Patterico's Pontifications

6/24/2022

As Expected, Supreme Court Upholds Dobbs, Overturns Roe and Casey

Filed under: General — JVW @ 8:01 am



[guest post by JVW]

We saw this coming nearly two months ago when Justice Alito’s draft of the Dobbs case was leaked, but this morning it became official. The opinions of the Court are posted here.

Taken from the Syllabus of the decision:

Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.
(a) The critical question is whether the Constitution, properly understood, confers a right to obtain an abortion. Casey’s controlling opinion skipped over that question and reaffirmed Roe solely on the basis of stare decisis. A proper application of stare decisis, however, requires an assessment of the strength of the grounds on which Roe was based. The Court therefore turns to the question that the Casey plurality did not consider.

[. . . ] The Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion, but several constitutional provisions have been offered as potential homes for an implicit constitutional right. [. . .]

[. . .] The Court finds that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition. The underlying theory on which Casey rested—that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides substantive, as well as procedural, protection for “liberty” — has long been controversial. [. . .]

[. . .] In interpreting what is meant by “liberty,” the Court must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse what the Fourteenth Amendment protects with the Court’s own ardent views about the liberty that Americans should enjoy. For this reason, the Court has been “reluctant” to recognize rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution.

Guided by the history and tradition that map the essential components of the Nation’s concept of ordered liberty, the Court finds the Fourteenth Amendment clearly does not protect the right to an abortion. [. . .] By the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three-quarters of the States had made abortion a crime at any stage of pregnancy. This consensus endured until the day Roe was decided. Roe either ignored or misstated this history, and Casey declined to reconsider Roe’s faulty historical analysis.

[. . .]

[. . .] Ordered liberty sets limits and defines the boundary between competing interests. Roe and Casey each struck a particular balance between the interests of a woman who wants an abortion and the interests of what they termed “potential life.” But the people of the various States may evaluate those interests differently. The Nation’s historical understanding of ordered liberty does not prevent the people’s elected representatives from deciding how abortion should be regulated.

[Note: citations have been removed from the opinion to make it easier to read.]

The majority opinion was written by Alito, joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Chief Justice Roberts filed a concurring opinion. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan filed a dissent. I don’t have time to read through each opinion right now, but I look forward to doing so over the weekend.

UPDATE: On Twitter, Comfortably Smug points out something that we’ll probably see a lot of this weekend. Maybe the greatest social benefit of this decision is that it will put an end to the “menstruating persons” nonsense. (That was written with tongue firmly in cheek, by the way.)

UPDATE II: I should have scrolled further on my Twitter feed to note that the Boss had it first:

– JVW

498 Responses to “As Expected, Supreme Court Upholds Dobbs, Overturns Roe and Casey”

  1. Bad news, guys: Alyssa Milano is probably going to withhold sex from her husband in protest of this decision.

    JVW (020d31)

  2. God bless. Millions of lives were terminated. Their lives matter. May God have mercy on us for what we’ve done and accept our humble apology.

    NJRob (b5c605)

  3. UPDATE: On Twitter, Comfortably Smug points out something that we’ll probably see a lot of this weekend. Maybe the greatest social benefit of this decision is that it will put an end to the “menstruating persons” nonsense. (That was written with tongue firmly in cheek, by the way.)

    So they're back to being "women" now and not just "menstruating humans"? https://t.co/ODUQUAtzkP— Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) June 24, 2022

    JVW (020d31)

  4. UPDATE II: I should have scrolled further on my Twitter feed to note that the Boss had it first:

    The same people who insist it is bigotry to say only women can get pregnant love to repeat the old saw that if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. Sorry, you have to choose one or the other. https://t.co/IJKexvx9Xv— Patterico (@Patterico) June 24, 2022

    JVW (020d31)

  5. I visited social media with trepidation today, figuring it would be a sh*t-show of dumb arguments. And indeed, I see on Facebook that a couple of my friends have demanded that anyone who supports today’s decision unfriend them. Sad. But I am amazed to see on Twitter that plenty of people who support today’s decision are stepping up and engaging in debate. Of course that’s largely because those are the people whom I follow.

    Even many who might be supporters of abortion rights are pleasantly willing to challenge the more ridiculous assertions of some abortion rights supporters. Note Megan McArdle’s laughing at some lefty law professor’s assertion that “humility” should have led the Court to keep Roe and Casey in place:

    I think this is really a Rorschach; I find it amazing that anyone would defend Roe on the grounds of judicial humility. https://t.co/8Vog9j06x0— Megan McArdle (@asymmetricinfo) June 24, 2022

    The ruling was a hubristic mess and it wrecked our politics.— Megan McArdle (@asymmetricinfo) June 24, 2022

    JVW (020d31)

  6. strong>Be-robed Bureaucrats RESCIND Constitutional Right For Americans.

    … and Putin smiled.

    DCSCA (bd162c)

  7. What Dobbs doesn’t do:

    1. Declare a fetus a person under the 14th Amendment.

    2. Still allows states to continue abortions-if it is a moral evil (and it is), then banning it is imperative.

    3. Forbid travel to states that allow abortions.

    There is a lot of work for the next Republican Congress and President to do.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  8. There is a lot of work for the next Republican Congress and President to do.

    I see it as there being a lot of work for the pro-life movement to do. Roe and Casey were overturned today not because of some really smart work by GOP politicians, but because a grassroots pro-life movement did the hard work of making their case to the public — coming in for hatred and ridicule in the process — and slowly over a half-century got people realizing that what the pro-choicers wanted us to see as a disposable clump of cells truly is a human life, which is entirely clear after the first several weeks of gestation even if you refuse to recognize it earlier.

    So it’s not up to GOP politicians to make the next steps to ban abortion as much as it is for the pro-life movement to continue to talk about that living being in the womb, and to make sure that we create support networks for women who face difficult decisions. George W. Bush wisely told us 22 years ago that we couldn’t change laws until we changed hearts and minds. That is still good counsel that needs to be heeded.

    JVW (020d31)

  9. The respondents “contend(ed) that ‘no half-measures’ are available and that we must either reaffirm or overrule Roe and Casey”. — Justice Alito, page 13 of the decision

    Well, they got what they demanded!

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af)

  10. I have not read Thomas’s concurrence, but it’s reported that he wants to apply the same reasoning to Griswold v. Connecticut (contraception): “B!tches can just have a headache for thirty-five years, they don’t need no pill”, is supposedly how he put it.

    nk (773c1f)

  11. Dobbs also puts to rest the idea of “settled law.” I look forward to other “rights” not mentioned in the Constitution to be returned to the states, such as marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges, Loving v. Virginia) and sexual relations (Lawrence v. Texas, Griswold v. Connecticut), and any other decision based on a “right to privacy”. As Dobbs says, the right to an abortion in Roe is illegitimate because the Constitution is silent, and that nothing in the text or structure of the Constitution supports such a right. There is no right to “privacy” in the Constitution.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  12. JVW @8-

    Why wait?

    ……..
    …….It’s plausible that Republicans will enjoy total control of government as soon as 2025. And when they do, pro-lifers will pose a question to them: Why don’t you use the power of the federal government to impose restrictions on abortion on blue states?

    After all, a party that claims to believe abortion is grievous shouldn’t be comfortable watching California and New York and Illinois continue to allow tens of thousands of terminations each year. Until now, the GOP has had a good excuse as to why it couldn’t do anything about that: Roe was preventing it. American women in all 50 states, blue and red, had a constitutional right to abortion.
    ……..
    “Federalism”? Please. If the Trump years stand for anything, it’s the idea that conservative civic values should bend as necessary in the pursuit of power. Besides, it’s child’s play to argue that federalism, while important, should yield in the name of pursuing certain higher values and that preventing the killing of defenseless children in the womb is one.
    …….
    …….If Republicans control Congress and the White House, they’ll have no choice but to try to ban abortion in blue states. The political culture of the Trump-era GOP coalition won’t allow them to do otherwise. For committed pro-lifers, it’ll be intolerable for the federal government not to do everything possible to prevent the killing of infants in utero in blue states. For populists, it’ll be intolerable for the federal government not to do everything possible to own the libs, and nothing would own them quite like telling them that they can’t perform abortions even on their home turf. It would be unthinkable for a party dominated by Trump not to use every lever of power available to pursue victory in the ultimate culture war battle.

    All of this will antagonize pro-lifers. What good was overturning Roe if abortions became even *more* freely available in America’s major population centers than they are now?

    ……First, short-term, pro-lifers will begin pressuring Republicans in Congress to do something about it. And Republicans won’t be free to say no, even on the principled ground of federalism. …..

    ……Post-Dobbs, the (abortion litmus test for conservative justices) will be whether a nominee is willing to uphold Congress’s power to prevent abortions in blue states or, more aggressively, whether that nominee is willing to find that a fetus in utero is a “life” for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, as some conservatives already argue. ……
    ……..

    Source.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  13. Radical abortion supporter telling others what they believe. Thanks for the hot take. Next you’ll tell us his atheist beliefs on what Christians support.

    NJRob (b5c605)

  14. Thomas calls for overturning precedents on contraceptives, LGBTQ rights
    ……

    In his separate opinion, Thomas acknowledged that Friday’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization does not directly affect any rights besides abortion. But he argued that the constitution’s Due Process Clause does not secure a right to an abortion or any other substantive rights, and he urged the court to apply that reasoning to other landmark cases.

    Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”
    …….
    “And no one should be confident that this majority is done with its work,” the three liberals wrote (in dissent). “The right Roe and Casey recognized does not stand alone. To the contrary, the Court has linked it for decades to other settled freedoms involving bodily integrity, familial relationships, and procreation. Most obviously, the right to terminate a pregnancy arose straight out of the right to purchase and use contraception. In turn, those rights led, more recently, to rights of same-sex intimacy and marriage. They are all part of the same constitutional fabric, protecting autonomous decisionmaking over the most personal of life decisions.”

    “The majority could write just as long an opinion showing, for example, that until the mid-20th century, ‘there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain [contraceptives],’” the justices added. “So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.”
    ##########

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  15. Radical abortion supporter telling others what they believe. Thanks for the hot take. Next you’ll tell us his atheist beliefs on what Christians support.

    NJRob (b5c605) — 6/24/2022 @ 9:25 am

    If you look at any of my posts on abortion, I have always opposed it.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  16. Conservative Supreme Court justices lied to the Senate and they lied to us

    https://www.rawstory.com/conservative-supreme-court-justices-lied-to-the-senate-and-they-lied-to-us/

    Abortion really isn’t the issue here. It’s the degradation and corruption of another American institution. Candidates lied; a leaker still not caught; a right, a freedom, that is, a freedom of choice rescinded by be-robed bureaucrats.

    Revolutions have been fueled by less.

    Little wonder populists storm the castle. And now, they’ve peed in the coffee of half the population… modern American women, no less. ‘Hell hath no fury…’ Destruction from within. It keeps Russia’s Vlad smiling. And Xi marching forward to lead the world into the 21st century.

