Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade?

Geezer Garage said:
Not so sure about that. There are probably as many ex-military that are more left than right. War has a way of doing that. Right wing extremists are not the only Americans with guns either.
Click to expand...
I have trouble understanding what should be considered liberal vs conservative on the abortion issue.

I have always believed my position, that the government should stay out of it was the conservative position. Conservatives generally oppose unnecessary government intervention and interference, why not here?
 

The new right will do anything for a vote, this is why they got cozy with the religious evangelists, and sold what few principles they had left, and promised the demise of Roe V Wade in exchange. This is not your fathers Republican Party.

Alligatorob said:
I have always believed my position, that the government should stay out of it was the conservative position. Conservatives generally oppose unnecessary government intervention and interference, why not here?
Click to expand...
 
Yes, let's leave it to the states. :rolleyes: I'm surprised no one has mentioned that 13 states have abortion "trigger" laws that have never been rescinded and will kick in immediately if power is given to the states.

https://www.today.com/news/news/13-states-abortion-trigger-laws-roe-v-wade-overturned-rcna27268

Also, Louisiana is advancing a law to classify abortion as homicide. They have lots of low-income residents, so that makes a lot of sense... not.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/lo...ill-classifying-abortion-homicide-2022-05-05/
 
I don't see why fetuses should have more rights than other people, I think if they take away women's choice over the use of their bodies, they should allow any person younger than another person to get parts of the older person's body. I bet if a politician's younger sibling had a right to demand a piece of liver or a kidney to support their own health, that the politicians wouldn't be worrying about the younger sibling's right to life.
 
Em in Ohio said:
I just have to say that my first thought on reading this was that the framers of the Constitution were a bunch of relatively old white men (long dead) and times have changed. But, I agree with your statement. Rewrites, anyone?
Click to expand...
Rewrite the Constitution? If you have an example of a shining pinnacle of democracy that you believe would be a superior replacement for our form of old white man government, please share.
 
ElCastor said:
Rewrite the Constitution? If you have an example of a shining pinnacle of democracy that you believe would be a superior replacement for our form of old white man government, please share.
Click to expand...
Interesting. For how many centuries do you think the original US constitution should stand?
The Brits no longer think that the Magna Carta is a document for all time.
It was important once but would be useless today.
 
Em in Ohio said:
I just have to say that my first thought on reading this was that the framers of the Constitution were a bunch of relatively old white men (long dead) and times have changed. But, I agree with your statement. Rewrites, anyone?
Click to expand...

Actually, the framers (except for Franklin) were young men. Adams was 37. Hamilton was 30. Madison was 36.
 
Geezer Garage said:
Not so sure about that. There are probably as many ex-military that are more left than right. War has a way of doing that. Right wing extremists are not the only Americans with guns either.
Click to expand...

Geezer Garage said:
The new right will do anything for a vote, this is why they got cozy with the religious evangelists, and sold what few principles they had left, and promised the demise of Roe V Wade in exchange. This is not your fathers Republican Party.
Click to expand...

Isn't there a "no politics" rule here? I would be happy to go into the fine points of leftist folly but when I do the moderator turns me off.
 
I read that entire Draft Opinion of Scalia's last night. I was most interesting and I still cannot understand why the Supreme Court opted to hear the original case in the first place since it had nothing to do with our Constitutional law. Of course after all the law clerks pulled a sentence or phrase from several amendments, most notably, the 14th, it had become a cause celebre.
 
Sunny said:
Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows - POLITICO

This hasn't happened yet, but the Supreme Court seems to be indicating that that is what they are planning. It sounds to me like this would end Federal protection of abortion rights, but each state would have to vote (probably continuously) on whether it is legal. The predictable result would be that women seeking abortion would have to travel to the states where it is still legal. This would mainly affect those who are too poor to travel.

Do you think this will ever happen, or will some of the justices change their minds?
Click to expand...
Just reposting to get the thread back on track.
 
Warrigal said:
Interesting. For how many centuries do you think the original US constitution should stand?
The Brits no longer think that the Magna Carta is a document for all time.
Click to expand...
Because of our ability to amend it I think the US Constitution will likely survive as long as the US does. Don't think the Magna Carta is subject to amendment.

As is often said its not a perfect document or process, just better than any alternative we know of...
 
JimBob1952 said:
Isn't there a "no politics" rule here?
Click to expand...
Those boundaries seem a bit fuzzy, but maybe like our Constitution it works anyway...

By some definitions this whole thread is political, but I am happy it has been allowed. People have been, for the most part, reasonable and respectful. As a result I have a better understanding of the diversity of views on the abortion issue. I think that is a good thing.
 
