Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade?

StarSong said:
Under previous SCOTUS justices I'd have agreed with you, but my confidence is zero with this court.
Click to expand...
The 14th amendment is pretty specific and has been ruled on to state: “The U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court recognize and protect the right to interstate travel. The travel right entails privacy and free domestic movement without governmental abridgment.”

I am not arguing or debating this issue with or against you, but am just trying to assure you that if Missouri would attempt to pass such a law, I would hope the SC would deny Missouri’s right to do so.
 

Don M. said:
Absolutely! If I were "king", I would ban ALL private political donations, and assign a "fixed" amount of government money to All candidates, based upon which office they are running for. We would be Far Better off spending some taxpayer money and getting politicians who are not firmly in the pockets of the wealthy special interests.
Click to expand...
If you were "king" with that kind of power, there would be no elections in your country. And you'd be the person who wealthy special interests would be greasing in one way or another to curry favor.
 
oldman said:
The 14th amendment is pretty specific and has been ruled on to state: “The U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court recognize and protect the right to interstate travel. The travel right entails privacy and free domestic movement without governmental abridgment.”

I am not arguing or debating this issue with or against you, but am just trying to assure you that if Missouri would attempt to pass such a law, I would hope the SC would deny Missouri’s right to do so.
Click to expand...
I'd hope so, too. But the jury is out on our current SCOTUS.
 

StarSong said:
I'd hope so, too. But the jury is out on our current SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
I have always wished they would take out the politics of the highest court in the nation. Presidents have the pleasure of nominating justices, but the senate has the last say. Depending on what political party is in charge by the numbers, then that party is actually seating the Justice. I think instead of a simple majority getting to seat a Justice, it should be a two-thirds vote. That may complicate things by making the process longer, but I believe that at least some of the politics would be removed.
 
oldman said:
I have always wished they would take out the politics of the highest court in the nation. Presidents have the pleasure of nominating justices, but the senate has the last say. Depending on what political party is in charge by the numbers, then that party is actually seating the Justice. I think instead of a simple majority getting to seat a Justice, it should be a two-thirds vote. That may complicate things by making the process longer, but I believe that at least some of the politics would be removed.
Click to expand...
It's been a long time since Senators have reached across the aisle, I'm sorry to say.
 
SeniorBen said:
Those companies only pay for their employees to travel for an abortion. Unemployed women or women who don't work for companies who pay for travel don't have those resources. This ruling will only affect poor women, and those are the women who are least able to take care of a child.
Click to expand...

Planned Parenthood took in 1.6 billion in the fiscal 2019/2020 year. I’m pretty sure they could and will handle any transportation issues by donations from multibillion dollar companies that want to help.
 
Buckeye said:
No matter where you live, there will be restrictions on your freedom. Women in many states have lost nothing. The women in states like Texas can work to get the laws changed, but until then have to work around restrictions. Are women in Australia free to do whatever they want? For example, can they carry a side arm to protect themselves, if they wish?
Click to expand...

No-one can carry a sidearm for the purpose of self protection unless it is necessary for their employment. This applies to both men and women. Murder by sidearm is extremely rare in Australia and the perp is usually a policeman who shoots his own wife.
Buckeye said:
This ruling is not the end of the discussion. Pro-abortion people can work in their own state to change laws as necessary and at the same time start the process to amend the constitution. Just get 2/3 of Congress to pass a bill, then have 3/4 of the states ratify it. It's been done before...
Click to expand...

And how long will that take? A woman in need of a termination has less than 12 weeks up her sleeve, so what is she supposed to do while waiting for the state legislation to be changed, or the amendment process to be concluded?

I learned yesterday that a charity organisation in the Netherlands is gearing up to provide medicinal abortions to US women. Also, that states where abortion is still legal are preparing to send mobile clinics to the borders of states where women cannot access reproductive health care and will treat anyone who is able to cross the border. The US, in this regard, is starting to resemble a third world country where women are treated like chattels, denied their rights to determine their own destinies.
 
Last edited:
Warrigal said:
No-one car carry a sidearm for the purpose of self protection unless it is necessary for their employment. This applies to both men and women. Murder by sidearm is extremely rare in Australia and the perp is usually a policeman who shoots his own wife.


And how long will that take? A woman in need of a termination has less than 12 weeks up her sleeve, so what is she supposed to do while waiting for the state legislation to be changed, or the amendment process to be concluded?

