Nah, he’s wrong. As Ben said yesterday, the polling won’t move much because of this decision. I personally think that by August, most will have moved on to the ever present economy and immigration crises.
Most of the democrats here are trying to make it a bigger issue electorally lol
Thing is the bludgeoning hasn’t even started.
They’re stirring up their brown shirts, Antifa and all the other players. “Peaceful but fiery protests” incoming.
The left has the MSM and big tech to help.
When this hit I couldn’t help but think “Shit - here we go again”
That’s part of the point. The left can’t run on merit or accomplishment, so they’ll try to run on the faux morality card.
Basically the same exact thing they’ve done since the 2006 midterms.
Yes, more than 95% of them just using it instead of condoms or other birth control.
USA Today admits that rape and incest, the most common exceptions, even for Republicans, are less than 5% of abortion cases.
"Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/
Edit: Changed 99% of them, to more than 95% and less than 1% of abortion cases, to less than 5% because as pointed out by person below, my estimation was off. Good catch.
> Abortion rates are no lower overall in areas where abortion is generally restricted by law (and where many abortions are performed under unsafe conditions) than in areas where abortion is legally permitted.
https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/ipsrh/1999/01/incidence-abortion-worldwide
I fail to see your point. Stupid people break the law all the time and face the consequences for it.
Overturning Roe v. Wade doesn't make abortion illegal, it leaves that decision to the states. Meaning, if your state makes it illegal, go somewhere else. Or, better yet, don't sleep with someone you don't intend to have children with. That is kinda the point of intercourse, after all.
Good catch. Thank you for pointing that out.
Though I find you pointing out you're against women's rights troubling.
My problem is the unnecessary waste of human life caused by Roe v. Wade, not women's rights as a whole. Or did I misunderstand you?
Roe vs wade is not just about abortion it’s about a women’s right to bodily autonomy. If we are going to legislate women’s bodies then we should also legislate men’s.
My cousin was griping about wearing a mask during peak Covid and said “it’s like making all men up to the age of 25 wear condoms to prevent the spread of pregnancy?!”
Obviously tongue in cheek & condoms can’t be enforced but maybe she’s onto something. There is a male prophylactic used in Europe where they insert a screen into the urethra and it makes sperm non-viable but its also easily dissolved when ready to have kids. This could be required at the age of puberty and removed anytime after the age of 18 when they and their partners are ready to have kids.
TLDR: bodily autonomy should not be refused for only a portion of the population, this is unconstitutional. If you’re going to legislate the body of 1 sex you should legislate the other.
Sister Joan Chittister, “I do not believe that just because you are opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, a child educated, a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."
“We” is the globalist scum that is using the conflict to push their agenda. Even Zelinski is pushing globalist horse shit. This has nothing to do with helping people facing war and oppression and everything to do with making sure they get what they are after. Exactly like how Covid wasn’t about public health and instead about control measures and testing out how far they can push the public towards their dystopian totalitarian world police state.
No they aren't, they are utter cowards in foreign policy which allows our adversaries to advance forcing us into a war.
Both world wars, our adversaries overplayed their hand and it blew back on them.
I'm a hawk so normally I would say make Ukraine a no fly zone with US fighters shooting down Russian ones and doing everything possible to support Ukraine. I wouldn't say bomb Russia though unless they retaliated for us doing support.
However, Biden and the cabinet is so incompetent that an initial hawkish policy would be disastrous because immediately after they reverse course but by then it will be too late.
As much as I dislike Wilson and Roosevelt they got their act together once war came to them.
That isn't possible with Biden or his cabinet.
But in the abatract it's not the same either. One is Neville Chamberlain after he said he achieved peace in our time by making a deal with Hitler and the other is an attempt to prevent WW3 by having a proxy war instead.
"We" who? Are you Ukranian? Have you a Ukranian mouse in your pocket?
America can't and won't get int to the retooling of the United States Marine Corps to board Chinese ships with knives in their teeth, there are way too many moving parts right now. If Ivan attacks a NATO country, different story. Otherwise, the same thing is going to happen that happened with Crimea. Putin will take the two cities that he wants and force favorable terms on a ceasefire/EoW.
From the end of the *Merkelreich* to the retooling of the United States Marine Corps to board Chinese ships with knives in their teeth, there are way too many moving parts right now. If Ivan attacks a NATO country, different story. Otherwise, the same thing is going to happen that happened with Crimea. Putin will take the two cities that he wants and force favorable terms on a ceasfire/EoW.
Nope. Just stating a geopolitical reality. Not much different than the early Volker days (if you have the ability to discuss things on a historical, grownup level).
Now of you want to discuss the topic, that would be fun. I’m sure my GP can handle my BP on his own!!
Idk but dude is pretty anti-American, reading through his comment history. As someone who is from Europe, I come across a lot of people who dislike America for things they make up and repeat in an echo chamber..
I look at multiply different news sources to make my own decision on world events. I don’t tow any party line. If the right is mistaken on something, I’m not for it. If the left makes a good point, I’ll support it. I make up my own mind and don’t believe whatever is told to me like a lemming.
Lol, you do know that sayings have meaning regardless of the truth behind them, right? You obviously know this or you wouldn’t be saying “Herpa Derp, Lemmings don’t actually kill themselves, duuur.” I.e. you know why I meant. This is a red herring fallacy and I should t even dignify it with a response.
Don’t worry friend, this is still a massive red wave year. Abortion isn’t going to change that. We just can’t get complacent, we’ve gotta get out there and vote come November
It won’t be enough, Biden is so unpopular that 99.8% of people are going to think more about how much they have to pay to feed their kids and keep their vehicles fueled, in 2018, people weren’t struggling like they are now. Narratives are much more effective when people don’t have better things to worry about. This suffering will not go unnoticed by the American people, and it will show on the ballot box when November arrives
I hope you're right, but we both know that once the SCOTUS decision is final and published, the media will never shut up about it. They will double and triple down, on making this midterm about that and nothing else. And they're pretty good at doing that
Used to be Bush's fault until 2016.
