US Politics Thread 2021-24

[Moonlight]

A Regressive Supreme Court Judgement.

6 males voting on this Wade v Roe abortion law, sounds fair by American standards, next thing they'll do is turn a black criminal into a national hero...... whaaat!, they already have.

If you yank women (womb walkers) are going to let 6 male judges tell you what you can and can't do with your bodies then it's more fool you time.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Moonlight

A Regressive Supreme Court Judgement.

6 males voting on this Wade v Roe abortion law, sounds fair by American standards, next thing they'll do is turn a black criminal into a national hero...... whaaat!, they already have.

If you yank women (womb walkers) are going to let 6 male judges tell you what you can and can't do with your bodies then it's more fool you time.

Roe v Wade has absolutely nothing to do with protecting a women’s right. It has EVERYTHING to do with protecting abortion providers right to practice. Not only that but if this idiot democrat talking below was telling even a kernel of truth it seems they’re more interested in harvesting bodies..



Maybe instead acting like a bunch of liberal terrorists and butchers. They can start work towards actually giving a sheet about the woman and infants instead of protecting male abortion providers right to harvest bodies in the name of science and money.

https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/ju...w-school-visit

“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by Moonlight

A Regressive Supreme Court Judgement.

6 males voting on this Wade v Roe abortion law, sounds fair by American standards, next thing they'll do is turn a black criminal into a national hero...... whaaat!, they already have.

If you yank women (womb walkers) are going to let 6 male judges tell you what you can and can't do with your bodies then it's more fool you time.

Nah, 597 U.S. ____ (2022), page 3, already shows where the road will lead to:
"[...]we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell."
Link

Griswold: Griswold v. Conneticut, 1965 decision allowing married couples to buy and use contraceptives without government restrictions.

Lawrence: Lawrence v. Texas, 2003 decision ruling that sanctions of criminal punisment for those who commit sodomy (aka sexual intercourse with a same-sex partner) are unconstitutional.

Obergefell: Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015 decision that granted the fundamental right to marry to same-sex couples.

[MaDef]

all that decision does is kick that "right" back to the individual States ( where it was before Roe V. Wade). Even Former Justice Ginsberg thought the decision was an overreach.

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by MaDef

all that decision does is kick that "right" back to the individual States ( where it was before Roe V. Wade). Even Former Justice Ginsberg thought the decision was an overreach.

While this is correct you should acknowledge that it will create major differences between the different states in regards to abortions. 20 states will have very restrictive laws within days or weeks, with more than half of those even denying abortions to the victims of rape.

20 other states will continue to grant access to abortions, more than half of those will even expand access one way or another.

[Dowly]

Makes sense to me, how else would you replace all the kids killed in mass shootings?

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Makes sense to me, how else would you replace all the kids killed in mass shootings?

Don't worry about it. The unending stream of illegals crossing the southern border more than make up for it.

[Skybird]

Global life is a comedy. On this the same day the US has this verdict, the German Bundestag ends §219 StGB that made it illegal for doctors to inform patients that they do abortions, and the methods used for that.

The ECH has ruled in December last year already that the German practice of allowing abortions, but making it a criminal offence if a doctor informs patients about it, is in violation of basic human rights of women.

[August]

A FEW MORE THOUGHTS ON DOBBS: First, it’s a big win for the rule of law — by which I mean not so much the opinion as that the justices stood firm in the face of unprecedented threats ranging from Chuck Schumer’s “pay the price” language to mobs and an actual armed assassin showing up at their homes. A Supreme Court that can be bullied is a Supreme Court that will be bullied. Unlike Roberts’ flip in the ObamaCare case, the majority here held firm, which will discourage bullying in the future.
Second, the likely result is that a few states will ban abortion entirely, a few will permit it for the entire term, and for most it’ll look something like Europe, with abortion easy to get for the first 12 weeks or so, and much harder after that. (The Mississippi law in question here was actually more liberal than many, perhaps most, European laws).
States won’t be able to ban interstate travel for the purpose of getting an abortion because interstate travel is a separate constitutional right. Congress will not be able to guarantee a right to abortion because its 14th Amendment power to enforce the rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to abortion, which the Court has found isn’t protected under the 14th Amendment. It will not be able to either protect abortion or ban it under its commerce power because abortion isn’t interstate commerce, and is a traditional subject of state regulation.
It’ll take a few years to shake out, but we’re likely to wind up with what we would have had by 1976 or so if Roe had never been decided — a spectrum of laws around the country that will be adjusted over time based on experience and the views of the electorate. Though, of course, the norm may be stricter than it would have been without Roe, which called into being a huge pro-life movement that probably wouldn’t have existed otherwise.
UPDATE: It’ll be interesting to see if this reduces the flow of immigrants from blue states to red. That’ll be a measure of how much people actually care. To be honest, I kinda hope it does slow the flow.


https://instapundit.com/527664/

[Skybird]

The Neue Zürcher Zeitung finds that the dispute has not been ended, but has just been ignited. Nothing good for the polarized and unable to find compromises US will come form this. Just deeper, wider trenches.