    DCSCA (bd162c)

  17. Rip,

    Linking AP for his social leftist hot takes is pointless and no different than linking to Kos Kids.

    NJRob (b5c605)

  18. Little wonder populists storm the castle.

    As if they were abortion (or gun control) supporters. These are elitist positions.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  19. Rip,

    Linking AP for his social leftist hot takes is pointless and no different than linking to Kos Kids.

    In this case I agree with him-the politics make it imperative that when Republicans take control they will have no choice but to ban abortion nationwide.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  20. Radical abortion supporter telling others what they believe. Thanks for the hot take. Next you’ll tell us his atheist beliefs on what Christians support.

    You tell ’em, NJ!

    We need them kiddies born as fresh targets for C&C shooters in schools and cannon fodders fer them there profitable MIC wars! Don’t conflate zealous Catholicism with christianity– unless you’re a 13th century pope. A constitutional right to a freedom of choice was rescinded. And that keeps Putin smiling.

    DCSCA (bd162c)

  21. Rip,

    Linking AP for his social leftist hot takes is pointless and no different than linking to Kos Kids.

    NJRob (b5c605) — 6/24/2022 @ 9:32 am

    Do you disagree with his conclusion-the politics make it imperative that when Republicans take control they will have no choice but to ban abortion nationwide? Or are you disagreeing just to be disagreeable?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  22. @18. You really don’t get it. A constitutional right; a freedom of choice, has been rescinded by be-robed bureaucrats– directly affecting modern American women no less. Do you kick hornet’s nests for fun, too? ‘Hell hath no fury…’

    DCSCA (bd162c)

  23. @22-

    I get it, you favor abortion. Whatever.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  24. @23. Except you don’t. I favor freedom of choice. You don’t- and embrace rescinding a constitutional right.

    … and Putin smiled.

    DCSCA (bd162c)

  25. There is a lot of work for the next Republican Congress and President to do.

    Well, Rip, I see that you have no use for federalism. Me, I see this as a great ruling. Let the states be different, and let people vote with their feet.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  26. What this ruling will do is force people to stop posturing and come to a decision. No longer can people just wring their hands at 3rd trimester elective abortions, or women denied life-saving treatment because the fetus would be harmed. Their votes on the subject will have meaning, and I expect more than a few surprises here.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  27. Rip,

    Yes I disagree. That is what federalism is about. If leftists wouldn’t keep demanding that we ignore the Constitution and just enforce their preferred views, people would settle this themselves by moving to an area that shares that belief.

    The problem is the left has gotten their way for so long that merely returning to constitutional law is considered an affront and attack on their way of life.

    Expect much arson and leftists being given the ability to attack and riot freely and without repercussion for the vast majority.

    NJRob (b5c605)

  28. 10, 11:

    I really don’t see this going to Obergefell or Loving, or even Griswold. With abortion there was strong opposition that did not diminish for 50 years. These others? Mostly just fringe cranks. Only Obergefell has noted opposition, but that opposition is only based on religious belief. There are no dead fetuses to display.

    It is hard to imagine a successful challenge to Obergefell actually. Standing issues abound. Where’s the harm?

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  29. And bigot Barack spoke stupidly once again

    Today, the Supreme Court not only reversed nearly 50 years of precedent, it relegated the most intensely personal decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologues—attacking the essential freedoms of millions of Americans.

    NJRob (b5c605)

  30. “There is a lot of work for the next Republican Congress and President to do.”

    Finally… a fact from Rip Taylor. 🎊

    Colonel Haiku (7385f4)

  31. Big ZERO the great uniter…

    Colonel Haiku (7385f4)

  32. What this ruling will do is force people to stop posturing and come to a decision.

    Nyet, comrade. What this opinion has DONE is rescind a constitutional right; a freedom of choice.

    … and Putin smiled.

    DCSCA (bd162c)

  33. There is no right to “privacy” in the Constitution.

    Except for the 4th amendment, and the history and tradition existent at the Founding. Is it a right like “speech”? Probably not. Is it a strong tradition that is protected by the 9th and 10th amendments? Most likely. Along with the particular protections of the 4th.

    The problem is not “privacy” but the house of cards that some would build on it. Does it cover contraception and consensual sex relations? Yes. But in the end, the question remains “Privacy to do what!?” Clearly privacy to do harm to others was never a tradition, nor should it be one. So, extending it to abortion, child molestation, human sacrifice, etc must fail.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  34. I really don’t see this going to Obergefell or Loving, or even Griswold.

    Be-robed bureaucrat Thomas does.

    DCSCA (bd162c)

  35. Send Democrat abortion-seeking women to Chicago.

    Colonel Haiku (7385f4)

  36. @36. Wot???? Why not Ukraine. Plenty of seating available on top of cash pallets full of $51 billion. 😉

    DCSCA (bd162c)

  37. I should point out that I am first and foremost a Federalist. If the GOP ejects federalism from its tent, then it ejects me, too. The whole point of this decision was to let the states decide. That some would immediately turn around and say, no, WE want to impose a national rule is a betrayal.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  38. I have mixed feelings about this. It’s only by the grace of God I never got anyone pregnant. I do believe if men could get pregnant this wouldn’t be an issue. Also Barrett and Kavenagh testified under oath they thought Roe was settled precedent.

    But Dems should have stuck with “safe legal and rare,” and if HRC had done so we never would have gotten Trump and wouldn’t be here today. Just to moderate that language a little bit would have been so easy. They got cocky and entitled and overplayed their hand.

    I’m worried some idiot or idiots are going to do something stupid and violent.

    JRH (4eead4)

  39. Good decision. My only concerns are (1) an abortion ban even if the woman was impregnated by rape/incest, as she was denied the choice to have sex in the first place, (2) the decision being used to justify prohibitions on birth control.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  40. Thomas dislikes “substantive due process” because his endgame is overturning the Slaughterhouse Cases and restoring the “privileges or immunities” clause of the 14th amendment to its proper place. The progression of cases that followed uniformly harmed Black Americans and the absence of the “P or I” language allowed Jim Crow to come to life.

    Substantive due process is used to deal with some of the issues that the “P or I” clause would have handled, but it is such wavy gravy that it is bendable to any task.

    Not that it matters. There is no one who has standing to challenge Obergefell, Loving or even Griswold, and that lack of standing should be a clue to why they are matters of “privacy.”

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  41. Good decision. My only concerns are (1) an abortion ban even if the woman was impregnated by rape/incest, as she was denied the choice to have sex in the first place, (2) the decision being used to justify prohibitions on birth control.

    ROFLMAOPIP. RINO translation: ‘well per my 1 & 2 sorta not a good decision.’

    Hilarious.

    DCSCA (bd162c)

  42. Also Barrett and Kavenagh testified under oath they thought Roe was settled precedent.

    That was always the funniest question. They should have laughed uncontrollably.

    FIFTY YEARS after the decision comes down, and Senators are still asking if Roe is settled law. The question answers itself.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  43. “Where’s the lie?”

    This is McConnell’s victory, not Trump’s.

    Davethulhu (763837)

  44. Trump was just a pawn in this.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  45. I’m worried some idiot or idiots are going to do something stupid and violent.

    Meh. Zealous, be-robed bureaucrats have peed in the coffee of half the population- modern American women no less– and rescinded a constitutional right- a freedom of choice- directly affecting their bodies. And as any armed guarded, chauffeured to and from work and vacations for 4 months bureaucrat would tell you, “What could go wrong?”

    ‘Hell hath no fury…’

    DCSCA (bd162c)

  46. I’ve seen a couple of people state the Dept of Homeland Security is privately warning church groups and pregnancy support groups to be prepared for violence (not sure why they wouldn’t do so publicly. I guess bc they deem it political or partisan. If so, that’s too bad).

    JRH (4eead4)

  47. Reading Thomas’ concurrence, I see that, as usual, he is being misread by the media. He is not arguing that Loving et al should be overturned.

    What he is arguing is that “substantive due process” is a crock and that the Court should revive other deprecated portions of the Constitution, such as the “privileges or immunities” clause of the 14th that was designed to protect freedmen’s rights, but almost immediately struck down. Since this led to a century of denial of civil rights to Blacks, it is a subject that Thomas feels strongly about.

    That “substantive due process” was used to replace “P or I”, but failed at protecting against Jim Crow, makes it a weak basis going forward.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  48. There are states that have extremely loose abortion laws, but have large ethnic groups that are normally opposed to abortion. Up to now, those groups have not had to make decisions regarding abortion — Roe made it moot. But now….

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  49. I don’t know, Kev, does that group out in your current state have the socioeconomics of Cuban Americans or the socioeconomics of Chicanos/Tejanos (acknowledging that many have roots in NM dating back to the New Spain period)?

    urbanleftbehind (bbf298)

  50. By the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three-quarters of the States had made abortion a crime at any stage of pregnancy. This consensus endured until the day Roe was decided. Roe either ignored or misstated this history, and Casey declined to reconsider Roe’s faulty historical analysis.

    Very true that history was misstated, but can it be said that Justice Blackmun ignored it, and can he be entirely blamed for that? Rather, say that a fraud was played on thee court (and the general public maybe.)

    [

    Sammy Finkelman (c89e81)

  51. ulb, I don’t know either. But, yes, most of the Hispanic population in NM has long-term roots and many of the state’s leaders come from that group. The Lujans, for example. The geography of the state doesn’t allow for direct immigration over the border like it does in TX, AZ or CA, and there is very little of the cheap-labor markets you see in California.

    It will be interesting to see how the plurality Catholic vote goes when abortion becomes an issue, as it must. There is also a sizable Navajo vote and they are probably less favorable to abortion than the Catholics. Up to now, it’s been an abstraction. We’ll see how the VERY CLOSE NM gubernatorial contest goes.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  52. My other issue with Congress addressing abortion right now is that it would undermine what pro-lifers have been arguing for years: that the repeal of Roe would simply send this issue back to the states for consideration, it wouldn’t create a nationwide ban on abortion. The GOP pushing a federal ban right now would be a classic bait-and-switch. Again, I think GW Bush had it right that our next steps need to be to change people’s hearts and minds about abortion. The ground has shifted tremendously on this issue over the past half-century, and with medical advances teaching us more and more about the small life inside of the womb, I think the wind is in our sails. But proposing a nationwide ban right away would undo all of the work that the pro-life movement has accomplished since Roe was handed down.

    JVW (020d31)

  53. Radical leftist Adam Schiff lying through his teeth yet again. How anyone can trust a word he says is beyond me.

    The Court’s decision to overturn Roe endangers women everywhere, by taking away their right to make their own health care choices.

    This court isn’t conservative – it’s partisan, with a socially backward agenda.

    They can’t be trusted to protect our rights, so the Congress must.

