Leaked Supreme Court Decision signals majority set to overturn Roe v. Wade

[onlinebiker]

The  country is not your if you don’t know under what circumstances it is better to rip it apart than to give in.   you are just stuck on a car driven by someone does.

Say wut?????

[Angrboda]

The American Right knows that power is the only thing that matters, and they will do anything to get it.

Well, that's the thing. The right views these issues as an existential crisis, kill or be killed, while the left does not, or at least has not in the past.

[Brian37]

I am hearing the same stupid crap coming from the right that females are being suckered and doctors are taking advantage of them to make money. They are willing to punish the doctors, but not the female. Ok, so lets say a robber goes in to the bank with a partner and only one shot is fired by the other robber, someone dies as  result, they can both be charged equally. And what if the idea of robbing the bank was coming from the person who didn't shoot anyone?


There have been rare extremists, not that this bunch isn't already bat shit insane, but there are rare extremists who do think the female should get lifetime in prison or a needle along with the doctor. These whackjobs are being far more consistent in their logic, albeit wrong and vile. 

The fact these right wingers are unwilling to punish the female as equally as the doctor, is a glaring tell. It says to me they really don't care about the female or even the fetus, much less privacy rights.

[HappySkeptic]

The thing is, the Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. weren't anti-abortion until they became highly political in the 80s. And, most Catholics don't believe that an egg and sperm cell magically cause a soul to be created at the moment of conception, even though it is the official church position.

But, get political power involved, and it has become new religious dogma.

This is why I hate political parties, particularly in a duopoly. A small number of extremists can hijack the entire system. Almost everyone if fine with early-stage abortions, and is squeamish about late-stage abortions. Instead we get "abortion is murder" and "any moment before 9-month live birth is a good time for an abortion". These views do not match the views of most people, but these are the party positions.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The American Right knows that power is the only thing that matters, and they will do anything to get it.

Well, that's the thing. The right views these issues as an existential crisis, kill or be killed, while the left does not, or at least has not in the past.

Is it not the left that seeks to preserve killing as a legally availabe remedy to the inconvenient existence of some living organisms?

Those who have read the draft will know that the express intent of the opinion is to democratize the issue by eliminating its dependence on the opinion of 9 unelected officials and return it to elected legislative bodies. In this particular case, it is difficult to argue that conservatives are the ones relying on antidemocratic means to secure their political goals.

[Angrboda]

Well, that's the thing.  The right views these issues as an existential crisis, kill or be killed, while the left does not, or at least has not in the past.

Is it not the left that seeks to preserve killing as a legally availabe remedy to the inconvenient existence of some living organisms?

Those who have read the draft will know that the express intent of the opinion is to democratize the issue by eliminating its dependence on the opinion of 9 unelected officials and return it to elected legislative bodies. In this particular case, it is difficult to argue that conservatives are the ones relying on antidemocratic means to secure their political goals.

I was speaking more generally about the right abandoning all but power as a goal in politics. Abortion wasn't an issue with Christians or the right before some evangelical leaders realized that it could function as a wedge issue to drive voters to conservatism. It is that history which led us to here. Regarding whether Roe vs. Wade was anti-democratic or not requires begging the question of whether outlawing abortion in the first two trimesters is unconstitutional. You don't get to assume that as a given. Either it is or it isn't. It is not anti-democratic to abide by the method of resolving such questions enshrined in the constitution without arguing that the constitution itself is anti-democratic, which it appears that you are doing. The federal government reserves certain powers to itself, including determining whether something is constitutional or not. All other powers are reserved to the states. So, no, Roe v. Wade wasn't anti-democratic. Quite the opposite.

Nice rhetoric, though.

[Brian37]

The thing is, the Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. weren't anti-abortion until they became highly political in the 80s.  And, most Catholics don't believe that an egg and sperm cell magically cause a soul to be created at the moment of conception, even though it is the official church position.

But, get political power involved, and it has become new religious dogma.

This is why I hate political parties, particularly in a duopoly.  A small number of extremists can hijack the entire system.  Almost everyone if fine with early-stage abortions, and is squeamish about late-stage abortions.  Instead we get "abortion is murder" and "any moment before 9-month live birth is a good time for an abortion".  These views do not match the views of most people, but these are the party positions.

This is absolutely true, prior to Jerry Fartwell and the "We Pretend To Be Patent Holders On Morality", conservatives were far more likely to argue that religion should stay out of politics. 

