Where in the Constitution does it state that the Government has the right to interfere with women's medical health decisions? 

 

Maybe states should pass a law forcing men to vasectomies. 

4 minutes ago, barho said:

Fixed his tweet:

and a lot of conservative, pro-gun, pro-life, low tax, low IQ very red states.

Thanks for the awesome correction *squints* "registered republican."  

3 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Where in the Constitution does it state that the Government has the right to interfere with women's medical health decisions? 

 

Fourth sentence from the bottom.

2 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Maybe states should pass a law forcing men to vasectomies. 

 

Oh yeah, it makes perfect sense that the leaker was a conservative. I mean, what better way stiffen a squishy spine than subjecting them to nightly news images of mostly peaceful protests that are guaranteed to get exponentially worse if Roe v Wade is officially overturned.   it’s 90% guaranteed that this was a leftist but, regardless, it’s imperative that they find who did it and make an example of them.

28 minutes ago, TEW said:

Not remaining a country much longer because Democrats don’t get their way? Don’t get me excited. 

 

It doesn't matter what the issue is or how the political faultlines are drawn. Giving a religious minority this much power over a culturally diverse and ostensibly secular nation is a recipe for disaster. But I did post earlier about how abortion was actually a widely accepted and fairly common medical practice in the 19th century, a time when the country was actually much more religious. The Pro-Life movement is wholly regressive by any stretch of the imagination.

Get this man into a nursing home, please.

 

17 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Where in the Constitution does it state that the Government has the right to interfere with women's medical health decisions? 

 

 

The problem with the 10th Amendment is that it reserves all other rights "...to the States respectively, or to the people." So, in this case, you have no guidance of whether this is a state's or individual's right. The implication here seems to be that it's left to the courts to determine.

9th Amendment is lit, though: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

2 hours ago, VanHammersly said:

My point is that the court has already lost any integrity it had.  From Kavanaugh's pathetic Hilary conspiracy rant to Thomas's wife's texts about overturning the election and installing a dictator, it's all gone.

But to your Garland point, I'd consider this ruling (assuming it happens) to be the one positive to come out of that dirty play by McConnell.  This is a potential nail in the coffin of the modern Republican Party and it never would have happened without the court going too far to the activist right.  Short term, I think we'll see some modest help for the Dems in the mid-term, but longterm I think it's absolutely devastating to the right.  It has less to do with galvanizing the left (liberal's youth and short attention spans means that's always temporary) and more to do with breaking up the right.  Good luck keeping moderate, religious suburbanites on-board with the hard-right carnival-barker sheet-show when you don't have Roe to keep them close.

Yes agreed now that we are where we are

I see the left is back to "my body, my choice" again - cool!  

1 minute ago, mikemack8 said:

I see the left is back to "my body, my choice" again - cool!  

"My body, my choice" and they all of a sudden understand what a woman is again. Just incredible. It's not the dumbest cult on the planet for nothing.   

Where in the Constitution does it say, you have a right to a Jury of your Peers?

Where in the Constitution does it say we have the right to an Air Force? 

Where in the Constitution does it say voting districts are permissible? 

Where in the Constitution does it provide for the Presumption of Innocence? 

Where in the Constitution does it define Marriage? 

Where in the Constitution does it state the number of Justices to sit on the Supreme Court? 

Where in the Constitution does it state Political Parties are permissible? 

Where in the Constitution is it permissible to have Primary Elections? 

Where in the Constitution does it state the Right to Travel? 

Where in the Constitution does it provide the right of the Government to make policy on Immigration? 

Where in the Constitution does it say that all men are created equal? 

1 hour ago, vikas83 said:

I mean, yes it does. It motivates the base, and puts public pressure on the Court to get these 5 to move. People are going to be harassing them at their homes, work, everywhere. 

I don't know who leaked it. The relationship between one of Sotomayor's clerks and the reporter needs to be investigated. Whoever did leak it needs to be fired, and if it is proven that a justice knew it was being leaked, then impeachment proceedings should begin.

The base was going to be motivated the second the ruling came down in June anyway.  No chance whatsoever that any liberal pushback against the justices moves the needle for them.  Far greater chance that the public pressure applied from the right ensures that they maintain those comittments.  Kavanaugh, ACB, etc. are well aware who put them there.

2 hours ago, vikas83 said:

So after doing a little more research, I think where I come down is as follows:

1. The Court went too far in Roe -- applying the Right to Privacy to the decision to terminate a pregnancy...that seems like a stretch. The Court seemed to want to shy away from simply declaring that a fetus has no rights, and therefore abortion shouldn't be deemed illegal. Instead they waded into the muck by getting into viability. I would have simply focused on whether Constitutional Rights (the right to life) apply to a fetus, which they desperately sought to avoid. It was a cutely crafted opinion to get the outcome they wanted without attacking the fundamental issue. So, I think it was a poor decision.