--------------
The U.S. Supreme Court orders a return to the past on the issue of abortion. This did not bring fewer abortions, but more suffering for women.

The end of liberal abortion rights in the United States is no longer a surprise. A first draft of the ruling had already been leaked in May, and it was predictable that this unprecedented clash would tend to solidify views at the Supreme Court. Anything less would have exposed the justices to accusations of caving in, reinforcing the already widespread view of a politicized panel.

Even though the first shock wave hit the country weeks ago, the final decision is an earthquake. First of all, it is remarkable that the Supreme Court overturns a leading judgment that is almost fifty years old and has been confirmed several times, for no clearly apparent reason. In the Anglo-Saxon world, precedents have a high, quasi-legislative significance - adjustments usually require a significant change in circumstances.

There is no question of this in the case of abortion. The procedure is safer and much less frequent than in 1973, when the Supreme Court ordered liberalization in Roe v. Wade. Moreover, public opinion has changed surprisingly little in recent decades. A clear majority of the public supports the right to abortion.

Of course, the Supreme Court has repeatedly revised its jurisprudence. One of its most famous rulings desegregated schools in 1954 ("Brown v. Board of Education") and was a departure from a decision handed down nearly six decades earlier that explicitly allowed the practice and is considered one of the most egregious in the court's history. But in each case, the changes meant an expansion of individual rights, not a restriction as in the current ruling.

In much of the country, the consequences are dramatic. Half of the states are likely to ban abortions in the future, forcing unwanted pregnant women to travel long distances or into illegality. It is doubtful that the conservatives' hopes will be fulfilled and that there will be fewer abortions. For the 1950s and 1960s, when the procedure was banned nationwide, the number of abortions is estimated to be at least the same as today, with a population half as large at the time.

Women who want to end a pregnancy find a way - but may carry a much higher risk. Officially, about 200 women died as a result of illegal abortions in 1965. At the time, these accounted for 17 percent of all deaths related to pregnancy and childbirth. With legalization in 1973, these figures immediately collapsed and are now vanishingly small. The Supreme Court's ruling is therefore not only a return to the past in terms of women's rights, but also in terms of health policy.

After all, one might think that the decades-long bitter dispute over the abortion issue has now been settled. In the future, the decision will be made by the political bodies of the individual states and thus ultimately by the population. Where the people want liberal rules, abortions will continue to be legal - where they do not, the procedure will be banned.

In the deeply divided United States, which is incapable of compromise, this may be seen as the democratic solution. But even this illusion is likely to burst - culture war issues have become too important for mobilizing both ideological camps. Conservatives will therefore not rest until abortions are banned throughout the country, while progressives are already working on ways to circumvent bans. The abortion controversy is not over. It is only now really being ignited.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)


https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

While this is correct you should acknowledge that it will create major differences between the different states in regards to abortions. 20 states will have very restrictive laws within days or weeks, with more than half of those even denying abortions to the victims of rape.

20 other states will continue to grant access to abortions, more than half of those will even expand access one way or another.

Which I'm fine with, the "one size fits all" governing model that the federal government operates under doesn't really work very well for a lot of things.

August is right, some states will ban it, some will become more lax, the majority of the states will fall somewhere in the middle.

As a bonus, the "left" has collectively blown a gasket over this decision and I bet very few of them actually read the decision or even the dissenting opinion, they'll just go along with whatever their talking heads tell them.

[Rockstar]

The general conscensus in the United States is most believe abortions should be made available. Other than the militant Democrats threatening the lives of the Justices of the SCOTUS. Or the governor of Virginia approving the abortion of third trimester or born babies. Most Americans also believe there must be some restrictions too. Though States like Virginia and California might think it’s OK. Most others do not and will legislate accordingly.

Only twenty 26 states are known to have restrictions on abortion the line seems to be drawn when one can get an abortion.. Out of that five will revert to an outright ban already on the books once R v Wade is done away with. The individual State will have to get it together and change what needs to be changed but it will be done with the woman AND the unborn child in mind. Not the bottom line of a physicians business on how many bodies they can harvest and sell for parts.

[Buddahaid]

Let the women decide and the men stay out of it.

[Rockstar]

Keep the men out of it is one way to prevent a pregnancy too

[August]

Just remember, flies spread disease, so keep yours closed.