But the duopoly argument is misleading too. India has hundreds of political parties and they have a higher rate of poverty and pollution.

I do agree though, with wiggle room that the vast majority of Americans support keeping abortion legal. The only argument is context of time and the problem for me attacking privacy rights. It is a myth that pro choice advocates go door to door and smile and say, "Go screw and get knocked up so we can have a keg party over it." All we are arguing is that we do not live in a perfect world where every pregnancy will be healthy and every baby will be wanted, or put up for adoption.

This same party that wants to spy on a womb they don't own, are also the party that says "Fuck you, you're on your own", for both the baby and the female, once the baby is born.

[HappySkeptic]

Those who have read the draft will know that the express intent of the opinion is to democratize the issue by eliminating its dependence on the opinion of 9 unelected officials and return it to elected legislative bodies. In this particular case, it is difficult to argue that conservatives are the ones relying on antidemocratic means to secure their political goals.

At what level should the fundamental rights of a woman be decided?  Perhaps it should go down to the county level, or even the city level?

A constitution that allows the right to privacy, but that doesn't include the right to private medical choices about their own body?  That is B.S. .  The "originalists" on the court truly believe that if an idea wasn't part of the zeitgeist at the moment that the constitution was written, then it obviously wasn't meant to be a right.

The Religious Right hates "rights".  I have had discussions with conservative religious friends, and they literally believe that there can be no rights but what the majority allows.  They believe legislature must have supremacy over courts.

[Angrboda]

Those who have read the draft will know that the express intent of the opinion is to democratize the issue by eliminating its dependence on the opinion of 9 unelected officials and return it to elected legislative bodies. In this particular case, it is difficult to argue that conservatives are the ones relying on antidemocratic means to secure their political goals.

At what level should the fundamental rights of a woman be decided?  Perhaps it should go down to the county level, or even the city level?

A constitution that allows the right to privacy, but that doesn't include the right to private medical choices about their own body?  That is B.S. .  The "originalists" on the court truly believe that if an idea wasn't part of the zeitgeist at the moment that the constitution was written, then it obviously wasn't meant to be a right.

The Religious Right hates "rights".  I have had discussions with conservative religious friends, and they literally believe that there can be no rights but what the majority allows.  They believe legislature must have supremacy over courts.

That may be more a marriage of convenience than anything. Conservatives in liberal states have had no reluctance in turning to the courts for relief. It is only Republican control of the majority of state legislatures in whole or in part that shifts their focus from the courts to the states.

[Brian37]

Those who have read the draft will know that the express intent of the opinion is to democratize the issue by eliminating its dependence on the opinion of 9 unelected officials and return it to elected legislative bodies. In this particular case, it is difficult to argue that conservatives are the ones relying on antidemocratic means to secure their political goals.

At what level should the fundamental rights of a woman be decided?  Perhaps it should go down to the county level, or even the city level?

A constitution that allows the right to privacy, but that doesn't include the right to private medical choices about their own body?  That is B.S. .  The "originalists" on the court truly believe that if an idea wasn't part of the zeitgeist at the moment that the constitution was written, then it obviously wasn't meant to be a right.

The Religious Right hates "rights".  I have had discussions with conservative religious friends, and they literally believe that there can be no rights but what the majority allows.  They believe legislature must have supremacy over courts.

What the majority allows. You said it. In Iran that majority might let you live if you are not Shiite Muslim, as long as you know your place and never raise your voice. Men in Afghanistan have rights, especially the right to deny females educations, jobs, and positions of political power. But conversely and equally oppressive would be someone like Saddam who ruled with a minority party of Baathists over a majority of the population who were other. 

The truth is America is being held hostage by a very large minority who thinks they are the majority. But regardless, our government is not based on majority rule, or minority oppression of the majority. I see the Constitution as a tool to create as much balance and fairness as possible. But like anything in life, the tool can be abused. "Might makes right" literally is what they are arguing, and that would be true if you are a majority Imam ruling over Iran, or a powerful minority such as Saddam was, ruling over a majority of others.

Nobody likes the prospect of having an abortion, not the doctor, not the female, nobody. But we don't live in a perfect world and as such privacy to me should be the supreme guide in law making and judicial precedent. It is true that the Supreme Court has reversed prior Supreme Court rulings and that ability should be protected as an idea for long term stability. But like any tool it can be abused and our right wing leaning Scotus is pretending to make it a states rights issue, when they damned well know it is pulpit politics that they support.