somebody to NM to get an abortion.  Now if, say, the father sued, now THAT might be an interesting case.   

A "fractured" opinion is an opinion that doesn't receive majority support, as in this case where there were 3 opinions with them getting a 4-4-1 split.  

[jerryskids 6,825]

4 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

A "fractured" opinion is an opinion that doesn't receive majority support, as in this case where there were 3 opinions with them getting a 4-4-1 split.  

Fair enough, although my simple googling doesn't quite get to your definition.  I can see "fractured" meaning that the majority (and there WAS a majority that decided not to hear it) were "fractured" as to the reasons.

Nonetheless, I'll concede it's not as scary as "Trump appointees," that's certainly relevant and sends shivers down my spine!   

[Hardcore troubadour 15,484]

The government needs to act concerning the abortion crisis like they did during the AIDS crisis. Educate the public on the risky behaviors that can lead to an unwanted pregnancy and provide free, easy access to condoms. Back in the 80’s and 90’s everywhere I looked condoms were being given away. Lifestyle brand condoms were prevalent. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,552]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

The government needs to act concerning the abortion crisis like they did during the AIDS crisis. Educate the public on the risky behaviors that can lead to an unwanted pregnancy and provide free, easy access to condoms. Back in the 80’s and 90’s everywhere I looked condoms were being given away. Lifestyle brand condoms were prevalent. 

That's not even necessary.  Just tell them that they have to pay for their own abortion.  The more time that goes by, the more expensive it gets.

[nobody 2,687]

2 hours ago, MDC said:

Okay fair enough. What I read was a lot of speculation I guess.  

Still, if it’s banned in TX, LA, MS etc. and you’re in say Austin or New Orleans, you could be looking at a 10-12 hour drive to NM or CO to get an abortion. Which is going to affect the people who shouldn’t be having kids (poor) a lot more than people who can.

Heckuva job Christians.

I agree that this is a poor people tax, but insurance will end up covering travel to get an abortion.  Not ideal, but it's cheaper to pay a few grand for the abortion than pay for the birth so insurance companies will be happy to do it.

[TBayXXXVII 2,552]

On 7/3/2022 at 1:46 PM, TimHauck said:

Isn’t that Planned Parenthood?

No.  Well, not until they stop taking government money.  About one-third of the money comes from Uncle Sam.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,484]

4 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

That's not even necessary.  Just tell them that they have to pay for their own abortion.  The more time that goes by, the more expensive it gets.

 It isn’t the same thing? Risky behavior leads to unwanted consequences? We educated our way out of the AIDS crisis. Education about crack also helped a great deal. Why not this? 

[posty 2,702]

Don't know if this was posted before...

Did Joe Biden Once Vote To Overturn Roe v. Wade?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-vote-overturn-roe/

Claim:  In 1982, then-U.S. Sen. Joe Biden voted in favor of effectively overturning Roe v Wade.

Rating: True

Fact Check:

In the summer of 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden faced allegations of hypocrisy and “flip-flopping” after he strongly condemned the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and remove federal constitutional protections for abortion access.

Speaking on June 24, Biden described Roe as “the correct decision as a matter of constitutional law, an application of the fundamental right to privacy and liberty in matters of family and personal autonomy,” and he called the decision to overturn it a “tragic error” and the “realization of an extreme ideology.”

However, many observers — both to the left and right of Biden on the ideological spectrum — contrasted such remarks, in 2022, with what they presented as Biden’s very different stance on the abortion rights landmark, four decades ago.

U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., for example, wrote on Twitter:

In 1982, Joe Biden proposed a constitutional amendment that would overturn Roe v. Wade and give the states the ability to regulate abortion. But today, he condemned the Dobbs decision. Unlike pro-life advocates, Biden has no backbone. He is ruled by the radical left.

On June 24, one Facebook user published a viral post which contained a screenshot of an article by the London Independent, with the headline “Biden voted to overturn Roe v Wade in 1982…” and the caption “Wonder how those protesting the Supreme Court decision feel about this. Chances are they are the same people that voted for Biden.”

In recent years, the same core claim — that Biden once voted in favor of effectively overturning Roe and returning abortion policy to the states and the U.S. Congress — has featured in news articles by the The New York Times, Fox News, and the New York Post.

That claim is accurate, although Biden did vote against an identical proposal just one year later. Our rating is “True.”

[MDC 7,470]

8 minutes ago, nobody said:

I agree that this is a poor people tax, but insurance will end up covering travel to get an abortion.  Not ideal, but it's cheaper to pay a few grand for the abortion than pay for the birth so insurance companies will be happy to do it.

If you’re insured, sure. 

[TheNewGirl 1,496]

7 minutes ago, posty said:

Don't know if this was posted before...