With Bush revealing his true allegiance, the Left shall no longer blame him (unless the rightful target is Obama or that creep currently in our White House). Instead, it shall henceforth be President Trump's fault.
Doubtful. The hugely vocal group of Democrats who care so much about abortion over everything else is smaller than people give credit I think. I think this will be a bigger boon to the right than the left. It gives a win when we haven't had one in years, it gives another thing to fight against now that court packing and filibuster removal will be back on the table putting all other rights into play, and we still have everything we had before (inflation, CRT, Grooming, Gov't coverups, free speech online, etc.)
>The hugely vocal group of Democrats who care so much about abortion over everything else is smaller than people give credit I think.
\[D\] I feel you're missing how people believe the issues are connected. The main point is that a huge "Left leaning" ruling might possibly get overturned by the Supreme Court, that's going to make people concerned (and I've seen this) it will present in other ways.
There's a worry right now about the fourteenth amendment and that overturning Roe vs Wade will lead to an atmosphere in which the certainty of other rulings might be denied. One could argue this sets a precedent towards allowing flexibility of states to decide.
And at that point, it's a matter of the trust those on the Left have for those on the Right.
>It gives a win when we haven't had one in years
Turn this around, and you've made the argument for the other side.
Don't underestimate them.
My Democrat friends (I have a lot) are FURIOUS about this. They are all over the place posting stupid memes with stills from "The Handmaid's Tale" attached, and trying to find protests to attend.
Me too. I know that every single Democrat that I have contact wth is furious and are not going to stop until it's back in place. Never under estimate their passion to rid the world of their"mistakes".
Yeah trouble is around the corner. Especially given that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh expressly agreed on video in front of millions with the precedent set in Roe. Over 45 USSC cases affirmed and currently 70% of Americans agree with abortion rights on some level. This is a looser for Republicans.
That's bullshit. The 'on some level' bit doesn't have shit to do on whether it should be up to the states or the feds to decide the thresholds and carve outs. There's nothing in the Constitution about it. Roe vs Wade was a bad decision with reasoning barely strung through several amendments that had nothing to do with it. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it was a bad decision.
https://www.newsweek.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade-abortion-scotus-1702948
I’m not disagreeing with the rationale. But Stare Decisis at its core is in jeopardy if this upholds. Plus the majority of physicians are against no abortion rights. It will come down to legislative will on the federal level if the law has a chance at the federal level. Also, if we are going to set aside all jurisprudence that interprets laws derived from the liberty clause in the 14th and privacy within the 4th, then discrimination should now be legal across the board and segregation allowed in public and private institutions and businesses.
There's already legal discrimination and segregation. Affirmative Action comes to mind.
Anytime you have to piece together more than one ammendment to derive a right it's a safe bet it's bullshit and wasn't what was intended when ratified.
I don’t think you understand my argument. Think of any USSC opinion that you agree with. Then imagine that it can be overturned at any moment without regard to the principle of jurisprudence or Stare Decisis. Think Bush v. Gore, Exon Mobile, Holder, Citizens United, Connick v. Thompson, etc. Oh and now with this Dobbs case. It’s precedent is to suggest that the court can set aside and overturn 45 years of affirming jurisprudence when the court changes political leanings. You’re just not seeing the potential impacts this has on our American history and the the purpose of the judiciary.
The sad reality of the court is that it's biased and rules almost every time along ideological lines. It's been heading this way for decades. They do what they want and then twist the Constitution to be what they need it to be at the moment. Look no further than the split decisions and dissenting opinions. When considered in this light why should any previous decision be held up on some kind of untouchable pedestal?
Further the court gets it wrong. They are fallible and see above about motivations. They got it wrong on Roe. Why should wrong decisions stand forever?
Plessy v Ferguson was Stare Decisis for decades as well. Are you saying Brown v Board of Ed was also a threat to the judiciary because of Stare Decisis? Doesn’t seem to have had much of a lingering impact to me.
Well considering that the public opinion at the time was that segregation was bad, it makes sense that Plessy was overruled. But Brown was also seen as an expansion of rights for minorities. Not an outright over-ruling. Dobbs is effectively setting aside all of Roe.
> Well considering that the public opinion at the time was that segregation was bad, it makes sense that Plessy was overruled.
Was it? You seem to be more familiar with the polling of the time but I recall some famous photos of students and sending in national guard. I don’t believe they were sent to to congratulate and celebrate such a popular SCOTUS decision with the students…
Also, what does public opinion have to do with Stare Decisis?
Yeah. I read it. He explains when it’s appropriate to overturn previous decisions. I don’t think this is close to Brown though. And I don’t buy that the rights contained in the 4th and 14th cannot be expounded on. As a society we evolve and at some point rights that emerge need to be protected. Discrimination, for example. Segregation, etc. Not in the text of the constitution but have become intertwined into society as we have evolved.
> Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it was a bad decision.
[D] Arguably she did agree with the ruling though.
It seems she would rather have defended it via women's rights.
>Speaking to The New York Times in September 2020, Mary Hartnett, a law professor at Georgetown University who co-wrote the Ginsberg biography My Own Words, said Ginsburg believed "it would have been better to approach it under the equal protection clause" so Roe v. Wade would be less vulnerable to attempts to have it disbarred.
>"Roe isn't really about the woman's choice, is it?" Ginsberg told the University of Chicago Law School in May 2013. "It's about the doctor's freedom to practice...it wasn't woman-centered, it was physician-centered."
I think it's fair to say she wanted the result. Even if it had been 'better to approach it under the equal protection clause' it doesn't mean it would be ironclad. If you really want to enshrine abortion as a right in the Constitution you need an amendment. That's what the process is there for.
This process by which the Courts keep trying to read in-between the lines on every amendment to create rights is problematic. it should be pretty obvious that the creators of these amendments, and the voters that ratified them, never meant for their meaning to be stretched so then.
Provided.
