Abortion rights backers rally in anger over post-Roe future

Paco Dennis

Paco Dennis

SF VIP
Location
Mid-Missouri
Here comes the blow back....

800.jpeg


Part of the 3 minute read

"In the nation’s capital, thousands gathered in drizzly weather at the Washington Monument to listen to fiery speeches before marching to the Supreme Court, which was surrounded by two layers of security fences.

The mood was one of anger and defiance, three days after the Senate failed to muster enough votes to codify Roe v. Wade.

“I can’t believe that at my age, I’m still having to protest over this,” said Samantha Rivers, a 64-year-old federal government employee who is preparing for a state-by-state battle over abortion rights.

Caitlin Loehr, 34, of Washington, wore a black T-shirt with an image of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s “dissent” collar on it and a necklace that spelled out “vote.”

.............................................................................

From Pittsburgh to Los Angeles, and Nashville, Tennessee, to Lubbock, Texas, tens of thousands participated in events, where chants of “Bans off our bodies!” and “My body, my choice!” rang out. The gatherings were largely peaceful, but in some cities there were tense confrontations between people on opposing sides of the issue."

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-new-york-city-88bd8dd83f9df333f61ec2de647f955d

 

Control is the issue, the extremists have cultivated a Taliban-like mentality through media, disregarding the portions of the Constitution that they don't can't abide by...."separation of church & state", "equal protection clause" to name a couple. They want to roll back societal norms back to where men would tell women: "do what you were told".
 

Maybe some good will come from it and people will be motivated to vote.

I watched an interview with the governor of Alabama I think it was and she was excited about the prospect of overturning Roe vs. Wade. The real problem was her rationale. She had no qualms admitting that her motivation was based on her religious views. Passing laws based on religious beliefs is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment.
 
The 1st Ammendment says: "Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise." This woman is freely exercising her right to vote based on her religious beliefs. She's not a member of Congress passing a law based on the beliefs of a particular religious establishment.

There are lots of religious people who are pro-choice and non-religious people who are pro-life. It may be a religious issue for some people, but for many people it's just a question of when life begins.

If they think the life of a fetus is as valuable as the life of a four year-old then they are against abortion for any reason other than to save the life of the mother.

If they think the fetus is never a viable life then they're pro-choice and believe it's simply up to the mother, whether or not she wants to get rid of it.

If they think life begins somewhere around the fourth month (which is what most doctors believe and what the Bible seems to affirm with the concept of "quickening,") then they're probably in that gray area where abortion should be legal in the first trimester.

We already have laws against murder and laws against stealing and laws against bearing false witness in a court of law. These are part of the Christian/Judeo Ten Commandments, but we don't over turn them because they're based on the religious beliefs of certain people.
 
I'm a religious person but pro choice in all matters. I can't even explain it but it seems right to keep religion out of this issue and if a person has a deeply held religious conviction they can handle it their own way, according to that belief, without forcing it into a law that will effect all.
 
Why are some women getting pregnant when there are birth control options? Stupid is as stupid does apparently, and then they scream and holler when someone says they can't kill the baby.
 
Chet said:
Why are some women getting pregnant when there are birth control options? Stupid is as stupid does apparently, and then they scream and holler when someone says they can't kill the baby.
Click to expand...

A course of antibiotics can lessen the effectiveness of hormone based birth control. There have even been rare instances of tubal ligation failure.

Then there are addicts who get knocked up and use throughout their pregnancy. I almost believe in testing there and incarceration in a specialized maternity facility until the baby is born.
 
chic said:
I can't even explain it but it seems right to keep religion out of this issue and if a person has a deeply held religious conviction they can handle it their own way, according to that belief, without forcing it into a law that will effect all.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I believe from an evolutionary/biological standpoint that to terminate a fetus capable of living (unassisted by extensive early life support) outside the womb without a medical reason to do so is taking the life of a baby and is the moral equivalent of murder. But I also don't believe in legislating morality.
 