Did Joe Biden Once Vote To Overturn Roe v. Wade?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-vote-overturn-roe/

Claim:  In 1982, then-U.S. Sen. Joe Biden voted in favor of effectively overturning Roe v Wade.

Rating: True

Fact Check:

In the summer of 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden faced allegations of hypocrisy and “flip-flopping” after he strongly condemned the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and remove federal constitutional protections for abortion access.

Speaking on June 24, Biden described Roe as “the correct decision as a matter of constitutional law, an application of the fundamental right to privacy and liberty in matters of family and personal autonomy,” and he called the decision to overturn it a “tragic error” and the “realization of an extreme ideology.”

However, many observers — both to the left and right of Biden on the ideological spectrum — contrasted such remarks, in 2022, with what they presented as Biden’s very different stance on the abortion rights landmark, four decades ago.

U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., for example, wrote on Twitter:

In 1982, Joe Biden proposed a constitutional amendment that would overturn Roe v. Wade and give the states the ability to regulate abortion. But today, he condemned the Dobbs decision. Unlike pro-life advocates, Biden has no backbone. He is ruled by the radical left.

On June 24, one Facebook user published a viral post which contained a screenshot of an article by the London Independent, with the headline “Biden voted to overturn Roe v Wade in 1982…” and the caption “Wonder how those protesting the Supreme Court decision feel about this. Chances are they are the same people that voted for Biden.”

In recent years, the same core claim — that Biden once voted in favor of effectively overturning Roe and returning abortion policy to the states and the U.S. Congress — has featured in news articles by the The New York Times, Fox News, and the New York Post.

That claim is accurate, although Biden did vote against an identical proposal just one year later. Our rating is “True.”

You know they don't care what he did 40 years ago. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,484]

1 minute ago, TheNewGirl said:

You know they don't care what he did 40 years ago. 

 But Trumps father was racist. 

[nobody 2,687]

5 minutes ago, MDC said:

If you’re insured, sure. 

Isn't it against the law to not be insured thanks to Obamacare?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,484]

No glove no love! 

[TheNewGirl 1,496]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

 But Trumps father was racist. 

But that's different because OMB. 

[posty 2,702]

7 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

You know they don't care what he did 40 years ago. 

I know...  He has "evolved" as the left loved to use in the past...

[nobody 2,687]

10 minutes ago, MDC said:

If you’re insured, sure. 

By the way, I agree with your point.  I just think the argument could be refined.

It should be something like people with the least means or are too stupid to take advantage of the systems in place will be the most effected, and those are the exact people we don't want having a unwanted children.  I'll leave it to you to run that through the PC filter and make the language nice.

[TheNewGirl 1,496]

6 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

No glove no love! 

HA! Right. 

I can't tell you how many guys I've heard say that condoms suck or they 'can't feel anything.' 

Dudes hate condoms. 

[jerryskids 6,825]

2 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

HA! Right. 

I can't tell you how many guys I've heard say that condoms suck or they 'can't feel anything.' 

Dudes hate condoms. 

You may be a slut, but you are OUR slut.   

[TheNewGirl 1,496]

Just now, jerryskids said:

You may be a slut, but you are OUR slut.   

OOF, I walked right into that one didn't I? 

[Strike 5,565]

5 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

HA! Right. 

I can't tell you how many guys I've heard say that condoms suck or they 'can't feel anything.' 

Dudes hate condoms. 

And every time you heard it you heard the truth.  Except lambskin.  Those are great, but they don't protect against STD's.  But if you're just trying to avoid pregnancy they're the bomb.

[nobody 2,687]

It's like people never heard of pulling out.

[TBayXXXVII 2,552]

32 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

 It isn’t the same thing? Risky behavior leads to unwanted consequences? We educated our way out of the AIDS crisis. Education about crack also helped a great deal. Why not this? 

The difference is that people already know that having unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy.  Pregnancy isn't new.  Also, did we really educate our way out of an AIDS crisis?  From 1981 to 1987, there were about 50k people with AIDS in the US, in 2000, there was over 260k.  In the mid-80's, there were about 250M people in the country and 280M people in 2000.  The number of people who got AIDS grew at a higher rate than the population of the US by a lot.  Today, there are over 1.2M people with HIV with 330M people living in the US.  I think a better argument can be made that the main reason there aren't more AIDS patients, is because of medication, not education.

[jerryskids 6,825]

2 minutes ago, nobody said:

It's like people never heard of pulling out.

You say this facetiously, but there is probably some truth in it.  It's so easy to have the girl finish you by jerking it on her chest.  If you combine this with actually knowing when in the cycle you could get pregnant (presuming the guy wants to finish inside of her some times), there would be roughly zero unwanted pregnancies.