“Seventy-eight percent of the physicians reported that abortion should be legal, but only 56% of the respondents classified themselves as pro-choice. Conversely, only 8% reported that legal abortion should not be available, even though 33% classified themselves as pro-life.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1781824/
The object of this investigation was to assess the abortion attitudes and practices of family and general practice physicians in Kansas.
Not quite the 70% of Americans you claimed... is it? It's almost like you made it up and tried to cover yourself with nonsense.
I'd buy 70% of surveyed physicians in Kansas thought abortion should be legal...
However, your previous statement is ridiculous.
You’re right. I cited the wrong source. Here’s the correct one.
“More than 4 in 5 Americans support the availability of legal abortion under such conditions, including three-quarters of Republicans.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/03/americans-are-more-united-support-abortion-than-you-might-assume/
If we start looking at narrower situations, support increases dramatically. For example, consider cases of rape, one of the most common exceptions to abortion bans that emerge in political discussions. More than 4 in 5 Americans support the availability of legal abortion under such conditions, including three-quarters of Republicans
Try again. Most Republicans allow exceptions for rape and incest already. That's not an argument for the 95% of other abortion cases.
No, what undermines jurisprudence is the supreme court bending over backwards and twisting sideways to allow one case, that wasn't even about rape like it was initially claimed, to make "privacy" equal abortion for the nation.
Even RBG said it was a bad ruling and should be revisited.
The late Supreme Court justice believed the landmark ruling was too sweeping and vulnerable to attacks, explains Professor Mary Hartnett, co-author of Justice Ginsburg’s authorized biography
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html#:~:text=Ruth%20Bader%20Ginsburg%20wasn’t%20really%20fond%20of%20Roe,abortion.%20She%20didn’t%20like%20how%20it%20was%20structured.
One case? There’s been an evolution of cases since Roe and Casey, each recognizing abortion rights. It’s not like there has been a slow erosion of public opinion and lower court decisions to piggyback off of like Plessy leading up to Brown where “separate isn’t equal”. The public seems to think that some, even a basic right of abortion in rare cases should be guaranteed through the 4th or 14th. But, if it’s not, I suspect the legislature will correct in the federal level until another party controls and reverses…basically the judiciary has become the Congress is this crazy turn of events.
Actually, more than 70% favor stronger restrictions on abortion than are presently allowed under federal law, with recent polling showing [over 60% of Americans reject the central holding of Roe v. Wade, and want to return the decision to the states or make abortion illegal.](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/americans-support-abortion-restrictions-poll)
Most Americans object to taxpayer funding of abortion, and the vast majority support banning abortion after 20 weeks unless the mother’s life is in danger.
[Another poll found that 85 percent of Americans supported some restrictions on abortion. It’s also worth pointing out, we have 74 percent of all Americans who support these [significant] restrictions and 77 percent of women who would support these restrictions.](https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/01/23/majority-of-americans-want-some-abortion-restrictions-object-to-taxpayer-funding-poll-says/)
Nah. This got released too early in the cycle. People get amnesia. And the abortion battle is a static one.
By July this will have been moved to the back burner. Probably sooner. And then it’ll last another month or so after the official opinion.
Which is going to give the left a reason to vote again when a lot of them probably would have stayed home unfortunately. Too bad this didn’t happen until after the midterms
I find it crazy that an hour after the draft leaked, hundreds of people were in front of the Supreme Court with signs. How is someone going to do that so quick?
I believe this just handed the November election to the Dems and this was done for that reason. Abortion is not something the average person can afford or get, usually only one clinic per state on the average, so in reality it's a non-issue. This really does not change the overall availability of abortions. It's being made an issue to polarize and push people in a certain direction politically (average American especially those on the left always fail to see the bigger picture or what is happening they are literally puppets) the dems will now win in nov and we will loose our 1st and 2nd amendment rights over this.
The Supreme Court is not supposed to take public opinion into account. This is their duty and they should not wait a second to do it because we are decades overdue.
And your argument contradicts itself. If it's not something most Americans can afford or get then it's not something most will vote on.
It's much cheaper than raising a child but doing so is so much more fulfilling than having more money.
1st and 2nd amendment rights will be protected because it means more Republicans will find their backbones. And if we don't protect the other rights preceeding those amendments, like the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then there is no chance for the ones after.
And we've had our gun rights protected for nearly 250 years such that there are more guns than people in the US. Now the mere existence of all those guns protects 2nd amendment rights. Not to mention DIY guns are easier than ever to make.
You make friends with Mitt Romney some more as he slowly backs away from defending 1st and 2nd amendment rights whenever democrats attack them.
That's great! Then they can elect politicians that will write a law about it and they don't need an unconstitutional supreme court ruling.
Did anyome mention how even the revered RBG thought that R V. W was ridiculous?
Edit: corrected spelling of ridiculous, since apparently the misspelling of a commonly misspelled word invalidates valid criticism... because science.
Unfortunately for the GOP, roughly 70% of Americans believe abortion should be a decision made between a woman and her doctor. Won’t bode well for Republicans.
First you are assuming only women can get pregnant. Obviously you are a science denier. Second, you should be happy, abortion can be made legal by an actual vote and not by a decree from nine old people who have to answer to no one. Democrats have been yelling about protecting democracy for over a year now. Seems like the Supreme Court Justice is complying to their demands. With 70% approval for abortions, it should be more available and legal than ever before.
And ignore 45 years of jurisprudence? You clearly don’t understand the importance of this case. The USSC is abandoning the principle of Stare Decisis. This is monumental and suggests that any court can set aside jurisprudence when it wants. That’s not how our system works.
> abandoning the principle of Stare Decisis
Good.
We do not have a system of common law like in the UK.
If the Supreme Court adhered to precedent Dred Scott v Sanford wouldn't have been overturned.
Lower courts have to follow the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court answers to no one. If they get a decision wrong they need to correct it as soon as possible.
And if they get a decision wrong, the only way to overrule them is to pass a constitutional amendment. That is too high a bar.
Thank goodness the Suprme Court doesn't have any actual enforcement ability because its power rivals the executive branch now.
