Roe V Wade history?

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by bobabode

In that you would be mistaken. The Roe v. Wade decision was leaked back in '73. I get why conservos are losing their shyte over this. It means they will be finding their access to wimminfolk to be severely curtailed for the foreseeable future.

In addition, this decision by the Robert's court proves what liberals have been saying all along, conservatives can't keep their dirty minds out of other Americans bedrooms.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/histo...zine-roe-wade/

That was "hours before the decision was announced". i.e. it was AFTER the decision had been made and was a standard leaking of fresh news just before it was made public.

This is far different. The decision has not been reached yet. This is not the actual decision. This is a completely different type of leak.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

That was "hours before the decision was announced". i.e. it was AFTER the decision had been made and was a standard leaking of fresh news just before it was made public.

This is far different. The decision has not been reached yet. This is not the actual decision. This is a completely different type of leak.

Obviously, you didn't read the link I posted up. Typical...

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Obviously, you didn't read the link I posted up. Typical...

I got that from the link, actually. From the article: "The issue of Time, with an article titled “The Sexes: Abortion on Demand,” appeared on newsstands hours before the decision was announced by Justice Harry Blackmun."

The final decision was announced hours before Blackman himself announced it. It was not a "draft" decision. It was a final decision. And that was actually due to a fluke. "Hammond confided in an acquaintance he knew from the University of Texas School of Law that the Roe ruling was forthcoming. The acquaintance, a Time staff reporter named David Beckwith, was given the information “on background” and was supposed to write about it only once the opinion came down from the court. A slight delay in the ruling, however, resulted in an article that appeared in the issue of the magazine that hit newsstands a few hours before the opinion was read on Jan. 22, 1973."

[barbara]

Whell, in response to your point #3 in the post above....

If those "scores of charitable organizations" were meeting the needs of people, there would be no need for government social service programs.

And, the majority of those charitable organizations rely on federal, state, and local government dollars to provide those services.

In a perfect world, maybe charitable organizations would be a solution, but, in our less than perfect world, they are just another cog in the wheel helping those in need.

[whell]

Originally Posted by barbara

Whell, in response to your point #3 in the post above....

If those "scores of charitable organizations" were meeting the needs of people, there would be no need for government social service programs.

And, the majority of those charitable organizations rely on federal, state, and local government dollars to provide those services.

In a perfect world, maybe charitable organizations would be a solution, but, in our less than perfect world, they are just another cog in the wheel helping those in need.

However they're funded (and I suspect it's not the "majority" that receive the lion's share of their budget via government funding), my comment was directed at the narrative that "they only care about a fetus until its born". For many, they're servicing a critical need and I'm glad they're available.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by whell

However they're funded (and I suspect it's not the "majority" that receive the lion's share of their budget via government funding), my comment was directed at the narrative that "they only care about a fetus until its born". For many, they're servicing a critical need and I'm glad they're available.

Just wait until the GOP starts trying to eliminate social net programs that are intended to aid women and children. Sooner or later one of these Repubs trying to lean further right than the next will start promising the GOP faithful they'll cut their taxes "if we just eliminate the needless programs".

[Oerets]

Face it abortions will continue to occur.
They are always and should be a decision of last resort and undertaken with much consideration. Yet will continue on.

In these days of overpopulation and dwindling resources. Climate change ever increasing the stresses on the fewer and fewer remaining habitable zones. Better fear much greater and drastic forms of population controls will be used.

Religion and the fanaticism, zeal associated was a constant fear when the founding fathers were formulating and coalescing our country. This was why the need to separate, remove religion from the state.

Much like slavery was never mentioned when human rights and liberties were. This will be one that carries a narrative yet unwritten fully.

If this is allow to go unchecked. All should fear what will be the next and following religious beliefs will be forced upon everyone.


The damage has been done yesterday, forever the court will be seen as a tool for the GOP!

[RickeyM]

They cry "We're against abortion because we're Pro-Life. I disagree...

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

They cry "We're against abortion because we're Pro-Life. I disagree...

That is a silly meme. One bans the activity and the other bans the tool, because the activity is already "banned". Did you know the first mass killing at a school was a bomb?

[RickeyM]

Since the GOP has succeeded in packing the court with partisan judges maybe it is time to expand the bench.
Susan Collins says Gorsuch, Kavanaugh lied to her to get her vote. Imagine that, two hugely unqualified SC nominees lied to get on the bench because Republicans wanted them on the bench. Who'd-a-thunk it?