I learned yesterday that a charity organisation in the Netherlands is gearing up to provide medicinal abortions to US women. Also, that states where abortion is still legal are preparing to send mobile clinics to the borders of states where women cannot access reproductive health care and will treat anyone who is able to cross the border. The US, in this regard, is starting to resemble a third world country where women are treated like chattels, denied their rights to determine their own destinies.
Click to expand...
I'd argue the point if you had this wrong, but you don't.

Suffice it to say a lot of Americans - men and women - are deeply disheartened by this turn of events.
 
oldman said:
The 14th amendment is pretty specific and has been ruled on to state: “The U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court recognize and protect the right to interstate travel. The travel right entails privacy and free domestic movement without governmental abridgment.”
Click to expand...
A few arguments may be concerning criminal law jurisdiction would be if State A prohibits abortion but State B permits them, if a woman in A travels to B, a crime is "Commenced" in A, but not "Completed" in A.
oldman said:
I am not arguing or debating this issue with or against you, but am just trying to assure you that if Missouri would attempt to pass such a law, I would hope the SC would deny Missouri’s right to do so.
Click to expand...
Would traveling out of state to procure an abortion be considered Interstate Commerce, would be another argument for litigation, pro or con.
 
Warrigal said:
No-one car carry a sidearm for the purpose of self protection unless it is necessary for their employment. This applies to both men and women. Murder by sidearm is extremely rare in Australia and the perp is usually a policeman who shoots his own wife.


And how long will that take? A woman in need of a termination has less than 12 weeks up her sleeve, so what is she supposed to do while waiting for the state legislation to be changed, or the amendment process to be concluded?

I learned yesterday that a charity organisation in the Netherlands is gearing up to provide medicinal abortions to US women. Also, that states where abortion is still legal are preparing to send mobile clinics to the borders of states where women cannot access reproductive health care and will treat anyone who is able to cross the border. The US, in this regard, is starting to resemble a third world country where women are treated like chattels, denied their rights to determine their own destinies.
Click to expand...
Just so I am clear, women (and men) are not allowed to protect themselves with a side arm, correct? Talk about being "denied their rights to determine their own destinies:.....

Also, however long the processes will take (local/state/amendment) all women will have alternatives, some of which may be inconvenient, but this could have all been avoided if pro-abortion forces had spend a little time and effort over the past 50 years to get an amendment passed. This ruling is not a surprise, and they didn't see it coming, shame on them. I would have voted in support of it, but it was never on the ballot.

btw - here is what SCOTUS said:
"The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”
 
Last edited:
ohioboy said:
A few arguments may be concerning criminal law jurisdiction would be if State A prohibits abortion but State B permits them, if a woman in A travels to B, a crime is "Commenced" in A, but not "Completed" in A.

Would traveling out of state to procure an abortion be considered Interstate Commerce, would be another argument for litigation, pro or con.
Click to expand...
A lot of people years ago would travel to Amsterdam for the legal drugs and prostitution. I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted in a state where those things were illegal when they traveled to do those things. Another example would be gambling where someone went to Las Vegas from a place where it was illegal.

I guess an anti-abortion state could try to write a law prohibiting the travel to another state to obtain an abortion, but how would they have standing?

There are going to be all sorts of lawsuits pertaining to new laws outlawing abortion. It should be interesting if nothing else good comes from it.
 
SeniorBen said:
A lot of people years ago would travel to Amsterdam for the legal drugs and prostitution. I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted in a state where those things were illegal when they traveled to do those things. Another example would be gambling where someone went to Las Vegas from a place where it was illegal.

I guess an anti-abortion state could try to write a law prohibiting the travel to another state to obtain an abortion, but how would they have standing?
Click to expand...
Here is what I mean by Criminal law jurisdiction. Gambling is another matter.

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2901.11
 
And this is what happens
Buckeye said:
Sorry that you are butt hurt about this but the facts are the facts, and I suspect that this is not the last instance where the current court has to correct the errors of the old "activist" courts. Roe v Wade was wrong and this fixes it. You are free to start the process to amend the constitution to fit your view, and when it comes time for me to vote on that amendment, I'll support abortion rights.
Click to expand...
I haven't heard "butt hurt" since I participated in car forums with "bros" who hot-rodded their cars. If you are truly over 50, maybe it is time to grow up. :ROFLMAO:
 
Buckeye said:
Just so I am clear, women (and men) are not allowed to protect themselves with a side arm, correct? Talk about being "denied their rights to determine their own destinies:.....
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, we don't see women being shot in Subway because they put too much mayo on someone's lunch. They get to go home alive, free to determine their destiny for another day.
 
dseag2 said:
And this is what happens

I haven't heard "butt hurt" since I participated in car forums with "bros" who hot-rodded their cars. If you are truly over 50, maybe it is time to grow up. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
So, no attempt at rebuttal of my point, because you don't have one, and had to go with an irrelevant response. Thanks for playing. :cool:
 
Warrigal said:
Nevertheless, we don't see women being shot in Subway because they put too much mayo on someone's lunch. They get to go home alive, free to determine their destiny for another day.
Click to expand...
Well. there is this..