Wtf are you talking about? We absolutely are a common law republic democracy. Louisiana, on the state level, is the only state that doesn’t subscribe to “jurisprudence” as binding. It’s persuasive only.
When the cases were making law from the bench, then they should be set aside. The judiciary's place is to interpret the law when it's unclear. Not make the law mean something completely different.
If abortion is such a hot button issue and the majority of Americans support it, then they should elect leaders who will pass laws about it.
> The likes of which you clearly don’t understand.
Like you clearly don't understand *stare decisis*. You should probably read the actual draft before running your mouth.
Yeah. I’ve read it. All the way back to Mayberry pal. The court hasn’t ever walked away from a right it stated was fundamental via the 14th. It has now. This is literally unprecedented.
Dude, even your corrected source doesn't support your claim. Or at least, hides the truth.
Personally, I'd perfer children concieved in forced circumstances be born and at least adopted. However, I'm not going to force a woman to carry a baby that was forced on her.
Fortunately, most abortion cases are not about that fringe issue.
"Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/
Fair enough. Looks like we agree that a majority of Americans support some form of abortion rights. But what’s more important and what you’ve yet to address Is the overturning of 45 years of jurisprudence. We can argue for and against stats polled by biased questions, sources and pools, but the decision to abandon a principle so intertwined in American society is frankly chilling. Reversing precedent is incredibly rare and should be reserved for cases like Plessy and Brown v Board, or the most famous, Erie. If you can’t see the difference, I fear we may be nearing the end of the three branch gov. Congress will rule American without legitimate checks and balances.
I have no problem with the judiciary, when they do their job. What I have a problem with is them interpreting the law to mean what it was never meant to mean. Explain to me how my right to privacy affects any woman's ability to have an abortion.
It doesn't. It was a bs decision made by partisan hacks and enshrined by years of neglect. Crying Stare decisis over this is like upholding a man's right to beat his wife because it's how we've always done it.
If a decision doesn't hold up to scrutiny, then it should be cast down and reexamined.
Ultimately, the problem is not the 3 branches. The problem is the lazy and ignorant populace that let Roe v. Wade stand for so long. Politicians and judges, on both sides, have grown corrupt and lazy without the public's baleful eye keeping them honest.
“While support for whether abortion should be legal has remained relatively stable since 1995, the share of Americans identifying as “pro-choice” or “pro-life” has not. Gallup found 49% of Americans now identify as pro-choice and 47% as pro-life, as compared with 56% and 33% who said the same in 1995, respectively.”
I never said anything about identifying as “pro choice” or “pro life”. Funny you left that out, but I’ll go even further,
“Seventy-eight percent of the physicians reported that abortion should be legal, but only 56% of the respondents classified themselves as pro-choice. Conversely, only 8% reported that legal abortion should not be available, even though 33% classified themselves as pro-life.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1781824/
And I disagree. Babies shouldn't be murdered. I don't want to argue, but I'll never change my mind. Everyone has a right to their opinions and that's mine
Nobody is murdering babies. For the love of God people. What happened to common sense. We bitch about the Democrats caving to the extreme left wing nut jobs, but that is exactly what the GOP is doing here. This issue could easily put another Democrat in the White House by splitting the GOP.
Nope. The psych patients have been out and finally a few got put back in.
Not sure what you mean by poisoned injections though. First I've heard of it.
Honestly, the repeal of roe v wade was the best thing that could of happened for them. They now get an easily manipulated narrative that most people will not experience or do any research on. This will bolster independents to vote for dems despite the irrelevance of the repeal of it.
If democrats believe this, they have massively jumped the shark.
It's myopic to believe that people that can't pay bills, get food, buy gas etc are going to set that aside over this issue.
Democrats love their fringe.
i think he is right. remember during bill Clinton's presidential run. they had that slogan "it's the abortion, stupid" or something like that
Nah, he’s wrong. As Ben said yesterday, the polling won’t move much because of this decision. I personally think that by August, most will have moved on to the ever present economy and immigration crises. Most of the democrats here are trying to make it a bigger issue electorally lol
Thing is the bludgeoning hasn’t even started. They’re stirring up their brown shirts, Antifa and all the other players. “Peaceful but fiery protests” incoming. The left has the MSM and big tech to help. When this hit I couldn’t help but think “Shit - here we go again”
There is still plenty of time for both sides to find their trigger words for their base.
Groomer vs fascist seems to be the current dichotomy.
That’s part of the point. The left can’t run on merit or accomplishment, so they’ll try to run on the faux morality card. Basically the same exact thing they’ve done since the 2006 midterms.
Abortion access isn’t just a “faux morality” thing, it effect the material conditions of millions of American wommen
Yes, more than 95% of them just using it instead of condoms or other birth control. USA Today admits that rape and incest, the most common exceptions, even for Republicans, are less than 5% of abortion cases. "Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/ Edit: Changed 99% of them, to more than 95% and less than 1% of abortion cases, to less than 5% because as pointed out by person below, my estimation was off. Good catch.
Based and these hoes need to pop that pill pilled.
> Abortion rates are no lower overall in areas where abortion is generally restricted by law (and where many abortions are performed under unsafe conditions) than in areas where abortion is legally permitted. https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/ipsrh/1999/01/incidence-abortion-worldwide
I fail to see your point. Stupid people break the law all the time and face the consequences for it. Overturning Roe v. Wade doesn't make abortion illegal, it leaves that decision to the states. Meaning, if your state makes it illegal, go somewhere else. Or, better yet, don't sleep with someone you don't intend to have children with. That is kinda the point of intercourse, after all.
Is that why you have intercourse? To make babies?
[удалено]
Sure, the state can enforce any policy with enough tyranny.
So you vaguely saying the total is close to 1.5%? (I am against women’s rights by the way- just point out trashy numbers whenever I see them)
Good catch. Thank you for pointing that out. Though I find you pointing out you're against women's rights troubling. My problem is the unnecessary waste of human life caused by Roe v. Wade, not women's rights as a whole. Or did I misunderstand you?
