“The former vice president and other prominent Republicans are not only praising the end of Roe v. Wade but signaling bigger plans to strip women of their rights”
I don’t doubt that he sincerely believes this to be right, but there is more than his moral conviction behind this public declaration. In pursuing the 2024 nomination, Pence is looking for a strategic differentiation from Trump and DeSantis, and this is an obvious appeal to the powerful evangelical base of the conservative movement.
Given that conservatives are feeling their oats because of the current configuration of the Supremes, many are wondering which other “unenumerated rights” may be threatened because they are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
Clarence Thomas seems to have his sights set on other cases involving the right to privacy:
- The right to contraception that the court set out in 1965 in Griswold v. Connecticut.
- The court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas that the Constitution prevents states from criminalizing private homosexual conduct
- The court’s declaration in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) that gay individuals may marry the person of their choosing.
Thomas’s interest in Obergefell is an especially interesting one, since a direct precedent of that decision is Loving v. Virginia (1967), in which the court struck down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage. In Obergefell, the Supreme Court invoked Loving, among other cases, as precedent for its holding that states are required to allow people to marry whom they choose, under both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause.
Thomas is a black person married to a white person – the very situation that led to the conviction of the Lovings, which was overturned by the decision of the Supremes! If Loving were to be challenged, would Thomas have to recuse himself?
——————
Yes, that’s right. It seems impossible to believe, even for those of us who have lived through all the turbulent subsequent years, but as recently as when I was in college, Virginia had a law forbidding interracial marriage.
Hint: Using a VPN is not as anonymous as you think!
Being pro-life and a recovering lawyer that strongly disagreed with Roe and Casey on Constitutional grounds, I am happy but apprehensively nervous about the Dobbs decision. Nervous because this decision and the coming state battles are only going to exacerbate the deep divisions in this country.
On the subject of Justice Thomas’s concurrence, I’d like to point out that his belief that no substantive rights are protected by the Due Process Clauses is not the same thing as calling for the reversal of every decision that rests on substantive Due Process. That is because in addition to its Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause the 14th Amendment also states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” The Supreme Court basically ruled that part out as a source of substantive rights in the Slaughter-House Cases (1873). Rather than overrule those cases, when the Court wanted a source of unenumerated rights, they created the doctrine of substantive due process. If the Court at some point issued a decision that stated that all cases previously relying on substantive due process, actually should have relied on the Privileges and Immunities Clause, I’d be all for it. That wouldn’t affect anyone’s rights.
Now I am pretty sure that Justice Thomas would like to overturn many of those cases. But it takes the vote of 4 justices for the Supreme Court to take a case and (usually) 5 votes to reach a decision. I think that at least 4 of the current justices agree with me about the Obergefell (same sex marriage decision). I disagreed with the decision but don’t want the Court to reverse it. I was a supporter of same sex marriage long before President Obama became one. But based on my understanding of the Constitution, I didn’t think there was a right to same sex marriage. But unlike with abortion, it is very hard to see how anyone is harmed by allowing a woman to marry a woman or a man a man. I just don’t see Chief Justice Roberts or Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, or Barrett ever voting to take another same sex marriage case with the idea of overruling Obergefell. If a state ever decides to pass a new law/constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite sex couples, the lower courts would dispose of it quickly.
I do worry about how just how extreme some of the laws proposed by politicians hoping to get the GOP presidential nomination in 2024 might turn out to be. Some of them will strive to be the most conservative or the most pro-life even if that means calling for the death penalty for pregnant women that have abortions. I’m thinking it will be Marjorie Taylor Green that calls for that. She’ll figure they won’t be able to call her sexist because she is a female dingbat. Maybe the executions can be conducted with Jewish space lasers.
More seriously, I think a lot of the fear and anger over the decision is at least a little overblown. First, because abortion rights will be secure in blue states. As Justice Kavanaugh pointed out in his concurrence, the right to travel is protected by the Constitution which means any state law that sought to criminalize out of state travel to get an abortion would be unconstitutional. That may be prohibitively expensive for some women, but I am sure that many people will be contributing to funds to defray travel costs. Second, it is unlikely that any state will be able to prevent abortion pills being sent via the mail to its residents.