[MDC 7,470]

28 minutes ago, nobody said:

By the way, I agree with your point.  I just think the argument could be refined.

It should be something like people with the least means or are too stupid to take advantage of the systems in place will be the most effected, and those are the exact people we don't want having a unwanted children.  I'll leave it to you to run that through the PC filter and make the language nice.

Just saying, I drive through a few rough neighborhoods for work a couple days a week. These folks don’t look insured or like they have the means to leave work assuming they’re working and take a 2-day out of state trip to get an abortion.

That’s not an issue where I live in the Northeast but it’s going to be a major issue for people in states that enact effective bans. Fortunately the Bible thumpers are all going to adopt kids so we’re good! 

[TheNewGirl 1,496]

35 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

You say this facetiously, but there is probably some truth in it.  It's so easy to have the girl finish you by jerking it on her chest.  If you combine this with actually knowing when in the cycle you could get pregnant (presuming the guy wants to finish inside of her some times), there would be roughly zero unwanted pregnancies.

Yes and no...you'd have to avoid the time after ovulation, as well as a few days before - sperm can live inside for a little while, depending on the pH of the vaj. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,484]

39 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

The difference is that people already know that having unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy.  Pregnancy isn't new.  Also, did we really educate our way out of an AIDS crisis?  From 1981 to 1987, there were about 50k people with AIDS in the US, in 2000, there was over 260k.  In the mid-80's, there were about 250M people in the country and 280M people in 2000.  The number of people who got AIDS grew at a higher rate than the population of the US by a lot.  Today, there are over 1.2M people with HIV with 330M people living in the US.  I think a better argument can be made that the main reason there aren't more AIDS patients, is because of medication, not education.

Good work.  I just figured when the billboards came down and every ass hole entertainer stopped yapping about it we were all good. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,552]

11 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Good work.  I just figured when the billboards came down and every ass hole entertainer stopped yapping about it we were all good. 

They stopped yapping about it because when conservatives were calling it the gay disease at the beginning, they were demonized for it... only later to be proven right.  Homosexual men make up 2% of the population and 66% of those with HIV.  It's really the liberal societal agenda that's causing this more than anything else, but of course, that gets overlooked... and hence another reason why they stopped yapping about it.

Check this out, in relation to the LGBTQ+ and HIV.

[jerryskids 6,825]

27 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

Yes and no...you'd have to avoid the time after ovulation, as well as a few days before - sperm can live inside for a little while, depending on the pH of the vaj. 

My wife and I did natural family planning for years, and it was very successful... except that one time we didn't follow it.

IIRC, up to 6 days after period you could splooge away, then stop for ovulation.  Identifying ovulation was the "hard" part, in that she needed to take her temp every morning upon waking; three consecutive high temps indicated she had ovulated 3 days ago and you were good to splooge again.  There are other physical signs to track.  It's really quite fascinating and my wife loved being that in touch with her cycle.

Of course it would be unrealistic to ask people to go through all of that trouble to not get pregnant, but some might.  The rest can stick with shooting ropes on her chest.   

[shorepatrol 1,870]

1 hour ago, TheNewGirl said:

OOF, I walked right into that one didn't I? 

Yep. Mushroom stamped your forehead.  

[TimHauck 2,905]

3 hours ago, nobody said:

I agree that this is a poor people tax, but insurance will end up covering travel to get an abortion. 

It will?

[jerryskids 6,825]

33 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

It will?

Probably.  They'll offer options to companies (not for free of course) for their employees to get reimbursed.  Rest assured they'll make money on those options, plus @nobody's main point that they would pay to do it, since sucking out a baby's head with a vacuum is hella cheaper than keeping it alive.

[nobody 2,687]

2 hours ago, TheNewGirl said:

Yes and no...you'd have to avoid the time after ovulation, as well as a few days before - sperm can live inside for a little while, depending on the pH of the vaj. 

That's another solid way to prevent pregnancy.  Just pour a coke in that vag and get that pH level up.

[jerryskids 6,825]

Just now, jerryskids said:

Probably.  They'll offer options to companies (not for free of course) for their employees to get reimbursed.  Rest assured they'll make money on those options, plus @nobody's main point that they would pay to do it, since sucking out a baby's head with a vacuum is hella cheaper than keeping it alive.

As I think more about it, it's probably logistically easier for companies to offer to cover travel-only independent of insurance, whose systems probably aren't set up to handle it.  It would be easy enough to add add "abortion" as an expense code and figure out how to handle it in taxes later.

[jerryskids 6,825]

2 minutes ago, nobody said:

That's another solid way to prevent pregnancy.  Just pour a coke in that vag and get that pH level up.

You mean down?  

[nobody 2,687]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

You mean down?  

whichever way means more acidic.