Roe V Wade history?
 

Looks like it will happen. The leaked draft puts a fine point on the takeover feared yet hoping would not happen.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/02/polit...urt/index.html


This argument by the "Christian" or "Religious" has always bothered me. About life and the beginning there of. I beg to ask, do they in reality actually believe in a after life at all. Secretly have doubts and seek to reinforce or bolster this failing by their opposition.

For if they believed in a afterlife a heaven and a all powerful. Then just what do they think would happen. The child goes to heaven skipping the suffering on earth, goes into another body....

Now it is easier to understand their arguments if this is it, one and done. No afterlife to go to.

As to my personal thoughts. Like to think if faced with the decision would choose life over an abortion. As a male never had the fears of getting pregnant or a partner with a unwanted one.

Sad how the same ones who are pushing so hard on the abortion issues also fight just as hard for gun rights....:rolleyes:


In all these years of mine one of the life lessons have learned. Religion and hypocrisy are the two sides of the same coin.

You ask a deep question for which I have no answer, Barney.

I wonder how they will react once all of these unwanted babies hit the already overburdened adoption market?
Will all these Bible toting do-gooders adopt them all? I seriously doubt it.
Will they support building orphanages to care for them? Only if you can show them a way to get rich off of it.

My father once said to me; "If you want to know why a previous generation changed they way we do something, change it back. I'm guessing you won't like what happens."

Interesting times ahead.

Bluestreak, its not just the unwanted babies who will suffer, but, also the women who resort to dangerous alternatives. Remember the coat hanger from years past? And, then, I suspect the medical procedure known as a D&C will once again become popular as a way to "correct one's monthly period".

And, the same people who say the government can't tell them what to do with their bodies when it comes to vaccines are the same ones who support the government telling us what we can and can not do with our bodies when it comes to abortion. Go figure.

The Religious Reich see abortion as a holy abomination and getting it banned will get them a free pass through the Holy Gates. They care about the fetus right up until it's born. The Rethuglicans see supporting the banning of abortions as a way to harness the voting power of the so-called holy Christians. Never mind when the majority of Americans are in favor of allowing abortions to those who want them, the Repubs don't give a rat's ass about the wishes of the majority or majority rule.

Your body your choice as long as it's what we want you to choose.

1) I think you'll find that the public's opinions on abortion really haven't changed that much over time. Gallup has been tracking the polling on this for decades. According to their data, as I read it, the most notable migration of opinion is from those who think abortion shouldn't be allowed at all to those who think abortion should be allowed only in limited circumstances. In other words, based on Gallups decades of tracking, most folks still don't think abortion on demand is OK.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

2) It's interesting to me that this topic is in the "Religion and Politics" subforum. It's easy to blame the "religious right" for the public sentiment regarding abortion. But, again referencing the Gallup data, that would suggest that the approx 70% of folks who believe abortion should not be legal, or only legal under limited circumstances, are Bible thumpers. I don't think that's true either.

3) "They care about the fetus up until its born" is another example of a narrative that doesn't reflect the facts. There are scores of charitable organizations out there - some aligned with faith-based organizations and some not - that support single mothers and single-parent families, both during and after delivery.

Both sides in this argument tend to talk in absolutes. The reality, like the Gallup poll that indicates that most folks favor abortion in limited circumstances, suggests that agreement and public sentiment can be found somewhere in between the two poles.

Republicans have delivered on Roe v. Wade. They may regret it.

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/op...261012177.html

Anyone who thinks this isn't a religious political issue is utterly clueless. Blue wave coming? Let's hope so. This highly politicized SCOTUS is itching to take away many more rights. They've already decimated the Voting Rights act, remember.

Sen. Collins: 'Completely inconsistent' that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh would support overturning Roe v. Wade

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna27099

They lied to you, Susie. They’re disgusting white make conservatives. It’s what they always do.

I find the argument that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution to be inconsistent at best.

Automatic weapons aren't mentioned in the Constitution, either. Or the Internet. Or space exploration. Are we to ignore modern day concerns because of a document penned 250 years ago?

The religious right might push the anti-abortion agenda but I suspect there is a significant number of people who are anti and are not religious.

In the absolute abortion is murder. Many people look at the absolute and make adjustments with time...15 weeks...23 weeks. WTF.

For me, the story is not what decision they have or have not made. The ONLY issue for me is the leak. This is unprecedented.

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.

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!

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".

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

https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/Mis...2c/M/RvW-M.jpg

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?

Alito’s Case for Overturning Roe is Weak for a Reason
The conservative Supreme Court majority is more focused on politics than law.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...court-00029653

Today's conservatives are repugnant.

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/

^^^^The Insane Clown has never been right about anything, obviously.