As a pro-life atheist, I have long lamented that pro-choice and pro-life advocates never come together to try and reduce unplanned pregnancies. I hope that all the publicity over this decision may remind/motivate more people to use birth control. That is not me trying to say if a woman gets pregnant it’s her own fault. First of all, birth control should be the responsibility of both men and woman. Though obviously the consequences of not using it (or it failing) disproportionately fall on the woman. Second of all, birth control can fail. All I mean by this is that I hope a higher percentage of couples use birth control as that would be the best way to reduce abortions.
” I have long lamented that pro-choice and pro-life advocates never come together to try and reduce unplanned pregnancies.”
And what do “pro-life” advocates do to reduce unplanned pregnancies?
Nothing at all. Sex education is easily the biggest help and the “pro-life” side very rarely supports that. Indeed they actively work to reduce contraceptive access.
Shall we now discuss America’s dismal maternal and infant death rates? The lack of post-partum help?
Canada has the widest access to abortion in the world. It also has a relatively low abortion rate and one that’s lower than the US. Has any “pro-life” advocate ever pondered why?
I said I lamented that pro-life and pro-choice advocates don’t work together to try and reduce unplanned pregnancies. But you are right, there doesn’t seem to be many pro-life advocates pushing plans/programs to reduce unplanned pregnancies. I am sure there are some that would say that they supported abstinence education to reduce such pregnancies. I am sure that there were students that took the abstinence message to heart. But I think adding “but if you do decide to have sex for God’s sake use birth control!!!” to the “just don’t have sex.” message would be far more effective.
There are actually a number of pro-lifers out there advocating for more government help for pregnant women and young mothers and their children. Mitt Romney has introduced a bill that would provide cash payments to women during their last 4 months of pregnancy followed by monthly $350 payments for each young child and $250 payments for school-aged children. Something like that may very well pass because there are pro-life politicians that do believe that compassion for the unborn should extend to families after a child is born.
As for the Canada statistics, I hadn’t heard that before. As I understand that the abortion rate is the percentage of pregnancies that end in abortion. What I would be especially interested in learning is the percentage of the pregnancies that were unplanned. I wonder what the percentage of unplanned pregnancies that end in abortion is.
Abstinence education is widely advocated but it doesn’t work. We’re dirty fucking bastards.
But how many red states actually provide useful governmental help? Utah and its heavy Mormon population are an aberration amongst social conservatives within the US. They’re generally have better social work although that’s provided by the LDS related groups rather than the state. Sure I can believe that Romney’s actions are genuine. He might even support a similar Dem plan. Most GOP aren’t interested. They’d rather do nothing or punt it to their states who will then do nothing.
Most modern nations have relatively low abortion rates and unintended pregnancies. Canada is generally better than the US in both categories. More importantly its much safer to be actually pregnant than the US.
The pro-life stuff like abstinance only has been shown to *not* work to reduce unplanned pregnancies.
The pro-choice stuff like comprehensive sex education and free contraceptives have been shown to work.
There is no debate on what reduces abortions unless you specifically want to punish sex, because you aren’t stopping it.
In reply to that analysis, I would offer that I like beer.
Fallen said: “Which is what the United States was founded upon; it’s not supposed to be one nation ruled by a king, it’s supposed to be a confederation of self-governing/sovereign states, banding together into a union.”
You got the no-king part right. Otherwise, what you are describing is America under the Articles of Confederation after the end of the Revolutionary War. That was a flat failure; look it up.
The concept of truly sovereign states was abandoned when the failure of the Articles caused the states to hold a convention, draw up and accept the Constituition. Federal supremacy was inherent in that, because it was vital to the prospering of both the nation as a whole and the states that comprised it.
State Rights is a cry states adopt sometimes when they object to something the Federal government is doing. Northern states tried to use it when they objected to the Federal Fugitive Slave Act; Southern states took up the cry when Abraham Lincoln and Republican congress was elected, causing them to fear the Federal government would fail to enable the futher spread of slavery, perhaps oppose such spread, and conceivably do something to impede slavery where it already existed.
The Northern states had been defeated in the courts; the South decided not to go to courts, but to try and leave the United States tout suite. That did not work out either.