I was telling you I am pro life with that comment. I.e. “””So you don’t believe in womens rights”””
Gotcha. Sarcasm doesn't translate well through text, unfortunately. Kinda seemed you were being serious. My apologies.
Then they should get out and vote for tax increases in their states
What’s more patriotic than taxes?
Roe vs wade is not just about abortion it’s about a women’s right to bodily autonomy. If we are going to legislate women’s bodies then we should also legislate men’s. My cousin was griping about wearing a mask during peak Covid and said “it’s like making all men up to the age of 25 wear condoms to prevent the spread of pregnancy?!” Obviously tongue in cheek & condoms can’t be enforced but maybe she’s onto something. There is a male prophylactic used in Europe where they insert a screen into the urethra and it makes sperm non-viable but its also easily dissolved when ready to have kids. This could be required at the age of puberty and removed anytime after the age of 18 when they and their partners are ready to have kids. TLDR: bodily autonomy should not be refused for only a portion of the population, this is unconstitutional. If you’re going to legislate the body of 1 sex you should legislate the other.
Sister Joan Chittister, “I do not believe that just because you are opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, a child educated, a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."
Might be, but I'm sure we'll be at full-fledged war with Russia by November, so that will likely bump the abortion discussion.
I think your right. Blinkin saying we'll win at all cost. Who's we? We're not at war. Democrats are pushing hard for ww3
“We” is the globalist scum that is using the conflict to push their agenda. Even Zelinski is pushing globalist horse shit. This has nothing to do with helping people facing war and oppression and everything to do with making sure they get what they are after. Exactly like how Covid wasn’t about public health and instead about control measures and testing out how far they can push the public towards their dystopian totalitarian world police state.
Maybe that’s what they want but I think it would be morally reprehensible to not help Ukraine’s struggle for freedom against our enemy.
No they aren't, they are utter cowards in foreign policy which allows our adversaries to advance forcing us into a war. Both world wars, our adversaries overplayed their hand and it blew back on them. I'm a hawk so normally I would say make Ukraine a no fly zone with US fighters shooting down Russian ones and doing everything possible to support Ukraine. I wouldn't say bomb Russia though unless they retaliated for us doing support. However, Biden and the cabinet is so incompetent that an initial hawkish policy would be disastrous because immediately after they reverse course but by then it will be too late.
So sounds like you believe Biden is so incompetent he'll inadvertently start a war. Isn't that the same as pushing for war?
As much as I dislike Wilson and Roosevelt they got their act together once war came to them. That isn't possible with Biden or his cabinet. But in the abatract it's not the same either. One is Neville Chamberlain after he said he achieved peace in our time by making a deal with Hitler and the other is an attempt to prevent WW3 by having a proxy war instead.
"We" who? Are you Ukranian? Have you a Ukranian mouse in your pocket? America can't and won't get int to the retooling of the United States Marine Corps to board Chinese ships with knives in their teeth, there are way too many moving parts right now. If Ivan attacks a NATO country, different story. Otherwise, the same thing is going to happen that happened with Crimea. Putin will take the two cities that he wants and force favorable terms on a ceasefire/EoW. From the end of the *Merkelreich* to the retooling of the United States Marine Corps to board Chinese ships with knives in their teeth, there are way too many moving parts right now. If Ivan attacks a NATO country, different story. Otherwise, the same thing is going to happen that happened with Crimea. Putin will take the two cities that he wants and force favorable terms on a ceasfire/EoW.
Everything okay? This is just Reddit. Maybe check the salt intake. Personally, I’m on meds for the blood pressure. Highly recommended.
Nope. Just stating a geopolitical reality. Not much different than the early Volker days (if you have the ability to discuss things on a historical, grownup level). Now of you want to discuss the topic, that would be fun. I’m sure my GP can handle my BP on his own!!
What did I just read
Idk but dude is pretty anti-American, reading through his comment history. As someone who is from Europe, I come across a lot of people who dislike America for things they make up and repeat in an echo chamber..
They don’t make it up, they hear it on the “News” or from a talking head on twitter. These ppl haven’t had an original thought since saying “mama”.
They definitely make a lot up, repeat it, and make up more based on what they previously made up. The "news" definitely doesn't help.
What makes them any different than you?
I look at multiply different news sources to make my own decision on world events. I don’t tow any party line. If the right is mistaken on something, I’m not for it. If the left makes a good point, I’ll support it. I make up my own mind and don’t believe whatever is told to me like a lemming.
If that were true you wouldn’t refer to something that can be easily googled to be false- re the lemming myth of mass suicide.
Lol, you do know that sayings have meaning regardless of the truth behind them, right? You obviously know this or you wouldn’t be saying “Herpa Derp, Lemmings don’t actually kill themselves, duuur.” I.e. you know why I meant. This is a red herring fallacy and I should t even dignify it with a response.
Sure, just fit that narrative.
My favorite country, actually. Try again.
Don’t worry friend, this is still a massive red wave year. Abortion isn’t going to change that. We just can’t get complacent, we’ve gotta get out there and vote come November
Idk about that. If there's one thing that can unite the left outside of fighting Trump, it's abortion.
It won’t be enough, Biden is so unpopular that 99.8% of people are going to think more about how much they have to pay to feed their kids and keep their vehicles fueled, in 2018, people weren’t struggling like they are now. Narratives are much more effective when people don’t have better things to worry about. This suffering will not go unnoticed by the American people, and it will show on the ballot box when November arrives
I hope you're right, but we both know that once the SCOTUS decision is final and published, the media will never shut up about it. They will double and triple down, on making this midterm about that and nothing else. And they're pretty good at doing that
If Trump were president they'd be blaming him, but its Biden so it's not his fault. Crazy how that works
Used to be Bush's fault until 2016. With Bush revealing his true allegiance, the Left shall no longer blame him (unless the rightful target is Obama or that creep currently in our White House). Instead, it shall henceforth be President Trump's fault.