    NJRob (b5c605)

  54. JVW: “Roe and Casey were overturned today not because of some really smart work by GOP politicians, but because a grassroots pro-life movement did the hard work of making their case to the public”

    I disagree with this conclusion. This was a judicial decision that was not conditioned by some new revelation about the unborn or some new awareness by the electorate. At its heart it’s just a correction of what is or is not protected by the Constitution (heck, even Ginsburg though Roe’s reasoning was flawed). And in a way, it’s just happenstance that Trump got to appoint 3 justices…and had a majority in the Senate to confirm them all. It’s not like there was a tidal way of GOP support propelled specifically by overturning Roe. Polls still show that public opinion still leans in favor of abortion being legally available during some part of the first trimester, so it’s incorrect to say that public opinion is driving this result.

    Hey, I agree with the reasoning of the Court, but at the same time, there will be some churning in purplish states. You will probably see more moderate Republicans emerge on the issue. You may see the GOP lose some governorships if they lean too far pro-life. This starts the political upheaval; it doesn’t end it.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  55. The ruling could also push the abortion debate to the forefront of New Mexico’s gubernatorial campaign. Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, who is seeking reelection, opposes limits on abortion rights.

    Republican Mark Ronchetti said Friday that he would support legislation permitting abortion only in the first 15 weeks of pregnancy, in cases of rape or incest, or when the mother’s life is at risk.

    https://www.abqjournal.com/2511081/dems-in-nm-weigh-legislative-response-to-abortion-ruling.html

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  56. @55: In particular, Mitch McConnell played the Senate like an orchestra, getting hundreds of judges through confirmation despite Democrat foot-dragging. Barrett was the capstone of that effort.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  57. It is good to remember that, outside the United States, most of the countries that allow abortion limit it to the first 12 or 13 weeks. The only countries with our [previous] unlimited policy are China, North Korea and Vietnam. Canada has no national limit, but each Provence has a limit (ranging from 12 to 24 weeks).

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  58. Oh noes now the left is no longer besties with their favorite useful idiot squeaky toy
    buh bye lizzy

    mg (8cbc69)

  59. “This fall, we must elect more senators and representatives who will codify a woman’s right to choose…..”

    And at the same time, you can’t define what a woman is.

    But boy are you sure when life begins and it isn’t even at birth. It is now sometime beyond birth.

    mg (8cbc69)

  60. “Roe and Casey were overturned today not because of some really smart work by GOP politicians, but because a grassroots pro-life movement did the hard work of making their case to the public”

    Inaccurate.

    Factbox-Broad U.S. support for abortion rights at odds with Supreme Court’s restrictions

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court decision upending nearly a half century of legal protection for abortion rights is sharply at odds with public opinion in a country where a sizable majority of people support abortion rights. – source, Reuters.com

    DCSCA (6fbae1)

  61. It’s not a question of what is good policy – the question is what is good law.

    And what did that poll ask? About a law that could be written, or about laws that would be written – and where?

    Sammy Finkelman (c89e81)

  62. Rip,

    Yes I disagree. That is what federalism is about. …..

    NJRob (b5c605) — 6/24/2022 @ 10:07 am

    My mistake. I thought you were pro-life. Sorry.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  63. Rip, let’s say that you have a billion dollars and all the lawyers you need. What cause of action do you propose to undo Griswold, Obergefell or Loving? How are you harmed?

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  64. Pence calls for national abortion ban as Trump, GOP celebrate end of Roe
    …….
    In an interview with Breitbart News, Pence said that the Supreme Court voting 6 to 3 to uphold a restrictive Mississippi law banning almost all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy “has given the American people a new beginning for life, and I commend the justices in the majority for having the courage of their convictions.”
    …….
    “Now that Roe v. Wade has been consigned to the ash heap of history, a new arena in the cause of life has emerged, and it is incumbent on all who cherish the sanctity of life to resolve that we will take the defense of the unborn and the support for women in crisis pregnancy centers to every state in America,” he said to Breitbart. “Having been given this second chance for Life, we must not rest and must not relent until the sanctity of life is restored to the center of American law in every state in the land.”
    ……..
    “This is following the Constitution, and giving rights back when they should have been given long ago,” Trump told (Fox News). “I think, in the end, this is something that will work out for everybody.”

    Asked on Fox News about his role in the Supreme Court’s decision, Trump said, “God made the decision.”
    …….
    (Sen. Mitch McConnell) said the court “corrected a terrible legal and moral error, like when Brown v. Board overruled Plessy v. Ferguson.”

    “Millions of Americans have spent half a century praying, marching, and working toward today’s historic victories for the rule of law and for innocent life,” McConnell concluded. “I have been proud to stand with them throughout our long journey and I share their joy today.”
    ……….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  65. About 71% of Americans – including majorities of Democrats and Republicans – say decisions about terminating a pregnancy should be left to a woman and her doctor, rather than regulated by the government. But that support is not absolute: 26% of respondents polled said abortion should be legal in all cases while 10% said it should be illegal in all cases. More than half of the 4,409 respondents to the Reuters/Ipsos poll said that abortion should be legal in some cases but illegal in others. – Reuters.com

    On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision for Roe V. Wade. An expansion of a constitutional right.

    Today, June 24, 2022, remember this day for what it actually is: the recension of a constitutional right; of a freedom of choice.

    A mere 5/4 decision of zealous, be-robed bureaucrats, several of who clearly lied regarding precedent, during their confirmation hearings, hell-bent on imposing their religious POV on 333 million people.

    Remember this day when your next constitutional right is rescinded. And the next. And the next. For it will happen. It’s what keeps Putin smiling, Jinping grinning and makes it next to impossible to sell the so-called values of an America in stark, clear decline.

    The castle will be stormed. Again.

    DCSCA (6fbae1)

  66. @65. Pence calls his wife Mommie. ‘Nuff said.

    DCSCA (6fbae1)

  67. The constitution does not protect Social Security benefits at all, because it is not debt and has not been converted into debt.

    Sammy Finkelman (c89e81)

  68. Rip, let’s say that you have a billion dollars and all the lawyers you need. What cause of action do you propose to undo Griswold, Obergefell or Loving? How are you harmed?

    Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 6/24/2022 @ 1:06 pm

    Personally, I have no standing, but if a State passed a statute contrary to those “laws,” then someone who is harmed can challenge the decisions themselves.

    I don’t need to be harmed personally to offer an opinion about their constitutionality.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  69. I note that no one signed onto Thomas’ concurrence. That whole “P or I” vs “substantive due process” thing is his alone (and perhaps Bork’s).

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  70. The constitution does not protect Social Security benefits at all

    It does not. But every last person collecting it, or near to collecting it, views it as a blood oath.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  71. About 71% of Americans – including majorities of Democrats and Republicans – say decisions about terminating a pregnancy should be left to a woman and her doctor, rather than regulated by the government. But that support is not absolute: 26% of respondents polled said abortion should be legal in all cases while 10% said it should be illegal in all cases. More than half of the 4,409 respondents to the Reuters/Ipsos poll said that abortion should be legal in some cases but illegal in others. – Reuters.com

    People who say things like this are intentional liars. They ignore several facts, such as most people are very much against third-trimester elective abortions, even though they may support them in the first trimester.

    Again, Almost no country on earth allows an abortion after 24 weeks, and the vast majority limit the practice to 13 weeks. That the abortion lobby was up in arms over a Mississippi law that met international norms should tell you something about their true goals.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  72. Wonder how the 1/6 Committee will operate on Monday if Jane’s Revenge or any other left-wing group starts interfering with democracy.

    Hoi Polloi (7cefeb)

  73. @72. Pfft. Still dancing around what this is: the recension of a constitutional right; of a freedom of choice. Comrade.

    … and Putin smiled.

    “Facts are stubborn things.”- Ronald Reagan

    DCSCA (6fbae1)

  74. According to Gallup (scroll down) views about abortion are consistent over time, but vary greatly when gestational age is considered.

    First trimester (13 weeks): 60-67% approve, 27-35% disapprove
    Second trimester (26 weeks): 24-36% approve, 55-71% disapprove
    Third trimester (39 weeks): 8-20% approve, 71-86% disapprove

    Note that the Mississippi law restricted abortion to the first trimester, which is the ONLY one with widespread approval.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  75. JRH @ 39,

    Here is the full quote and context of Barrett’s statement, which many are cherry picking today:

    “Is Roe a super-precedent?” Klobuchar asked.

    “How would you define ‘super-precedent’?” Barrett replied.

    After Klobuchar replied she was asking Barrett that question, she replied that “people use ‘super precedent’ differently.”

    Barrett continued: “The way that it’s used in the scholarship and the way that I was using it in the article that you’re reading from was to define cases that are so well-settled that no political actors nd no people seriously for their overruling.

    “And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category.

    “And scholars across the spectrum say that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled. But descriptively, it does mean that it’s not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn’t call for its overruling. I don’t…”

    Dana (1225fc)

  76. “DCSCA is a stubborn thing.”- Ronald Reagan’s ghost

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  77. “And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category.

    Exactly. If, 50 years later, they are still asking about Roe, the questions answer themselves. “No Senator, if it was settled law you would not be asking about it.”

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  78. @77. Pfft. Translation: Komrade K ignores the recension of a constitutional right; of a freedom of choice– so what? Look over there, it’s Halley’s Comet! 😉

    DCSCA (6fbae1)

  79. “No Senator, if it was settled law you would not be asking about it.”

    Guess we should stop asking Amy about voting rights for women, minorities– even gun issues because it was settled law a long time ago– you know, back when women churned butter, swept out the place, militia men were required to own single shot 14 pound muskets and human beings were property. Just another reson to ignore a be-robed bureaucrat who supports rescinding a constitutional right to freedom of choice. Is her underwear red, too?

    .. and Putin smiled.

    DCSCA (6fbae1)

  80. I disagree with this conclusion. This was a judicial decision that was not conditioned by some new revelation about the unborn or some new awareness by the electorate. At its heart it’s just a correction of what is or is not protected by the Constitution (heck, even Ginsburg though Roe’s reasoning was flawed). And in a way, it’s just happenstance that Trump got to appoint 3 justices…and had a majority in the Senate to confirm them all. It’s not like there was a tidal way of GOP support propelled specifically by overturning Roe. Polls still show that public opinion still leans in favor of abortion being legally available during some part of the first trimester, so it’s incorrect to say that public opinion is driving this result.

    Oh, I couldn’t disagree with this assessment more. What the pro-life movement did that changed the game was to focus on the infant inside of the womb and begin to humanize it. This undermined the whole “it’s just a blob of cells and tissue until the mother decides she wants it” line of reason that abortion supporters popularized. Naturally they were greatly aided by medical advance that taught us more about an infant’s life in the womb.

    The pro-life movement also made it more comfortable for people to swim against the popular social current and oppose abortion. As the abortion rights movement itself reminds us, prior to Roe many states were on their own volition moving towards liberalizing abortion laws. Had there never been a Roe decision to galvanize the pro-life movement then, sure, some states would have ended up eventually restricting abortion, but plenty more of them would probably have even gone further and avoided any restrictions on the practice while using taxpayer funds to pay for abortions. The fact that there was organized pushback to this social drift helped to bring it to a halt, via the Hyde Amendment and other regulations.

