Supreme Court to Take On Roe v. Wade

Data Lounge has simply the WORST lawyers and law advice...........

they are going to take a huge swipe a roe v wade. It is gone. If a pregnant is in Texas and start seizing, they are dead. This supreme court (the republicans) are fucking Anti democracy. Fuck those guys (and that one psycho fascist bitch). Child abuse will going up.

Spelling and grammar will be next!

The whole country will soon be like a Catholic hospital for women. Women won't be able to be treated medically for anything that will negative affect their uterus even if they're not pregnant. If they are, better have their wills made out.

NOBODY said Roe was settled law. It was obvious from the Texas case that the Supremes are going to take a swipe at it, although who knows if they will have the courage/stupidity to ditch it entirely.

Gay marriage is different for many reasons, it's a lot more popular and settled in people's minds than abortion ever was; unlike abortion, undoing Obergefell will cause legal nightmares across the country which the Supremes generally don't like doing (unlike a marriage, you can't un-abort a person); and most importantly, the Supremes with only one different member handed down the employment decision in Bostock 6-3, so it would seem strange for them to do such an about-face. Both Gorsuch and Roberts were on our side for that one, and even Kavanaugh said some sympathetic stuff even while dissenting. Alito and Thomas are both bigoted assholes of course.

Maybe if women spent more time voting and less time attending yet ANOTHER rally wearing vagina hats they wouldn't have this problem. They are the majority of the population after all.

Of course they’re going to overturn Roe v Wade. Of course they’re going to overturn Obergafell (eventually) and Breyer will die when McConnell runs the Senate and will be replaced by a 35 year old Nazi.

They're coming to Illinois. A super blue state in a sea of red

It's also worth keeping in mind that overturning Roe won't ban abortion nationwide, it will simply throw it back to the states. And the states that will immediately ban abortion already have de facto bans for the most part, due to having very few facilities and/or restrictive laws.

What can you say at this point.

The effect of overturning Roe v Wade will be to make abortion illegal for poor and middle-class women in most of the states in the country. Upper-income women have access to the education and medical treatment that would likely have them on birth control in the first place, but they would be able to travel to places where it's legal and available. Those without the means to obtain an abortion will be forced to have the baby.

And we all know how wonderfully that will turn out.

How many fucking threads to we need on abortion (which most of us don't give two shits about) and fearmongering that

NEXT THEY'RE COMING FOR US!

It’s about time.

Speak for yourself R12. Lots of us give a shit about it. It's a measure of your sociopathy that you think the rest of the world shares it.

And lots of us DON'T, r14. Many/most of them don't give a flying fuck about us, yet for some reason some gays are obsessed with fighting for their rights, be it abortion, BLM, trans shit, enviro shit or whatever other cause du jour is out there.

Sometimes I seriously wonder how much of the gay community would trade marriage equality for some sort of right to abortion written into the Constitution, and then I realize that I really don't want to know.

[quote]Odd, I was assured right here on DL that this, like gay marriage, was "settled law."

Those were the anti-trans trolls.

They were always going to come for gay men. More than any other group we’re at risk.

You're in the minority, R15. Very very very very few people are as selfish and shitty as you, thank god.

So keep being a cranky asshole and know that no one cares about you stupid fucking opinion.

Loosen your pussy hat, r17. It's cutting off circulation to your brain.

If this happens, which I think it will, get ready for babies to be abandoned all the time in the news in dumpsters and trash cans. It will be as common as homeless people on the streets.

Democracy is dynamic. Authoritarian dictatorships are static.

[quote] And lots of us DON'T, [R14]. Many/most of them don't give a flying fuck about us, yet for some reason some gays are obsessed with fighting for their rights, be it abortion, BLM, trans shit, enviro shit or whatever other cause du jour is out there. Sometimes I seriously wonder how much of the gay community would trade marriage equality for some sort of right to abortion written into the Constitution, and then I realize that I really don't want to know.

This is all so true.

You saw it in the recent Joy Reid / Nicki Minaj thread.

It's so funny that you think that a tiny minority can acquire rights all by itself with zero help from anyone else.

But then, you're an american and thus totally ignorant of your own history, even your own very recent history.