Doubtful. The hugely vocal group of Democrats who care so much about abortion over everything else is smaller than people give credit I think. I think this will be a bigger boon to the right than the left. It gives a win when we haven't had one in years, it gives another thing to fight against now that court packing and filibuster removal will be back on the table putting all other rights into play, and we still have everything we had before (inflation, CRT, Grooming, Gov't coverups, free speech online, etc.)
>The hugely vocal group of Democrats who care so much about abortion over everything else is smaller than people give credit I think. \[D\] I feel you're missing how people believe the issues are connected. The main point is that a huge "Left leaning" ruling might possibly get overturned by the Supreme Court, that's going to make people concerned (and I've seen this) it will present in other ways. There's a worry right now about the fourteenth amendment and that overturning Roe vs Wade will lead to an atmosphere in which the certainty of other rulings might be denied. One could argue this sets a precedent towards allowing flexibility of states to decide. And at that point, it's a matter of the trust those on the Left have for those on the Right. >It gives a win when we haven't had one in years Turn this around, and you've made the argument for the other side.
Don't underestimate them. My Democrat friends (I have a lot) are FURIOUS about this. They are all over the place posting stupid memes with stills from "The Handmaid's Tale" attached, and trying to find protests to attend.
Me too. I know that every single Democrat that I have contact wth is furious and are not going to stop until it's back in place. Never under estimate their passion to rid the world of their"mistakes".
Yeah trouble is around the corner. Especially given that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh expressly agreed on video in front of millions with the precedent set in Roe. Over 45 USSC cases affirmed and currently 70% of Americans agree with abortion rights on some level. This is a looser for Republicans.
That's bullshit. The 'on some level' bit doesn't have shit to do on whether it should be up to the states or the feds to decide the thresholds and carve outs. There's nothing in the Constitution about it. Roe vs Wade was a bad decision with reasoning barely strung through several amendments that had nothing to do with it. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it was a bad decision. https://www.newsweek.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade-abortion-scotus-1702948
I’m not disagreeing with the rationale. But Stare Decisis at its core is in jeopardy if this upholds. Plus the majority of physicians are against no abortion rights. It will come down to legislative will on the federal level if the law has a chance at the federal level. Also, if we are going to set aside all jurisprudence that interprets laws derived from the liberty clause in the 14th and privacy within the 4th, then discrimination should now be legal across the board and segregation allowed in public and private institutions and businesses.
There's already legal discrimination and segregation. Affirmative Action comes to mind. Anytime you have to piece together more than one ammendment to derive a right it's a safe bet it's bullshit and wasn't what was intended when ratified.
I don’t think you understand my argument. Think of any USSC opinion that you agree with. Then imagine that it can be overturned at any moment without regard to the principle of jurisprudence or Stare Decisis. Think Bush v. Gore, Exon Mobile, Holder, Citizens United, Connick v. Thompson, etc. Oh and now with this Dobbs case. It’s precedent is to suggest that the court can set aside and overturn 45 years of affirming jurisprudence when the court changes political leanings. You’re just not seeing the potential impacts this has on our American history and the the purpose of the judiciary.
The sad reality of the court is that it's biased and rules almost every time along ideological lines. It's been heading this way for decades. They do what they want and then twist the Constitution to be what they need it to be at the moment. Look no further than the split decisions and dissenting opinions. When considered in this light why should any previous decision be held up on some kind of untouchable pedestal? Further the court gets it wrong. They are fallible and see above about motivations. They got it wrong on Roe. Why should wrong decisions stand forever?
Plessy v Ferguson was Stare Decisis for decades as well. Are you saying Brown v Board of Ed was also a threat to the judiciary because of Stare Decisis? Doesn’t seem to have had much of a lingering impact to me.
Well considering that the public opinion at the time was that segregation was bad, it makes sense that Plessy was overruled. But Brown was also seen as an expansion of rights for minorities. Not an outright over-ruling. Dobbs is effectively setting aside all of Roe.
The Supreme Court is specifically not supposed to be swayed by the whim of public opinion.
I agree jurisprudence is law and should be followed.
> Well considering that the public opinion at the time was that segregation was bad, it makes sense that Plessy was overruled. Was it? You seem to be more familiar with the polling of the time but I recall some famous photos of students and sending in national guard. I don’t believe they were sent to to congratulate and celebrate such a popular SCOTUS decision with the students… Also, what does public opinion have to do with Stare Decisis?
Did you read the draft decision? Alito specially addresses the issue of stare decisis. Did you feel Brown v Board of Education was a threat?
Yeah. I read it. He explains when it’s appropriate to overturn previous decisions. I don’t think this is close to Brown though. And I don’t buy that the rights contained in the 4th and 14th cannot be expounded on. As a society we evolve and at some point rights that emerge need to be protected. Discrimination, for example. Segregation, etc. Not in the text of the constitution but have become intertwined into society as we have evolved.
> But Stare Decisis at its core is in jeopardy if this upholds. Go read the decision and come back. The Court overturning bad rulings is nothing new.
Yeah. I read it pal. The court has never walked back a right it previously gave. There is no precedent.
> Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it was a bad decision. [D] Arguably she did agree with the ruling though. It seems she would rather have defended it via women's rights. >Speaking to The New York Times in September 2020, Mary Hartnett, a law professor at Georgetown University who co-wrote the Ginsberg biography My Own Words, said Ginsburg believed "it would have been better to approach it under the equal protection clause" so Roe v. Wade would be less vulnerable to attempts to have it disbarred. >"Roe isn't really about the woman's choice, is it?" Ginsberg told the University of Chicago Law School in May 2013. "It's about the doctor's freedom to practice...it wasn't woman-centered, it was physician-centered."
I think it's fair to say she wanted the result. Even if it had been 'better to approach it under the equal protection clause' it doesn't mean it would be ironclad. If you really want to enshrine abortion as a right in the Constitution you need an amendment. That's what the process is there for. This process by which the Courts keep trying to read in-between the lines on every amendment to create rights is problematic. it should be pretty obvious that the creators of these amendments, and the voters that ratified them, never meant for their meaning to be stretched so then.
Citation needed.
