SCOTUS and Roe v Wade

[RiverDog]

We haven't had an abortion/right to life thread since I've been frequenting this forum, so I thought that it might be interesting to see where everyone stands.

Like a lot of people, I was appalled at the leaking of an apparently genuine report describing the deliberations by the high court. I'm not sure how that can happen. They should not have any recordings of conversations, no scribe taking notes, no one between them and the deep blue sea when they deliberate in private. If justices want their comments and thoughts documented, then take your own notes and keep them to yourself. To me, the leak is much more concerning than the issue they were discussing.

Personally, I'm not real sympathetic to a woman's right to choose. Except in cases of rape and incest, they have had measures at their disposal they could use to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, including birth control drugs, contraceptives, and abstinence. There is no way to define when life begins, when the line is crossed to where the life form is no longer a part of a woman's body rather another human being in their own right. There is no shortage of adaptative parents, especially for newborn children, and an argument can be made that the decline in the birth rate has created an imbalance between young and old. There is no Constitutional right to an abortion, and per the Constitution, anything not enumerated in it is delegated to the states. If it is that much of a violation of human rights, then pass a Constitutional amendment that addresses it.

Although I tend to come down on the conservative's side on this issue, it's not a hot button issue with me. Unlike others, it's not a litmus test.

[c_hawkbob]

To me, the leak is much more concerning than the issue they were discussing.

Of course it is, that's the standard conservative stance. I wonder if the leak was more important than the content when the same sort of thing happened with the original Roe v Wade decision? I suspect not, as at that time the outrage was that a liberal court could do such a thing.

[RiverDog]

To me, the leak is much more concerning than the issue they were discussing.

Of course it is, that's the standard conservative stance. I wonder if the leak was more important than the content when the same sort of thing happened with the original Roe v Wade decision? I suspect not, as at that time the outrage was that a liberal court could do such a thing.

And your suspicion would be dead wrong, at least as it applies to me. I was not at all outraged at the Roe v Wade decision. 1973? I was a senior in high school, and at the time, I didn't care that much about the issue, and even still, it's not a huge thing with me.

And please, don't lump me in with the "standard conservative". If you know anything about me at all, it's that I'm not your typical neocon.

[c_hawkbob]

I didn't lump you in with the standard conservatives, I said that was the standard conservative response, as it unquestionably is. I also wasn't asking your reaction to the original Roe v Wade, I was wondering if the "standard conservative response" to the leak surrounding it was the same then as it is now, given the opposite dynamic of the situation.

[RiverDog]

I didn't lump you in with the standard conservatives, I said that was the standard conservative response, as it unquestionably is. I also wasn't asking your reaction to the original Roe v Wade, I was wondering if the "standard conservative response" to the leak surrounding it was the same then as it is now, given the opposite dynamic of the situation.

Thanks for clearing that up. It wasn't apparent what/who you were talking about.

My response isn't the "standard conservative response". To the contrary, there are a ton of conservatives that are every bit as passionate about the issue as the pro choice people are and rooting for SCOTUS to overturn Roe v. Wade and would argue that the content is more important than the leak.

Now they've kicked another hornet's nest, with protests and politicians lining up to make hay on the issue. The Dems must be thanking their lucky stars, as the court has handed them a ready made issue to fire up their base ahead of the mid terms.

[c_hawkbob]

I haven't seen any conservatives talking about the content of the leak, mostly just about the fact that there were a leak to begin with, whereas Libs are virtually all talking about the content of the leak. And yes, this is the football they are going to run with through the mid-terms.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

The leak is concerning. Im not sure why that’s a conservative vs liberal issue. We should all be in favor of the security of the court.

I would consider myself pro life but not pro birth. I think that’s one part the ultra conservatives get wrong is that you must have the child but you’re on your own. Top that off with opposing sex education and contraceptives, and you have a really dysfunctional setup. I have also heard too many times about adoption being the answer when our adoption system is incredibly difficult and there aren’t enough adoptive parents to pick up the slack anyway. If conservatives want to take their hardline stance, then they need to proper education and resources to the table. There’s also exceptions to pro life (rape, incest, abuse) that need to be allowed for, so I believe there has to be some compromise.

Yes, women have plenty of options for contraceptives at their disposal, but men share in this responsibility. Tired of hearing about dudes who don’t want to wear condoms and don’t want to pull out. You can exercise self control and any argument otherwise is weak and irresponsible. Dudes need to get their fecal matter conglomerated and take responsibility too.

I need to get more familiar with the Constitutional issues; I haven’t decided one way or the other that this should be the purview of state government.

[RiverDog]

I have also heard too many times about adoption being the answer when our adoption system is incredibly difficult and there aren’t enough adoptive parents to pick up the slack anyway.

For new born infants? I'm not so sure. Since most of the adaptive agencies are private, reliable numbers are hard to come by, but it would seem to reason that new born infants are much easier to place into foster care than older children as many adaptive parents want to put their own imprint on the child and starting with a clean slate is the easiest way to achieve that objective:

While it is difficult to find an exact, accurate number to answer this question, Some sources estimate that there are about 2 million couples currently waiting to adopt in the United States — which means there are as many as 36 waiting families for every one child who is placed for adoption. Based on this couples waiting to adopt statistic, many couples are waiting to adopt.

https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregn ... e_families

If conservatives want to take their hardline stance, then they need to proper education and resources to the table. There’s also exceptions to pro life (rape, incest, abuse) that need to be allowed for, so I believe there has to be some compromise.

Agreed about rape and incest, and I'll add when the life of the mother is at risk.

Yes, women have plenty of options for contraceptives at their disposal, but men share in this responsibility. Tired of hearing about dudes who don’t want to wear condoms and don’t want to pull out. You can exercise self control and any argument otherwise is weak and irresponsible. Dudes need to get their fecal matter conglomerated and take responsibility too.

