Roe v. Wade.

[swingtime]

A slightly different opinion than many shared here....

This is a correct decision as the court should not have put that in place to begin with. This is a state level thing and needs to be treated as such. Every state should have or pass a law allowing or regulating as the elected officials see fit and the residents within each state should be able to vote those in who agree with their views. People are free to move or travel between states if they don't agree with what their state does. Or cross state lines to receive what they want and continue to live where they are and work for change. People have been doing that for the right to die with dignity already. It isn't perfect, but it is a better option IMHO than allowing such laws to be made by a handful of people at a national level.

So was the Brown v Board of Education decision wrong, as well? How about Griswold v. Connecticut (permitting access to birth control)? We can't have women in some states living as second class citizens. And, no, for many women it's not an option to pick up and move to another state or travel temporarily to another state to terminate a pregnancy.

 

[Bonfire]

At no time in 50 years of Roe v Wade has anyone been forced to have an abortion. This is about control and wanting to have power over someone else’s decision making and bodies. I can not believe this is happening!
We can’t allow this to happen. Appalling.

Surprising yet interesting that this got leaked out of the Supreme Court, shows how politicized (contrary to what they insist) the court has become.

 

[lilmosun]

While I totally support Roe v Wade and am outraged, the intended outcome is sadly not a total surprise.

Just as alarming and more surprising than the likely decision to overturn Roe v Wade is the reasoning - one which can be easily extended to other human rights. It sets a precedence that is truly scary. And even if you don't have a strong feeling on abortion, don't think it won't impact all of us as the divide continues.

As an aside, I wish both sides would openly denounce the leak as it was wrong to do regardless of which side one is on.

 

[yssie]

As an aside, I wish both sides would openly denounce the leak as it was wrong to do regardless of which side one is on.

It is certainly a statement of - something - that the "winners" seem to be more concerned with #FindingTheRat than anything else!

 

[PinkAndBlueBling]

I am completely horrified and disgusted! It's the minority deciding for the majority. It's a lack of basic human rights. It's men telling women what to do. It's those who have never needed an abortion for health reasons (or any reason) pushing their values on someone who has to make a gut-wrenching decision.

The newer SC Justices lied under oath during their hearings. That's OK, I guess. (Are we surprised?!)

We need to vote, but citizens are being marginalized and their right to vote is threatened. Our vote needs to supports voting rights and women's rights. All rights!

I was in LA this weekend and saw the many homeless. "They" support life so much, yet there are no social services. But hey! Please f*cking tell me what to do with my body.

Obergefell is next....

 

[kenny]

... Obergefell is next....

Oh great!
I just got married.

 

[yssie]

It's those who have never needed an abortion for health reasons (or any reason) pushing their values on someone

Also quite a few of those who have had abortions pushing their hypocrisy onto others - because *their* abortions were merited. It is all disgusting. Beyond disgusting.

Really kind of bizarre how so many states with paltry GDP and sky high federal dependency are hell-bent on adding more mouths to [fail to] feed. Texas being an exception to that trend, of course.

 

[TooPatient]

You're joking right?

How is regulating what goes on inside a woman's body anyone's right, at any level!?

The whole point is that "this" is something that shouldn't be regulated by anyone but that woman. At any level. Whether or not a woman has the right to dictate what happens within her own d*mn body should not be up for debate.

And no, all people are most definitely not free to move between states if they don't agree with what their state does. Those people with money and connections are. What about those without? And that's ignoring gerrymandering, voter access limitations, educational inequities, systemic prejudices...

Edit: I'm very pro PAS as well. My body my choices. Your body your choices.

I expect most states will have protection in place before this is officially done. The way it was put in place is what I see as an opening to dangerous precident. I think it is important for each state to have the protection in place and not lean on the federal government as something to point to when people try to stop those rights. That has happened too much. There is too much pointing at federal level just so politicians can have their policies and claim to voters that they would do it differently if allowed. That shouldn't be happening. (For the, I expect very rare, states that don't put protections in place before it is written, I suspect a lot of people will contribute to get help for those who need it AND will get people serious about making changes to the leadership within the state.)

 

[monarch64]

As always: vote.

This is not voting.
This is Revolution.

 

[fel]

The supposed 'pro-life' camps are actually pro-death if it comes to the mother. Some of the laws being passed now would refuse abortion for ectopic pregnancies, a life threatening condition that does not lead to a viable fetus regardless of treatment. Some pregnant women have heart conditions or other health conditions, where they can't handle a pregnancy physically or emotionally. Some women who were raped or coerced would rather commit suicide than have the perpetrator's child. Some individuals develop an aggressive breast cancer during pregnancy.