Alito’s Plan to Repeal the 20th Century
If the conservative justice’s draft opinion is adopted by the Court, key advances of the past hundred years could be rolled back.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...rights/629748/

The only thing that's unprecedented is the SC executing the wishes of Reich-Wing conservatives. The Conservatives are throwing a fit over "the leak" because it's drawing attention to the political dealings of the SC at the behest of the GOP. Focusing on the leak so they won't have to defend and justify the decision. They didn't want that little nugget to get out before the mid-term elections. Any other time and place the leaker would be called a whistle blower. There are some who are saying the leak was timed to influence the mid-term elections. If so, GOOD!! I hope it drives every Democrat, Independent and un-brainwashed Republican to the polls to vote Blue across the board.

One of the five may well be hoping the source of the leak never comes out.....

Playing the Right's ole, projecting the blame away from you towards other's innocent of any wrong doing.

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?

It's about protecting the innocent. And the Old Testament is about protecting order from chaos. Do you think it should be ok to murder people who have crossed you because you will be sending them to a better place?

I partly agree with you regarding the "hell on earth" concept. It's the only place I believe real "hell" exists, BTW. Abortion does seem to be a litmus test for many. Regarding the SCOTUS, I think they are deciding whether there is an absolute right to abortion protected in the constitution. It's hard to say "keep your hands off my body" is a right, when you're forcing people to get vaccines. So that argument may be going out the window.

But ultimately, it is a state's rights issue. That is, the SCOTUS are not deciding whether or not abortion should be legal. They are deciding whether the decision to make it illegal should be put in the hands of each individual country within the federation we call the United States.

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.

That's certainly one way of looking at it. I see it more like this: It's a sausage lover getting a peak at the inner workings of a sausage factory. So the whistle blower exposes that they slaughter pigs to make your sausage. So? How the heck did you think these nine folks come up with decisions?

Inflation and not abortion will be the significant factor.

Whell, in response to post #12, I can assure you that a majority of religious based social services receive a good amount of government dollars to sustain their charitable programs. I know this because before I retired, I spent over twenty years involved in the granting, administration, and monitoring of government dollars to those charitable organizations.

As for your point that they are meeting the needs of people, that is true and made possible with government funding.

Yep. The trot out the usual "single issue" and drive it hard. But most people are more interested in the price of food, gas, rent, etc. than abortion.

On a related note, I remember in January of 2020 I said one day to my wife, "what ever happened to BLM? You don't hear about them any more."

And then the election cycle started, and suddenly they were everywhere.

As one guy said, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm a "Things aren't adding up and it's pretty obvious" theorist. The manipulation of the public mind going on is downright tangible.

Which brings up what I see as a major problem and misconception about using the government to help the poor:
https://i.pinimg.com/236x/bb/b8/f8/b...olic-memes.jpg

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

All bullshit. Every word of it. A Conservatve never does ANYTHING unless it benefits him personally and maybe his immediate family, if they're lucky. It's NEVER about anyone else, including God and fetuses. Give it a rest.

That is absolutely and tragically correct.

Alito's Draft Opinion That Would Overturn Roe Is a Disaster of Legal Reasoning

https://reason.com/2022/05/04/alitos...gal-reasoning/

The Libertarians are correct about this one. Alito and the other ultra-right justices are doing what the oligarchs installed them to do, but very clumsily.

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."

This guy does give an excellent rundown on why this almost certainly is the decision, and a good and absurdly well supported one too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpvU33r92Fc

The comments are funny too.🤣

Demonizing those that disagree with you is not the high road, sir.

I expect this is a major reason the 'Pubs tolerated the despicable repugnant Mag-a-Lardo troll and his magamob cult followers.
I didn't appreciate what patriotism meant until 2016 demonstrated what it was not.

You're confusing conservative with libertarian. They are fellow-travellers, but different. Conservatives are the God and Country people, so they will do things for God and Country. Libertarians are the radical individualists, deluded like housecats into thinking they are like gods, understanding nothing of the community that sustains them. But they and conservatives have common interest in fighting liberal proposals to take care of the public welfare. For conservatives, it's because 'the public' includes lots of people they don't like; for libertarians, it's because the public includes people besides themselves.

This discussion applies as the subjects are motivated by ideology; the professional politicians of course are apt to be faking it for votes.

That is very well said sir, and I think you've hit the issue right between the eyes.

I'll add one thing here: This decision is not about whether abortion should be legal or not. It's about what the constitution says and what rights can be claimed to be implied. And the argument is pretty strong that the "right" to an abortion on demand is not a protected right and should be left up to the individual states. That's what the actual leaked decision argues - and quite convincingly.

I'm not sure a lot of people even want to read the details in the leaked draft.

At the writing of the Constitution abortions were preformed routinely up to the "Quickening".


""Quickening is when a pregnant person starts to feel their baby's movement in their uterus (womb). It feels like flutters, bubbles or tiny pulses. Quickening happens around 16 to 20 weeks in pregnancy, but some people may feel it sooner or later.""

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10297561/

""During the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening. ""


So why would they think it need to be clarified any further?