Men and women each have half of the ingredients but the woman has the oven and has be the cook. I'm not sure how one makes that act of God equitable. Life's not fair.

I need to get more familiar with the Constitutional issues; I haven’t decided one way or the other that this should be the purview of state government.

The original Roe v Wade decision was based on the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 and extended rights to former slaves and granted them their citizenship. Here's a link:

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-docu ... -amendment

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I’d say newborns have a far easier time being adopted but the fact remains we have an overloaded foster system. Adoption doesn’t solve the issue of taking care of children of unwanted pregnancies. If that were the case, we wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in.

And men aren’t absolved of their responsibility for getting a woman pregnant and the birth control pill isn’t always 99% effective. A man should be coming to the table ready to avoid pregnancy just as much as the woman if he’s kgoing to do the dance. Unequal biology, sure; equal responsibility, absolutely.

[RiverDog]

I’d say newborns have a far easier time being adopted but the fact remains we have an overloaded foster system. Adoption doesn’t solve the issue of taking care of children of unwanted pregnancies. If that were the case, we wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in.

The overloaded foster system isn't due to unwanted pregnancies. Abortion has been legal in all 50 states for nearly 50 years, so it's pretty hard to argue that unwanted pregnancies are the root cause. What's more likely the case is that abuse, neglect, divorce, or some other form of parental behavior results in the child being removed from the home, either voluntarily or by court order, and since the child is no longer an infant, they're more difficult to place.

And men aren’t absolved of their responsibility for getting a woman pregnant and the birth control pill isn’t always 99% effective. A man should be coming to the table ready to avoid pregnancy just as much as the woman if he’s kgoing to do the dance. Unequal biology, sure; equal responsibility, absolutely.

I completely agree, but that knife cuts both ways. There's actually been cases where men that have complained because they are not consulted and have no rights when their girlfriend/wife chooses to have an abortion.

Besides, what does men's responsibility/irresponsibility have to do with whether or not abortion should be legal?

[Aseahawkfan]

My opinion has changed on abortion over the years. I was raised Catholic and even when I wasn't really practicing, that Catholic attitude stuck with me. I never much liked it. I would never encourage a female to get an abortion. I would take care of any child of mine if I had to work myself to death to do it.

As with most issues, I spent more time reading and adjusted my stance to about the following:

1. I'm firmly against late term abortions. Not even sure why this is a debate or a discussion. I can sort of see if you're picking between the mother and the child this decision being open, but barring that late term abortion is murder and should not be something a decent society allows under the pretense of privacy or reproductive rights.

2. First term or very early, I think women should get to choose. Having a child entails a lot of responsibilities on several levels. Women should get to decide if they are going to move forward with it. If they're not financially, emotionally, or generally ready, it is best they not have it. I've seen way too many terrible parents struggling on all levels with the child struggling to think it's a great idea to bring a child in when not ready. Early or first term generally it's a pretty simple termination.

3. Fertility clinics. Fertility clinics generally take a ton of eggs and fertilize them. Then run checks on these developing fetuses to determine which one will be implanted. They can end up fertilizing and harvesting many such fetuses. How do we view this? Is it abortion? Or something else? I'm of the mind that if we allow fertility clinics to engage in this practice, then we should allow women at an early stage to also control their reproductive abilities without religious interference.

4. I've also talked with some Muslims, who surprisingly are ok with abortion. A Muslim was explaining to me that a pregnant woman is not considered with child until a specific time had passed. I'm thinking not every religion views this in the same fashion, so the religious argument is moot if they are not all in clear agreement on when a life is considered a life according to their various holy books.

5. We have plenty of ways to ensure early pregnancy termination is painless and easily done with pills, so should be easy to do if the woman finds out early.

As far as the court leak, I'm not surprised. The White House is leaky, no surprise the court is leaky. This is the Armageddon issue the Democrats have been waiting for, so no surprise some Dem insider probably leaked it so they Democratic Party can start stoking the fear.

I think it might be good Roe vs. Wade gets thrown out myself. I think the Dems and Republicans should get together and hammer out something more concrete that seems to have made abortion some Wild West situation where you can do whatever. I would prefer more codification myself. I really disagree with Late Term abortion which seems like a monstrous medical procedure that makes me sick to even read on it. Puncturing the skull of what looks like a fully developed baby is infuriating. The fact there are lizard doctors out there willing to do this like it's no big deal sickens me greatly. Them I am against. If we can get a more codified law in place that is much harsher on late term abortion while making some clearer lines on when we crossed the line into life we should protect, that would be great.

We have a 95% plus infant mortality rate. There an extremely high chance any pregnant woman will have a healthy child if allowed to go to term. We should have some guidance as to that process for society and women as a whole other than do whatever you want whenever you want because it's your body when at some point the body inside is also a being with a 95% plus likelihood of becoming a person. We need to figure out that cutoff point and some of the rules surrounding it.

That's about where I stand right now. I think with all the advancements in reproductive technology, we can make a far better law on reproductive rights than Roe vs. Wade at this point in time. We should look to do it.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

The overloaded foster system isn't due to unwanted pregnancies. Abortion has been legal in all 50 states for nearly 50 years, so it's pretty hard to argue that unwanted pregnancies are the root cause. What's more likely the case is that abuse, neglect, divorce, or some other form of parental behavior results in the child being removed from the home, either voluntarily or by court order, and since the child is no longer an infant, they're more difficult to place.

I completely agree, but that knife cuts both ways. There's actually been cases where men that have complained because they are not consulted and have no rights when their girlfriend/wife chooses to have an abortion.