What if a fetus has Down's Syndrome? Has anyone considered how many more Down's Syndrome children would be born without the safety net of abortion as an option for the expectant mother?
:unsure:
 
i was listening to a discussion on this...cant recall where now...sorry. they stated fetus is not viable until
3months...when it could live on its own. its just a bundle of cells for some time. this issue is brought up
for political reasons Over and Over and has little to do with the baby or the woman.
as for political gain reasons oh its a bundle of joy that None of these pols have to support for 20years.

every day more and more people canNot Feed their kids. they dont want any, they dont want more.

as for how it happens...how did you get here?
did you blame your mother for having sex and who helped her have the sex, who deposited the 'seed'...
it was not the woman.
but of course all the blame and heat falls upon the woman.
...which is so witch hunty.

its downright creepy to keep dealing with this topic in personal lives of women at this point in time.
we can barely feed the pop of both human and animal on this planet Now, why would more humans
be desired.
makes no sense. but thats how we roll now.
 
SeniorBen said:
Maybe some good will come from it and people will be motivated to vote.

I watched an interview with the governor of Alabama I think it was and she was excited about the prospect of overturning Roe vs. Wade. The real problem was her rationale. She had no qualms admitting that her motivation was based on her religious views. Passing laws based on religious beliefs is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...
The trouble with that is that they can also be motivated to vote for the wrong people!
 
SeniorBen said:
Maybe some good will come from it and people will be motivated to vote.

I watched an interview with the governor of Alabama I think it was and she was excited about the prospect of overturning Roe vs. Wade. The real problem was her rationale. She had no qualms admitting that her motivation was based on her religious views. Passing laws based on religious beliefs is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry @SeniorBen but once more you have it backwards.
The First Amendment prohibits government from interfering with religion.
The First Amendment does not prohibit people with religious beliefs (or philosophical beliefs or no beliefs or anything else) from "free exercise of religion." All citizens are accorded free speech by the First Amendment which allows you to advocate for and act upon whatever personal motivations you may have to influence government. That is not a "blatant violation," but in fact exercise of her First Amendment rights by the governor of Alabama.
 
spectratg said:
I'm sorry @SeniorBen but once more you have it backwards.
The First Amendment prohibits government from interfering with religion.
The First Amendment does not prohibit people with religious beliefs (or philosophical beliefs or no beliefs or anything else) from "free exercise of religion." All citizens are accorded free speech by the First Amendment which allows you to advocate for and act upon whatever personal motivations you may have to influence government. That is not a "blatant violation," but in fact exercise of her First Amendment rights by the governor of Alabama.
Click to expand...
What part of this don't you understand? It couldn't be any clearer.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Basically, if the government (congress) passes a law based on religious beliefs (i.e. abortion bans), they would be legislating the establishment of religion, which violates the federal Constitution.

People have a 1st Amendment right to try to influence government to violate the 1st Amendment, but the government can't actually do it.
 
SeniorBen said:
What part of this don't you understand? It couldn't be any clearer.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Basically, if the government (congress) passes a law based on religious beliefs (i.e. abortion bans), they would be legislating the establishment of religion, which violates the federal Constitution.

People have a right to try to influence government to violate the 1st Amendment, but the government can't actually do it.
Click to expand...

"An establishment of religion" refers to the US not having an "established" church such as the Church of England. That's all.
 
People have generally complained about the decisions of the Supreme Court. If this amendment were to pass, the people would be permitted to make the choice. As popular as Roe v Wade is, I would expect the law would change in all states to allow abortions, except some states may include certain restrictions and for some people that may be an issue.

In my opinion, some states have taken their abortion laws too far. I think from just scanning over the various states, New York may be the least restrictive. They allow abortions right up to full term. I read that in NYC, black women have had more abortions than deliveries. Is that possible?
 
ohioboy said:
That is one interpretation, but far from the legal perspective of seperation.
Click to expand...
That's only one line from the First Amendment. There's more about protecting freedom of religion, but that's mostly about the freedom to worship as one sees fit. The rest is interpretation.


oldman said:
People have generally complained about the decisions of the Supreme Court. If this amendment were to pass, the people would be permitted to make the choice. As popular as Roe v Wade is, I would expect the law would change in all states to allow abortions, except some states may include certain restrictions and for some people that may be an issue.

In my opinion, some states have taken their abortion laws too far. I think from just scanning over the various states, New York may be the least restrictive. They allow abortions right up to full term. I read that in NYC, black women have had more abortions than deliveries. Is that possible?
Click to expand...

Not just possible, but true. Why this should be so I have no idea.

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...a-meyer-says-more-black-babies-are-aborted-n/
 

Back
Top