Mining Camps in Australia

But getting back to the topic of this thread, SCOTUS has said that, within broad parameters, the citizens of a state, let's use Texas as an example, get to make the laws for that state. If the majority of citizens of Texas believe that abortion should be very tightly controlled or even made illegal, that is up to them. The Constitution does not give the Federal government a vote on this issue, nor do the citizens of other states. It is apparently a radical concept to allow the citizens to determine the laws!
 
oldman said:
I have always wished they would take out the politics of the highest court in the nation. Presidents have the pleasure of nominating justices, but the senate has the last say. Depending on what political party is in charge by the numbers, then that party is actually seating the Justice. I think instead of a simple majority getting to seat a Justice, it should be a two-thirds vote. That may complicate things by making the process longer, but I believe that at least some of the politics would be removed.
Click to expand...
I agree, that would help. Justices should be impartial moderates, not extremists to the left or the right, as we have now. /-;
And no single President should be allowed to pick 3 justices in a four year term, in my opinion!
 
Buckeye said:
Well. there is this..

Mining Camps in Australia

But getting back to the topic of this thread, SCOTUS has said that, within broad parameters, the citizens of a state, let's use Texas as an example, get to make the laws for that state. If the majority of citizens of Texas believe that abortion should be very tightly controlled or even made illegal, that is up to them. The Constitution does not give the Federal government a vote on this issue, nor do the citizens of other states. It is apparently a radical concept to allow the citizens to determine the laws!
Click to expand...
Not picking on you specifically as others have made similar comments about states-
states already have too many rights. keep up that trend and slavery and segregation would be legal again.
 
WheatenLover said:
I very much doubt that on day two or three of the pregnancy, a fertilized egg will be viable. Here's why:

The egg is in the Fallopian tube for 60 hours, or 2.5 days. The egg, if it is fertilized, is fertilized in the fallopian tube. It is capable of being fertilized for 12-24 hours, during the last 30 hours it is in the Fallopian tube. The single cell embryo (the fertilized egg) is called a zygote.

Over the next 7 days, the embryo undergoes multiple cell divisions (mitosis). After this, it is called a blastocyst and begins the process of implanting in the uterus. 50 percent of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's missed menses.

Regarding belief in a soul or not, it seems to me that "hedging your bets" is not so much a matter of faith, as hoping that god will screw up and think that you believe you have a soul due to your faith, instead of "hedging your bets".

Late at night, I think with my brain, just like I do during the day, just as every living human who can think, does.
Click to expand...
You missed my point with all that hard thinking. Fact is every baby born was a fertilized egg and was viable.... I know the science better than you! Also, know God, better than you. You want to go for a 'third strike'?
 
Em in Ohio said:
I agree, that would help. Justices should be impartial moderates, not extremists to the left or the right, as we have now. /-;
And no single President should be allowed to pick 3 justices in a four year term, in my opinion!
Click to expand...
Show me a man or woman who says they are not "extremist" and I will show you a liar. All people are extremists to someone...especially in politics
 
Last edited:
To get back to the issue of people being prosecuted for traveling to another state (or country!) to get an abortion, or to help someone else get one, Missouri has raised that threat, but I doubt that it could ever be implemented. Not only because it violates the Constitution (it does), but how on earth could anyone ever keep up with millions of people traveling back and forth all the time, in all directions, for every reason under the sun? How many of our national resources could be devoted to tracking down everybody crossing the Missouri state line, stalking them to see where they are going and for what purpose, who drove their Uber, and so on? It would obviously be impossible to implement such insanity, and sounds like a political ploy to appeal to credulous, hysterical voters. It will never happen. But it has been threatened.
 
Or, as I think I've suggested already, we could resurrect the Underground Railroad, smuggling women across state lines.

Think of the movie possibilities! Heroic nighttime smuggling, or spies pretending to be abortion providers to entrap these women, love stories in caravans backed up at the state border, maybe some crazies building walls around their states to keep pregnant women in, with opposition forces bombing those walls, "To Kill a Mockingbird" type trial scenes, etc.? Come on, Hollywood, let's get moving on this!
 
Come on, all you have to do is drive across state lines! Provided you can find a doctor who will provide the service.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top