Besides, what does men's responsibility/irresponsibility have to do with whether or not abortion should be legal?

It certainly contributes to the system. Taking away a child due to abuse, neglect, divorce, and poverty could very well be an instance of an unwanted pregnancy where the mother didn't have access to contraceptives or abortion services. So they try raising the child under unsuitable circumstances for a few years, then the child gets taken away. Now the child's no longer the cute newborn but a toddler with baggage no one wants to adopt. And I hear the adoption argument like it is going to take care of all the newborns that must be given up. It'd be all well and good if we actually saw in real life that all these children that needed to be adopted at birth actually get there. They don't.

I went where I went with men's responsibility/irresponsibility because you stated you're not real sympathetic to a woman's right to choose and they have birth control drugs (helps many, but not for all), contraceptives (IUD's are invasive, men don't like condoms), and abstinence (laughable; the human race doesn't work so well this way). If you had strictly posted on the legality of it, I wouldn't have stated anything.

And to that last question, neither the adoption argument nor men or women's responsibility/irresponsibility having anything to do with the legality of it. Those types of issues just come up in the political and moral discourse but don't bear on whether or not it should be legal.

There needs to be a legal compromise where it is allowed under the right circumstances. I think Asea made a good argument for that. I largely agree with what he stated at the end of his last post.

[RiverDog]

The overloaded foster system isn't due to unwanted pregnancies. Abortion has been legal in all 50 states for nearly 50 years, so it's pretty hard to argue that unwanted pregnancies are the root cause. What's more likely the case is that abuse, neglect, divorce, or some other form of parental behavior results in the child being removed from the home, either voluntarily or by court order, and since the child is no longer an infant, they're more difficult to place.

I completely agree, but that knife cuts both ways. There's actually been cases where men that have complained because they are not consulted and have no rights when their girlfriend/wife chooses to have an abortion.

Besides, what does men's responsibility/irresponsibility have to do with whether or not abortion should be legal?

It certainly contributes to the system. Taking away a child due to abuse, neglect, divorce, and poverty could very well be an instance of an unwanted pregnancy where the mother didn't have access to contraceptives or abortion services.

So in other words, whether or not abortion is legal is irrelevant to the situation that you're describing.

I went where I went with men's responsibility/irresponsibility because you stated you're not real sympathetic to a woman's right to choose and they have birth control drugs (helps many, but not for all), contraceptives (IUD's are invasive, men don't like condoms), and abstinence (laughable; the human race doesn't work so well this way). If you had strictly posted on the legality of it, I wouldn't have stated anything.

The old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We should be concentrating on education rather than cleaning up spilled milk. Abstinence might be laughable, but it is an option and believe it or not, some girls practice it. Same with contraceptives and birth control pills.

When I said that I didn't have a lot of sympathy for women regarding abortion, I was speaking in a moral sense, not a legal one.

And to that last question, neither the adoption argument nor men or women's responsibility/irresponsibility having anything to do with the legality of it. Those types of issues just come up in the political and moral discourse but don't bear on whether or not it should be legal.

I agree.

Like I said, this isn't a hot button issue for me in a moral sense. Personally, I'm good with an abortion within the first trimester. But I do not see a legal justification for the Supreme Court ruling unconstitutional laws passed by the states regarding abortion. There is nothing in the Constitution that calls out abortion or a woman's right to choose, and as such, the matter should default to the states. If denying a woman the right to have an abortion is such an injustice, then pass an amendment to the Constitution that addresses it. This should not be a decision made by the courts. It's a legislative matter that should be decided by elected officials.

[Hawktawk]

Well there wont be abortion in any trimester with this whacko 6-3 freak show court.

And its truly a good old boy saying they don't have much sympathy for women having to just do it except for abortion or incest . The minute a man becomes pregnant then they can comment.

As for this well there's contraception's, abstinence surgical procedures. Ill confess I paid for one in 1978, broken condom. I tried to prevent preganacy but absolutely couldn't raise a kid at that point. Its an awful reality in my life but nobody to judge. Should have just abstained right? Tying tubes doesn't always work man or woman. Then what about babies born with extreme birth defects, to mother so mentally ill they cant bear the pregnancy. No organs, no brain. Who figures all that out?

Yall know how I feel about this sham of a supreme court. Refuse Meyrick Garland a hearing for 440 days then jam through this little secret society bimbo Barrett when people were already voting for the next president . The same people saying nobody can be forced to wear a mask want to tell a woman what to do with her body for 9 months and her life forever.

Now here we go. exactly as I predicted far outside the American mainstream. Time to pack and stack the court to stop this type of an out of balance with america representation on this body. I think they had become a complete joke long before this leak anyway.
One other thing. If the Dems have any chance in November this is it.

[Aseahawkfan]

Well there wont be abortion in any trimester with this whacko 6-3 freak show court.

And its truly a good old boy saying they don't have much sympathy for women having to just do it except for abortion or incest . The minute a man becomes pregnant then they can comment.

As for this well there's contraception's, abstinence surgical procedures. Ill confess I paid for one in 1978, broken condom. I tried to prevent preganacy but absolutely couldn't raise a kid at that point. Its an awful reality in my life but nobody to judge. Should have just abstained right? Tying tubes doesn't always work man or woman. Then what about babies born with extreme birth defects, to mother so mentally ill they cant bear the pregnancy. No organs, no brain. Who figures all that out?

Yall know how I feel about this sham of a supreme court. Refuse Meyrick Garland a hearing for 440 days then jam through this little secret society bimbo Barrett when people were already voting for the next president . The same people saying nobody can be forced to wear a mask want to tell a woman what to do with her body for 9 months and her life forever.