Forget about states rights. It’s been a meaningless concept since 1789, no matter what some states like to pretend sometimes.
That’s the biggest crosstalk between liberals and conservatives. Liberals care about federal issues while conservatives care about local ones. No conservative outside of California cares what California does. Every liberal cares what Texas or Florida does.
State rights are very much alive to the conservatives. Recognize this and you’ll understand them a lot better.
“State rights are very much alive to the conservatives.”
No they aren’t. That’s just the flavor of the day on this particular issue.
The conservatives were totally opposed to states rights when the blue states started legalizing drugs. They were opposed to states rights when Washington and Oregon were dealing with the protests in their own way. Now they are totally in favor of states rights when they want their way on abortion.
It has been that way since the Constitution was adopted. The conservatives strongly opposed states rights prior to the Civil War, when they were getting their own way, then strongly supported them when they didn’t.
It’s not just the conservatives. The same arguments apply to the liberals. Nobody has cared about states rights as a philosophical argument since 1789. Both sides just bring it up when they don’t like something the national government decides. They use state’s rights as a pretext because it sounds too whiny to say, “I want what I want and Washington won’t give it to me.”
Moreover, states rights can never trump human rights. The states can’t decide to mandate a state religion, or to censor the press, or to authorize torture, or to being back internment camps. For whatever legal basis states rights may legitimately claim, it is only within the context of the rights granted to all Americans.
Which brings us back to my question. “If your daughter is raped by a violent and deformed mental defective with an IQ of 35, escaped from a lunatic asylum, is it her right as a human being to terminate that pregnancy?” If the answer is yes (spoiler: it is), on what basis can one state arbitrarily revoke that right?
I answered below. If not mentioned in the constitution, it must be made into federal or state law or amendment. As far as conservatives, I don’t know any who seriously care about washington or Portland. They simply like to point to it as examples of liberal hypocrisy. “peaceful protests” my ass. I’m sure I have always disagreed with conservatives on the drug issue but again, if it’s a law, it’s a law and should be enforced or changed.
I wasn’t around in the 1800s. A core principle of modern day conservatism is limited government with as much kicked to the local level as possible. That’s why conservatives don’t care about gridlock in washington. They love it. Everything gets kicked back to the states.
Again, conservatives are not in favor of limited government any more than they are in favor of states rights. They are only in favor of what they are in favor of, and will fall back on any flimsy pretext to justify it. Under the ruling of Rowe v Wade, government played almost no part in the pregnancy decision. That has been replaced by a network of localized big brothers, in which the state (rather than the individual) has total control, and will decide when women may or may not have a baby. In other words, limited government has been replaced by absolute government control.
I’m not saying that is right or wrong. We are all hypocrites. We all want what we want, and we all create pretexts to justify it, whether in private life or politics. But you just can’t replace a government “hands off” policy with absolute government control and claim that it is in the interest of limited government. That’s not hypocrisy. It’s stupidity.
Perhaps absolute government control is right in this case. That’s a matter for debate. But whether right or wrong, it is certainly not limited government. To claim so is, in fact, purely Orwellian in the most literal sense.
War is peace;
Freedom is slavery;
Absolute government is limited government.
Nonsense. Again, conservatives care nothing for states rights. The only want what they want, and will support any person or locality that will provide it. I can guarantee you that when Pence argues for his nationwide abortion ban, conservatives will not stand up to him and say, “Oh, the horror! We can’t do that because of states rights. California must decide for itself.”
This is not a unique conservative hypocrisy. Same with liberals. They were all states rights for Oregon and Washington on riot control, and they were all states rights on drug legalization and asylum cities, while conservatives were calling for the federal troops. Then other issues came along, and they swapped positions on states rights.
Again, it’s all just pretext. People don’t really care who is in control. They just want what they want and will support whoever will provide it.
—
And again – limited government? They want to replace Roe (government hands off) with absolute government control of the decision to carry a baby to term.
War is peace
Slavery is freedom
Absolute government is limited government.
“Liberals care about federal issues while conservatives care about local ones.” Well, there it is, the biggest nonsense I will read all day. All month too, I bet, and it’s probably got a decent chance at the annual title.