Can you imagine being a woman who gets pregnant, suddenly is informed she has an aggressive form of breast cancer, and if she decides to terminate the pregnancy and perhaps survive, she must go to another state to have an abortion? Even so, some states would prosecute and imprison a women who travel out of state to have an abortion.

Another issue:

I work with people with disabilities. Sometimes, when a mother is quite sick, or has been traumatized, but chooses to bring a child to term, that child is born with severe disabilities and must be under the care of the state for his or her lifetime. Yet the state does very little to care for these children. The institutions have closed. Back pre-Roe v. Wade we did have institutions (many were terrible), and we didn't have the technology to keep very pre-term or very ill infants alive. Now we do. The states that forbid abortion will result in many many more extremely ill, disabled children. Some of these children will require round the clock nursing or behavioral care. Who will give that care? Who will pay for it? The mothers I see who have such children are often extremely poor, and extremely stressed. It is a tremendous battle to get the care they need. These women are unable to lift themselves out of the most dire poverty.

We will see many more like that. We will see more child abuse, more foster care, more disability.

Remember what happened in Romania? https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/1...when-a-country-bans-abortion-romania-alabama/

 

[monarch64]

Idk if this has been said before because I’m still wading through all the posts on this thread, but

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE PREGNANT TO OBTAIN THE ABTN PILL. Please stock up now. I’m not talking about plan b. I’m talking about mifepristone. Keep on hand for yourself, someone you know who may become pregnant unwillingly/accidentally, etc.

 

[LilAlex]

Every state should have or pass a law allowing or regulating as the elected officials see fit and the residents within each state should be able to vote those in who agree with their views. People are free to move or travel between states if they don't agree with what their state does.

This sounds nice -- but what it has to do with a health care procedure is not clear. Abortion is a medical procedure with diverse indications. Decisions are made in the course of women's confidential conversations with their physicians. Why would a state legislature have any role or legitimate interest in this process? Can you name any other medical treatment or procedure for which the acceptability or availability is decided on a state-by-state basis? I am pretty familiar with this landscape and I can not think of a single one. So, much like slavery, to paint it as a "states' rights" issue is disingenuous. In fact, you can dismiss any human right and say "eh, let the states decide." I mean the Founders did their best (sort of) but it is not hard to recognize in hindsight the many facets of human rights that were not yet appreciated by an ethnically and socioeconomically homogeneous patriarchy and hence were not enshrined in our Constitution. Or even in the massive corrigendum called the Bill of Rights.

It is also helpful to consider the company we keep. I have never been super-opposed to capital punishment (in the US). But then I found a list of the countries that (still) engage in the practice (China, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Japan, S Korea, US -- with the most prolific users at the top of that list) and I was disappointed. That doesn't necessarily make us wrong on capital punishment, but it is cause for introspection and soul-searching.

So, with that in mind, review the countries that outlaw abortion. (Oh, and you can kid yourself and your daughters that overturning Roe v. Wade will not outlaw abortion in the US; however, that ignores the dozens of states that have trigger-laws that will snap into place the literal second Roe is overturned.) But anyway, look at that sad list of countries that currently ban abortion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law) and ask yourself if these are truly our "peer" nations in human rights and individual autonomy.

It's fascinating that suddenly abortion opponents are declaring that "the law was wrongly decided." After 50 years of precedent and settled law -- acknowledged by all recent Supreme Court appointees -- every FOX news viewer is suddenly a scholar of constitutional law. Exactly which decision was "wrongly decided" -- the old one or this new one -- we ask the brilliant legal team of Tucker and Sean.

 

[Snowdrop13]

I’m looking on from outside the US with disbelief. Whatever happened to the “land of the free”? Despite your hugely expensive health care system, US maternal mortality is much worse than most other developed countries. That says something about the way women are treated. I’m very angry for all of you.

 

[Venti25]

Sad to say many of us looking from the outside saw this coming looking when some couldn't stand Hillary.

I am quite saddened. What a ridiculous slap in the face to women everywhere.

 

[Lookinagain]

(For the, I expect very rare, states that don't put protections in place before it is written, I suspect a lot of people will contribute to get help for those who need it AND will get people serious about making changes to the leadership within the state.)

something like 26 out of 50 states are expected to ban or severely restrict abortion if Roe is overturned. This is not "very rare"! Its the majority.

 

[fel]

Even in swing states like Pennsylvania, the legislature is firmly entrenched republican. Next Republican Governor and abortion will be banned. Could happen this November.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I was just thinking about what Matata had said about the abortion issue not being about rights. I so agree. What then popped into my head was that this is akin to the slavery issue. Where do a group of people who refuse to take a vaccine for public health purposes turn around and tell a woman she must have a child when she becomes pregnant. As Arcadian said, this is a medical procedure. Why does anyone have the "right" to tell others what they may do.