Now here we go. exactly as I predicted far outside the American mainstream. Time to pack and stack the court to stop this type of an out of balance with america representation on this body. I think they had become a complete joke long before this leak anyway.
One other thing. If the Dems have any chance in November this is it.

You have become a really vulgar and rude person calling Barrett a bimbo. You don't know that lady at all. Just rude and vulgar, much like the guy you hate. Pretty foul.

[RiverDog]

SCOTUS just pulled the trigger on Roe v. Wade in a 6-3 decision. It was a bit of a surprise as Chief Justice Roberts, who had been thought to be supportive of not overturning Roe v Wade, voted with the conservative majority.

The US Supreme Court on Friday ended the right to abortion in a seismic ruling that shreds half a century of constitutional protections on one of the most divisive and bitterly fought issues in American political life.

"The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives," the court said.

Gun control gets moved to the back burner in this current media cycle.

[Aseahawkfan]

From what I've have read, some states will have even greater access to abortion and some will have less. I expect Washington State to go far in the pro-abortion direction.

We live in interesting times unfortunately.

[I-5]

And men aren’t absolved of their responsibility for getting a woman pregnant and the birth control pill isn’t always 99% effective. A man should be coming to the table ready to avoid pregnancy just as much as the woman if he’s kgoing to do the dance. Unequal biology, sure; equal responsibility, absolutely.

I agree with you 1000%. If only men actually followed that thinking.

The only consolation I see for pro-choice is that this decision has already galvanized the next election cycle. This SCOTUS, specifically Thomas in his writings, clearly sees this reversal as just a beginning. It only goes to show what a farce senate hearings are as part of the confirmation processs for Supreme Court justices.

[Aseahawkfan]

I agree with you 1000%. If only men actually followed that thinking.

The only consolation I see for pro-choice is that this decision has already galvanized the next election cycle. This SCOTUS, specifically Thomas in his writings, clearly sees this reversal as just a beginning. It only goes to show what a farce senate hearings are as part of the confirmation processs for Supreme Court justices.

But it wasn't a sham when when the justices who originally decided on Roe vs. Wade? It seems like it only becomes a sham when one side or the other isn't agreeable to the decision.

They need to work on better legislation than Roe vs. Wade anyway. This should force their hand to hammer out something more in line with modern science and morality.

[I-5]

A sham? You’d have to ask Kavanaugh, Barrett, Gorsuch, and every justice who publicly called Roe ‘settled law’ at their senate confirmation hearings. It’s on video. Were they telling the truth?

[RiverDog]

And men aren’t absolved of their responsibility for getting a woman pregnant and the birth control pill isn’t always 99% effective. A man should be coming to the table ready to avoid pregnancy just as much as the woman if he’s kgoing to do the dance. Unequal biology, sure; equal responsibility, absolutely.

I agree with you 1000%. If only men actually followed that thinking.

But on the flip side of that argument, the father of that unborn child should have some sort of say in whether or not an abortion is the way to go. I know of no law that requires that the father even be consulted before an abortion is performed.

[Aseahawkfan]

A sham? You’d have to ask Kavanaugh, Barrett, Gorsuch, and every justice who publicly called Roe ‘settled law’ at their senate confirmation hearings. It’s on video. Were they telling the truth?

Was it settled law at the time? Yes. So they were telling the truth in the same way any person in a tense political situation does so.

This ruling pushes the decision back to the States, some of whom will loosen abortion restrictions even further and some who will tighten them substantially. Then hopefully Congress can work out a better handling of the situation that somewhat appeases both sides of this debate. Roe Vs. Wade was a weak protection that needs to be codified into law rather than being a legal precedent. We could use a lot more Congress better codifying some of these laws given we have more information now than we did then.

It's certainly not the end of the world like some of these people are making it. I imagine that's just more political posturing like they all like to do when given the chance. Get out the angry pro-abortion vote for the midterms.

I'm glad it happened now. I want to see how much this abortion issue sways America one way or the other. Dems have been given a major issue to rally the votes. Let's see what way America votes in the modern day on this issue.

[RiverDog]

I agree with you 1000%. If only men actually followed that thinking.

The only consolation I see for pro-choice is that this decision has already galvanized the next election cycle. This SCOTUS, specifically Thomas in his writings, clearly sees this reversal as just a beginning. It only goes to show what a farce senate hearings are as part of the confirmation processs for Supreme Court justices.

But it wasn't a sham when when the justices who originally decided on Roe vs. Wade? It seems like it only becomes a sham when one side or the other isn't agreeable to the decision.

They need to work on better legislation than Roe vs. Wade anyway. This should force their hand to hammer out something more in line with modern science and morality.

I agree about the Senate hearings. They are a sham. The Kavanaugh hearings were despicable.

I have zero sympathy for the Democrats about the composition of SCOTUS. It's the price you pay for losing elections. Quit nominating people like Hillary Clinton if you don't want to lose the ability to appoint SCOTUS justices.

The 'better legislation' needs to be in the form of a Constitutional amendment. Otherwise, we'll be right back in the same boat a few years down the road when SCOTUS flips to a more liberal court.

[Aseahawkfan]

But on the flip side of that argument, the father of that unborn child should have some sort of say in whether or not an abortion is the way to go. I know of no law that requires that the father even be consulted before an abortion is performed.

This is the kind of issue I would like codified. If a woman has a right to abort without any decision by the male, than the male should have codified a right to legally abort prior to birth as well as in they take no legal or financial responsibility for the child and have no parental rights or responsibilities. They can legally abort within the same time frame as a female.

We could come up with a much better law than we have now that ensures rights and responsibilities are clear for both parties.

[I-5]

I agree about the Senate hearings. They are a sham. The Kavanaugh hearings were despicable.