So abortion, which “conservatives” have been ranting about for 40 years and finally got their way about, after Herculean labor (plus vast hypocrisy and many lies), is a LOCAL issue?! What, women have uteruses in some states and not others? What is the difference between a pregnant woman in Texas and one in California? What her NEIGHBORS think about it? (Scoopy makes this point much more forcefully.)
This is as national as slavery, and just as not subject to “local” opinion. Women are human beings, and their rights supersede those of fetuses to a great extent. That may make some people angry, but so did giving civil rights to black people. They are the ones in the wrong.
This is a bad decision, and it may mobilize people against the Republican Party the way the Dred Scott, a similar judicial overreach, mobilized people FOR them in the elections of 1858 and 1860. I am not sure; is that irony, or just funny?
“What is the difference between a pregnant woman in Texas and one in California?”
If a pregnant woman in California starts hemorrhaging during child birth she is much more likely to survive in California than Texas.
You are talking about republicans, not conservatives. You are talking about evangelicals when you are talking about conservatives. You have a boogeyman in every corner. No wonder you are all so emotional. I get it goes both ways. Republicans see AOC and socialism everywhere. The sensationalism of the extremes is the biggest problem facing politics today. It’s still the minority. So it comes down to which minority extreme do you hate the most. I don’t like right wing extremists but I really hate left wing extremists. I go with the lesser of two evils FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. And speaking of perspective, I restfully disagree with you that a woman’s rights trumps the baby’s life. There is the dilemma. And unfortunately a lot of people feel the same way as I do. Abortion just became a local issue. That’s the point.
And Scoop to your earlier point, I do agree that parties have switched back and forth over the generations in terms of who supports federalism over states rights. However ideology has not shifted. Only political agendas and parties to get votes. Politics is a sport and rarely represents the true beliefs of the participants. They are trying to “win”.
I support abortion to a point. I support gay marriage. I support drug legalization. I support law enforcement. I support small government.
Btw, this is the most serious answer you’ll ever get from me on an blog on the internet. Enjoy your echo chamber. Calm down. It will be all right.
You’re absolutely right that the term “conservative” has been misappropriated by the evangelicals, the Tea Party/Freedom Caucus loonies, the Trump cult, Q-ers, and tin-hatters in general. As has Republican for that matter, which I haven’t been for years. I’m a conservative by my own lights but I generally don’t tell anyone I am anymore because the word has become too Trumploaded. Actually, one of my favorite memories of this site is having been told by Indy (where the fuck has he gone?) that as a conservative I have a “small and weak brain” because IT WAS PROVED BY A YALE STUDY IN 2003. There are probably few genuine conservatives left nowadays and I’m in disagreement with most of them over fiscals, climate, and guns. The remnants of the National Review crowd made their peace with Trump and have become beneath contempt (“but the judges!!”).
I have no use for the Squadies or the Bernieites. But while my feelings toward them are generally disdainful, I am completely contemptuous of the hard right. A great many of these people would establish a Trump dictatorship or even monarchy, others would establish a theocracy, some would try for the combo meal. Their attitude toward 2020 and Jan. 6 is traitorous. None of these people have any use for genuine democracy. Tucker’s “National conservatism” is simply Fascist Light. Fascist Heavy would be Putin and the “Nobody can put a fence around Russia” shit. A supreme idiocy of our FLs is that they regard Putin as a friend (he and his pet Patriarch have Christian Values and are big Second Amendment people you know) and natter on about “stopping the violence” by having Ukraine surrender, something they’re too cowardly to state outright. Putin has been saying for fifteen years or so that we are his enemy and I’m inclined to believe him.
Well enough of my foamings. I guess watching Cleveland lose 11-1 last night has gotten me in a particularly crusty mood this morning. Dr. Sticks has just got to stop giving up those long flies.
You miss the point. It’s not that the parties have “switched” about states rights. It’s that neither party cares either way. That’s simply an incantation they use to invoke some ghost of the founding fathers, thereby lacquering their base intentions with a shiny veneer of patriotism. If the feds are doing what they want, they oppose states rights. If the feds don’t do what they want, they pull out that mantra and recite it. Liberals and conservatives are equally guilty. Remember, the Portland and Seattle protests and the “asylum cities” were not something in the distant past. They are essentially current issues, and all the so-called conservatives are totally opposed to states rights.