As LilAlex said, this is part and parcel of slavery. My God, how did we get here? Other people have control over my body.

As Monarch said , stock up on the abortion pill. Those anti abortion states are cracking down on that medication as well. Its already started.

Some states have stacked the deck against women. It may take more than votes to dislodge these legislatures. We may have to strike and shut down the country. Economic strikes would be my way of looking to stop this new instigation of slavery in our midst.
Annette
Marches won't do the trick. Strikes may.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

I’m looking on from outside the US with disbelief. Whatever happened to the “land of the free”? Despite your hugely expensive health care system, US maternal mortality is much worse than most other developed countries. That says something about the way women are treated. I’m very angry for all of you.

It has always been in every facet, a tiered system. A soft caste.
This is where many of our continued issue comes from. Most want equality across the spectrum, which would be guarantee of at least equal footing to begin with and a minimum standard of life for every citizen. The rest want continued status quo(which benefits their dominance and share of spoils/considerations) and will employ whatever institutionalized tactic to keep it so at the expense of the other.
America as a bastion of freedom/progression is a lie. It has always been a lie. We had an extremely small window in our recent past where profit was, at least to a degree for the lower tier of the dominant caste, shared. It was over quickly and yet that is the fixed crystalline image of our collected self identity. Our false sense of superiority is drilled into us from birth, with self manufactured stories of when we were savior or champion. We are never told of our shortcomings, we are never told to be introspective about it. It is assumed that we are prime, even in our destitution.

 

[Kalynna]

something like 26 out of 50 states are expected to ban or severely restrict abortion if Roe is overturned. This is not "very rare"! Its the majority.

Exactly! I believe 13 or 14 states have laws on the books that will ban abortion as soon as Roe is overturned, and a lot of others have plans to do the same. Many of these band don't even have exceptions for rape or incest (see e.g. comments from an Ohio representative saying a rape pregnancy for a 13 gear old is an "opportunity" for that "woman").

Some bans have protections if the life or health of the mother is at risk. But they're vague as to who gets to make that call or how it's decided. If you have an ectopic pregnancy or a dead fetus inside of you (both things that have happened to my husband's Texan family members), then are you "allowed" to terminate? Or should you just wait until your fallopian tubes explode or you die of sepsis while some bureaucrats decide if you're "worthy" of having a life-saving medical procedure?

Here in good ol AZ, our infinitely wise legislators recently unstated a 15 week ban that'll take effect if/when this decision drops, but it's a bit unclear as to whether that or a prior total ban will take precedence. It takes longer than 15 weeks to screen for many fatal or devastating fetal genetic abnormalities which could lead to parents with no options but to care for a terribly sick child for the rest of their lives, or watch their baby suffer a painful death, as in the case of Tay-Sachs.

As a lawyer, the complete disregard for precedent is totally enraging. The Justices know full well that many landmark civil rights cases were decided on 14th Amendment grounds so they've explicitly paved the way for stripping a multitude of human rights and punting them back to state legislatures. Here's a good rundown of what's now on the chopping block:

The Supreme Court Has Only Scratched The Surface Of Awful - Above the Law

Gay rights? Contraception? Interracial marriage? None of that is settled law anymore.

abovethelaw.com

Sure, we can argue about the various interpretations of the Due Process Clause, but I find it so hypocritical when these "strict textualists" make such arguments, only to turn around and twist themselves into logical pretzels trying to interpret something like the Second Amendment in a way that fits their agenda (a la Scalia in Heller).

Plus it's obnoxious that the Court is willing to punt these issues back to the legislatures but then refuses to step in on things like voting rights protections and gerrymandering, claiming that's ALSO a legislative issue. If you're not placing any check on the legislative branch, what point do you even serve?? Again in Arizona, they're doing everything in their power to make it more difficult to vote, including taking away mail in ballots, enhancing ID requirements, and of course redrawing district lines to increase the minority's power.

I'm just disgusted by the whole thing and can't wait to get out if this terrible state. In fact, moving somewhere totally different (Madeira, Portugal comes to mind) seems like a good idea right now.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

The Theory of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

 

[Arcadian]

I expect most states will have protection in place before this is officially done. The way it was put in place is what I see as an opening to dangerous precident. I think it is important for each state to have the protection in place and not lean on the federal government as something to point to when people try to stop those rights. That has happened too much. There is too much pointing at federal level just so politicians can have their policies and claim to voters that they would do it differently if allowed. That shouldn't be happening. (For the, I expect very rare, states that don't put protections in place before it is written, I suspect a lot of people will contribute to get help for those who need it AND will get people serious about making changes to the leadership within the state.)

You know, there were states that allowed slavery and others that did not.

Should that also have stayed a state mandated action?