It's sad, but also kinda funny. Like watching a duck quack.

Reproductive rights and equality for gays are liberal ideals. They walk hand in hand. People that support one usually support the other.

Maybe you don’t care about women, but we care about you.

You stupid fuckers who think Obergefell is settled because it is POPULAR are deluded. These radical conservatives do not give a fuck. Roe is popular and settled. If you think gay marriage and gay rights are settled and popular you haven’t seen the full court press conservatives are about unleash. You Log Cabin mental cases are just trying to justify your sociopathic inclinations.

Sometimes the law isn't settled.

[quote]Maybe you don’t care about women, but we care about you.

Women were actually at the forefront of the battle against gay rights. But keep rewriting history, Anita Bryant.

R21 Going by what bots and trolls say? Have we fallen this far, DL?

[quote]yet for some reason some gays are obsessed with fighting for their rights, be it abortion, BLM, trans shit, enviro shit or whatever other cause du jour is out there

So gays don't live in the environment, are not black or have black friends family members, and colleagues, and don't have women in their lives—and fairness and freedom are just "causes du jour"? R12/R14 is a piece of shit, and the same right-wingers who want to ban abortion (and ultimately birth control, believe it or not) are also trying to ban gay rights, including marriage. They say so; believe them.

You're completely free to have opinions about those causes and expend effort fighting for them, r28. Knock yourself out. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. It's when gays put those causes OVER OUR OWN RIGHTS that problems occur.

And as r26 alluded to, many of the most anti-gay people around have been women. Phyllis Schlafly says hi from beyond the grave. But more than that, women make up the majority of people in this country. If they got off their asses and voted, they wouldn't have to try and drag us into their fights. That is, of course, unless abortion isn't as popular among their fellow females as they think it is (Spoiler alert: it isn't. Many of the most fanatical anti-abortion people are women.)

Many white anti-black racists are also anti-gay. So that means black people should be standing with us, right? Except they don't. Poll after poll has confirmed black people are less likely than any other racial group to support gay marriage. And feel free, if you can stomach it, to see how much of the homophobia on Twitter against, for example, Carl Nassib is coming from black people.

Why are we discussing any of this? Don't you know that no black people won Emmy's ?

R29 You are fucking NUTS. Certifiable troll.

Good to know, r31. Gotta love that openness to differences of opinion. Oh, and silly me, at r15 I forgot to mention Palestine and our bedrock allies in the Muslim community. Shame on me for forgetting them, I should be tossed off a building or something.

[quote]So gays don't live in the environment, are not black or have black friends family members, and colleagues

Well if blacks as a community just once would pay it back and pick up a sign and protest on OUR behalf for a change then yes we would give a shit. But has we have all seen, gay rights and rights for people of color only seem to flow in one direction.

Obviously Roe v Wade is flawed.

There is NO RIGHT to privacy in the constitution. Even if there was it's not applied.

If a man can shoot a pregnant woman and be charged with murder yet the same woman can end her child life legally, the system is broken.

Fetuses are life, there is NO ARGUMENT about that. You can try but your as wrong as if you say the sky is green. It isn't so.

Abortionists would be much better to liken their cases to killing a rat or a roach versus killing a dolphin. As one person in another thread said, "Dolphins are intelligent so they should live, rats are vermin."

Of course using that would mean Hitler was right with his killing off of marginal populations, but that is what any who is pro-abortion is. They want to make human life a disposable commodity.

You simply cannot get past this because it's truth. Abortionists want to kill their babies the same way dictators want to kill the problem people they encounter.

R22 Watching a duck quack makes you sad?

The whole abortion issue is just liberal women v. conservative women.

I don't care. The one upside to being gay is not having to deal with all that stuff.

Oh Please R34, my load of cum is also teaming with "life". Why is that not protected? And don't give me some fertilization argument, that's just part of the process, both the egg and sperm are life long before that. Doesn't the bible say life begins with your first breath? There's nothing in there that says it starts at conception.