As for negotiation, that doesn’t seem to be possible on this issue. For the umpteenth time, I repeat this question: “If your daughter is raped and impregnated by a deformed, insane, mental defective with an IQ of 35, does she have the fundamental human right to terminate that pregnancy?” I submit that if somebody’s answer to that is “no,” there is no point in negotiating with them. They are beyond the basic principles that unite us as a human race, and therefore can’t sit at the adult table at Thanksgiving. At that point, the only thing to do on that Thanksgiving is to be thankful you are not their daughter, and then to finish the meal and try to make conversation with the other adults.
All policies, in any just system, have to be made with a common understanding of human rights first, after which the societal and legal niceties can be debated.
Couldn’t agree more Bill
Scoop, as for your first paragraph, I am saying the same thing although not so eloquently on my cell phone. As for your “upteenth” question. I answered it directly below. I’ll repost here.
“That’s a loaded question because it goes back to the debate of when a fetus has rights of its own. If we say 15 weeks, then past 15 weeks, without a law allowing it, she is not able to terminate. Correct. But as k said above, I am in favor of federal laws allowing abortion up to the point of the unborn baby having its own rights. What that date is, I don’t know. They should compromise and set one based on science.”
It’s not loaded at all. The question makes no mention of time frames. It asks if she ever has that right. Several states are now passing laws that say she never has that right. My point is that people who would pass such a law must never be allowed to pass laws. They are untended children going full Lord of the Flies. There must be some adult control over these irresponsible feral children. That is why the states should only be allowed discretion within the framework of the basic rights which must belong to all humans (and therefore all Americans).
I’m not saying that the proper time is 12 weeks or 15 or viability or whatever. Societies have to work those details out. What I am saying is that (1) we can’t allow laws to be made in which my or your theoretical daughter can never terminate that pregnancy under any circumstances and must carry the rapist’s child, and (2) we can’t allow anyone who believes in such a law to have a seat at the negotiating table with the adults. They must be relegated to the children’s table with those who support genocide and slavery.
And yet, those very people are creating just such laws in some states.
A pretty good reason why states rights are not such a good idea in the first place.
And before anyone jumps down my throat (I’m looking at you Figaro), morally and intellectually, of course she should be able to abort in this situation. However, per my earlier comment, in the absence of a law, the fetus has rights at a certain point. I don’t know what that point is. Im sorry, but that’s how I feel. I have no idea what that point is but I’m trying to answer a question that I don’t see as black and white.
If she “ever” has that right? Clearly I agree with you. The only people who could even argue against this are religious fanatics and their entire basis would be they are “doing gods work”. No way to debate that view point. Precisely why I think they should pass a law setting a federal minimum time period for abortion. I think there are enough sane legislators to get this through if they can shake off pressure from the mobs of the vocal minority. That doesn’t change my perspective that Roe was an overreach.
You might agree with me that the answer is obvious, but the governments of several states do not.
You suggest that it’s just religious fanatics who hold that position. That implies that they are a small minority of the conservative base. In fact, they pretty much ARE the conservative base in terms of influence. They hold power over several states.
There are NO allowances for victims of rape or incest in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee or Texas.
Missouri allows an exception for rape, but not for incest.
While all state bans allow an exception to save the life of the woman, Idaho, South Dakota and Arkansas do not include exceptions for serious non-fatal injuries. (Hey, it may leave you crippled for life, but you won’t die, so shake it off and bear that kid.)
South Dakota is the worst of the worst. Take my theoretical example and extend it further. A woman is raped by a deformed and violent mental defective with an IQ of 35 and an extra Y chromosome. To make matters worse, carrying the baby will cripple her for life, but will not kill her. If she lives in South Dakota and can’t flee, Big Brother has determined that she must carry that baby to term. In my mind that is absolutely a terrifying exercise of big government.
This seems to be a pretty good illustration of the inherent problem with states rights, except for minor things. The smaller the population of a given jurisdiction, the more likely it is to be controlled by extremists on one side or another. Some issues are just too important to be left in the hands of extremists, local demagogues and yokels. (It’s not just conservatives to blame. “Sanctuary cities” are the liberal side of that same coin.) Let’s face it, if the states were independent fiefdoms, we would still have segregation, and we might even still have slavery.