    The emergence of the pro-life movement, which in its initial years also included many liberals who saw abortion as a way for gentry white progressives to control the “underclass,” convinced conservative politicians that they could run and win as pro-life candidates. That’s not to suggest that all conservatives simply adopted pro-life beliefs out of political expediency (though certainly some did), but I do believe that this allowed Republicans who otherwise would have tried to avoid taking a public stand on the issue to confidently declare themselves in favor of the unborn.

    And finally, having an official pro-life movement supported by local politicians meant that pro-life legislators could propose restrictions on abortion that would eventually end up in court, be supported by amicus briefings from pro-life organizations, and be heard by judges who were keenly aware that there was an opinion on the topic which existed outside of the media/academic/bureaucratic axis which seeks to dominate our discourse.

    We agree that Roe was bad legislation and needed to go, but I am arguing that its demise is far more attributable to the work put in by the pro-life advocates in educating the public about the nature of the practice of abortion than it is by GOP Presidents appointing judges and justices who were willing to give the the issue a fair hearing.

    JVW (020d31)

  81. “Facts are stubborn things.”- Ronald Reagan

    Nope. The quote is generally attributed to John Adams. Reagan had a gaffe and repeated the line as “facts are stupid things,” so he clearly anticipated social media in the 21st Century.

    JVW (020d31)

  82. @81 JVW: If I could like that post, I’d use up all that I’d have.

    None of this would happen w/o the tireless work of pro-lifers since the beginning.

    Today is a GOOD day!

    whembly (7e0293)

  83. @82. ‘It was an error. He meant, “Facts are stubborn things.” He corrected himself 2 seconds later, so I don’t understand why people are still misquoting him. He had made the statement before several times; he just made an error and corrected himself immediately. He said it because Democrats don’t like facts, but prefer emotion over objectivity. He knew liberals well. He was reminding them that although they don’t like facts, they are stubborn things. Facts don’t change.’ -quara.com

    DCSCA (6fbae1)

  84. Today is a GOOD day!

    It’s a start.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  85. Today is a GOOD day!

    If you celebrate the recension of a constitutional right; of a freedom of choice– and your boxer shorts are red.

    … and Putin smiled.

    DCSCA (6fbae1)

  86. @86. Yep. Next, your guns.

    DCSCA (6fbae1)

  87. House Republicans eye 15-week federal abortion ban

    The GOP is considering a 15-week ban on abortion following the demise of the constitutional right to the procedure, according to influential anti-abortion legislator Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ).

    Smith is the chief backer of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would outlaw the procedure after the 20th week of pregnancy. But Republicans are expected to shorten the deadline for obtaining an abortion still further, Smith told CNN.
    …….
    …….While the party does not currently have a chance of overcoming a veto or a filibuster to get the bill past the finish line, Republicans are expected to take it back up if and when Democrats lose their majorities in either the House or Senate or both in November.
    ……
    Another more restrictive bill that could advance under Republican leadership is a ban on the procedure once a heartbeat has been detected, a policy that has already been enacted in states such as Texas and Oklahoma and will be allowed to move forward in other states where it was blocked by court order. The federal heartbeat bill has the support of 111 Republicans in the House.
    ########

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  88. @86. Yep. Next, your guns.

    That’s in the Constitution. Abortion, not so much (oops, at all).

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  89. @87 it’s not a right defined in the US Constitution.

    It literally takes power away from 9 people who weren’t elected and puts it back into the hands of people who were elected. If you don’t like the decision your state has, vote them out. This ruling is the definition of democracy.

    whembly (7e0293)

  90. Komrade K ignores the recension of a constitutional right

    Whatever “recension” means. But it wasn’t a right any more than collecting welfare is a right. It was a delusion the court operated under for a while. Then they came back to sanity.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  91. Thomas now wants court to do away with same sex marriage and contraception. Bad news for corporate establishment democrats who are now discredited with their only answer is to whine. In the primaries that are left leftist challengers should demand that their corporate establishment stooge opponents be willing to give the republican party a post natal abortion or get out of the race! AOC and the squad will now take over the democrat party and clean house!

    asset (883c2e)

  92. @90.’@91. What you fail to grasp is this is a recension of a constitutional right– of a freedom of choice- whereas the history of the Republic has been to expand constitutional rights.

    Abortion, guns, picking your nose… it doesn’t matter. A constitutional right has been rescinded– a constitutionally mandated freedom of choice removed. This is actually a dark day– and another mark of decline of the United States. You guys don’t get it; breathing, peeing and pooping, picking your nose ain’t in the constitution either; nor were women voting rights, slaves as full, free human beings or therrmonuclear weapons– but militia membership is– and a requirement in 18th century colonial time you cling to –when did you guys join?

    A constitutionally mandated right has been rescinded–a mandated freedom of choice removed. Remember it— when they come for your guns.

    DCSCA (6fbae1)

  93. @92. Dance. Dance Little Sister, dance:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFG9EmMPu5k

    DCSCA (6fbae1)

  94. This ruling is the definition of democracy.

    Except it’s not– from a group of 9 bureaucratic putzes who can’t keep track of simple paperwork and yet have been called to atone for incompetence. Hardly enhnacing the gravitas and value of anything they opine upon. The men’s room attendant at Grand Central Station does a better job of keeping track of toilet paper and paper towel inventories– where, BTW, freedom of choice truly matter. 😉

    DCSCA (6fbae1)

  95. So “world leaders speak out“, condemning the abortion decision. Let’s look at these leader’s countries and the rules they have for elective abortion:

    Canada: 12 weeks to 24 weeks, depending on province.
    France: 14 weeks.
    England: prohibited
    Scotland: prohibited
    Rwanda (where Boris Johnson was speaking): prohibited

    The “restritive” Mississippi law was more liberal (at 15 weeks) than all but parts of Canada.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  96. Whatever “recension” means. But it wasn’t a right

    Except it was. Buit dance little sister, dance

    DCSCA (6fbae1)

  97. Thomas now wants court to do away with same sex marriage and contraception.

    No, as I explained above he has a different agenda. He wants to get rid of the concept of “substantive due process” and replace it with the “privileges or immunities” part of the 14th that the white supremacists gutted to allow for Jim Crow.

    And not one other justice signed onto this. It’s his pet hobby horse.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  98. @97. And Ukraine, where $51 billion is doing the talking?

    Abortion in Ukraine is legal on request during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. Between 12 and 28 weeks, abortion is available on a variety of grounds, including medical, social and personal grounds, and for any reason with the approval of a commission of physicians.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Ukraine

    There you go, ladies- hop a Jumbo, ride a pallet of cash borrowed by Uncle Sam to a war zone and have a U.S. funded abortion courtesy of the Ukrainian government! 😉

    DCSCA (6fbae1)

  99. @99 He also wants to roll back Wickard. It’s not going to happen but he’s a national treasure.

    frosty (563e98)

  100. It’s interesting that DCSCA is finally taking a clear ideological position. It’s a leftist position, with all of the talking points trailing behind, but maybe that’s an improvement?

    frosty (563e98)

  101. A 15 week ban makes sense and puts us in line with the public and most nations. So the left should be happy and cheer that decision. Right?

    NJRob (b5c605)

  102. In the movie wusa anthony perkins is told don’t you for get we are up here. Perkins answers don’t you for get I am out here! The battle hymn of the republic was first called John Browns body.

    asset (883c2e)

  103. @102. Except it’s not. Ideology has nothing to do w/this. Personally don’t give a damn about abortion; it’s the crabgrass in the front yard of a house on fire.

    What you fail to grasp is the arc of history of the Republic has been to expand constitutional rights. This is a recension of a mandated constitutional right– a right to a freedom of choice – rescinded by bureaucrats incapable of keeping track of a set of papers no less. And it directly affects half the physicality of half population; modern American women. ‘Hell hath no fury…’ And that should put a chill in your frosties nested in your tidy-whiteys.

    It merely marks another chapter in the decline of the United States from within.

    … and Putin smiled.

    DCSCA (461523)

  104. “It literally takes power away from 9 people who weren’t elected and puts it back into the hands of people who were elected. If you don’t like the decision your state has, vote them out. This ruling is the definition of democracy.”

    ironic when 2 posts earlier

    “House Republicans eye 15-week federal abortion ban”

    This is the endgame whembly, and I don’t think you’re naïve enough to believe it.

    Davethulhu (763837)

  105. This is the endgame whembly, and I don’t think you’re naïve enough to believe it.

    I would hope it’s a beginning.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  106. freedom of choice

    To do what? It matters. Freedom of choice to marry my Afghan? Who does it hurt? Freedom of choice to kill a baby 30 seconds short of live birth? There is harm done.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  107. ‘I would hope it’s a beginning.’

    Said a brownshirt tossing a copy of Gone With The Wind on to the bonfire. The arc of history of the Republic has been to expand constitutional rights. This opinion is a recension of a mandated constitutional right– a right to a freedom of choice. It’s the beginning of the end.

    DCSCA (461523)

  108. “House Republicans eye 15-week federal abortion ban”

    well, if that’s what they want to try for, I guess that might be an election issue. I think you’ll find that there is not much interest in that in Congress, and certainly not in the Senate.

    But whatever. It’s a Republic, if you can keep it. For a while it was not.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  109. a right to a freedom of choice

    If that is the beginning and end of your jurisprudence, why don’t I have a freedom of choice to make human sacrifices to Ba’al?

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  110. Said a brownshirt tossing a copy of Gone With The Wind on to the bonfire.

    Hardly the same thing. Roe lasted only 50 years in a republic that has lasted nearly 247. It was never a fundamental right for the first 197 years and was a product of a a left wing activist Supreme Court-the same “black-robed bureaucrats” you now denounce.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  111. Correction-the US will be 246 years old in a week.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  112. @113. Except it is.

    You’ll see it one day… the day they come for your guns.

    DCSCA (461523)

  113. @113. Except it is.

    You’ll see it one day… the day they come for your guns.

    DCSCA (461523) — 6/24/2022 @ 4:40 pm

    With the current Supreme Court, and future Republican nominees, dream on.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  114. To see what the laws actually are around the world:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law#Summary_tables

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  115. @114. ROFLMAOPIP Fundamental right? Where do you keep your 14pound single shot musket and have you trained w/a militia this month? And after the failure of the Articles of Confederation and eventual ratification of the Constitution, ‘in order to form a more perfect union’ and enduring a bloody civil war over peopel owning people, the arc of the 250 year history of the Republic has been to expand constitutional rights. Today, was a recension of a mandated constitutional right– a right to a freedom of choice. Just another benchmark in the deline of the United States.

    … and Putin smiled.

    DCSCA (461523)

  116. @116. You mean the be-robed bureaucrats who can’t keep track of a set of papers?

    The next recension of a right by the bureaucrats will be easier.

    Yes, Rip… dream on.

    DCSCA (461523)

  117. Today, was a recension of a mandated constitutional right– a right to a freedom of choice. Just another benchmark in the deline of the United States.

    Whatever. It is a pointless argument since a decision has been made and it’s now the law of the land. If you feel so strongly about it, I suggest you join the president, whom you routinely mock, to make abortion more available, as he feels the same way you do about it.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  118. Bad news, guys: Alyssa Milano is probably going to withhold sex from her husband in protest of this decision.