Em in Ohio said:
Just reposting to get the thread back on track.
Click to expand...
POLITICO a newspaper, web page, mouthpiece? Is “Leaking” this, is what is called trial by public opinion? Do you think the justices are just sitting around watching TV, reading internet bloggers/influencers and reading POLITICO for how they should vote? Maybe, could this have been “put out there” to inflame people? Have we gotten where we need our next big thing to rile people up? From Wikipedia about who owns POLITICO Axel Springer SE, a German publisher, announced in August 2021 that it had agreed to buy Politico from founder Robert Allbritton for over $1 billion. The closing took place in late October 2021.[6] The new owners have indicated that they will add staff, and at some point, put the publication's news content behind a paywall.[7][8] Axel Springer is Europe's largest newspaper publisher and had previously acquired the Insider.
 
Alligatorob said:
What would that, the ERA, change?
Click to expand...
ElCastor asked about what change -- I offered not a change, but a modification.

What would it change if it was in the constitution? A long over due recognition of half the citizenry. The caprice of the court to decided in certain circumstances to apply laws differently. It removes that option. I am not a lawyer but I do think it should be specifically spelled out not subject to interpretation.
 
Wontactmyage said:
POLITICO a newspaper, web page, mouthpiece? Is “Leaking” this, is what is called trial by public opinion? Do you think the justices are just sitting around watching TV, reading internet bloggers/influencers and reading POLITICO for how they should vote? Maybe, could this have been “put out there” to inflame people? Have we gotten where we need our next big thing to rile people up? From Wikipedia about who owns POLITICO Axel Springer SE, a German publisher, announced in August 2021 that it had agreed to buy Politico from founder Robert Allbritton for over $1 billion. The closing took place in late October 2021.[6] The new owners have indicated that they will add staff, and at some point, put the publication's news content behind a paywall.[7][8] Axel Springer is Europe's largest newspaper publisher and had previously acquired the Insider.
Click to expand...
Why not put it up for popular vote?
 
Last edited:
Jules said:
You were correct Marie. That’s exactly what pro choice is about.
Click to expand...
I knew someone who had adopted a child and was a terrible mother. She even called the child a bastard and was okay with the child-eating dog food. After seeing that I could never be at peace with bringing a child into this world and leaving the child to be raised by unknown people.

I also would not want to bring a child into this world with severe birth defects. Life is hard enough without severe birth defects. I was born without a left hip socket and fortunately, science and medicine resolved this problem, and something like that would not be a severe birth defect, however, if the child was unable to communicate, or to become independent, then maybe a soul should not be trapped in such a body?.
 
Flarbalard said:
What would it change if it was in the constitution? A long over due recognition of half the citizenry. The caprice of the court to decided in certain circumstances to apply laws differently. It removes that option. I am not a lawyer but I do think it should be specifically spelled out not subject to interpretation.
Click to expand...
I am not a lawyer either, and I agree we probably owe women "A long over due recognition of half the citizenry." However I am not sure the Constitution is the place to do that. Amendments should be substantive not symbolic.

"The caprice of the court to decided in certain circumstances to apply laws differently. It removes that option." A very good reason for an amendment, but as a non-lawyer I don't know how true or useful that would be.

It would help to have some discussion and legally based opinions on the issue, ones focusing on how this amendment would make substantive and positive changes.

I am all for women's rights, as I hope are most people, that is not the reason I am a bit ambivalent on this issue. I did support the ERA back when it was first put forward, and with the right reasons would again.
 
Alligatorob said:
I am not a lawyer either, and I agree we probably owe women "A long over due recognition of half the citizenry." However I am not sure the Constitution is the place to do that. Amendments should be substantive not symbolic.

"The caprice of the court to decided in certain circumstances to apply laws differently. It removes that option." A very good reason for an amendment, but as a non-lawyer I don't know how true or useful that would be.

It would help to have some discussion and legally based opinions on the issue, ones focusing on how this amendment would make substantive and positive changes.

I am all for women's rights, as I hope are most people, that is not the reason I am a bit ambivalent on this issue. I did support the ERA back when it was first put forward, and with the right reasons would again.
Click to expand...
I've never thought of it as symbolic.

I would be interested in what the women here have to say on the subject, but it's probably best for a different thread. I didn't mean to hijack this one.
 
Don M. said:
It looks like California is setting itself up to become the nations "go to" abortion site, if the Supreme Court and other States continue to pass rules banning abortion.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/roe-under-threat-california-leans-040533153.html
Click to expand...
It won't be just California. Other blue states will help women whose right to choose are going to be denied in their states.

Plenty of left wing, right wing and centrist women in every state of the union have had abortions and want that option available to their own children. I can't imagine anything more distressing than a high school or college student coming home with the news that there's an unplanned pregnancy to deal with - whether it's the son or daughter breaking the news. Talk about one of the fastest routes to derail a young person's future plans.

If a young person came to me with the above situation, I'd highly recommend a safe, legal abortion. Post haste.

It's estimated that 25% of American women have had an abortion, though few acknowledge it publicly because of the stigma. Also it's none of anyone's business.

To Americans reading this post, I can say with fair certainty that one of the following has had an abortion: you, your sig other, a sister, cousin, or close friend has surely had one. You might not even know about it because that girl/woman's life chugged right along...
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top