Steverino and Michael McChesney do not get to define who conservatives are. They exist in the real world, not the ideal imaginations of those who remember the good old days. People who hold the views I described considered themselves conservatives, and are considered conservatives by all. Like it or not, they are what conservatism has become.
And it speaks volumes that people like Steverino try to disassociate themselves from modern conservatives. THAT is how toxic they have become, and that’s a high bar.
Roger, you’re a really angry person.
(That’s Steverino-talk for “good point”.
Absolutely wrong. I know hicks in VA who can’t stop talking about liberal San Francisco and various cities.
Thomas can want whatever he wants. He can want a pony. That doesn’t mean he’s getting it. He added that little note for one reason: he’s looking for anything to distract the country from his impending forced departure from the court after Ginny goes to the big house for trying to overthrow the government.
There’s just nobody actively looking to overthrow that stuff. Gay marriage, sure, and it’ll fall because that decision was awful. As Scalia said, the grounds were essentially “we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings” and that’s not why you make a scotus ruling.
That should have been handled in the legislature, now maybe it will be.
As for pence, there’s only one thing to say: HAHAHA HAHA
You could well be right, Mr. Dark. I will say that if you are, Thomas’ act was very selfish and his friends will not thank him for it. It helps mobilize more opposition to the Republicans now and in 2024.
Personally, I think Thomas will only leave the court feet first. Impeaching a Supreme Court justice for something his wife did seems like a bridge too far for the Democrats in Congress now, even if the midterms turn out well for the party.
You are quite right about Pence, too, of course. He was almost murdered by the fanatics the GOP courts, and yet he still wants to be a part of the party. What on earth for? I guess he has nothing else to do with his life.
When they repeal Brown v. Board, will they make Clarence sit in the back of the Court?
I would prefer they overturn Marbury v. Madison, thus invalidating their own authority!
That would raise a critical legal question covered in Kirk v. Mudd’s Robots. If they make a decision to invalidate their own authority, wouldn’t that decision itself, ipso facto, lack the authority to do so?
The only sentence Mike Pence could ever speak beginning with “Mike Pence calls for…”, that would mean anything, would end with “…his own demise.”
Pence really ought to call for that, you know, if he ever wants to be really popular in the Republican Party again. Even if it’s only for the two seconds it takes brain activity to stop at death.
(I cite the 1932 film “Two Seconds” as my authority on that. It stars Edward G. Robinson, and would he steer you wrong?)
Are there really states looking to enact an absolute ban on abortion, where even if there is a medical reason the abortion is absolutely not allowed? I see a lot of panic on that front, but we kinda know how social media rolls nowadays.
To my knowledge, all state laws and proposed state laws will permit an exception to save the life of the mother. On the other hand, many states will not allow exceptions for pregnancies created by incest and/or rape.
Nope. At least two already have bans and some are considering complete bans.
Missouri passed a trigger law that bans abortions after six or seven weeks.
Texas’ trigger law (HB1280) prohibits all abortions, making the procedure a first-class felony if it results in the death of a fetus. It will take effect 30 days after the reversal of Roe v. Wade.
HB1280 looks like it does have a medical exemption written in. Although it could be that I don’t understand the language correctly.
Looks like you are right. I’ve been reading some summaries. Looking at the text it appears that hb1280 allows abortions if:
the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or
attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by,
caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at
risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a
major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced;
and…
Essentially the next part is they have to try to save the fetus unless they absolutely can’t.
That’s not correct:
The Texas law specifies an exemption in rare cases “to save the life of a pregnant patient or prevent substantial impairment of major bodily function.”
The Missouri law specifies an exemption for “medical emergencies.”
Ok. Gotta go read some more. But damn. No exceptions to for rape or incest. That’s still just evil.
Not just evil in its treatment of the pregnant woman, but also, perhaps even more so, in its impact on society … because what the world needs now is apparently not love sweet love, but more babies produced by incest, and for our society to preserve the genetic legacy of rapists.
The problem with medical exemptions are that the anti Abortion environment makes physicians very reluctant to recommend an abortion. You also need appropriate facilities to perform them.
