Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[Creedmoor]

They would be alive.

Thats a cop out answer.
And who would have cared for them?

We have all seen what Reagans deinstitutionalisation has done in America in the last fourty years. The young ones here by next summer will start to see what will happen with newborns.

 

[BugI02]

If Row was so important, them maybe they should have MADE A LAW.

I believe they knew that path was doomed to failure and preferred to use a ruling by a liberal SCOTUS, creating a 'right' to abortion where none existed constitutionally, to beat the opposition into submission

IMO they would have been a lot better off now (according to what they believe) if they had left regulation of the behavior up to the states. All of the arguments for and against would have been thrashed out and some more durable consensus would have developed. Perhaps Disney would have opened 'Abortionland' in California by now

 

[Creedmoor]

View attachment 208154

At least be truthfull, There was a wee bit more involved than 'Black Extermination'

 

[chipbennett]

So because it stood for 49 years it is sacrosanct. I assume they are in favor of segregation and separate but equal then since Plessy vs Ferguson stood for 58 years.

I never seem to get a reply when I make this point.

Also, all of the Europeans clutching pearls over the overturn of Roe, when almost all of the EU has abortion laws more restrictive than almost all of the US - they really hate having that pointed out.

French President Macaron clearly didn't grasp the irony of lamenting the Mississippi abortion ban that was just upheld, when it (up to 15 weeks) is more permissive than France's abortion limit (14 weeks).

 

[BugI02]

until i decide to attack you via PM!

Well, if the rumor that he does not like bacon is true ...

 

[chipbennett]

I've been thinking about this, and at first it sounds good, but what if it also causes liberals to move to blue states? I know that at first that sounds good too, but since representation in the House is determined by population, could that increase representation for blue states while decreasing representation for red states? Now I suppose it's possible that conservatives may flee the blue states in favor of red states, but it's something to consider I think.

ETA: Maybe it will be a wash.

There is a reason that our Legislative branch was designed to be bicameral. Let all the far-left types concentrate in NY, CA, and a half-dozen other states. The Senate will be supermajority Red for generations.

 

[Creedmoor]

So no discussion just a drive by opinion? Why bother…

Drive by? Like your post? Long time reader, short time poster here.
Would your post be a 'Denny or a Kut' its rhetoric.
I have posted plenty of my opinions in this thread.

And with your post, thats it for me in this thread.

 

[chipbennett]

In our system it is probably most appropriate to have the individual states determine abortion policy for themselves. In that respect, this decision makes decent legal and even some degree of ideological sense. However, I think the unintended consequences will be rather more severe than many realize.

Forcing a woman to give birth does not make an unwanted pregnancy wanted...it turns an unwanted pregnancy into an unwanted child.

The world does not need any more unwanted children, if you need evidence of this fact look no further than the army of unwanted bastards that fill our public schools, courts, and jails.

Criminalized abortion increases suffering. It increases crime. It decreases upward economic mobility for the poor and working classes.

I want to live in a world where fewer women need to end their pregnancy, not one where fewer women who have that need to are able to.

This will probably be my last post.

Thank you for your replies, my foray into this forum has been…eye opening.

Over 98% of abortions (cite: Guttmacher) are for purely elective reasons. If you don't want a child, don't have sex, or use one (or multiple) of the several, cheap or free birth control/contraceptive options available to you. Alternately, give the child up for adoption. There is an unending line of couples willing, able, and desiring to adopt - especially newborns.

The left turning abortion into a de facto form of birth control, and anti-democratically using the courts to accomplish it, is what brought us to today.

I have appreciated your input and your contributions to the discussion here. I hope you will stick around.

 

[Ingomike]

Drive by? Like your post? Long time reader, short time poster here.
Would your post be a 'Denny or a Kut' its rhetoric.
I have posted plenty of my opinions in this thread.

And with your post, thats it for me in this thread.

I might respond to a few of those bells in the top corner, I might not.

My post was in reply to this line. Why post if you do not want to discuss?

 

[jamil]

See, no debate, just slander…

I think he’s just saying people should put their faith where their mouth is.

 

[Ingomike]

I think he’s just saying people should put their faith where their mouth is.

For me, it seems there are far more keyboard pro-lifers than the actual foster/adopting parents out there.

Sure does not read that way to me…

 

[chipbennett]

You needed to read further into his opinion. He said this case didn't affect those others, but he thinks they and others should be reevaluated.
It goes on.

Two thoughts:

1. This opinion signals to a virtue-signaling Congress that has been long on rhetoric and fund-raising, and short on enacting legislation to resolve, hot-topic issues that the clock is ticking on their future reliance on activist court decisions enacting de facto law by judicial fiat in lieu of doing their job.

2. The opinion here indicates that decisions based on substantive due process are inherently errant, and any rights founded on substantive due process are at risk of being overturned - and further, goes on to say that future court cases should examine and provide a more constitutionally sound footing for those rights. (The left are twisting this statement to claim that Thomas is advocating for upending those rights entirely; he clearly is not.)

 

[BugI02]

Thats a cop out answer.
And who would have cared for them?

We have all seen what Reagans deinstitutionalisation has done in America in the last fourty years. The young ones here by next summer will start to see what will happen with newborns.