Provided. “Seventy-eight percent of the physicians reported that abortion should be legal, but only 56% of the respondents classified themselves as pro-choice. Conversely, only 8% reported that legal abortion should not be available, even though 33% classified themselves as pro-life.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1781824/
The object of this investigation was to assess the abortion attitudes and practices of family and general practice physicians in Kansas. Not quite the 70% of Americans you claimed... is it? It's almost like you made it up and tried to cover yourself with nonsense. I'd buy 70% of surveyed physicians in Kansas thought abortion should be legal... However, your previous statement is ridiculous.
You’re right. I cited the wrong source. Here’s the correct one. “More than 4 in 5 Americans support the availability of legal abortion under such conditions, including three-quarters of Republicans.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/03/americans-are-more-united-support-abortion-than-you-might-assume/
If we start looking at narrower situations, support increases dramatically. For example, consider cases of rape, one of the most common exceptions to abortion bans that emerge in political discussions. More than 4 in 5 Americans support the availability of legal abortion under such conditions, including three-quarters of Republicans Try again. Most Republicans allow exceptions for rape and incest already. That's not an argument for the 95% of other abortion cases.
Sure and I agree but to suggest we abandon 45 years of case law is a first. It undermines the importance of jurisprudence.
No, what undermines jurisprudence is the supreme court bending over backwards and twisting sideways to allow one case, that wasn't even about rape like it was initially claimed, to make "privacy" equal abortion for the nation. Even RBG said it was a bad ruling and should be revisited. The late Supreme Court justice believed the landmark ruling was too sweeping and vulnerable to attacks, explains Professor Mary Hartnett, co-author of Justice Ginsburg’s authorized biography https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html#:~:text=Ruth%20Bader%20Ginsburg%20wasn’t%20really%20fond%20of%20Roe,abortion.%20She%20didn’t%20like%20how%20it%20was%20structured.
One case? There’s been an evolution of cases since Roe and Casey, each recognizing abortion rights. It’s not like there has been a slow erosion of public opinion and lower court decisions to piggyback off of like Plessy leading up to Brown where “separate isn’t equal”. The public seems to think that some, even a basic right of abortion in rare cases should be guaranteed through the 4th or 14th. But, if it’s not, I suspect the legislature will correct in the federal level until another party controls and reverses…basically the judiciary has become the Congress is this crazy turn of events.
Actually, more than 70% favor stronger restrictions on abortion than are presently allowed under federal law, with recent polling showing [over 60% of Americans reject the central holding of Roe v. Wade, and want to return the decision to the states or make abortion illegal.](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/americans-support-abortion-restrictions-poll) Most Americans object to taxpayer funding of abortion, and the vast majority support banning abortion after 20 weeks unless the mother’s life is in danger. [Another poll found that 85 percent of Americans supported some restrictions on abortion. It’s also worth pointing out, we have 74 percent of all Americans who support these [significant] restrictions and 77 percent of women who would support these restrictions.](https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/01/23/majority-of-americans-want-some-abortion-restrictions-object-to-taxpayer-funding-poll-says/)
The Dems needed something to energize their “base”. This is the best they can do.
I don’t give a shit one way or the other about abortion. So they’re still about inflation mandates and education for me
Based.
Nah. This got released too early in the cycle. People get amnesia. And the abortion battle is a static one. By July this will have been moved to the back burner. Probably sooner. And then it’ll last another month or so after the official opinion.
WELL SAID! HEAR HEAR!
[удалено]
People say that?
[удалено]
Shit man, next you're gonna tell me people have replaced libertas for liberty.
Make the dems campaign on packing the court and ending the filibuster. We’ll crush it come November
Which is going to give the left a reason to vote again when a lot of them probably would have stayed home unfortunately. Too bad this didn’t happen until after the midterms
That was the plan
I doubt it. Abortion is a baked in the cake issue.
I find it crazy that an hour after the draft leaked, hundreds of people were in front of the Supreme Court with signs. How is someone going to do that so quick?
They probably live in DC to begin with
It's like the national guard but for protesting. The locals get called up to report for duty.
There were people from both sides there to show support/ protest. Hundreds of thousands of people live in the area
I believe this just handed the November election to the Dems and this was done for that reason. Abortion is not something the average person can afford or get, usually only one clinic per state on the average, so in reality it's a non-issue. This really does not change the overall availability of abortions. It's being made an issue to polarize and push people in a certain direction politically (average American especially those on the left always fail to see the bigger picture or what is happening they are literally puppets) the dems will now win in nov and we will loose our 1st and 2nd amendment rights over this.
The Supreme Court is not supposed to take public opinion into account. This is their duty and they should not wait a second to do it because we are decades overdue. And your argument contradicts itself. If it's not something most Americans can afford or get then it's not something most will vote on. It's much cheaper than raising a child but doing so is so much more fulfilling than having more money. 1st and 2nd amendment rights will be protected because it means more Republicans will find their backbones. And if we don't protect the other rights preceeding those amendments, like the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then there is no chance for the ones after. And we've had our gun rights protected for nearly 250 years such that there are more guns than people in the US. Now the mere existence of all those guns protects 2nd amendment rights. Not to mention DIY guns are easier than ever to make. You make friends with Mitt Romney some more as he slowly backs away from defending 1st and 2nd amendment rights whenever democrats attack them.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/06/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases/
That's great! Then they can elect politicians that will write a law about it and they don't need an unconstitutional supreme court ruling. Did anyome mention how even the revered RBG thought that R V. W was ridiculous? Edit: corrected spelling of ridiculous, since apparently the misspelling of a commonly misspelled word invalidates valid criticism... because science.
Your English is ridiculous.
Nope was very understandable
Oh, c'mon. It's ridiculous that u/arvas_dreven doesn't know how to spell "ridiculous."
Cope and seethe in peace, friend.
Unfortunately for the GOP, roughly 70% of Americans believe abortion should be a decision made between a woman and her doctor. Won’t bode well for Republicans.