 

[Matata]

You know, there were states that allowed slavery and others that did not.

Should that also have stayed a state mandated action?

I'm quoting you because you're the last one to refer to the differences between states and I'm too lazy to go back and find the others. The primary reason why I support federal government oversight (the big government that some don't want), even with all of its ugly aspects, is the disparity that exists and will multiply when states have autonomy over important decisions such as health care and education. It seems utterly ludicrous to me that we are the "united" states yet the socioeconomic differences among states creates too many inequalities to list. Everyone, regardless of where they live should have equal access to excellent health care and education. Those are the two most important issues to me because, imo, we can't build and sustain a successful country when its inhabitants are sick and stupid.

 

[yssie]

Exactly! I believe 13 or 14 states have laws on the books that will ban abortion as soon as Roe is overturned, and a lot of others have plans to do the same. Many of these band don't even have exceptions for rape or incest (see e.g. comments from an Ohio representative saying a rape pregnancy for a 13 gear old is an "opportunity" for that "woman").

Some bans have protections if the life or health of the mother is at risk. But they're vague as to who gets to make that call or how it's decided. If you have an ectopic pregnancy or a dead fetus inside of you (both things that have happened to my husband's Texan family members), then are you "allowed" to terminate? Or should you just wait until your fallopian tubes explode or you die of sepsis while some bureaucrats decide if you're "worthy" of having a life-saving medical procedure?

Here in good ol AZ, our infinitely wise legislators recently unstated a 15 week ban that'll take effect if/when this decision drops, but it's a bit unclear as to whether that or a prior total ban will take precedence. It takes longer than 15 weeks to screen for many fatal or devastating fetal genetic abnormalities which could lead to parents with no options but to care for a terribly sick child for the rest of their lives, or watch their baby suffer a painful death, as in the case of Tay-Sachs.

As a lawyer, the complete disregard for precedent is totally enraging. The Justices know full well that many landmark civil rights cases were decided on 14th Amendment grounds so they've explicitly paved the way for stripping a multitude of human rights and punting them back to state legislatures. Here's a good rundown of what's now on the chopping block:

The Supreme Court Has Only Scratched The Surface Of Awful - Above the Law

Gay rights? Contraception? Interracial marriage? None of that is settled law anymore.

abovethelaw.com

Sure, we can argue about the various interpretations of the Due Process Clause, but I find it so hypocritical when these "strict textualists" make such arguments, only to turn around and twist themselves into logical pretzels trying to interpret something like the Second Amendment in a way that fits their agenda (a la Scalia in Heller).

Plus it's obnoxious that the Court is willing to punt these issues back to the legislatures but then refuses to step in on things like voting rights protections and gerrymandering, claiming that's ALSO a legislative issue. If you're not placing any check on the legislative branch, what point do you even serve?? Again in Arizona, they're doing everything in their power to make it more difficult to vote, including taking away mail in ballots, enhancing ID requirements, and of course redrawing district lines to increase the minority's power.

I'm just disgusted by the whole thing and can't wait to get out if this terrible state. In fact, moving somewhere totally different (Madeira, Portugal comes to mind) seems like a good idea right now.

Here's an article about that Ohio representative's comment that Kalynna mentions in her opening paragraph. It's horrifying, and it wasn't made in jest, and she has defended it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/04/29/ohio-rape-bill-opportunity/

 

[pearlsngems]

Dreadful reasoning.

 

[Matata]

Here's an article about that Ohio representative's comment that Kalynna mentions in her opening paragraph. It's horrifying, and it wasn't made in jest, and she has defended it.

This mindset is why I ate a half bag of Maui sweet onion potato chips for lunch and why I'm now heading out mid-afternoon for cocktails with friends.

 

[Austina]

An opportunity? To force a child in to having a child? To bring another unwanted child in to the world? What planet is that woman from?

 

[Lookinagain]

An opportunity? To force a child in to having a child? To bring another unwanted child in to the world? What planet is that woman from?

That woman is an idiot and a dangerous one. And an elected Ohio representative, so that is even more scary to me.

 

[kenny]

That woman is an idiot and a dangerous one. And an elected Ohio representative, so that is even more scary to me.

She should be asked, publicly near a hot mic, whether she'd like her adolescent daughter to enjoy that "opportunity".

 

[bludiva]

Strikes may.

Got to hit 'them in the GDP. :/

 

[Lookinagain]

She should be asked, publicly near a hot mic, whether she'd like her adolescent daughter to enjoy that "opportunity".

agree, we already know that many of the folks who applaud the reversal of Roe, have needed, or chosen abortion themselves and somehow feel justified in their decisions because I assume, they have decided that they are the arbiters of what is right or wrong. Right for themselves, wrong for others. Hypocrites.