Ireland used to have medical exemptions but they didn’t save Savita Halappanavar. Physicians and bureaucrats dithered while she was dying of sepsis.
Now Ireland is a pro-choice country in part because of this incident. How many dead mothers will it take for America to pull its head out of its ass?
There are Republican politicians that have called for abortion bans that would make it illegal to terminate an ectopic pregnancy. Anyone who calls for that is an ignorant idiot because an ectopic pregnancy could never result in a live birth, but could kill the mother.
I’m quickly approaching the “Burn it all down!” school of thought. Fuckers have made “Progress” a filthy word. Fuck these fucking cristofacist nutjob extremists.
Grateful I have the resources to leave if ’24 does turn right. I’ll send money from far away, but fuck living under the boot of these faux sky daddy fearing control freaks.
Thomas his wife and the other (5) cons on scotus are in their own little world totally unaffected by the world going on around them ie one of the first things I read upon joining the USN in 1976:
United States Navy ~ 200 yrs of tradition unaffected by progress!
Rep candidate for potus vote %:
1992 ~ 37.5%
1996 ~ 40.7%
2000 ~ 47.9%
2004 ~ 50.7% ~ Incumbent wartime potus ~ oh the irony!
2008 ~ 45.7%
2012 ~ 47.2%
2016 ~ 46.1%
2020 ~ 46.9%
The usual 40% of eligible voters who don’t bother to vote notwithstanding.
America, what a country! ~ Republicans think so. 😉
As always America gets the govt it deserves and survives despite itself!
Did I mention Reps/Cons don’t care about public opinion. Just wanted to make sure.
On the bright side climate change will make the world unliveable in about 90 yrs. Scorpions/Cock Roaches unite! 😛
Yielding back the balance of my time …
btw, that 6-3 scotus school prayer decision today. Constitution aside talk about a woke decision lol.
On the flip side Truman integrated the U.S. military in 1948 when public support for said integration was around 15%. hmm, what’s the word I’m looking for?
>
>
>
Leadership!
Yeah. I’m right there too. I’m so pissed. My wife wants to “Stay and fight.” And has told me if I move I’m moving on my own. But damn. I just want to live in a sane country where my teen daughter has some rights, and right now it’s looking like she’ll be legally my property before she’s 18. WTAF?!?
Oh and fuck Thomas. And fuck ACB and Alito and especially Roberts who’s been playing the “moderate” card so we’d believe the court is legitimate.
Why should the entire country be forced to live under laws set by New York and California? I’m a New Yorker and I have no interest in imposing my state ideologies on another state. The current process was the compromise agreed upon by big and little states. Same with the methods of representation set forth in the senate vs the house. If you don’t like your state, then find one you do like. You have lots of options and you don’t even need a passport. Move. France is smaller than Texas. Should another country force them to live their way? It’s the United STATES of America.
Yeah, you know that’s a point that’s been glossed over. A lot of people are condemning the SCOTUS, claiming that they’re taking away women’s rights by overturning Roe v. Wade. But in reality, SCOTUS has simply said that Roe v. Wade is an overreach of the Federal government, and it is something that each individual state should decide for themselves. Which is what the United States was founded upon; it’s not supposed to be one nation ruled by a king, it’s supposed to be a confederation of self-governing/sovereign states, banding together into a union. It was FDR that somewhat federalized everything in order to get the U.S. out of the Great Depression.
Certain things need to be federally mandated, like currency, national defense, etc. But really each state is supposed to be like its own little nation.
Marriage would be an interesting thing though; a marriage might not be valid in every state, if the federal government didn’t define it. So if suddenly states were allowed to determine whether gay marriage, interracial marriage, polygamy, and beastiality were legal, your marital status could change when you cross state lines.
Except a human being shouldn’t have more or fewer rights based on some imaginary line.
We had this situation with marriage just 7 years ago (Obergefell v. Hodges), and it created real problems. Someone could get married in Connecticut and it wouldn’t be recognized in Ohio. So, a married same sex couple moved from CT to TX for say work reasons, and a spouse died, the other spouse didn’t have any rights. They also couldn’t get divorced, etc.