I have zero sympathy for the Democrats about the composition of SCOTUS. It's the price you pay for losing elections. Quit nominating people like Hillary Clinton if you don't want to lose the ability to appoint SCOTUS justices.

The 'better legislation' needs to be in the form of a Constitutional amendment. Otherwise, we'll be right back in the same boat a few years down the road when SCOTUS flips to a more liberal court.

And I agree with you the composition is the dems fault. I’ll go further and say the dems need to learn how to play hardball, which the republicans do much better. So if another opening comes up like RBG’s sudden passing in the last weeks before an election and they have the ability to ram a candidate through, they need to pull no punches and just do it. Dems have been too soft too long. Another example is Sen Al Franken. There is no way the republicans would let any of their senators resign over what he was accused of, but no senate democrats came to his defense. Pathetic. Learn from your mistakes and play the game better.

[Stream Hawk]

This is complete bullshit. Our country is in some deep trouble right now with the Supreme Court. And it goes WAAAY beyond the scotus. First, Clarence Thomas should be fired/impeached immediately, regardless. He’s going after contraception next! What freaking year/century is this?!! I’m absolutely speechless, sorry.

[Aseahawkfan]

This is complete bullshit. Our country is in some deep trouble right now with the Supreme Court. And it goes WAAAY beyond the scotus. First, Clarence Thomas should be fired/impeached immediately, regardless. He’s going after contraception next! What freaking year/century is this?!! I’m absolutely speechless, sorry.

This is a gift for the Dems. They're probably happy as hell behind the scenes. They now have a major issue to take the Senate and keep the House. If they do that, they can ensconce abortion in the Constitution, convict Donald Trump, and pass stricter gun laws.

Long-term this could have been the greatest gift handed down by the Supreme Court to the Dems in their history. If they can't maintain the House and take the Senate now when midterms come around, not sure how they keep the presidency in 2024.

Probably why Donald Trump wasn't particularly happy with this idea. He knows if the Dems use the fall of Roe vs. Wade to take Congress, he's cooked.

Gonna be a real interesting midterm election now.. Real, real interesting.

I'm indifferent to abortion myself. I'd never do it or encourage it, but I don't really bother people who do. I have no religious idea of conception. As far as I'm concerned humans are just animals to be managed like animals. Abortion and other forms of birth control are the same thing we do with cats, dogs, bunnies, or any creature that overpopulates. So I figure an intelligent animal like humans should be able to manage reproduction using scientific tools like abortion and the like. About the only question I would like answered is the life cut off which I sort of support at the 23 to 24 week mark like others, maybe a little less depending on fetal brain development.

This may very well turn out to be amazing for the Democrats. Man, if they lose the midterms now with a major issue like that, I don't even know what would help the Democrats win. Right now the Democrats have been lobbed a softball across the plate, all they gotta do it is hit real hard the right way and they should have a homerun.

[RiverDog]

This is complete bullshit. Our country is in some deep trouble right now with the Supreme Court. And it goes WAAAY beyond the scotus. First, Clarence Thomas should be fired/impeached immediately, regardless. He’s going after contraception next! What freaking year/century is this?!! I’m absolutely speechless, sorry.

The ruling doesn't make abortion illegal. All it does is prevent the federal government from keeping the states from passing their own laws. If a woman wants an abortion in this country, she's still going to be able to get one, just that she's likely going to have to pay more for it and have to travel to get one. If you live in Texas where you can't get one after 20 weeks, you may have to take a day's drive to neighboring New Mexico where there are no restrictions. It's likely to have almost no effect in blue states like NY, CA, WA, OR.

Rather than crying about the ruling, women and those that support a woman's right to choose need to get off their duffs and start educating women of child bearing age about the options they have available and start a campaign to get men to recognize the role they play and the things they can do to prevent unwanted pregnancies. No matter how loudly or how long they protest, the court isn't going to reverse itself.

This is a gift for the Dems. They're probably happy as hell behind the scenes. They now have a major issue to take the Senate and keep the House. If they do that, they can ensconce abortion in the Constitution, convict Donald Trump, and pass stricter gun laws.

Long-term this could have been the greatest gift handed down by the Supreme Court to the Dems in their history. If they can't maintain the House and take the Senate now when midterms come around, not sure how they keep the presidency in 2024.

They aren't convicting DJT of anything, but we've beaten that horse to death. I agree that politically speaking, both this decision and the shooting in Texas are gifts for the Dems in that it gives their base a rallying cry and it takes voters minds off of the horrible economic conditions and the focus away from the hugely unpopular Sleepy Joe. But I don't know if it has legs or not. The campaigns don't hit high gear until after Labor Day and by then, the news may be replaced by something else or simply fade into the background. It's not necessarily the gift that keeps giving.

[RiverDog]

I agree about the Senate hearings. They are a sham. The Kavanaugh hearings were despicable.

I have zero sympathy for the Democrats about the composition of SCOTUS. It's the price you pay for losing elections. Quit nominating people like Hillary Clinton if you don't want to lose the ability to appoint SCOTUS justices.

The 'better legislation' needs to be in the form of a Constitutional amendment. Otherwise, we'll be right back in the same boat a few years down the road when SCOTUS flips to a more liberal court.

And I agree with you the composition is the dems fault. I’ll go further and say the dems need to learn how to play hardball, which the republicans do much better. So if another opening comes up like RBG’s sudden passing in the last weeks before an election and they have the ability to ram a candidate through, they need to pull no punches and just do it. Dems have been too soft too long. Another example is Sen Al Franken. There is no way the republicans would let any of their senators resign over what he was accused of, but no senate democrats came to his defense. Pathetic. Learn from your mistakes and play the game better.