[quote]Fetuses are life

Yeah, and a potato plant is life. The issue is whether a woman has rights over her own body, at least until the viability of the zygote-embryo-fetus. The law can't make her give her kidney to save the life of an adult; how can it make her gestate an embryo? And the fact that Republican men will pay for an abortion for their mistresses or careless daughters shows that they do want respect for their privacy and don't give two shits about the "life" of the zygote-embryo-fetus (as was traditional, by the way, until barely 100 years ago—abortion was not controversial for the founders' generation).

R34 Where can I read more of your writing? Where? Where?

I have an interesting question, as if I haven't gotten myself into enough trouble in this thread. What about if they ever find the genetic component of homosexuality and how to test for it in utero? Would you still support abortion on demand if it meant gay babies/fetuses/zygotes whatever were being aborted just for that reason?

Of course, I would also be perfectly happy to listen to r37 talk more about his cum load. That's really what I come here for anyway instead of all the political bullshit.

[quote]Would you still support abortion on demand if it meant gay babies/fetuses/zygotes whatever were being aborted just for that reason?

They would. Women's right to chose is sacred above all else.

100% pro-choice, but R37, there are lines from the bible about 'God knowing you while you are in utero'. It refers to the "quickening", which I think means fetal heartbeat.

Not one evangelical group used to be anti abortion, btw. That's another Reagan + Friends treat.

[quote]Oh Please [R34], my load of cum is also teaming with "life".

Which is why the Catholic church considers masturbation a sin -- you're wasting your "seed" when it could and should be used to create new life. Which underscores the danger in letting religious beliefs guide secular law, as abortion opponents seek to do.

Women helped fight for gay rights. Women were on the forefront of nursing us during AIDS. They advocated for us. They helped push towards finding medications to help us live with HIV. Women have always been there for us. And I, as a gay man, will always be there for woman. I will always support a woman’s autonomy over her own body. I will march for her. I will wear that stupid pink hat.

I will always support the rights of women, blacks and other racial minorities, Muslims, trans, little people and whatever else “cause du Jour” is out there. This isn’t because of wanting to be seen as a certain way. This is because if I was any one of these people, I would want them standing up for me. We all have choices to make. Whether they do or don’t is inconsequential. Only what I do matters. And I stand for them.

There is more work to do.

[quote]guide secular law

The law is not "secular". It's foundation is based on "religion" and continues to abide by "religious" principles. Otherwise, laws prohibiting human interaction, such as incest and pedophilia, would not exist.

That may be what you learned in homeschool, R45, but the U.S. is in fact constitutionally secular. You don't have to be religious to see the harm in incest and pedophilia.

This thread is an example of why liberals are losing. SCOTUS agreed to hear this Case long ago, and it was announced back then. This is just the announcement of the date SCOTUS will hear oral arguments. Liberals and Democrats aren’t very informed or focused on the courts, and are shocked to learn what conservatives were aware of long ago. Pitiful

This thread is flypaper for gay MAGAts.

[quote]This thread is an example of why liberals are losing. SCOTUS agreed to hear this Case long ago, and it was announced back then.

There was a DL thread back then, along with abundant media coverage, so I don't know what you're on about.

R42, I’m a Christian and attend church weekly. I have never heard of a “quickening”

Well, do a little googling, R50, and you'll see that "quickening" is a thing that was used as a criterion for the right to an abortion. It doesn't have to do with a fetal heartbeat, as R42 thinks, but is somewhat vaguer.

Yeah, but the teen is not used widely in this context among current American Christians.

[quote] but the U.S. is in fact constitutionally secular.

R46 "Secular" is a misnomer. The laws on the books are largely "religion" based. Some of the people who wrote the Constitution may have called themselves "secular", but they were mired in centuries of Xtian social foundation/culture/mentality. Social abhorrence of rape, abortion, sodomy, incest, and pedophilia are due to socially-inculcated taboos based on centuries of that socially-ingrained "religion". Dismissing the essential Xtian character of the authors of the Constitution and subsequent laws display a let's pretend dissonance.

And r50 that is probably a symptom of what r42 was talking about. The Party Line (the Republican Party Line of course) is that abortion is forbidden, and has always been forbidden, and that doctrine must never be questioned. Even recent Christian history must be suppressed in support of the new party line.

[quote] Social abhorrence of rape, abortion, sodomy, incest, and pedophilia are due to socially-inculcated taboos based on centuries of that socially-ingrained "religion".

