RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal

[Jersey Girl]

The Supreme Court done went and pissed off New Jersey. New Jersey has taken it to the streets. One day of protest with many to follow I am sure.

Hundreds protest in N.J. after Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade
https://www.New Jersey.com/news/2022/06/hundred ... -wade.html

[ajax18]

...none of which you really care about, Ajax, these are just talking points to you.

Anyway, at the end of the day, this is going to hurt right-wingers as much as left, if not more, given the level of promiscuity and teenage pregnancy in rural states, not to mention right-wing men and their escorts.

Well it'll give Biden something else to campaign on besides $7/gallon gasoline, inflation, and the economic fruits of socialism that we're currently enjoying.

[ajax18]

Wouldn’t the “misuse and abuse of our procreative powers” refer more accurately to the act of rape that creates the pregnancy that the victim would not be allowed to terminate?

Rape is illegal. And as heinous a crime as it is, I don't see how killing the baby makes things right.

And none of this is really what the current Supreme court opinion does by pushing the decision back to the state level and to the legislature. I'm not pro choice because I represent the unborn child and his right to life. You can still be pro choice and believe that Roe v. Wade is a bad precedent based on a dubious interpretation of the Constitution.

[Jersey Girl]

Wouldn’t the “misuse and abuse of our procreative powers” refer more accurately to the act of rape that creates the pregnancy that the victim would not be allowed to terminate?

Rape is illegal. And as heinous a crime as it is, I don't see how killing the baby makes things right.

On some level I agree with what you stated. But would we be subjecting an already traumatized woman to further trauma carrying the baby of her rapist? Could she be forced to co-parent the child with her rapist? What are the legalities you see in this situation? If the rapist is jailed, there couldn't be child support. Who is going to financially support the child? Is it fair to ask a rape victim to financially support her child alone when she never planned the pregnancy?

What if the rape victim is a minor child? What then, ajax? Who is going to pay for her prenatal care? Her labor and delivery? Who is going to ensure that the minor child, now a mother, completes her education, that the child is cared for while she does that and who pays for the care?

Would you be okay with child care being provided in the schools and would you as a taxpayer be willing to foot your fair share of the bill for that?

These are just tip of the iceberg issues I can think of off the top of my head.

And none of this is really what the current Supreme court opinion does by pushing the decision back to the state level and to the legislature. I'm not pro choice because I represent the unborn child and his right to life. You can still be pro choice and believe that Roe v. Wade is a bad precedent based on a dubious interpretation of the Constitution.

Um ajax? Did you see what you wrote there?

I'm not pro choice because I represent the unborn child and his right to life.


Would you like a moment to rethink that sentence?

[Binger]

Protestors are attempting to enter the Arizona Capital while the Senate is in session. Tear gas is has been used on the crowd.

[MeDotOrg]

If a woman is forced to carry the offspring of her rapist, shouldn't the rapist be required to pay child support, either to the mother or to the state?

[Jersey Girl]

If a woman is forced to carry the offspring of her rapist, shouldn't the rapist be required to pay child support, either to the mother or to the state?

If the rapist is jailed where does the money come from?

[Nomomo]

Don't forget to set your clocks back 50 years tonight.

[Gunnar]

If a woman came to me who was struggling with this issue, I would offer myself up as a friend to her. Regardless of what she ultimately chose to do. If she needed someone to accompany her to a doctor, attorney, therapist, clergy appointment...I would go with her. Listen to her talk out her thoughts. I would pray for her and with her if she wanted me to.

Once her choice was made I would stay alongside her regardless of what choice she made so long as she wanted me to. I know that any of the choices--carrying a baby to term, mother or single parent her child, adopt her child to someone else, or terminate her pregnancy would be a life changing decision. I would stay with her for as long as she needed me. Listen to her express herself, take her places, help her sort out resources, stay with her during recovery and feed her, anything I could do for her in terms of support until she was ready for me to leave. If it were a case of a medically necessary procedure, nothing in my response would change.

That is where I stand.

I couldn't agree more with that admirable stance, Jersey Girl! In my opinion it is the only stance on the issue that is both fully compassionate and fully rational.

I disagree with you on one important point, though. The idea that life begins at conception makes no real sense to me because the individual sperm cell and egg that unite to form a fertilized zygote are individually no less alive just before their union than is the resulting zygote.

[Vēritās]

To interpret this as Justice Barrett saying she would not overturn Roe is naïve.

I'm not the one who is being naïve here if you think they weren't intentionally trying to deceive. Hell, even Collins and Manchin said they felt like they were intentionally misled.

Joe Manchin and Susan Collins accuse Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch of misleading them about Roe v. Wade when the senators voted to confirm them

Instead, you want us to believe that it is just normal for Supreme Court nominees to be asked in their confirmation hearings about Roe just for craps and giggles, not because anyone really expects them to indicate how they'd rule on it?

"Oh they only said it was precedent." No, that's not all they said. They said a lot, and never once did they give any indication they'd let their idiotic religious beliefs direct their decision making.

You don't seem to have an understanding of what stare decisis means in this situation. It doesn't mean that if SC gets a case that was previously decided they just give their stamp of approval because a previous court already ruled on it.

Cute straw man. It means quite literally “let the decision stand” and I'm not saying all judges apply it in their decision making or that all decisions are permanent, but these people were very specific in mentioning it as it pertains to Roe and they did so for the sole purpose of reassuring Congress they'd not mess with it... just so they could get confirmed. They're liars, but that has become par for the course in today's GOP. They gave us a rapist as President who appointed another rapist and a couple of religious nitwits who are taking away rights hundreds of millions of American women have enjoyed for half a century.

This, coming from the party of "personal liberty."