The entire states rights concept was to keep slavery in place, and we fought a war over that. When it comes to human rights, they need to be federal. And the “just move” argument isn’t valid. Many people can’t “just move.” It’s financially impossible for them to do so. They can’t even get across the county to get a drivers license or vote, or even travel a few extra miles to get decent groceries. How are they going to afford to move from Louisiana to Illinois or western PA?
I’m no lawyer or Constitutional scholar but isn’t that the basis for the equal protection clause? Or is it the Supremacy Clause?
Except, just like in the film Blow: “Unfortunately for you, the line you crossed was real and the plants you brought with you were illegal, so your bail is twenty thousand dollars.”
It has nothing to do with California, but the establishment of a national framework protecting the rights of man (in the universal sense of the word, including women). By your logic, the entire South can re-establish segregation. The system is designed so that the states can enact their own laws, but only within parameters which establish the rights of all Americans. All of that has never been in question. The specific matter which IS in question is “Which rights are human rights, which must therefore be granted to all Americans, irrespective of the intolerance of their local governments, and regardless of whether the founding fathers could have mentioned them specifically 250 years ago?”
So the question everyone has to ask about abortion is this: “If your daughter is raped by a violent mental defective, is it her right as a human being to terminate that pregnancy?”
I would answer in the affirmative, and do not believe that there could be room for debate. Yet there are those who will debate this matter, as obvious as it seems, because that right is not specifically granted to all Americans in the Constitution, and therefore belongs only to those fortunate enough to have won the geographic lottery.
Since Clarence put this on the plate what would Steverino make of Obergefell. Is it ok for NY and Cali to decide for the rest of the country on the subject of gay marriage? Does Florida get to nullify marriages made in New York?
If Obergefell is overturned, I believe that could happen.
And if the right to marry the person of one’s choice is overturned, would Alabama or Mississippi deliberately challenge Loving v. Virginia as a next step? (The right to marry someone of a different race is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, including the amendments. It has been inferred from rather generic statements in the 14th Amendment.)
Personally I wouldn’t care very much but I do support gay marriage and always have.
You do not support gay marriage. You do not support the right to an abortion. You do not support a lot of things.
The only thing you do support is lower taxes for yourself. You’ve said that repeatedly and this is underscored by your voting choices.
Eh.. I appreciate your argument but I’m not convinced. It’s not black and white by design.
Seems black and white to me:
“If your daughter is raped by a violent mental defective, is it her right as a human being to terminate that pregnancy?”
Are you suggesting there is an argument for “no”? If so, what is it?
I was referencing your first paragraph.
Steverino, the resident moron is still at it…
To elaborate, I do think in the absence of it being specifically mentioned in the constitution, it is not a guaranteed right and can only be addressed by amendment, federal law, or state law. For example, I’d be on board a Federal law stating that abortion can be performed in any state at a minimum of 15 weeks. 14th amendment is another example. The courts should not legislate, only interpret the constitution as written. What happened to the old days of horse trading?
So your answer to my question is “no” because it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
Just to be clear, in answer to “If your daughter is raped by a violent and deformed mental defective with an IQ of 35, escaped from a lunatic asylum, is it her right as a human being to terminate that pregnancy?” your answer is “no” because the Constitution doesn’t specifically mention it.
That’s a loaded question because it goes back to the debate of when a fetus has rights of its own. If we say 15 weeks, then past 15 weeks, without a law allowing it, she is not able to terminate. Correct. But as k said above, I am in favor of federal laws allowing abortion up to the point of the unborn baby having its own rights. What that date is, I don’t know. They should compromise and set one based on science.
Based on science? Dude that’s ridiculous. Christian nuts say the second an egg is fertilied its a person…science says it’s alive, but a person? This is a philosophical debate, there’s no scientific method to having an answer.
Mi, heartbeat.. feeling pain… etc etc. Let congress work it out and compromise on a federal law. Sure states like Texas and MS won’t ever get on board but they will lose if the framework is reasonable.
“If Loving were to be challenged, would Thomas have to recuse himself?”
You mean like he has done when it has come to anything dealing with Jan. 6th and his wife’s active involvement? (meaning he hasn’t and didn’t) So I don’t see him doing it here either.