What bullshit. These "taboos" take different forms under different historical and social circumstances, and non-religious concern for consent and liberty can oppose them just as effectively as Christian dogma can—some would even say more effectively. Your throwing "abortion and sodomy" in there just points that up, since secular law treats them differently (and they're way less "taboos" in our contemporary society).

A government will only be as secular as its populace. A religious people will demand a religious government no matter what

I am as demoralized as anyone about this (Frau reporting for duty) but one silver lining is it should force liberals to rethink how sloppy we’ve been about state and local politics. For many years we just used the Supreme Court as a political safety net, leaving the justices to deal with all the freakish state legislatures. Time to roll up some sleeves and actually take part in federalism.

One more deludedly optimistic comment - remember that Roe guarantees the right to abortion be facilitated nationwide. Getting rid of it does not ban abortion nationwide, it allows states to make laws against abortion if they choose to. Many many states will still permit abortion - Blue states and moderate Red states.

That doesn’t mean this won’t screw over the most vulnerable women (young, poor, and/or abused women in deep red states). But overturning Roe is not the same as banning abortion

[quote] —r15/r29 why the hell am I still awake?

Probably meth.

[quote]These "taboos" take different forms under different historical and social circumstances, and non-religious concern for consent and liberty can oppose them just as effectively as Christian dogma

R55 You continue to ignore both the topic of the original post, specifically the Xtian nature of those who formulated US law for the first 200 or so years. The concept of "secular" played no part in the creation of those laws until well into the 20th century. The taboos mentioned did not take "different forms under different historical and social circumstances" again until well into the 20th century. "Non-religious concern for consent and liberty" is irrelevant to the Xtian foundation for US laws and social taboos.

[quote]The concept of "secular" played no part in the creation of those laws until well into the 20th century. "Non-religious concern for consent and liberty" is irrelevant to the Xtian foundation for US laws and social taboos.

Odd, then, that our "Christian country" allowed abortions for 100 years after its founding. Abortions didn't become criminalized in this country until 1880.

A good chunk of the Founding Fathers were actually Deist, which is closer to today’s agnostics than to Bible-thumpers. They believed in a generic monotheistic God but didn’t place much value in it or think it should have any affect on the nation.

Not to mention, healthcare choices (including abortions, which have been common throughout history) were far more private than they are today because the world was so less connected.

The Roe opinion goes into great detail on the history of abortion as medical care. Justice Blackmun had been counsel for the Mayo Clinic earlier in his career and he seemed to be considering the case from the perspective of doctors even more so than women.

True r57, and it will be interesting, and I think right now unpredictable, when every single state legislative race becomes a referendum on abortion. Give states the power to outlaw abortion, sometimes completely regardless of circumstances, and you put every candidate on the spot in a way they haven't been in decades. They could always do the pro-life blather knowing there was no real price, cause the Court would "take care of it." That will change.

[quote] that our "Christian country" allowed abortions for 100 years after its founding.

"Allowed" is a misnomer. You again ignore the Xtian nature and taboos of the times. Few women would seek an abortion and even fewer doctors would perform one. It's like saying homosexuality was allowed in the US because there was no law against it until 1921. Which again is a woeful ignorance of the inherent taboo within the community based on society's inculcated Xtian nature.

do you have a source on that r64? That's a big question, and I suspect you are speculating wildly and mixing up theory and practice.

[quote] Odd, then, that our "Christian country" allowed abortions for 100 years after its founding. Abortions didn't become criminalized in this country until 1880.

Things change. It’s also generally not accepted anymore to apply leaches or to perform frontal lobotomies.

R60 (etc.) you're ignorant of history. The founders were *influenced* by the Christian ("Xtian"?) culture they were raised in, but that doesn't mean that they based our laws and Constitution on religious precepts. And the idea that the separation of law and religion only developed later is ridiculous; it goes back to the 17th century.

And Christianity itself of course was being questioned as never before. Deism was one big manifestation, but a lot of people were asking whether these priests and pastors have any idea what the hell they are talking about.