2. That being said, I don't see the need to overturn precedent that has stood for 5 decades. Overturning precedent should be reserved for truly egregious decisions like Plessey v. Ferguson. I don't see how Roe falls into that category. Roe and Casey set a framework that I see no reason to overturn, even if the original decision was flawed.

3. Passing a federal ban on abortion is way too far and should be overturned by SCOTUS if they have any intellectual credibility. Clearly, they are saying that abortion falls under the 10th amendment. So leave it there. Also, any state law that tries to punish a resident from going to a place where abortion is legal to terminate should be seen as unconstitutional. 

4. There's probably nothing that can change this. Democrats can't get a bill to legalize abortion nationally through the Senate, and it would likely be overturned by this SCOTUS anyway. If they were going to codify this into law, it needed to happen when they had the votes and Roe was precedent. 

Good summary. The one thing I keep thinking about is that a group of 20-25% of the population do actually consider Roe in the same league as Plessey. Even a few in here take that position. That is what makes this such a powder keg topic. 

4 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Where in the Constitution does it say, you have a right to a Jury of your Peers?

Where in the Constitution does it say we have the right to an Air Force? 

Where in the Constitution does it say voting districts are permissible? 

Where in the Constitution does it provide for the Presumption of Innocence? 

Where in the Constitution does it define Marriage? 

Where in the Constitution does it state the number of Justices to sit on the Supreme Court? 

Where in the Constitution does it state Political Parties are permissible? 

Where in the Constitution is it permissible to have Primary Elections? 

Where in the Constitution does it state the Right to Travel? 

Where in the Constitution does it provide the right of the Government to make policy on Immigration? 

Where in the Constitution does it say that all men are created equal? 

The psychotic left is handling the news well, at least.  

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/business/amazon-abortion-costs/index.html

 

Quote

 

Amazon became the latest corporation to cover employees' travel costs to seek abortion care. The company told staff it would pay up to $4,000 in travel expenses annually for medical treatments including abortions, according to a message seen by Reuters. An Amazon spokesperson confirmed the nature of the Reuters report to CNN Business. 

 

The company's announcement echoes similar moves by Citigroup, Yelp, Uber and Lyft to help employees bypass Republican-led efforts in several states to effectively ban abortion. And it comes just hours after a bombshell report by Politico indicated the Supreme Court is prepared to overturn Roe v. Wade.

 

 

Amazon's commitment to the killing and dismemberment of fetuses is heartwarming. 

Any Rights the Dems want, the Radical GOP will fight to take it away. 

America the land of the free, my azzz. 

3 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/business/amazon-abortion-costs/index.html

 

 

 

Just now, Kz! said:

Amazon's commitment to the killing and dismemberment of fetuses is heartwarming. 

Less time for mothers/fathers to be out for maternity/paternity. Less medical coverage for children. They are not doing this without an ulterior motive.

Just now, Kz! said:

Amazon's commitment to the killing and dismemberment of fetuses is heartwarming. 

A private business is making it's own choices.  Somebody call Desantis!

Just now, Paul852 said:

 

Less time for mothers/fathers to be out for maternity/paternity. Less medical coverage for children. They are not doing this without an ulterior motive.

Sure.  Makes sense for them.  Also keeps their employees from going the coat hanger route.

1 minute ago, jsdarkstar said:

Any Rights the Dems want, the Radical GOP will fight to take it away. 

America the land of the free, my azzz. 

FWIW - i know quite a few dems that are against the right to have an abortion. 

9 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/business/amazon-abortion-costs/index.html

 

It's good business for them. It buys them some PR, and it's better to shell out 4K for a single abortion instead of ponying up for maternity leave, labor loss, and decades of medical benefits to employees AND their kids.

1 hour ago, vikas83 said:

I meant someone competent. You go ahead and enjoy that White Castle at your leisure.

Let the troll eat at White Castle and stop feeding it

13 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Amazon's commitment to the killing and dismemberment of fetuses is heartwarming. 

You can stop buying from them but I'm sure you won't. 

1 hour ago, binkybink77 said:

You could come up with a reason for either side to have leaked it. Whipping the left into a frenzy thinking that they won’t be allowed to slaughter babies any more would be one reason. 

I hope they determine who leaked it - I would be SHOCKED if a justice was involved and I’m hoping that’s not the case because damn. 

The "lefties won't be able to kill babies anymore" argument is hyperbolic and eye-rollingly lame at this point. This doesn't change much of anything. Poor people in red states will have a tougher time doing it...that's about it.