    Actresses! Is there anything they don’t know?

    nk (25a24e)

  119. Could the federal government withhold highway funds from states who make it illegal to travel to another state for an abortion?

    nk (25a24e)

  120. @121. They play’s the thing 😉

    “There are a lot of things about us women; That sadden me, considering how men; See us as rascals.” – Lysistrata – ‘LYSISTRATA’ by Aristophanes

    “We have a cutoff.”- NASA PAO, Apollo 17 countdown, 12/6/72

    DCSCA (461523)

  121. Supreme court rules that people can be forced to act as a life support system for other people. No bodily autonomy for Americans. Don’t want to donate your organs when you die? Too bad. Don’t want to give blood? Too bad. Don’t want to get vaccinated? Too bad. Don’t want adoption records to be forces open so they can force someone who gave a kid up for adoption to give the kid a kidney/bone marrow? Too bad.

    And I can tell you what the next step is after getting states to ban abortion. God knows I went to enough years of Catholic School to hear it over and over. IUDs and the morning after pill are next, because isn’t preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg an abortion? And then the Pill, because if the Pill failed in it’s primary duty, it too might prevent implantation and isn’t that abortion? Maybe they’ll leave barrier methods alone, because it’s hard to find an excuse for those the rest of it is on the list for the chopping block.

    How on earth did they make all the Republican names on my November ballot just vanish like that? Like they don’t even exist? Amazing trick.

    Nic (896fdf)

  122. Could the federal government withhold highway funds from states who make it illegal to travel to another state for an abortion?

    Could the federal government withhold ANY funds from nation states who travel to another nation for an abortion?

    Let’s ask $53 billion richer w/borrowed American money Ukraine.

    Or Israel?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Ukraine

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Israel

    DCSCA (461523)

  123. How on earth did they make all the Republican names on my November ballot just vanish like that? Like they don’t even exist? Amazing trick.

    Biden did it a few days ago to the Democratic names on my ballot with the FDA campaign to abolish cigarettes. Καθενας με τη τρελα του, και αυτος με την ομπρελα του.

    nk (25a24e)

  124. The WSJ explains the Thomas concurrance better than I can:

    The political left is making much of Justice Clarence Thomas’s argument in a concurrence that the Court should revisit all of its precedents that are based on the use of substantive due process to find rights in the Constitution. That includes precedents on contraception and gay marriage.

    Substantive due process is a long-time preoccupation of Justice Thomas, and we respect him for it. But the doctrine is also deeply embedded in countless Court precedents that have far better stare decisis claims than does Roe. Overturning the Obergefell ruling on gay marriage, for example, would jeopardize hundreds of thousands of legal marriage contracts. That’s the definition of a reliance-interest justification for upholding a precedent. Justice Thomas also acknowledges in his concurrence that abortion is different from these cases, and note that no other Justice joined his opinion.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  125. Could the federal government withhold highway funds from states who make it illegal to travel to another state for an abortion?

    Any state passing such a law would have it enjoined immediately. Any legislator voting for such an asinine law would deserve to lose his next election.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  126. Nic and his list of horribles. *Yawn*

    Supreme court rules that people can be forced to act as a life support system for other people. No bodily autonomy for Americans. Don’t want to donate your organs when you die? Too bad. Don’t want to give blood? Too bad. Don’t want to get vaccinated? Too bad. Don’t want adoption records to be forces open so they can force someone who gave a kid up for adoption to give the kid a kidney/bone marrow? Too bad.

    This is all BS. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the opinion handed down.

    And I can tell you what the next step is after getting states to ban abortion. God knows I went to enough years of Catholic School to hear it over and over. IUDs and the morning after pill are next, because isn’t preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg an abortion? And then the Pill, because if the Pill failed in it’s primary duty, it too might prevent implantation and isn’t that abortion? Maybe they’ll leave barrier methods alone, because it’s hard to find an excuse for those the rest of it is on the list for the chopping block.

    There are those (like Rip) who get all wound up over contraceptives, or miscegenation, or gays. But it is not like abortion, which KILLS, and which has not had a moment’s acceptance in 50 years. But I get it. You’re angry and not thinking straight.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  127. So, what happens if, say, the Ohio Supreme Court “finds” a right to abortion in their state constitution?

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  128. I’ll ask the obvious question to a blog populated by attorneys.

    The Constitution requires that each state give full faith and credit to the laws of other states. This decision did not, as I would have hoped but did not anticipate, hold that an unborn child is a legal person. But what if, say, Kentucky, were to take this opportunity to write into its laws, or even our state Constitution, that an unborn child is a legal person. Would not other states have to respect that declaration as far as Kentucky residents are concerned, and thus deny any woman from the Bluegrass State traveling to Pennsylvania to obtain an abortion, and have to provide the unborn child legal representation and a court hearing before the abortion could be performed, given that no person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law?

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af)

  129. Mr M wrote:

    And I can tell you what the next step is after getting states to ban abortion. God knows I went to enough years of Catholic School to hear it over and over. IUDs and the morning after pill are next, because isn’t preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg an abortion? And then the Pill, because if the Pill failed in it’s primary duty, it too might prevent implantation and isn’t that abortion? Maybe they’ll leave barrier methods alone, because it’s hard to find an excuse for those the rest of it is on the list for the chopping block.

    There are those (like Rip) who get all wound up over contraceptives, or miscegenation, or gays. But it is not like abortion, which KILLS, and which has not had a moment’s acceptance in 50 years. But I get it. You’re angry and not thinking straight.

    And Justice Alito pointed this out specifically:

    Finally, the dissent suggests that our decision calls into question Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Post, at 4–5, 26–27, n. 8. But we have stated unequivocally that “[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Supra, at 66. We have also explained why that is so: rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe and Casey termed “potential life.”

    From the Opinion, page 71, page 79 of the .pdf file. Also page 66 of the opinion, and page 74 of the .pdf file.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af)

  130. @Kevin@129 A state being allowed to make a law where one person must act as the life support system for another person is exactly the opinion handed down. The Catholic argument is that any kind of birth control that would prevent implantation of a fertilized egg has caused an abortion and is an abortificient. That it kills a person (life is from conception, which the Church says is fertilization: “every human life is sacred from conception to natural death”).

    Nic (896fdf)

  131. Kavanaugh Indicates States Can’t Bar Residents From Getting Abortions in Other States
    Today’s Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization reversing Roe v. Wade raises a variety of important new issues of law and policy. One of them is whether states can bar residents from traveling out-of-state to get abortions. In his concurring opinion in Dobbs, Justice Brett Kavanaugh writes that this is question is “not especially difficult,” and suggests the answer is “no”:

    [S]ome of the other abortion-related legal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially difficult as a constitutional matter. For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.

    You might question the propriety of Kavanaugh opining on this issue that wasn’t before the Court. But opine he did. And his doing so sends a strong signal that the Court is likely to strike down state laws banning interstate travel for purposes of getting an abortion. Kavanaugh appears to be the key swing voter among the five justices who voted to overrule Roe. It is highly likely that the three liberal dissenters would also vote to strike down such laws.……

    …….. In addition to the right-to-travel issue raised by Kavanaugh, there are also the Dormant Commerce Clause and procedural due process limits on states’ extraterritorial jurisdiction. One or more of the other justices in the Dobbs majority might well endorse at least one of these theories…..

    While state abortion travel bans are likely to get struck down, the same is not necessarily true for a potential federal law banning such activity. Many of the arguments that apply against state laws do not apply to the federal government, most notably the Dormant Commerce Clause ……
    ……….

    Rip Murdock (215f1b)

  132. @L/LDana@132 The Catholic argument is that an IUD and the morning after pill (and the regular Pill, but later, once they get the first two) do cause abortion because they prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg.

    Nic (896fdf)

  133. Nic wrote:

    Supreme court rules that people can be forced to act as a life support system for other people.

    Actually, we already force people “to act as a life support system for other people.” If you have a child or other person for whom you are responsible, and you fail to provide food, clothing and shelter for him, or abandon him in a manner which can lead to his death, you can be prosecuted, convicted and thrown into jail. If that child dies due to your willful neglect, you can rot behind bars for the rest of your miserable life.

    Don’t want to get vaccinated? Too bad.

    It doesn’t take a very long memory to note that the left tried very strongly to require vaccination for COVID-19, with the penalty for refusal being loss of employment. This wasn’t just private companies, but some local and state governments, along with the feds.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af)

  134. @L/LDana@136 Nope, you can give your kid up for adoption.

    Nic (896fdf)

  135. And Justice Alito pointed this out specifically…

    He’s so full of religion driven piss and vinegar. Alito is the leaker; his fly is down– and his zealotry has exposed himself:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLMp-1NdzR8

    DCSCA (13651b)

  136. @me@137 you can’t do the same for an in-progress pregnancy because you can’t remove a fetus from the uterus without killing it, which is, you know, an abortion.

    Nic (896fdf)

  137. It is beyond hilarious to see DCSCA bewail the recension [sic] of a constitutional right by all three Trump-appointed Justices. Trump! The man he’s constantly praising!

    Where’s the popcorn?

    norcal (da5491)

  138. There are those (like Rip) who get all wound up over contraceptives, or miscegenation, or gays.

    I am “wound up” only to the extent that those Court decisions are equally unsupported by their flawed legal reasoning as Roe. All three issues are properly the realm of a state and its voters and not the federal government.

    Rip Murdock (215f1b)

  139. “Any state passing such a law would have it enjoined immediately. Any legislator voting for such an asinine law would deserve to lose his next election.”

    They’ll do the lawsuit bounty thing that Texas pioneered.

    Davethulhu (763837)

  140. Nic wrote:

    @L/LDana@132 The Catholic argument is that an IUD and the morning after pill (and the regular Pill, but later, once they get the first two) do cause abortion because they prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg.

    Were I able to change my ‘handle’ frequently, as I used to do, I’d respond to this as The Catholic Dana. While I absolutely agree with the position that those forms of contraception are abortifacients, Catholics, sadly, are not a large enough percentage of the population to force such laws into place. And the states with the largest percentage of Catholics are the liberal, Democratic states of the northeast.

    The lovely Amanda Marcotte tried, years ago, to claim that evil reich wing Republicans were trying to take away the right to contraception, but all that she could find as evidence for that is an obscure group called Quiverfull. As the referenced Wikipedia article noted, “One 2006 estimate put the number of families which subscribe to this philosophy as ranging from ‘the thousands to the low tens of thousands’.”

    Even taking the extreme position of Miss Marcotte that we evil reich wing conservatives want to ban contraception, it fails the logical test: while we might want our wives to bear us as many strong, fine sons as possible, we really don’t want our mistresses to get knocked up and cause us problems, or cost us child support.

    Of course, if our mistresses are married to other men, we do want to get them pregnant, so other, weaker men will have to pay to rear our progeny.

    Is there a sarcasm tag for the previous two paragraphs?