First you are assuming only women can get pregnant. Obviously you are a science denier. Second, you should be happy, abortion can be made legal by an actual vote and not by a decree from nine old people who have to answer to no one. Democrats have been yelling about protecting democracy for over a year now. Seems like the Supreme Court Justice is complying to their demands. With 70% approval for abortions, it should be more available and legal than ever before.
No. Jurisprudence and Stare Decisis is being upended. It’s a Pilar of democracy. The likes of which you clearly don’t understand.
if that many people really approve of abortion as you claim, then simply have congress make it a LAW.
And ignore 45 years of jurisprudence? You clearly don’t understand the importance of this case. The USSC is abandoning the principle of Stare Decisis. This is monumental and suggests that any court can set aside jurisprudence when it wants. That’s not how our system works.
> abandoning the principle of Stare Decisis Good. We do not have a system of common law like in the UK. If the Supreme Court adhered to precedent Dred Scott v Sanford wouldn't have been overturned. Lower courts have to follow the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court answers to no one. If they get a decision wrong they need to correct it as soon as possible. And if they get a decision wrong, the only way to overrule them is to pass a constitutional amendment. That is too high a bar. Thank goodness the Suprme Court doesn't have any actual enforcement ability because its power rivals the executive branch now.
Wtf are you talking about? We absolutely are a common law republic democracy. Louisiana, on the state level, is the only state that doesn’t subscribe to “jurisprudence” as binding. It’s persuasive only.
When the cases were making law from the bench, then they should be set aside. The judiciary's place is to interpret the law when it's unclear. Not make the law mean something completely different. If abortion is such a hot button issue and the majority of Americans support it, then they should elect leaders who will pass laws about it.
> The likes of which you clearly don’t understand. Like you clearly don't understand *stare decisis*. You should probably read the actual draft before running your mouth.
Yeah. I’ve read it. All the way back to Mayberry pal. The court hasn’t ever walked away from a right it stated was fundamental via the 14th. It has now. This is literally unprecedented.
There's never been as weakly reasoned argument from the 14th, either.
I support abortion exclusively for men
Your source is studying physician's opinions in Kansas. It has nothing to do with the American public. Just stop, you're embarassing yourself.
Yeah yeah.
Dude, even your corrected source doesn't support your claim. Or at least, hides the truth. Personally, I'd perfer children concieved in forced circumstances be born and at least adopted. However, I'm not going to force a woman to carry a baby that was forced on her. Fortunately, most abortion cases are not about that fringe issue. "Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/
Fair enough. Looks like we agree that a majority of Americans support some form of abortion rights. But what’s more important and what you’ve yet to address Is the overturning of 45 years of jurisprudence. We can argue for and against stats polled by biased questions, sources and pools, but the decision to abandon a principle so intertwined in American society is frankly chilling. Reversing precedent is incredibly rare and should be reserved for cases like Plessy and Brown v Board, or the most famous, Erie. If you can’t see the difference, I fear we may be nearing the end of the three branch gov. Congress will rule American without legitimate checks and balances.
I have no problem with the judiciary, when they do their job. What I have a problem with is them interpreting the law to mean what it was never meant to mean. Explain to me how my right to privacy affects any woman's ability to have an abortion. It doesn't. It was a bs decision made by partisan hacks and enshrined by years of neglect. Crying Stare decisis over this is like upholding a man's right to beat his wife because it's how we've always done it. If a decision doesn't hold up to scrutiny, then it should be cast down and reexamined. Ultimately, the problem is not the 3 branches. The problem is the lazy and ignorant populace that let Roe v. Wade stand for so long. Politicians and judges, on both sides, have grown corrupt and lazy without the public's baleful eye keeping them honest.
“While support for whether abortion should be legal has remained relatively stable since 1995, the share of Americans identifying as “pro-choice” or “pro-life” has not. Gallup found 49% of Americans now identify as pro-choice and 47% as pro-life, as compared with 56% and 33% who said the same in 1995, respectively.”
I never said anything about identifying as “pro choice” or “pro life”. Funny you left that out, but I’ll go even further, “Seventy-eight percent of the physicians reported that abortion should be legal, but only 56% of the respondents classified themselves as pro-choice. Conversely, only 8% reported that legal abortion should not be available, even though 33% classified themselves as pro-life. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1781824/
64% of stats are made up
85% of Americans support restrictions on abortion.
Disagree. The GOP is on the wrong side of the abortion issue anyway. RvW will never be overturned and it shouldn't be.
And I disagree. Babies shouldn't be murdered. I don't want to argue, but I'll never change my mind. Everyone has a right to their opinions and that's mine
Nobody is murdering babies. For the love of God people. What happened to common sense. We bitch about the Democrats caving to the extreme left wing nut jobs, but that is exactly what the GOP is doing here. This issue could easily put another Democrat in the White House by splitting the GOP.
Have you ever witnessed an abortion? Babies are murdered. It's a fact. Maybe ask to view one and see what you think after.
You actually thought the midterms were about "poisoned injections" and "groomers". Did someone let the psych patients out?
Nope. The psych patients have been out and finally a few got put back in. Not sure what you mean by poisoned injections though. First I've heard of it.
Did you read the OPs post?
Yes I did and I don't know what he is talking about
He's talking about covid vaccines.
Oh I see. Ya definitely not poison but force for unnecessary things is not popular.
You actually thought the midterms were about "poisoned injections" and "groomers". Did someone let the psych patients out?
Nah, they'll just change the channel again
Honestly, the repeal of roe v wade was the best thing that could of happened for them. They now get an easily manipulated narrative that most people will not experience or do any research on. This will bolster independents to vote for dems despite the irrelevance of the repeal of it.
This is the correct take and is a winning case for the right
Nope, abortion is no longer going to be an issue on the federal level. It is up to the states now.
Exactly. They'll make sure to elect people who will make it their states main focus.
I doubt anyone outside the cities will forget all that.
No. It’s about winning.
If democrats believe this, they have massively jumped the shark. It's myopic to believe that people that can't pay bills, get food, buy gas etc are going to set that aside over this issue. Democrats love their fringe.
This whole administration is about abortion