I had forgotten about Franken. Huge embarrassment for the Dems. But the reason the R's would have defended him had the capital letter behind Franken's name been different has nothing to do with a willingness to play hardball. It all had to do with politics, who the Dems' constituency was. Had the R's been faced with a similar dilemma that was likely to offend one of their constituencies, they would have tossed him/her under the bus in a heartbeat.

I did not like the way the R's forced the SCOTUS appointments at the opposite ends of the Trump presidency and I feel that the Senate needs to pass some sort of rules on a time frame of when they'll consider nominations to prevent this kind of abuse from happening again. But, of course, that will never happen in today's Senate as the pols literally can't agree on the time of day.

As far as the Dems playing hardball, I don't want to see it turn into this tit-for-tat retaliatory war and do something radical like pack the court. Behavior like that accomplishes nothing and only serves to widen the divide.

[I-5]

The senate can pass a SCOTUS rule after the dems squeeze a couple supreme court justices through, just to make ig even. 6-3 is not a good thing for the country no matter which side of the coin you are.

Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz are accused of far, far, far worse than Franken was, and they’re still enjoying plenty of support. What was Franken accused of that was a crime? You can bet if he had an R next to his name, one he wouldn’t apologize and 2, he’d still be a senator. It’s not even that embarassing compared to Gaetz (which isn’t saying much). Its a case of dems trying to do the right thing, when they shouod just focus on sticking together and keeping power like yhe other guys. I would.

And no asf, pro-choice supporters arent secretly happy. You’re out of touch trying to paint that picture. But yeah, they’re mad, and I’m sure we will feel it at the ballot box. Trump lost even with 95% republican support, so turnout in a general election is real.

[RiverDog]

The senate can pass a SCOTUS rule after the dems squeeze a couple supreme court justices through, just to make ig even. 6-3 is not a good thing for the country no matter which side of the coin you are.

As a person that comes down mostly on the conservative side, I agree with this thought. I do think that the court is tilting too far towards the right. People need to have confidence in SCOTUS, and I'm getting the sense that's slipping away a little, especially when the Chief Justice, who is widely considered as the new swing vote, sided with the conservatives on this issue, and I wouldn't mind seeing the Dems get even. But what I don't want to see is an escalation, going nuclear by expanding the court so as to give themselves more appointments.

Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz are accused of far, far, far worse than Franken was, and they’re still enjoying plenty of support. What was Franken accused of that was a crime? You can bet if he had an R next to his name, one he wouldn’t apologize and 2, he’d still be a senator. It’s not even that embarassing compared to Gaetz (which isn’t saying much). Its a case of dems trying to do the right thing, when they shouod just focus on sticking together and keeping power like yhe other guys. I would.

Agreed about Jordan and Gaetz. But you're missing my point. The point is that the constituency that is most offended by sexual harassment/misconduct is females, and they tend to vote Democratic, so pressuring Franken to resign was essential to their political objectives. The Republicans will do the same thing if a member offends one of their constituencies, although I can't come up with an example that's analogous to Franken.

And no asf, pro-choice supporters arent secretly happy. You’re out of touch trying to paint that picture. But yeah, they’re mad, and I’m sure we will feel it at the ballot box. Trump lost even with 95% republican support, so turnout in a general election is real.

I realize you're directing that to ASF, but it's not the pro choice supporters that are happy, it's the Democratic politicians that have to be counting their lucky stars. Between this issue and the Texas school shooting, it's a very welcome change in the news cycle from the high gas prices, inflation, and Sleepy Joe's unpopularity that was sure to torpedo any hope they have of holding onto Congress in the midterms.

[Aseahawkfan]

The ruling doesn't make abortion illegal. All it does is prevent the federal government from keeping the states from passing their own laws. If a woman wants an abortion in this country, she's still going to be able to get one, just that she's likely going to have to pay more for it and have to travel to get one. If you live in Texas where you can't get one after 20 weeks, you may have to take a day's drive to neighboring New Mexico where there are no restrictions. It's likely to have almost no effect in blue states like NY, CA, WA, OR.

Rather than crying about the ruling, women and those that support a woman's right to choose need to get off their duffs and start educating women of child bearing age about the options they have available and start a campaign to get men to recognize the role they play and the things they can do to prevent unwanted pregnancies. No matter how loudly or how long they protest, the court isn't going to reverse itself.

Mexico doesn't exactly love abortion. They only legalized it last year for general use or decriminalized it. Sure, an illegal abortion you could probably get. But Mexico is majority Catholic. Catholic nations are not pro-abortion in general. You are likely to find harsher laws in Catholic nations than America.

They aren't convicting DJT of anything, but we've beaten that horse to death. I agree that politically speaking, both this decision and the shooting in Texas are gifts for the Dems in that it gives their base a rallying cry and it takes voters minds off of the horrible economic conditions and the focus away from the hugely unpopular Sleepy Joe. But I don't know if it has legs or not. The campaigns don't hit high gear until after Labor Day and by then, the news may be replaced by something else or simply fade into the background. It's not necessarily the gift that keeps giving.

Even if Donald doesn't get convicted, he will not want to run for office with a Democratic Congress in power or he is cooked. He will get impeached quickly and sent packing. That that they will be able to do with a majority in both houses.

[Aseahawkfan]

The senate can pass a SCOTUS rule after the dems squeeze a couple supreme court justices through, just to make ig even. 6-3 is not a good thing for the country no matter which side of the coin you are.

Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz are accused of far, far, far worse than Franken was, and they’re still enjoying plenty of support. What was Franken accused of that was a crime? You can bet if he had an R next to his name, one he wouldn’t apologize and 2, he’d still be a senator. It’s not even that embarassing compared to Gaetz (which isn’t saying much). Its a case of dems trying to do the right thing, when they shouod just focus on sticking together and keeping power like yhe other guys. I would.

