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

[Shadow01]

Not just that. Killing potential criminals reduces crime. How’s that?


Disclaimer: I’m not seriously advocating either.

Remove humans from the equation and the problems within the universe disappears.

 

[ljk]

Apparently that is now a question for states to decide.

As it should be from the beginning.

Now, they need to get on to nullify the NFA.

 

[rooster]

As it should be from the beginning.

Now, they need to get on nullify the NFA.

Precedent has been set. There was no tax/registration system in place at the founding so NFA doesn’t pass the NY test

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Remove humans from the equation and the problems within the universe disappears.

I'm not so sure...

 

[MCgrease08]

Plenty of unloved kids with their parents now. What are you doing about their plight?

Good question. Admittedly, not enough.

 

[JTScribe]

I don’t think that’s true. So the idea is that, but for progressives going too far, the right would not have pursued getting justices appointed who could overturn RvW. The right has been pursuing this moment for decades. I suppose the excesses of the left make this ruling more delicious. But the moment was coming anyway.

That said, I could agree that the excesses of the Obama administration brought about the possibility of Trump. And Trump had the opportunity to nominate the justices on the list. But that’s not the same thing as claiming that up to the moment before birth abortions is what got this ruling.

Have they, though? Or has it been an election issue they recycled over and over again to get votes?

 

[jamil]

Have they, though? Or has it been an election issue they recycled over and over again to get votes?

I think both an issue pursued and an issue exploited by politicians on both sides.

 

[Cameramonkey]

There are only two tents in our system, if you want to participate you have to stand under one of them.

WRONG.

www.lp.org
www.gp.org
to name two more.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I think both an issue pursued and an issue exploited by politicians on both sides.

Much like gun control.

 

[ljk]

WRONG.

www.lp.org
www.gp.org
to name two more.

I voted for Rainwater over that POS Holcomb last time. I hope they can catch more momentum.

I don't see them to make major impact in the short term, but you've got to start somewhere.

 

[chipbennett]

MSN

Except, they didn't lie - as in, they did not commit perjury. I don't have the quotes in front of me, so I'm paraphrasing, but, there is a non-trivial difference between "I believe Roe is settled case law" (what was actually said) and "I will not vote to overturn Roe" (what was not said). Further, I am fairly confident all nominees made statements to the effect that they would/could not comment on specific decisions they would render on specific cases. That is fairly standard for a judicial nominee.

 

[JCSR]

 

[Cameramonkey]

They seem nice.

 

[ancjr]

All the local Ryan's closed.

 

[JCSR]

Darn, not again!

 

[Tombs]

Again, I don’t see abortion as murder, because in my view a person has absolute authority over their own body, including anything (or anyone) else inside it.

There's a moral argument on both sides of this debate, but the consequences for violating the moral line on one side is much more severe. If you're killing an infant in cold blood, that is unquestionably more wrong than potentially denying someone bodily autonomy. Especially when that bodily autonomy only becomes an issue as a consequence of an action that is unnecessary for your own survival, and requires a member of the opposite sex to also engage in it.

Only if we are to imply people are animals with absolutely no self control, or ability to take precautions, does that argument work, IMO.

 

[ljk]

 

[jamil]

I have wondered about this a long time. The SC seems to have authored a number of business-friendly decisions which seem to imply there is no enforceable "right to privacy," at least where the issue of your public data on the internet and things like that are concerned. So that always seemed incongruous with RvW, and it would seem that conflict has been removed with the latest decision.

Drones are an interest of mine, and I've been amazed the law won't go farther in protecting people's privacy in being spied on by things flying in the air around their property. The FAA injunctions about not interfering with "piloted flight" seem to be stronger than any sort of constitutional concerns with privacy.

Prior to last week, I always thought it would be a super-interesting test of RvW, for pro-life groups to fly drones over clinics, taking detailed photos of womens' faces as they entered, then publishing the information on the internet. While I think such an action would be a dick move, if such a case could have been "worked up the chain," it sure would have been interesting to see how that got resolved. But I guess we got our answer, one way or the other. Things seem to be squarely back on the side of drone operators, internet data miners, and the view that there truly is no articulable right to privacy in America.

I would like to see a right to privacy codified but that's another conversation. I think you're right though. A case like that would tell us exactly where the right wing of the court is. I suspect Dobbs is an insight into how that would work itself out.

As far as drones and privacy goes, if you're flying your drone over my property, and I see you hovering low enough to look at my ****, I should be able to send birdshot your way. I have a drone, and I do wish that rules would loosen in public spaces. But mostly I use it for flying over my property, my house, inspecting my roof, gutters, whatnot. It's mostly just a tool.

 

[jamil]

View attachment 208347

It's kinda not satire.

 

[OkieGirl]

Again, I don’t see abortion as murder, because in my view a person has absolute authority over their own body, including anything (or anyone) else inside it.

I've heard this statement many times and hadn't had an opportunity to ask a clarifying question (and I may have watched too many crime stories).

There is a unique, independent set of DNA created at the moment the egg and sperm meet - it is not the mothers, it is not the fathers. How does the 'absolute authority over their own body' argument reconcile itself with the presence of another set of DNA? If it is not the mother, and it is not the father?