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af)

  141. The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af) — 6/24/2022 @ 6:27 pm

    Why stop there? Why not declare the unborn Kentucky child to be 21 years old and make Pennsylvania let him drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, and obtain a non-resident’s hunting license while he’s there? Equal protection of the law.

    That’s not what the Full Faith and Credit means. What it means is that if Kentucky Public Acts say that your wife gets half your bank account, and a court in Kentucky gives her a Judgment for it based on those Public Acts, and you run off to Pennsylvania with all the money, she can come to Pennsylvania with the Kentucky Judgment to collect her half even if Pennsylvania’s Public Acts would have given her something else.

    nk (25a24e)

  142. Nic wrote:

    @L/LDana@136 Nope, you can give your kid up for adoption.

    That is true enough, and as Justice Alito noted, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have passed some version of the safe haven law, which allows a mother to simply surrender her child in designated safe locations, such as hospitals, police and fire stations, no questions asked, within a specified number of days after birth; that number might vary in different states. But the law still requires the person who is responsible for the child to feed him and keep him safe until such occurs; you can’t just throw him in the trash or willfully starve him to death.

    I can’t imagine any public school which does not inform students of this, and we still see stories of babies abandoned to death.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af)

  143. But I can see how a Kentucky court could compel the mother to leave the “legal person” behind in Kentucky in the custody of his or her father while she exercised her right to interstate travel to Pennsylvania.

    nk (25a24e)

  144. nk: “Could the federal government withhold highway funds from states who make it illegal to travel to another state for an abortion?”

    Do states have the power to prohibit travel on the basis of what somebody MIGHT legally do in another state? No way. Three reasons: (1) dormant commerce clause, meaning states can’t pass laws that restrict interstate commerce, (2) a state is de facto trying to regulate activity outside of its borders and the police power does not extend that authority, and (3) this violates the 14A right to travel….meaning a state can’t impose anything equivalent to an entrance or exit tax. Here, if you could be punished for this activity, what activity would be beyond the state’s power to punish?

    So though states have tried (and failed) to punish interstate travel for abortions and will likely try again, I can’t imagine such a law surviving Court challenge. Thus I don’t buy the first part of the hypothetical. The federal government would be in a much better position to ban interstate commerce.

    Now the federal government can condition highway money on the uniformity of drinking age laws (south dakota v dole), but there has to be some overarching interstate problem being addressed. In Dole, one could argue this was aimed at reducing interstate drunk driving (does that survive Lopez or Morrison by virtue of bringing the alcohol back across state lines in one’s blood system? Maybe…probably). Dole set the precedent that the activity does not have to relate directly to the purpose of the highway money. Kind of extraordinary….but it does need that federal plan like in Raich (I would think). So even though I doubt that a state could successfully ban abortion-related travel, I think the feds could probably strike to preserve the interstate commerce in abortion. Now getting 60 votes for cloture on the question is another thing….

    AJ_Liberty (411e90)

  145. @140. =blink= ROFLMAOPIP! You must have been out at the concession stand, norcal.

    Have always said it was a fair tradeoff to endure Trump for hard righties to get the Heritage Foundation-picked zealots on the court- and then they went turn coat and backed Biden. Personally don’t give a damn about abortion– it’s the crabgrass in the front yard of a house on fire. But thrilled to see you begrudgingly give Trump credit for something. And that is truly hilarious.

    What isn’t so funny is the recension of a mandated constitutional right– the right to a freedom of choice– which clearly amuses you. Trouble is, the arc of the history of the Republic has been to expand constitutional rights– not rescind them. No more. By a group of be-robed bureaucrats, no less, who cannot keep track of a set of papers yet deem to dictate how the physicality of half the population – modern American women– should be managed. And that sad benchmark is the beginning of the end of the American experience.

    The next right will be easier to rescind; the be-robed bureaucrats have made a list, checkin’ it tweice; gonna keep track of who’s naughty or nice. It’s a slippery slope. And sooner or later- in time, the bureaucrats will get around to rescinding a right that matters to you. Get the extra butter– while the right to have a chubby body is still yours to pursue. 😉

    DCSCA (13651b)

  146. Have always said it was a fair tradeoff to endure Trump

    DCSCA (13651b) — 6/24/2022 @ 7:20 pm

    Endure Trump?!

    Is that a hint of a whiff of a trace of criticism of Trump coming from DCSCA?

    That’s bigger news than Roe being struck down!

    norcal (da5491)

  147. @149. Did you stop at the rest room, too, norcal?

    Where have you been?? Diet Coke w/that popcorn, right? 😉

    DCSCA (13651b)

  148. Nic wrote:

    @me@137 you can’t do the same for an in-progress pregnancy because you can’t remove a fetus from the uterus without killing it, which is, you know, an abortion.

    Look at it this way: even in giving up a child for adoption means that you are still required to care for the child for a given period of time, the time before the child is surrendered to another caregiver. The same is true of pregnancy: it is a temporary burden, lasting roughly nine months, and then you are relieved of that burden. That burden is, of course, imposed by God, or evolution, or Mother Nature, however you wish to put it, not by evil reich wing Republicans.

    It was sometime around 2006 or 2006 when our esteemed host asked in a post, if there was a way to remove the unborn child safely from the mother into an artificial womb, sort of as Dr Bashir transported Keiko O’Brien’s unborn child to Major Kira Nerys after Mrs O’Brien was injured, so that the mother could be made ‘unpregnant’ without concomitantly killing the child, would the proabortionists support that? A lot of the responses, if I recall correctly, were that such wasn’t a good compromise, for all sorts of reasons.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af)

  149. nk wrote:

    But I can see how a Kentucky court could compel the mother to leave the “legal person” behind in Kentucky in the custody of his or her father while she exercised her right to interstate travel to Pennsylvania.

    Sadly, our state Supreme Court is composed primarily of liberal Democrats, who mostly bend to the will of our odious Governor. I was stunned when, in 2021, they actually upheld the Republican-controlled General Assembly when the legislature unambiguously limited the Governor’s statutory authority.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af)

  150. “It literally takes power away from 9 people who weren’t elected and puts it back into the hands of people who were elected.”

    I think the nine tried their best to create a compromise between the two competing interests. And I suspect that some similar form of compromise will energe in all but the most extreme venues. The period of churn will be interesting. It may compel moderation as even the most craven politician can read polls. It might even resurrect the moderate Republican, who knows. In the near term, I’m not sure how this helps the GOP in all but its strongholds. 70% of the population believes abortion should be legal in some form in the first trimester. That makes an outright ban politically problematic. Add in weariness of “stop the steal” theatrics and this might really blunt the inevitable GOP surge.

    There’s lots of hyperbole flying about…but that’s part of the democratic process too. Who really thought that pro-choicers would just take it?

    I found the Arkansas governor’s comments to be revealing. She honestly believes that

    AJ_Liberty (411e90)

  151. Where have you been?? Diet Coke w/that popcorn, right? 😉

    DCSCA (13651b) — 6/24/2022 @ 7:28 pm

    Why bother with Diet when I’m getting extra butter?

    Also, if you continue to deride outcomes engineered by Trump then I promise to stay in my seat.

    norcal (da5491)

  152. AJ_Liberty (411e90) — 6/24/2022 @ 7:35 pm

    AJ, you’re so good you should have your own blog.

    I agree. Whichever side overplays its hand will suffer at the ballot box.

    norcal (da5491)

  153. @155. deride outcomes engineered by Trump

    You’re not paying attention to the plot line, norcal. The plan has worked; the betrayal outted the fleas infesting the tail which wagged the dog; the goal has and remains the nullification of the modern ideological conservative movement. Abortion means nothing to me. But the unexpected was SCOTUS ‘holy’ beclowning itself, betraying its integrity with religious zealotry. The leak– and the rescinding of a constitutional right- using 13th century scribblings no less – destroys the arc of constitutional history expanding rights. Truly tragic; and the beginning of the end of the American experience. And we have Catholicism to thank for it. Sad.

    “Well, there’s always the unexpected, isn’t there.” — Major Warden [Jack Hawkins] ‘The Bridge On The River Kwai’ 1957

    DCSCA (13651b)

  154. @154. I think the nine tried their best to create a compromise between the two competing interests.

    Roberts was probably trying to do that before Alito leaked his draft, AJ, and torpedoed efforts by the CJ to sway and save some core of it -which would have been palatable to the lesser zealots. A devious ploy by Sam you’d expect from a 13th century pope- at the expense of the young clerks to be sure as it stands now. But it was not to be and Roberts cache as CJ is all but dead. They’re just be-robed bureaucrats now– who’ve seriously damaged the credibility of yet another American institution- as bureaucrats under armed guard and chauferred to and from work safely in life-long job can do. [Would love to see Alito risk life and limb by taking the Washington subway some time.] Ask Putin about bureaucracies. Or Xi. It’s why they smile.

    DCSCA (13651b)

  155. Abortion means nothing to me.

    Oh, we’ve all seen the comments that put the lie to that

    frosty (563e98)

  156. Conservative Supreme Court justices lied to the Senate and they lied to us

    Just a quick reminder that leftists are just fine with their side lying if it gains them political advantage.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  157. I just heard Alabama banned abortion with no exception for rape and incest. That’s the problem with this, some of these trigger laws seem pretty draconian and extreme. Plus how is this going to be enforced? Already liberals most dire and exaggerated warnings turn out not to be so exaggerrated.

    JRH (ee5da3)

  158. @159. Lie? ROFLMAOPIP

    English isn’t your first language, is it, frosty; perhaps a reading comprehension class might help. You really haven’t been paying attention. But rest easy; the next right will tumble a little easier; and the next; and the next… until one which matters to you gets the zealot axe. Or perhaps you’d rather just cut to the chase and burn a few witches. ‘Course, w/t price of gasoline these days, drowning might be more pragmatic.

    Rescinding a mandated constitutional right is truly tragic for a Republic with an arc of history expanding constitutional rights to the citizenry. But go ahead and get after them witches:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vasQ9CG_O4

    “It’s a fair cop!”

    DCSCA (2998cb)

  159. @L/L Dana@152 You can immediately surrender a baby to a safe drop off and you can immediately surrender your kid to CPS as well.

    If you could remove a fetus from a uterus and place it into an artificial/alternative uterus of some kind that with good potential to simulate a “normal” and healthy pregnancy and produce a “normal” and healthy child, at minimal cost to the “genetic donors” (in this case) with an immediate and complete surrender of all parental rights and responsibilities, I’d be for that. But we can’t do that yet.

    Nic (896fdf)

  160. I feel like both sides overplayed their hands and that let us to today: Democrats insisted on abortion through the ninth month, despite it being very unpopular; and the Republicans pushed hard to end abortion all together from 0-9 months, despite that being unpopular. Had both groups landed somewhere in the middle of a pregnancy, or at least insured unimpeded rape/incest abortions and not in third tri, I don’t think we’d be here today.

    The way to work on limiting abortion was to do it incrementally and there would e been greater support. Nothing in third tri and Dems would have had more support. Or maybe it all needed to blow up.