Saying few women sought abortions in past eras is like claiming few men engaged in gay sex in the past. Both practices had taboos that limited the extent to which people would share information about engaging in them. Nevertheless, everyone here understands biology, right? Pretending something wasn’t happening because the majority didn’t approve doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening under the surface. Instead, the few people who were *found out* got persecuted.

OP... no one said Roe was settled law. Lawyers on DL have said the exact opposite.

Obviously R67 R68 R69 are projecting 21st century mentality on to the 18th century. Including the extent of the restrictions of daily lives based on social and cultural behavior/taboos.

[quote]"Allowed" is a misnomer. You again ignore the Xtian nature and taboos of the times. Few women would seek an abortion and even fewer doctors would perform one.

"There was a time when abortion was simply part of life in the United States. People didn’t scream about it in protest, and services were marketed openly.

Drugs to induce abortions were a booming business. They were advertised in newspapers and could be bought from pharmacists, from physicians and even through the mail. If drugs didn’t work, women could visit practitioners for instrumental procedures.

The earliest efforts to govern abortions centered on concerns about poisoning, not morality, religion or politics. It was the mid-19th century, long before abortion became the hot-button issue it is now."

or maybe you're projecting a 21st century, Christian Evangelical mindset into the late 18th century. Taboos exist, but it's not actually clear that abortion was one of them. That may be the doctrine of Falwell and Graham and the modern fundamentalists, but it doesn't mean it was the doctrine of 18th century pastors.

And when it comes to the Constitution, it was emphatically secular, keeping out the kind of god bothering lingo that the Latin American countries would sadly go in for a few years later. The only mention of religion was to ban religious tests for office, and of course a bit later a First Amendment to prevent religion and government from getting all tangled up with each other in the traditionally annoying European way. Whatever the Founders were, they weren't Cotton Mather and they weren't setting up some godly republic like Plymouth.

[QUOTE] Women helped fight for gay rights.

If every woman supported gay rights they would've happened instantly because women make up a majority of the population.

Women, who are more likely to be religious than men, were disproportionately active relative to other causes in OPPOSING gay rights, no matter how much you worship them.

Some women helped, some hurt. Jesus, is this really now about whether somebody "worships" women by simply acknowledging that many helped us, and that many of us actually care about their rights too.

Are you some straightboy incel? If so, why are you here?

Some hurt, some helped, yes.

R44's comment that women as a whole helped is revisionism to the point of homophobia.

[quote]There was a time when abortion was simply part of life in the United States. Drugs to induce abortions were a booming business. They were advertised in newspapers and could be bought from pharmacists, from physicians and even through the mail. If drugs didn’t work, women could visit practitioners for instrumental procedures.

R72 R73 More 21st century projection, ignoring how society as a whole viewed abortion. Abortion was a social taboo, an horrific shame, that few doctors would participate in. To say nothing of the exorbitant amount of money required to encourage the doctor to sully his hands and conscience performing such a shameful act. Drugs readily available in a pharmacy? And how many women boldly demanded those drugs, knowing that it would expose them to public ridicule/shame? To say nothing of the safety of those homemade drugs.

Is that coming from a source r77, or are you speculating?

Women have never been able to form one bloc because so many straight women (consciously or subconsciously) see their route to safety, security, power, influence, money, etc as running through straight men, and many straight men don’t care about the rights of women or gay men. So women compromise ourselves, thinking the small power straight men are willing to lend us is worth it (as many older women discover, it’s not).

Personally, solidarity with gay men is a lot more appealing for this DL Frau.

[quote]That may be the doctrine of Falwell and Graham and the modern fundamentalists, but it doesn't mean it was the doctrine of 18th century pastors. but it doesn't mean it was the doctrine of 18th century pastors.

This illustrates yet more 21st century projection and a woeful ignorance of the mentality of the 18th century. As if people exposed to choice are somehow more dogmatic/doctrinaire than people who had no concept of choice.

[quote]Women have never been able to form one bloc because so many straight women (consciously or subconsciously) see their route to safety, security, power, influence, money, etc as running through straight men, and many straight men don’t care about the rights of women or gay men. So women compromise ourselves, thinking the small power straight men are willing to lend us is worth it (as many older women discover, it’s not).

Wow. You've basically excused straight women any role they played in opposing gay rights.

