RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal

[Jersey Girl]

"We will make sure that when a kid is in the womb, they're as safe as they are in a classroom, the workplace, a nursing home—because every stage of life has value, no one greater than the other," ~Sarah Huckabee Sanders - June 27, 2022

Wait... She want to make the womb just as safe as the kids were in Uvalde? One would hope for higher aspirations.

Yes and apparently she wants to make children safe in their workplace and their nursing homes as well. Beats me. The functionally illiterate have taken over politics. Only the FSM knows what she was trying to say.

[Res Ipsa]

Sorry to be late to the party, and I have no idea how long I'll have time to stay.

After reading the opinions and doing some thinking, I think Roberts is right that the majority overreached in overruling Roe/Casey. I think the dissent's criticism of the majority's historical analysis is spot on -- it shows the intellectual bankruptcy of so-called originalism because its proponents rely on cherry-picked bits of history.

I also think that some who cheer this is a big win don't understand the implications and effect this ruling will have. Under Dobbs, your state can absolutely force you to wear a mask, and throw your ass in prison if you don't. It can absolutely force you to be vaccinated against your will. Not just exclude you from certain privileges -- actually vaccinate you. And it can do so, not for your personal benefit, but to protect someone else's life.

Why? Because there is no fundamental right to control your own body for your own benefit. If the state can force a pregnant woman to give birth from the moment of conception based solely on an interest on someone else's "potential life," it can certainly dictate what you do with your body based on its interest in protecting actual life.

If you give the government, at whatever level, power, it will push on the boundaries of that power as hard as it can. And Dobbs gives your state government power that can and will be used in ways folks aren't thinking about. Personally, I find it shocking that so many U.S. Citizens are uncompromising on the ownership of killing tools but are so quickly willing to cede control over the bodies to the government.

There is also lots of evidence of pro-lifers who absolutely do not understand the consequences of their state's laws on women's lives and health. The craziest example I've seen so far is folks who don't think that abortion laws apply to "ectopics." They don't understand that "ectopic" isn't a noun -- it's an adjective. It's not an "ectopic" -- it's an "ectopic pregnancy." And the word for termination of a pregnancy that doesn't involve a live birth is "abortion." That's what the words mean, and those are the words the abortion statutes use. Our maternal mortality rate is already more than double most other first-world countries. Dobbs will inevitably increase it even more as doctors and hospitals try to figure out what the different state laws mean and are forced to wait until the pregnancy is an imminent threat to the woman's life before taking an action.

It is very tough to reconcile the notion that there are "natural" or "god-given" rights with the claim that the only such rights are the ones a group of men "gave" us a couple hundred years ago. It's also tough to swallow the notion that whether those right exist depend on how we choose to describe them.

If I were confident of living to collect the bet, I'd bet that the lifetime of Dobbs will be shorter than that of Roe.

[Binger]

Under Dobbs, your state can absolutely force you to wear a mask, and throw your ass in prison if you don't. It can absolutely force you to be vaccinated against your will. Not just exclude you from certain privileges -- actually vaccinate you. And it can do so, not for your personal benefit, but to protect someone else's life.

Interesting.

Does this mean that the feds can't force masks and vaccines?

[Res Ipsa]

Under Dobbs, your state can absolutely force you to wear a mask, and throw your ass in prison if you don't. It can absolutely force you to be vaccinated against your will. Not just exclude you from certain privileges -- actually vaccinate you. And it can do so, not for your personal benefit, but to protect someone else's life.

Interesting.

Does this mean that the feds can't force masks and vaccines?

No. It actually makes it more likely that they can.

[Morley]

Interesting.

Does this mean that the feds can't force masks and vaccines?

No. It actually makes it more likely that they can.

I don't think that the state or federal government should be able to require me to wear a mask while I'm in Target, but dammit, I think it's more than okay to grant them the power to require me to carry a fertilized egg to term for nine months until I'm forced to give birth to a child, that I will then need to spend the next eighteen years raising.

Because freedom.

[Binger]

No. It actually makes it more likely that they can.

I don't think that the state or federal government should be able to require me to wear a mask while I'm in Target, but dammit, I think it's more than okay to grant them the power to require me to carry a fertilized egg to term for nine months until I'm forced to give birth to a child, that I will then need to spend the next eighteen years raising.

Because freedom.

Thanks Morley. This my body my choice thing is new to me. I can't figure out when it is and when it ain't. Sounds like you have this figured out.

One thing I can say though, this is going to make the November elections interesting.

One other thing though. We agree that some states can force you to carry zygotes and beyond, the feds just got out of the business. Right? We don't think that the majority House, majority Senate and the executive branch can force parasitical burdens on the uterus. States though.... lookout!

[¥akaSteelhead]

No state in the union will allow a 13 year old single pubescent girl adopt a baby. 13 states will now force said girl to rear a baby to term and possibly parent/raise the baby.

[canpakes]

No. It actually makes it more likely that they can.

I don't think that the state or federal government should be able to require me to wear a mask while I'm in Target, but dammit, I think it's more than okay to grant them the power to require me to carry a fertilized egg to term for nine months until I'm forced to give birth to a child, that I will then need to spend the next eighteen years raising.

Because freedom.

Imagine the audacity of the Evil Gubmint forcing people to wear clothes in public, let alone a mask. Most folks start out being required to wear more square inches than a mask requires.

Riots and chants of, “muh freedums!!” start shortly.

[Moksha]

Prepping America for fascism.

[Kishkumen]

Cool words. Can you be more specific? What minority, for example. What lies were told under oath and what evidence do you have that these lies were told "to pull this suppression of individual liberty"?

The court, in the case that we are discussing from the opening post, returned the decision to the individual states. Is it your point that if there is a majority "will" based on a poll of Americans across many or all states that this so-called will is more relevant than the actual majority within a state? This may be your point, and it may be valid. Hell, maybe a poll of Americans is more important than what people want within their state. Hellifino.

I shouldn’t have my civil rights abrogated by the good people of West Virginia, for example. Neither should a minority of people living in the state of West Virginia. Should, say, slavery be legal in some states? Child pornography? Should Catholicism be outlawed in some states? Or Islam? Should people of some religious groups have fewer rights or attenuated rights in some states? Should Baptists have preferred status in Georgia?

I don’t see what you think is advantageous about this stupid decision. I don’t see why you think the Supreme Court candidates, who solemnly intoned the words “Roe v. Wade is settled law,” clearly suggesting they did not foresee it being overturned or pushing to overturn it, did not lie.

What the hell is your point in raising these questions? Is this some kind of dumb rhetorical exercise? A philosophical meditation? I’m really getting effing sick of this garbage.