    Dana (1225fc)

  161. @JRH@161 If you believe that a fetus is an unborn-person with more rights than than a born-person, then that makes far more sense than allowing an exception for rape or incest. How is it the unborn person’s fault who their parents are? Why should they be killed because one of their parents was a bad person?

    Nic (896fdf)

  162. @Dana@164 People who have abortions in the 3rd trimester aren’t having them because they want to, they are having them because something has gone very wrong with the pregnancy. Willy-nilly abortion in the 3rd trimester is a lie anti-abortion extremists tell and women will die because of it.

    Nic (896fdf)

  163. This is meant for many of you – jve, pattericoz drj if she’s around, others who I know stand on the legal principle at issue:

    I still think you’re wrong, and at the same time mad respect and congratulations. Y’all have fought for half a century for this, and you deserve to celebrate, a little, before we start the fight to swing the pendulum back in the other direction.

    aphrael (5d5fb9)

  164. Kevin, the challenge to obergefell comes from on some clerk who refuses to issue a licence, in a state with a ban still on the books. The challenge cannot be prevented or avoided. And I think the votes are there.

    I think Griswold is safe because we never get a test case. Lawrence I could see going either way

    aphrael (5d5fb9)

  165. @164. Had both groups landed somewhere in the middle of a pregnancy, or at least insured unimpeded rape/incest abortions and not in third tri, I don’t think we’d be here today.

    Dana, didn’t we once call that “compromise??” Where did that go?

    A happy medium could have and should have been managed. Instead, this tragic mess.

    I’ve said repeatedly that ‘abortion means nothing to me’ as an issue- especially as a man nearing 70; it’s a patch of crabgrass on the lawn of a burning house. But the rescinding of a mandated constitutional right in a Republic where the arc of history has been to expand rights to the citzenry is the true tragedy here for our government as structured. It’s a dark day in the decline of the United States as populism rises, religious zealotry festers, just as the SCOTUS leak was; as January 6 was; and the decline of other institutions, and so on and so on… it’s next to impossible to peddle today’s American values around the world.

    DCSCA (2998cb)

  166. @168. This took 30 years tro orchestrate, aphrael. Don’t kid yourself; no right is “safe” any more in America. It’s simply a matter of managing time. Truly a sad moment in the history of the United States.

    DCSCA (2998cb)

  167. Dcsca, at 35: Thomas has had a bee in his bonnet since the beginning of his career about how unenumerated rights should be based in a different part of the constitution than they are. That was the whole point of his concurrence, and it’s probably why alito wrote it rather than him.

    aphrael (5d5fb9)

  168. Nic,

    To be clear, I did not say that women have “willy nilly” abortions in the third tri. If you are implying that, you’d be incorrect. I don’t tend to be frivolous when abortion is the subject. I am also not really interested in debating the reasons women have abortions in any detail as my comment was an observation as to why I think we have arrived at this point. Both sides went to extremes. Be that as it may, to your claims:

    Abortion-rights supporters often like to claim that abortions after 20 weeks’ gestation are rare. According to estimates from the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, about 1.3 percent of annual abortions in the U.S. occur after 20 weeks, which does sound rare — until you consider that the Guttmacher also estimates about 926,000 annual abortions, meaning that about 12,000 take place after viability. As Ramesh Ponnuru often points out, that means there are more post-viability abortions each year than gun homicides, according to the most recent FBI estimates.

    Plenty of women obtain abortions in the third trimester for reasons other than a fetal-health condition (and even then, it remains debatable whether it’s “medically necessary” to kill an unborn human being because he or she is diagnosed with a developmental or biological disability). For instance, here’s an interview with one of the few doctors in the U.S. who performs abortions in the last three months of pregnancy, in which she says, “a large percentage of our patients had no idea that they were pregnant.” Here’s more from her comments:

    They think they just got pregnant. They have no idea they’re in their 24th week. So they make an appointment for an abortion, and it takes a few weeks, and they have their ultrasound and find out that they’re at 27 weeks, which is too far for an abortion anywhere. So then what happens? They either give up or have a baby, or they go on the Internet and they find us.

    In other words, this woman’s clients frequently seek and obtain elective abortions in the third trimester. There’s also Southwestern Women’s Options, an abortion clinic in Albuquerque, N.M., that performs elective abortions through 32 weeks’ gestation, well into the third trimester. The clinic offers abortions after 32 weeks on a case-by-case basis.

    And the evidence for this phenomenon isn’t merely anecdotal. Consider this 2013 Guttmacher article, which says “data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” Rather, they most often do so for reasons such as “they were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous.”

    Dana (1225fc)

  169. Newsom today signed a law that says, if Texas courts issue a civil judgement against a Californian in the basis that the Californian assisted in the procurance of an abortion, no California agency or court will help enforce the judgment.

    There are exceptions to full faith and credit, and California government wants this to be one of them.

    aphrael (5d5fb9)

  170. Newsom today signed a law that says, if Texas courts issue a civil judgement against a Californian in the basis that the Californian assisted in the procurance of an abortion, no California agency or court will help enforce the judgment.

    California better start worrying about where its water is going to come from once Lake Mead hits “dead pool” status more than what Texas is doing with its abortion laws.

    I’m actually seeing the laughable assertion from some leftists that the government should just build a bunch of aqueducts from the Mississippi River or the Great Lakes to keep SoCal and Las Vegas from drying up and blowing away. Turns out that encouraging mass immigration and internal migration to a desert region during a 20-plus year drought period might not have been the best idea.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  171. Jrh, they were never that wild or exaggerated. Y’all just let your dislike of the people making them persuade you that they were.

    aphrael (5d5fb9)

  172. Arizona actually has a bigger problem with water than California does. The renegotiation of the compact is going to reduce the allocation of water to the south basin states, plus the whole system is overdrawn anyway. CA has other sources internally Arizona doesn’t.

    That said, our water system is about to collapse. I expect mandatory rationing in much of the state next summer — even if we eke through this summer without it, signs are you he drought will continue for another year at least.

    My fear is that San Pablo bay will intrude into the delta far enough to flood the aqueduct. That’s a doomsday scenario, and it’s just on the outer edge of the realm of possibility.

    aphrael (5d5fb9)

  173. The renegotiation of the compact is going to reduce the allocation of water to the south basin states, plus the whole system is overdrawn anyway. CA has other sources internally Arizona doesn’t.

    It’s been overdrawn since the beginning, because it was based on limited streamflow measurements during an exceptionally wet year. And good luck getting water transfer infrastructure built from the wetter north in the state to the south. California can’t even build a train on time and on budget.

    The only way this has a chance of getting mitigated is if the whole American West state formation is redrawn along the watershed lines that Powell proposed, and prior appropriation done away with entirely. That’s a gold rush mining law that shouldn’t have any applicability to water use in a desert. It’s why Denver sucks up water from the Colorado River even though it’s on the other side of the Continental Divide.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  174. California better start worrying about where its water is going to come from once Lake Mead hits “dead pool” status more than what Texas is doing with its abortion laws.

    I’m actually seeing the laughable assertion from some leftists that the government should just build a bunch of aqueducts from the Mississippi River or the Great Lakes to keep SoCal and Las Vegas from drying up and blowing away. Turns out that encouraging mass immigration and internal migration to a desert region during a 20-plus year drought period might not have been the best idea.

    Golly. $53 billion would build some keen, neat-o desalination plants along the California coast of that big, deep and very wet Pacific Ocean to help out AMERICANS. But hey, the U.S. government feels non-tax paying, non-voting citizens in Rubbleland, Ukraine are much more important than the good ol’USA dontcha know.

    … and Bugs ‘Z’ Moran smiled.

    DCSCA (2998cb)

  175. Clarence Thomas calls for Supreme Court to ‘reconsider’ gay marriage, contraception after Roe v. Wade falls

    WASHINGTON – Associate Justice Clarence Thomas said Friday that the Supreme Court should “reconsider” other rights established by the high court in the wake of its decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, including access to contraception and gay marriage.

    Thomas’ concurring opinion – which no other member of the court joined – tracks with an argument abortion rights groups had made for months leading up to the court’s blockbuster abortion decision: a ruling that the Constitution doesn’t protect a right to an abortion would jeopardize other rights the court established under the 14th Amendment. – USA Today.com

    So sez Long Dong Silver. But not interracial marriage, eh Clarence? 😉

    DCSCA (2998cb)

  176. @Dana@172 I’m not saying that you said they happen willy-nilly, I’m saying that this idea that they are common comes from anti-abortion extremists who say it. The third trimester is after 24 weeks, according to the Kaiser Family foundation, “While very limited data exists on this issue, a study from 1992 estimated 0.02% of all abortions occurred after 26 weeks gestation (320 to 600 cases per year). This may overestimate current day numbers, given the abortion rate is currently at a historic low, and restrictions on abortions later in pregnancy have increased.” Third trimester abortions are so rare that all the “late term” studies I could find were about pregnancies in the 20-24 week range and the 3rd tri abortion information is almost all anecdotal.

    @FWO@174 SoCal could probably de-salinate, but it would be Very Expensive, at least at the beginning. You are not wrong about encouraging people to live in the desert though.

    Nic (896fdf)

  177. @179: Idiot repetition of idiot article.

    See refutations in 41, 48, 70, 99, & 127

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  178. Joe biden=james buchanan. AOC=John Brown/Lincoln The supreme court has fired on roe vs wade=fort sumter. AOC should demand the senile old fool biden step aside so she can take command and lead are forces into battle.

    asset (07af59)

  179. Kevin, the challenge to obergefell comes from on some clerk who refuses to issue a licence, in a state with a ban still on the books. The challenge cannot be prevented or avoided. And I think the votes are there.

    That case has been litigated. Doesn’t get past the district court.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  180. And I think the votes are there.

    They aren’t. You just want them there so you can say “I told you so.”

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  181. More interesting will be cases involving transgender athletes, were there are arguable victims.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  182. Kevin M – the reasoning in this opinion was that there is no fundamental right to an abortion because there it is not deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition. the same is obviously true of same sex marriage.

    So either the court is *lying* about its reasoning, or Obergefell cannot stand.

    > You just want them there so you can say “I told you so.”

    I do not want my married gay friends to go through the misery of having their marriage derecognized, and i’m somewhat offended that you think I would sacrifice their happiness to make cheap political points.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  183. Again, Thomas’ beef is with “substantive due process” not the results that came out of it.

    The failure of Reconstruction is largely due to the Supreme Court (circa 1875) discarding the part of the 14th Amendment that was written to protect freedmen, and Thomas has had an issue with that since was a stuudent. Substantive due process papered over that mistake, but did so in a way that does not work for an originalist. He sees it as his mission to restore the privileges and immunities clause.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  184. DCSCA @179: i agree with Kevin M on this. Thomas is just being Thomas, beating the drum about his crazy idea that we should ditch the last hundred or so years of substantive due process jurisprudence and then reset all of the rights on the priviliges and immunities clause, giving no concern to the damage done to people by the temporary derecognition of their rights in the meantime.