And no asf, pro-choice supporters arent secretly happy. You’re out of touch trying to paint that picture. But yeah, they’re mad, and I’m sure we will feel it at the ballot box. Trump lost even with 95% republican support, so turnout in a general election is real.

I said Democrats, not pro-choice supporters. Democrats think in terms of issues and winning elections and I mean high level Democrats, not standard guy voting on the street. They now have an issue to take Congress. I'm betting their strategists are already moving to use this issue to take Congress, so they can move on more of what they want to do.

This is all political strategy at this point. Right now the Dems have a Democratic president, a Democratic House, and an issue to take the Senate and maintain the House. They don't get many of these opportunities in either Party. So you have to use them to your advantage when you get these things lining up.

[RiverDog]

The ruling doesn't make abortion illegal. All it does is prevent the federal government from keeping the states from passing their own laws. If a woman wants an abortion in this country, she's still going to be able to get one, just that she's likely going to have to pay more for it and have to travel to get one. If you live in Texas where you can't get one after 20 weeks, you may have to take a day's drive to neighboring New Mexico where there are no restrictions. It's likely to have almost no effect in blue states like NY, CA, WA, OR.

Rather than crying about the ruling, women and those that support a woman's right to choose need to get off their duffs and start educating women of child bearing age about the options they have available and start a campaign to get men to recognize the role they play and the things they can do to prevent unwanted pregnancies. No matter how loudly or how long they protest, the court isn't going to reverse itself.

Mexico doesn't exactly love abortion. They only legalized it last year for general use or decriminalized it. Sure, an illegal abortion you could probably get. But Mexico is majority Catholic. Catholic nations are not pro-abortion in general. You are likely to find harsher laws in Catholic nations than America.

I said NEW Mexico, the state. They currently do not have any laws that restrict abortions and have a law in process that would protect the right to an abortion.

For many in Texas and elsewhere, New Mexico may be the closest place to obtain legal abortion services.

Last year, New Mexico repealed its pre-Roe ban on abortions, and the Democrats in control of the state legislature and Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham have vowed to protect abortion rights in the state. The Republican challenging Grisham in November’s gubernatorial election, a former TV meteorologist who is lagging in polling, said Friday he supports abortion up to 15 weeks or in cases of rape or incest. Texas’ ban does not allow such exceptions.

New Mexico allows late-term abortions, does not require teenagers to get parental approval and does not have a waiting period.

New Mexico is expected to become a “haven state,” where abortion remains legal and largely accessible. That state currently has six abortion clinics and is gearing up for an influx of patients. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Mississippi abortion clinic at the center of the Supreme Court case, has said it’s considering relocating to New Mexico.

There is a movement in the Texas legislature to make it illegal for a state resident to cross a state line in search of an abortion, but that sounds unconstitutional as all get out to me.

[Aseahawkfan]

I said NEW Mexico, the state. They currently do not have any laws that restrict abortions and have a law in process that would protect the right to an abortion.

For many in Texas and elsewhere, New Mexico may be the closest place to obtain legal abortion services.

Last year, New Mexico repealed its pre-Roe ban on abortions, and the Democrats in control of the state legislature and Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham have vowed to protect abortion rights in the state. The Republican challenging Grisham in November’s gubernatorial election, a former TV meteorologist who is lagging in polling, said Friday he supports abortion up to 15 weeks or in cases of rape or incest. Texas’ ban does not allow such exceptions.

New Mexico allows late-term abortions, does not require teenagers to get parental approval and does not have a waiting period.

New Mexico is expected to become a “haven state,” where abortion remains legal and largely accessible. That state currently has six abortion clinics and is gearing up for an influx of patients. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Mississippi abortion clinic at the center of the Supreme Court case, has said it’s considering relocating to New Mexico.

There is a movement in the Texas legislature to make it illegal for a state resident to cross a state line in search of an abortion, but that sounds unconstitutional as all get out to me.

Oh. New Mexico. Easy drive. Yeah. The Democrats are freaking out again over mostly nothing. This isn't the 1950s where even American corporations would be siding with the religious right. This is 2022 with liberal corporations supporting abortion and more than enough States to provide very liberal and available options for abortion.

The conservatives may be staging somewhat of a resurgence, but it's nowhere near as conservative as America was in the past. It's pretty clear the liberals have won with the younger generation. The only thing holding back full on liberalism at the moment is the older demographic and money issues.

I swear both of these parties make everything seem like some kind of America destroying issue. And we been through way, way, way, way worse in our past and survived. The drama is annoying. This nation should be an absolute breeze to govern, but these idiots are too old, too invested in philosophies and ideologies that don't work, and we need much younger people in Congress and The White House are going to use technology to improve everything in ways that younger corporations are doing and that old politicians are clueless about as they grind on the same issues that a younger tech savvy generation isn't much interested in unless they get wound up.

Even I look at the old people like Pelosi and McConnell and Trump and Biden as a bunch of dinosaurs holding back progress in the nation arguing over the same tired issues we already have solved with technology that these idiots don't seem to want to use.

I have an old mother who still wants to vote at the polls. I roll my eyes. We could create a much better system with less issues with an electronic system that can make sure the same voter or dead people or non-citizens are not voting by tapping data bases set up for voter verification with double digital verification methods far superior to checking for chads or people at voting stations. Most folks have little clue how good cyber security is because they'll read about some hacking incident that got through rather than realize the millions of hacking attempts that get blocked means cyber security is better than most physical security methods. About ten or so more years and hopefully we'll see a younger generation of tech savvy politicians make government and everything in it far more efficient than it is now. Just got to wait for the dinosaurs to die off so we can move into the next era.