No, straight women have privilege over gay men and opposing gay rights on their own accord.

[quote]Maybe if women spent more time voting and less time attending yet ANOTHER rally wearing vagina hats they wouldn't have this problem. They are the majority of the population after all.

Exactly where were these rallies r5 and how much time did women spend at them?

I don’t think it’s an excuse to say some women put their own comforts and interests first over people who are being persecuted and living much harder Iives. It’s a selfish choice but a common one. The people who step out of that mold are the special ones, like the gay men here who stand up for abortion rights.

There may be a lot of projection going on r80, including from you. It is not clear that the American colonists of the 18th century were all just like 21st century denizens of small towns in the Bible Belt. It just isn't. I don't think you have a solid basis for your beliefs about that era.

I'm speaking daily with my Lord and Savior on the best way to handle this.

Is it me, or has DL gotten dumber?

Yes, R86. There has been an influx of women.

Not my problem.

Whatever, Ebenezer.

OP, all law is settled law until the Supremes decide to unsettle it. There is nothing but political pressure to stop them from striking down statutes or overturning their own precedents.

[quote]It is not clear that the American colonists of the 18th century were all just like 21st century denizens of small towns in the Bible Belt. It just isn't. I don't think you have a solid basis for your beliefs about that era.

And that R84 is due to your ignorant 21st century projection. The empty-headed belief that people living 200 years ago are somehow no different in outlook to people living today.

It was Amy Covid Barrett who said when she was being questioned , that she considered Roe vs Wade “settled law”. That was supposed to reassure the easily fooled Susan Collins.

I think you are completely confused about the point r91. I think you got it completely backwards.

R77, prior to the 19th century, abortion was considered a crime only if it happened after the first trimester. Criminalization began with the rise of the medical profession. It has been suggested that the physicians were not pleased with competition from midwives, who not only assisted in births but also knew how to induce miscarriages. It is also clear from the laws passed targeting "apothecaries" that at least some of those establishments had for many years sold abortion-inducing drugs. There was an established underground trade in such drugs throughout the 19th century; there are newspaper advertisements offering "cures" for "female ailments" that are clearly dealing in euphemisms. And there have always been doctors who performed abortions even though the procedure was illegal. All of this is well-known.

[quote]I suspect you are speculating wildly and mixing up theory and practice.

He's not speculating, he's parroting myths promulgated in evangelical circles.

The dumbfuck who keeps droning on and on about how XTIAN the FOUNDING FATHERS were is as ignorant of history as any typical American. He's also sort of proud of himself for being so fucking annoying.

Well the problem with R34's argument, if that's what you want to call it, is that, if so, then every woman who becomes pregnant is, legally speaking, two lives.

Does she drink? Endangering life. Does she smoke? Endangering life. Is she blowing off medical treatment (for whatever reason)? Endangering life.

Thus, under his regime, the government would need to create a database of all pregnant women and monitor their behavior and movements to make sure they aren't committing crimes against the second person they carry.

If we kill a pregnant woman, we get charged with double murder. When a woman kills her baby by abortion, she doesn’t even get punished. Bring back the criminal penalties.

Biden and the Democrats need to balance the Supreme Court and other judiciary posts after all the Republican power steals and packing the courts.

We need to add 3 more seats to the Supreme Court.

If only Obama had lifted a finger to get Merrick Garland confirmed when Scalia died. Oh well...

Abort r98.

Lock him up and bring back the criminal penalties.

Fetuses are not human lives, fetuses can't feel pain most of their time, women who can provide for planned pregnancies are worlds different from women who can't and had a mishap and r98's religious bullshit is all a fraud.

Think of how much better the world would be if r98's mother had had an abortion. Think of how much better the world would be if every Repubicans' mother had aborted every Deplorable.

r98 is just going to kill innocent people with unnecessary Republican wars whenever some lobbyist wants a war. Those are real, human, adult lives who can actually feel pain. They just didn't have more money than Halliburton to bribe Republicans in Washington.

Fetus abortion needs to stay legal and r98 needs to become illegal.

Abort r98, please.

