Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade?

SeniorBen said:
They talked about executive action options on the NewsHour this evening and this is what was being considered...

Abortion on federal property
Declare a public health emergency
Expand access on military bases
Increase access to medication abortion
Medicaid funding for interstate travel

They've taken abortion on federal property off the table, as well as the military base option. The abortion pill is really the only viable option for the federal government. Women could order the medication perhaps through a website or over the phone and states would be powerless to do anything about it.

I would guess that a medically induced abortion would be a really unpleasant if not painful experience for the pregnant woman, though... especially having to do that in their bathroom when it should be done in a doctor's office.
Click to expand...
It's going to be interesting to see how all of this spins out.
 

Brookswood said:
Brookswood Said: "Each state will have to address the abortion issue. They will have to work it out, keeping in mind that the middle ground, where most people are, won't tolerate a total ban on abortion, or abortion of babies who could easily survive outside the womb. "
Click to expand...
I am in that middle ground, but much of the time, I feel all alone. I would really like to see the conservative Democrats and the liberal Republicans get together and form a third viable party.
 
Last edited:
Em in Ohio said:
I am in that middle ground, but much of the time, I feel all alone. I would really like to see the conservative Democrats and the liberal Republicans get together and form a third viable party.
Click to expand...
Many of us would find that far more palatable than what we've got now. There are too many extremists in office - on both sides of the aisle. And nobody seems interested in finding common ground or finding a compromise.
 
Nathan said:
It comes to mind that maybe the end of Roe v. Wade will stimulate the whole public conversation on reproductive responsibility. With Roe v. Wade protections the focus was on women[only] and what they could and should do about unwanted pregnancy. Now, maybe the debate will be more focused on men stepping up and being responsible as well.
Click to expand...
I am not going to hold my breath.
 
If the courts would hold the fathers financially responsible for the child until the babies are 18 years old that would get men more serious about randomly 'popping' babies. Of course, this would only apply when a mother chooses not to abort their baby. Having fathers responsible financially would also give women another option to keep the child, if they knew they would get help supporting the child. Less abortions would be good.

Less pregnancies would be better...
 
Timewise 60+ said:
If the courts would hold the fathers financially responsible for the child until the babies are 18 years old that would get men more serious about randomly 'popping' babies. Of course, this would only apply when a mother chooses not to abort their baby. Having fathers responsible financially would also give women another option to keep the child, if they knew they would get help supporting the child. Less abortions would be good.

Less pregnancies would be better...
Click to expand...
They do.

The courts do hold fathers financially responsible. Fathers are required by law to provide financial support for their children. That's pretty much a given, but if an attorney has to get a court-order to ensure a man meets his responsibilities, the court will give or send the man legal documents fully explaining their legal obligations, as well as all the possible consequences he faces if he fails to comply. Courts can impose jail sentences, garnish wages, and seize tax refunds, inheritances, and other gains.

The problem isn't with the courts.
 
Murrmurr said:
They do.

The courts do hold fathers financially responsible. Fathers are required by law to provide financial support for their children. That's pretty much a given, but if an attorney has to get a court-order to ensure a man meets his responsibilities, the court will give or send the man legal documents fully explaining their legal obligations, as well as all the possible consequences he faces if he fails to comply. Courts can impose jail sentences, garnish wages, and seize tax refunds, inheritances, and other gains.

The problem isn't with the courts.
Click to expand...
It's a bad idea.
Before the tv channel that had numerous "true crime" shows stopped airing on over-the-air tv, there were some examples of 'fathers' who murdered their children because they resented paying child support. I wouldn't doubt if it's more common.
Two that I recall: a guy in California threw his 5-year-old off a cliff into the Pacific Ocean, and a guy in a southern state threw his baby off a bridge.

Personally I believe the old way was better: if an individual does not want a family, he should stay out of the picture and have no obligations.
 
Timewise 60+ said:
If the courts would hold the fathers financially responsible for the child until the babies are 18 years old that would get men more serious about randomly 'popping' babies. Of course, this would only apply when a mother chooses not to abort their baby. Having fathers responsible financially would also give women another option to keep the child, if they knew they would get help supporting the child. Less abortions would be good.

Less pregnancies would be better...
Click to expand...
There's a lot more to raising children than receiving some (often grudging) financial support. Since you've raised children you already know the enormous commitment of time, energy, patience and freedom needed to bring up a child. Doing it solo means even greater sacrifices.

Raising children often permanently disrupts a woman's pursuit of higher education and/or her career trajectory, particularly if that woman is on her own. Releasing a child for adoption is something very few women acknowledge even to their husbands or subsequent children because of the lifelong stigma and shame involved.

I know a woman who got pregnant at 17, stayed in her parents' house throughout the entire pregnancy, and gave up the baby. She not only wonders about that boy (now over 50 years old), she lives in dread fear that one of his children and one of her relatives - including children and grands - will do an Ancestry.com type test and her secret will be discovered.

Adoption for the adoptive parents is a very different kettle of fish than adoption for the mother who gives up the child. I'm not anti-adoption by any means. I just recognize that it has unseen reefs over which the releasing mother stumbles and cuts herself thousands of times throughout her life.
 