[c_hawkbob]

Over mostly nothing? Unbelievable! The 50's is exactly where this kind of crap is taking us. Most of my (relatively) more intelligent friends and relatives that voted for Trump are saying this (the current make up of The Court) is why they voted for him and that it was worth a 4 year deal with the devil to get us here. This most definitely not nothing!

[Aseahawkfan]

Over mostly nothing? Unbelievable! The 50's is exactly where this kind of crap is taking us. Most of my (relatively) more intelligent friends and relatives that voted for Trump are saying this (the current make up of The Court) is why they voted for him and that it was worth a 4 year deal with the devil to get us here. This most definitely not nothing!

It's going to be nothing. You can remember what I wrote. The dinosaurs stuck in 50s and 60s are gonna die off. Let the younger generation organize world in a much better fashion.

We have cheap easy flights now. Easy bus rides. Easy to use pills for abortion. And corporations that fully support women's right to choose with more money and means to effect change than the tired ass Supreme Court and that old goat Clarence Thomas. There is no back alley any more, so stop pretending there is. Abortion is an easy, in patient operation the majority of the time safely and easily done in a doctor's office during an afternoon trip to a state where it is legal. This is a mild inconvenience at best.

In 5 to 10 years as the old dinosaurs like Biden, Bernie, Pelosi, Mitch, Clarence Thomas, Trump, and the like die off, the world will change for the better by a good margin.

You can mark my words on that if you or I are still around. Dinosaur era of low tech trash government is coming to an end soon enough.

I think this will have a near zero effect on women getting abortions as many liberal states will provide plenty of available access and options. Liberal corporations will finance flights and trips to get them done. This is not the 50s where the majority of America was against abortion. Or even the 70s. This is the 2020s. I only have one Trump voting friend that even cares about abortion. One highly believes in abortion much like Trump who has probably paid for them himself has used the services. I don't think abortion is a very important issue to Republicans as a whole and this ruling is going to cost them more than it will help them.

The main Republican voting bloc against abortion are Evangelicals. The main voting bloc for abortion are women of all groups. You tell me who has more voters? This ruling is going to help the Democrats in the long run and I would not at all be surprised if this doesn't lead to them winning the midterms and taking the Senate. Abortion is an issue far more favorable to rallying Democrats than Republicans. I don't know many Republican males who care that much about this issue. Guns are a bigger rallying issue for Republicans and their strongest base than abortion.

[I-5]

Agreed about Jordan and Gaetz. But you're missing my point. The point is that the constituency that is most offended by sexual harassment/misconduct is females, and they tend to vote Democratic, so pressuring Franken to resign was essential to their political objectives. The Republicans will do the same thing if a member offends one of their constituencies, although I can't come up with an example that's analogous to Franken

I didn't miss your point at all, and the reason you can't come up with an analogous comparison on the republican side is that there isn't any issue that would scare republicans. Think about it, if Trump with all his gross conduct can manage to hold almost unanimous support among conservatives (and I'm not saying you're one of them), what does he have to worry about that they aren't willing to forgive or overlook? The way I read it, what the republican base loves are strong male leaders, and if they have major issues like Gaetz, Jordan, or Herschel Walker being outed as fathering at least 2 illegitimate children while ranting agaist absentee fathers in the black community (the ultimate irony, really)...none of it really matters to the base, because Jesus forgives us all. Unless of course you're a dem. I know how it works. Bottom line, it's not possible to offend the republican base as long as you're an Alpha Male type. In fact, the more boorish, the more they might like you. Cynical? Perhaps, but prove me wrong. Is the decent Romney very popular outside of Utah?

[RiverDog]

Over mostly nothing? Unbelievable! The 50's is exactly where this kind of crap is taking us. Most of my (relatively) more intelligent friends and relatives that voted for Trump are saying this (the current make up of The Court) is why they voted for him and that it was worth a 4 year deal with the devil to get us here. This most definitely not nothing!

I'm not going to go so far as to say that this is "nothing" as it will have an impact on some people because they're going to have to practice prevention if they don't want to get pregnant, but it's being way, way over played. The left is acting like the court made abortion illegal when all they've done is say that it is not a right that is covered under the US Constitution and thus, defaults back to the states to regulate.

How can this be taking us back to the 50's when Roe v Wade was decided in 1973?

In the 1950's, there was no such thing as a birth control pill (introduced in 1960). Sex education wasn't taught in schools, it was left to our parents to have a discussion with us about the birds and the bees. Fast forward to today and they're teaching sex ed in middle schools and birth control pills are easy and cheap to get. Hell, Medicaid supplies them for free. I'm not going to go so far as to say that it's "nothing" as it is going to have a significant impact on women of child bearing age that do not want a pregnancy, but it's being way, way overplayed by the left. The way they're reacting, you'd think that they made abortion illegal when all they did was to end federal protection.

[RiverDog]

I didn't miss your point at all, and the reason you can't come up with an analogous comparison on the republican side is that there isn't any issue that would scare republicans. Think about it, if Trump with all his gross conduct can manage to hold almost unanimous support among conservatives (and I'm not saying you're one of them), what does he have to worry about that they aren't willing to forgive or overlook? The way I read it, what the republican base loves are strong male leaders, and if they have major issues like Gaetz, Jordan, or Herschel Walker being outed as fathering at least 2 illegitimate children while ranting agaist absentee fathers in the black community (the ultimate irony, really)...none of it really matters to the base, because Jesus forgives us all. Unless of course you're a dem. I know how it works. Bottom line, it's not possible to offend the republican base as long as you're an Alpha Male type. In fact, the more boorish, the more they might like you. Cynical? Perhaps, but prove me wrong. Is the decent Romney very popular outside of Utah?

OK, you convinced me. But I don't see how it applies to the R's ram rodding SCOTUS nominations. What are the Dems supposed to do in response? Pack the court?