TL;DR. It was Kavanaugh himself that stated abortion was “settled law”. Go back to your fucking caves. That asshole perjured himself. That Barrett POS wasn’t even questioned by McConnell’s senate. Both need to be removed. However Sleepy Joe needs to take a dirt nap like all those old fossils in our legislative branch! (And no, I’ve never liked AOC). Fuck his reach across the aisle. Fuck him right in the ass! He can pretend he’s eating ice cream, only this time from his anus. So there, I said it!

To add: These mf red states only offer up cannon fodder for their money, so of course they are pro defense funding. Where do you think they get their money from?

Why all the fuss? A fuzzy slipper with a kitten heel, a strategically loose carpet, and a stairwell has always brought me luck.

Is it too late to abort Donald?

“We may well have a fresh start in the cause of life in America," Pence said. “It is our hope and our prayer that in the coming days, a new conservative majority on the Supreme Court of the United States will take action to restore the sanctity of life at the center of American law.”

Somebody tell Mike Pence that anti-abortion laws were never at the center of American law, and in fact abortion before "quickening" was perfectly legal for most of the history of the US—and only illegal for a time in some states. But he's not really interested in the sanctity of life.

Gallup says approval of Supreme Court is at an historic low at 40% approval.

R101 sounds like a lunatic. Lock him up in an insane asylum.

Of course, fetuses are living beings. Abortion is just plain cruel and evil.

[quote] The effect of overturning Roe v Wade will be to make abortion illegal for poor and middle-class women in most of the states in the country.

Not that I don't dread such a terrible occurrence for Roe but middle class women aren't chained to their states. How many middle class women take vacations and have cars. They can travel. As not ideal as that proposition is to have a termination. You can end up with serious cramping and really fell like shit afterwards. Not including the emotional side effects - those hormones can be a bitch. You do want to be home afterwards and not traveling or in a motel.

Even "poor" women are usually able to pull together money. Of course it all depends on their circumstances but there are and will be resources to help poor women. You'll need to define "poor".

Birth control will become more important and those who have avoided it in the past will need to be more mindful about it. Except for the cases of rape and failed contraception, I think more can be done to reduce the number of pregnancies, especially among younger women.

Planned Parenthood and other so called women's rights organizations should never have been so distracted by issues unrelated to women's rights and been working as hard at the state and local level as they have been on some other issues.

[quote]Birth control will become more important

The right wing will be taking aim at birth control. The TX law doesn't respect state boundaries, so traveling for an abortion isn't an option. And your scolding of Planned Parenthood is completely ignorant.

[quote] What about if they ever find the genetic component of homosexuality and how to test for it in utero? Would you still support abortion on demand if it meant gay babies/fetuses/zygotes whatever were being aborted just for that reason?

YES. What about a woman's right to choose do you not understand? Or do you propose we reinstitute panels of people a woman must appear before to beg for permission to terminate a pregnancy?

I may not agree with a woman's reasons but that is not my right to decide that for her.

[quote] There is NO RIGHT to privacy in the constitution.

There are many things NOT in the constitution that we now acknowledge emanate from the rights and purposes of the constitution.

Much of Fourth Amendment law is based on the right to privacy.

The right to bodily integrity and privacy in the most personal matters of the body naturally emanates for the constitution.

Trying to argue back that there is no right to privacy would mean upending Griswold its progeny as well. It is an idiotic argument.

We have always known that Roe was flawed but only in superficial ways such as timelines of pregnancy, but its basic premise that a woman can control what happens to her body without interference from the state - and that is what pregnancy and abortion is all about - is not flawed. It is a natural expansion of the constitution as well as the other precedents on privacy. Once you fuck with precedent in one area of the law so thoroughly then you can ignore precedent on all others.

[quote]The right wing will be taking aim at birth control. The TX law doesn't respect state boundaries, so traveling for an abortion isn't an option. And your scolding of Planned Parenthood is completely ignorant.

Of course traveling for abortion is an option. That part of the law will not be upheld for any reason. The right wing has been taking aim at birth control since the 1980s when they labeled everything abortifacients. I am smelling that argument in this thread.

My scolding of PP is exactly what is needed. PP needs to understand what their main purpose is and who they mainly exist to serve. They have failed women and squandered enormous resources. And still they want my money.