Your progressive slip is showing

Deinstitutionalization - Special Reports | The New Asylums | FRONTLINE | PBS

Deinstitutionalization began in 1955 with the widespread introduction of chlorpromazine, commonly known as Thorazine, the first effective antipsychotic medication, and received a major impetus 10 years later with the enactment of federal Medicaid and Medicare. Deinstitutionalization has two parts: the moving of the severely mentally ill out of the state institutions, and the closing of part or all of those institutions. The former affects people who are already mentally ill. The latter affects those who become ill after the policy has gone into effect and for the indefinite future because hospital beds have been permanently eliminated.

From a peak of ~550k in 1955 to ~120k when Reagan was inaugurated to maybe a plateau of ~90k in 1990, the process was over 93% complete before Reagan ever had ANY say in the process

Blaming any convenient republican for problems, without evidence, will do nothing to enhance your credibility

 

[chipbennett]

I think he’s just saying people should put their faith where their mouth is.

I'm still playing catch up. Is this in reference to the lefty trope that advocating to protect the life of unborn humans incurs a responsibility to care/provide for those children? If so, that trope is absurd on its face.

(Also, if the people promulgating this trope would stop firebombing the facilities set up to provide that exact, material support - i.e. crisis pregnancy centers - that would be fantastic.)

 

[jamil]

True Scotsman fallacy ==> True Christian fallacy

Not sure you're the one to judge where the line lie, either. Are you not a non-believer?

No. Not at all. The Bible describes what separates Christians from plastic baptists. I think Matthew 25 has a good explanation of how to separate one from the other. But there are many other passages as well.

 

[BugI02]

It's easy to be pious from the back pew. [bench]

 

[jamil]

I'm still playing catch up. Is this in reference to the lefty trope that advocating to protect the life of unborn humans incurs a responsibility to care/provide for those children? If so, that trope is absurd on its face.

(Also, if the people promulgating this trope would stop firebombing the facilities set up to provide that exact, material support - i.e. crisis pregnancy centers - that would be fantastic.)

I posted earlier in disagreement with this. I think it's fair to say that a belief in the sanctity of life instills a personal responsibility to help people in need as well as advocating for the life of the unborn. And in light of the ruling, the future will likely have more unwanted children. Sanctity of life extends beyond the womb. So I think it's a fair question.

But, it's not a logical conclusion that support of overturning RvW instills a responsibility for those kids who are born because of it. Any responsibility for helping is derived from a sense of compassion for those kids. So, if you can't adopt those in need, support organizations who help.

 

[chipbennett]

I am glad Roe is gone... but at the same time I know we have now created a patchwork of differing laws that US gun owners are all to familiar with.

Comparisons will be and need to be made between Gun Rights and Abortion Rights.

What abortion "rights"? If we are talking constitutionally enumerated and protected rights, abortion is not among them and would fall generally under the considerations of the 9th and 10th amendments. Thus, there is no comparison to be made to the right to keep and bear arms, which is explicitly enumerated, and protected, in the constitution.

There will be outright abortion bans in the bible belt states, and their laws will be struck down... as they should be.

[Citation Needed]

Currently, there are no states where ectopic pregnancy, other risks to the life of the mother, procedures to remove a miscarried child, etc. are or would be banned.

There will be states with strict limitations with exceptions for rape and medical necessity, I support that more, as does much of the conservative population

I don't support rape/incest exceptions, but would likely accept them, if it means protection of the other 98%+ of lives lost through purely elective abortion.

There will be middle ground states where the debate will rage for years, until scientific data on viability can overcome emotion on both sides.

I'm guessing there will be a rather quick coalescing around a current standard, such as the EU, where almost every member state has a limit in the range of 12 - 14 weeks for elective abortion. I suspect these states will generally fall somewhere in the range of 10 - 20 weeks.

There will always be permissive abortion states that will support abortion at almost any point for any reason. "Abortications" will be a thing now. I'm not sure how I feel about that yet.

That is by design - a feature, not a bug, of the construction of our nation.

To stay experimentation in things social and economic is a grave responsibility. Denial of the right to experiment may be fraught with serious consequences to the nation. It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country. This Court has the power to prevent an experiment. We may strike down the statute which embodies it on the ground that, in our opinion, the measure is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. We have power to do this, because the due process clause has been held by the Court applicable to matters of substantive law as well as to matters of procedure. But, in the exercise of this high power, we must be ever on our guard lest we erect our prejudices into legal principles. If we would guide by the light of reason, we must let our minds be bold.

- Louis Brandeis, dissenting, New State Ice Co. v Liebmann (1932)

 

[jamil]

Excellent post. REAL information from someone on the front lines

I would also like to point out that many on both sides in this discussion seem to assume that the change in circumstance will have no effect on the other variables and inconvenient pregnancies will just continue at the same rate resulting in number of abortions translating seamlessly into number of unwanted children

I think it much more likely that a new and very different equilibrium point will be achieved

I think that the number of unwanted pregnancies will increase. I don't think it's gonna be anywhere near a 1:1 replacement of abortions. Also, many states will keep abortion legal. So a lot of women will simply go to another state. And I'd bet the black market sale of morning after pills will be booming.

 

[jamil]

At least be truthfull, There was a wee bit more involved than 'Black Extermination'

It is. But I don't think we can ignore the part it played in the institutionalization of the abortion industry.