JaniceM said:
It's a bad idea.
Before the tv channel that had numerous "true crime" shows stopped airing on over-the-air tv, there were some examples of 'fathers' who murdered their children because they resented paying child support. I wouldn't doubt if it's more common.
Two that I recall: a guy in California threw his 5-year-old off a cliff into the Pacific Ocean, and a guy in a southern state threw his baby off a bridge.

Personally I believe the old way was better: if an individual does not want a family, he should stay out of the picture and have no obligations.
Click to expand...
woo. Ok, those are psychopaths. Courts deal with them separately.

Most chitty fathers have no problem avoiding child-support. Nearly all chitty fathers don't have a job. The court-ordered payments stand, but we're talking about 10% to 25% of zero, so...

So, how does a chitty dad support himself, you ask? He shows up at each baby-mama's place on the 3rd of each month, when she gets her monthly Families With Dependent Children allowance, and then again on the day her EBT card gets loaded up with the grocery benefit.

Well, at least that's how it's done around here... "here" being California.
 
Murrmurr said:
woo. Ok, those are psychopaths. Courts deal with them separately.

Most chitty fathers have no problem avoiding child-support. Nearly all chitty fathers don't have a job. The court-ordered payments stand, but we're talking about 10% to 25% of zero, so...

So, how does a chitty dad support himself, you ask? He shows up at each baby-mama's place on the 3rd of each month, when she gets her monthly Families With Dependent Children allowance, and then again on the day her EBT card gets loaded up with the grocery benefit.

Well, at least that's how it's done around here... "here" being California.
Click to expand...
My Chitty first husband and chitty father of my child, was ordered by the courts to pay maintenance when we broke up when dd was 8 years old. He didn't pay, so 3 years later I got it taken back to court and he lied through his teeth and said that every Friday he came by here and paid in Cash which is why he had no proof that he had paid, and that I was lying to the court to get even more money

The court believed him and told him to continue paying.. the fact was , that he never paid a penny..not one solitary cent ever... he then shacked up with a woman who was pregnant with another man's kid, got her pregnant immediately again after she'd given birth to a son.. claimed the son and daughter as his own... so when I took him back to court about 3 years later he told the court he couldn't afford to pay because he had 2 children ( he went on to have a third)... they told him he must pay so he left his job, and went onto the dole.. where there's no ( or at least then) there was no requirement to pay maintenance..
When my dd was 18 and still in full time Education, I learned he was working , and took him back to court,...and he told the same lie he'd told when she was 11 years old.. that he'd been paying every single Friday for the last 10 years.. so the Courts threw it out , and I never ever did get a penny for my daughters upbringing ..
 
Last edited:
Murrmurr said:
woo. Ok, those are psychopaths. Courts deal with them separately.

Most chitty fathers have no problem avoiding child-support. Nearly all chitty fathers don't have a job. The court-ordered payments stand, but we're talking about 10% to 25% of zero, so...

So, how does a chitty dad support himself, you ask? He shows up at each baby-mama's place on the 3rd of each month, when she gets her monthly Families With Dependent Children allowance, and then again on the day her EBT card gets loaded up with the grocery benefit.

Well, at least that's how it's done around here... "here" being California.
Click to expand...
It's Not only California....these scumbag "sperm donors" exist everywhere. The "emphasis" always seem to be placed on the women, and the males get off with little or no consequences. IMO, when an unmarried woman has a child, she should be obligated to identify the male involved and if that clown is impregnating women, then leaving them to fend for themselves, he should be sterilized. If these scumbags want to live like an animal, society should Not have to "subsidize" their stupidity.
 
hollydolly said:
My Chitty first husband and chitty father of my child, was ordered by the courts to pay maintenance when we broke up when dd was 8 years old. He didn't pay, so 3 years later I got it taken back to court and he lied through his teeth and said that every Friday he came by here and paid in Cash which is why he had no proof that he had paid, and that I was lying to the court to get even more money

The court believed him and told him to continue paying.. the fact was , that he never paid a penny..not one solitary cent ever... he then shacked up with a woman who was pregnant with another man's kid, got her pregnant immediately again after she'd given birth to a on.. claimed the son and daughter as his own... so when I took him back to court about 3 years later he told the court he couldn't afford to pay because he had 2 children ( he went on to have a third)... they told him he must pay so he left his job, and went onto the dole.. where there's no ( or at least then) there was no requirement to pay maintenance..
When my dd was 18 and still in full time Education, I learned he was working , and took him back to court,...and he told the same lie he'd told when she was 11 years old.. that he'd been paying every single Friday for the last 10 years.. so the Courts threw it out , and I never ever did get a penny for my daughters upbringing ..
Click to expand...
Courts here found a way around that "I paid cash" BS: The supporting parent has to pay through the local District Attorney's office and then the DA sends mom (or dad) a check or makes an auto-deposit the her (or his) bank account.
 
hollydolly said:
yes I wish they'd had that here 40 years ago but they didn't....
Click to expand...
I think it didn't start here until the 90s. Also, back in the day, single moms who wanted to "protect" the father from "persecution" used to say they had no idea who the child's father was, could be any number of men, and while the courts could request a paternity test, the request had no teeth. Today, of course, courts can order a DNA test, and there are consequences for defying the order.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top