Fine, we'll agree that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution if the right wing will agree there is no right to contract. Google Lochner.

Republicans want women to go the way of Revolutionary Road.

These Pukes AND the Supremes want women to be barefoot and cooking in the kitchen while she is raped pregnant. Could it be more obvious?

I hate to say it, but if they do this, it may save the mid terms.

And gay men object to leaving abortion to the states because ...

Because women's rights are everybody's rights.

And too many states are assholes.

Susan Collins is shaken by Kavanaugh's line of questioning.

What do you want - the freedom to terminate or all those red state bitches driving to blue states to get the job done before church?

Because gay men have relatives and friends who might have an unwanted pregnancy? Because control of one's own sex life goes beyond reproduction and covers a few things that gay men might also be concerned about? Because the same people making abortion illegal are also gunning to make birth control and gay marriage illegal?

Thought Experiment: What will Repugs do when they finally get their way? They have been obsessed with abortion for 30 years! More than any other issue it's abortion, abortion, abortion judges. Literally some younger Repugs have grown up only knowing this as a life struggle. Will they turn on gays next? Hillary has finally seemed to have fallen off their radar. Is it AOC? They need a bad guy to keep the sheeple angry and watching Faux News.

[quote]Susan Collins is shaken by Kavanaugh's line of questioning.

Susan Collins shakes drinking coffee.

I think the news reports of women having difficulties and traveling to other states will likely have some effect on behavior and there will be more attention and effort by people to prevent conception to avoid the abortion mess altogether. That will reduce the number of people running to their states in the future.

Repugs want it both ways. They dont want woman to have abortions, but they are against the pill to. Especially the morning after pill.

I hope this is a huge wake up call for Democrats, do you need any more evidence that the Supreme Court is stacked? Fix it now before the midterms or it will never happen. Once they get some power back, they will try to undo everything that the Dems did in the last year, plus they will double down. You think 3 judges is stacked? You think it's too radical to add more, Ha, Ha, losers, Repugs will do what Dems were afraid to do and stack the court with even more judges. And it wont be about abortion. Goodby voting rights, goodby gay marriage, good buy middle class, hello rich and powerful, how can we serve you today?

Why don’t they simply tell these Holes to stay far, far away from COCK! ….Or if need be, tell the COCK to wear a condom!! Is it really that HARD!

Day after and twenty minutes into Morning Joe not a word about it.

R125 I asked the same question on Twitter. What will they fund raise off of next? The irony is if they think the population will finally rise as all of these mythical abortions stop they are going to be surprised. Birth rates have been plummeting for years now - imagine how much of a drop there will be when girls - and married women - know that they will have absolutely no alternative?

I guess those abortion pills will quickly become Amazon's hottest seller lol.

[quote]I asked the same question on Twitter. What will they fund raise off of next?

Trans. I mean, you're on DL, haven't you seen it with your own eyes? The Repugs need those single-issue white women voting for them, and they know it's a demographic that merely needs an excuse to vote against their own interests, so they're using the "evil trannies in yer bathrooms!" scaremongering tactics as a way to give those women voters that excuse.

I'd say the "CRT in schools" issue might pop up again in the midterms as well, like it did in the 2021 elections, and which suddenly we are hearing absolutely NOTHING about anymore. In six to eight months those Concerned Mothers will be back, worried about their children being indoctrinated with CRT lies teaching their kids that all white people are evil.

[quote]Because the same people making abortion illegal are also gunning to make birth control and gay marriage illegal?

Between the selfish, the stupid, and the trolls, there aren't many people on DL who are able to think critically about the issue. All they think about this is that "stupid Karens don't know how to use birth control, why do I fucking care, it's not my concern and also it's probably murder when you think about it, my dear ma-ma always said so."

The GOP is waging war against all personal, individual freedoms, and they're starting with attacks on abortion, voting rights, and LGBT rights, but as long as all the elderloungers see are attacks on trans and abortion, they won't pay any attention. They have episodes of "1000 Lbs Sisters" to catch up on.

Fashionably Protesting

Where are the 1 million woman who marched in pussy hats after Trump got elected? You would think this actually matters more to them. Just a handful outside the Supreme Court.