    It’s a unique obsession of his which nobody else on the court shares, or ever has.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  185. So either the court is *lying* about its reasoning, or Obergefell cannot stand.

    There were additional reasons. 1) millions and millions of dead babies. 2) 50 years and no acceptance. Same sex marriage has NO victims, unless you want to count Bible-thumper’s ulcers. And a few years on and 71% are OK with it and few are all wound up against. The only way you GET victims is to overturn Obergefell.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  186. @181. Pfft. Spam, spam spam spam LOVELY spam, wonderful spam.

    DCSCA (497ce1)

  187. @188. Considering he rescinded a mandated constitutional right on Friday, Long Dong Silver being Long Dong Silver is not saying much. Let’s as Ginny.

    DCSCA (497ce1)

  188. Thomas/Alito/2024

    mg (8cbc69)

  189. Dems will point out that the pro abortion firebombings are “mostly peaceful”…

    mg (8cbc69)

  190. @191 Speaking of reading comprehension; you keep saying mandated constitutional right. I don’t think those words mean what you think they mean. Who is this mandated by?

    And yes, you are now lying. And dropping the insults. But it’s you and today ends in a y. You’re throwing an impressive tantrum though so congratulations and good luck with that.

    frosty (d942bb)

  191. So far we’ve had multiple attacks on government buildings. In Arizona state legislators had to stop what they were doing and evacuate because protestors broke into the building. Hmm.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  192. They’ve done what they meant to do…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX2Ejqjz6TA

    Colonel Haiku (4231e7)

  193. Racisssss!, dcsca!

    Colonel Haiku (4231e7)

  194. KevinM: “There were additional reasons. 1) millions and millions of dead babies. 2) 50 years and no acceptance. Same sex marriage has NO victims”

    Certainly it’s highly unlikely that Obergefell, Lawrence, or Griswold will get revisited. As they say, those trains have moved on. So much of the hyperbole in the news is an emotional overreaction. Yes there’s a principle of “who decides” at play and whether justices should have any role in seeking justice with competing liberty claims, but my sense is that this decision is arguing “no further”, rather than “let’s go back an attempt to unwind everything”.

    It’s true that “gay marriage” is not deeply rooted in the country’s traditions and is not explicitly called out in the Constitution. But just like trying to unwind Wickard, the impact of reversing Obergefell is huge from a practical standpoint.

    But Dobbs will not be the end of this. Thomas and Alito are getting up in age and if they are replaced by liberals, the Court will shift left once again. Equal Protection arguments will be made to reinstantiate a right to abortion….and on we’ll go. Hopefully federalism kicks in and compromises are made at the state level to bring us to an acceptable equilibrium. But who is confident about that these days? That’s why we need to calm our politics down so democracy can find compromise….but then it’s hard to own the opposition….

    AJ_Liberty (411e90)

  195. @ Nic,

    @Dana@172 I’m not saying that you said they happen willy-nilly, I’m saying that this idea that they are common comes from anti-abortion extremists who say it. The third trimester is after 24 weeks, according to the Kaiser Family foundation, “While very limited data exists on this issue, a study from 1992 estimated 0.02% of all abortions occurred after 26 weeks gestation (320 to 600 cases per year). This may overestimate current day numbers, given the abortion rate is currently at a historic low, and restrictions on abortions later in pregnancy have increased.” Third trimester abortions are so rare that all the “late term” studies I could find were about pregnancies in the 20-24 week range and the 3rd tri abortion information is almost all anecdotal.

    My comment at 172 was to rebut your original claim at 166 that:

    @Dana@164 People who have abortions in the 3rd trimester aren’t having them because they want to, they are having them because something has gone very wrong with the pregnancy. Willy-nilly abortion in the 3rd trimester is a lie anti-abortion extremists tell and women will die because of it.

    And while I’m sure some pro-lifers may make such claims, the links I have provided are not from pro-life extremists but rather pro-abortion extremists (Guttmacher exception – pro-choice outfit): Guttmacher, a doctor who is one of the few in the U.S. who performs abortions in the last 3 months of pregnancy, and an abortion clinic in NM.

    You originally said that women aren’t having third tri abortions because they want to, but because something has gone very wrong with the pregnancy, and that is not always the case (as evidenced by the link I provided).

    Dana (1225fc)

  196. When Five Of Nine says “It was wrong then and it is wrong now” (about Bowers v. Hardwick in Lawrence v. Texas), you should not expect that they will not say it again. Which they did. Just yesterday.

    They can overrule Obergefell without touching Lawrence. Lawrence involved intimate private conduct, while marriage is by law public conduct in which the state is a party.

    So what od you do? What RKBA did before Heller v. DC and McDonald v. City of Chicago. Get your rights in the legislatures.

    You won’t get all the states — just like only 44 states had “shall issue” by Thursday’s gun ruling — but, honestly, are abortion and same sex marriage the most compelling reasons you can find for staying out of Alabama, Utah, Texas and Missouri? Seriously?

    nk (80a403)

  197. There are those (like Rip) who get all wound up over contraceptives, or miscegenation, or gays. But it is not like abortion, which KILLS, and which has not had a moment’s acceptance in 50 years. But I get it. You’re angry and not thinking straight.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 6/24/2022 @ 6:08 pm

    To clarify, I am not angry about Dobbs, I support it but I don’t think it goes far enough. If abortion is different because it kills, what makes it ok for some states to allow it and others not? Why doesn’t this fact justify a federal ban?

    But I agree with Justice Thomas that the contraception and marriage decisions need to be revisited, not because they used the wrong constitutional process to be imposed on the states, but that they shouldn’t have been imposed at all. They are properly reserved to the states. It’s called federalism.

    Rip Murdock (215f1b)

  198. Well, at least they’re being honest about abortion killing someone:

    We humans do kill, when necessary: Victims of assault sometimes kill in self-defense, targets of persecution sometimes kill for justice—or just to reduce the number of their persecutors—and the colonized sometimes kill for liberation. Mothers living in unspeakable conditions (including chattel slavery) have been documented to kill their children as an act of mercy. Of course, these examples are instances of necessary violence, generated by the conditions for which we struggle to render extinct. When it comes to abortions, it seems possible that the conditions that necessitate them may never be wholly eliminated, even if vasectomies become generalized, and perfected ectogenetic technologies become universally accessible. As long as people are performing pregnancy on this earth, they must be free to change their minds about seeing it through.

    […]

    For millennia, those of us who have helped a friend terminate a pregnancy—be it with herbal abortifacients, progesterone blockers and ulcer tablets, or vacuum extraction devices—are well situated to understand that something is killed during a uterine evacuation, much as a flower dies when it is plucked.

    But what’s the point of acknowledging this now, at a time when abortion rights are so imperiled? For one thing, it would seem hard to deny that the euphemistic, apologetic, placatory “pro-choice” strategy hasn’t worked out thus far. So, why not risk coming out for what we actually want, namely, abortion—a clearly documented public good? The pending Supreme Court leak thrusts us into a situation in which we have little left to lose. Rather than cleave in desperation to the rearguard missions of defending the rights (to privacy, rather than abortion) enshrined in Roe v. Wade, we could consider this moment a chance to reset the terms on which abortion is fought.

    What would it mean to acknowledge that a death is involved in an abortion? Above all, it would allow for a fairer fight against the proponents of forced gestating. When “pro-life” forces agitate against feticide on the basis that it is killing, pro-abortion feminists should be able to acknowledge, without shame, that yes, of course it is. When we withdraw from gestating, we stop the life of the product of our gestational labor. And it’s a good thing we do, too, for otherwise the world would sag under the weight of forced life. It is a hard pill to swallow for a misogynist society, sentimentally attached to its ideology of patriarchal motherhood, but the truth is that gestators should get to decide which bodies to give form to. This choosing is our prerogative. A desire not to be pregnant is sufficient reason in and of itself to terminate a gestatee.

    When we force anti-abortionists to disagree explicitly with this, we bring their logic of female subordination into the open: Those with uteruses must serve patiently as the vessels through which life passes. We lay bare the calculus at the heart of their worldview, which they only sometimes spell out in so many words, as does the Mississippi pro-life leader Barbara Beaver: “Mothers should die for their babies, not the other way around.”

    […]

    Fetishizing newness and sentimentalizing helplessness, pro-lifers pit themselves ruthlessly against the overwhelming majority of human life-in-particular. In their minds, fetuses deserve every protection, while we actually existing human beings belong to a completely different species. We are on our own, self-responsible; fatally compromised, because enfleshed.

    Anti-abortionists routinely sacrifice the health and happiness of actual persons in defense of the forced survival of potential ones. It is high time we went on the offensive against their sickening, sacrificial version of vitalism. Our is the mature pro-life politics. I don’t want to live in a world that valorizes life for its own sake. I want to live in a world that prioritizes the life chosen and wanted. Peoples’ lives are worth more than fetuses’ lives.

    Geez, what a helluva lot to unpack here. But it’s certainly interesting to read her rationalizations and selective value of life.

    Dana (1225fc)

  199. Dana, have you seen this? Written several years ago, but applicable today.

    https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/01/an-open-letter-to-my-liberal-friends

    Simon Jester (3c374b)

  200. What a great essay, Simon Jester. I particularly liked this:

    There is nothing happy about the breed of feminism that tells women their ability to end life is more important than their ability to create it.

    Dana (1225fc)

  201. https://twitter.com/ArthurSchwartz/status/1540347819688689671

    Where’s the lie?

    😀

    whembly (7e0293) — 6/24/2022 @ 10:00 am

    hahahahahahaha

    Dustin (f01c00)

  202. It’s called federalism.

    No, it’s called privacy, and that IS a constitutional right. The 4th Amendment says that the State needs to keep its nose out of my business, unless it has some evidence that I am committing a crime. The 9th Amendment protects more aspects of privacy as “privacy” was an expectation of people at the Founding.

    Now, certainly, “privacy to do what?” is an open question, but contraception was available in 1789, even if it was clumsy, and consensual sex behind closed doors was rarely criminalized. Just ask Sally Hemmings.

    The ultimate level of “federalism” is the person. Some powers are not only denied to the federal government, but to the states, counties and cities and HOAs.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  203. Going forward, the absurd Texas law needs to be addressed. The crowdsourcing of law enforcement, where the mob is granted standing to bother their neighbors, needs to be stopped before it metastasizes.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  204. I do not want my married gay friends to go through the misery of having their marriage derecognized, and i’m somewhat offended that you think I would sacrifice their happiness to make cheap political points

    Sorry. And that is also the reason it won’t happen. As I said, the only way to get victims from Obergefell is to overturn it. Unless someone tried to force churches to conduct gay marriages, there is really not a lot of opposition.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  205. How does DCSCA add value to any discussion?

    DRJ (dbfc09)

  206. Third Trimester elective abortion in New Mexico leads to woman’s death:

    Six months pregnant at the age of 23, Keisha Atkins spent the final week of her life trying to get an elective legal abortion in 2017 in Albuquerque.

    She died midway through the dayslong outpatient process.

    The lawsuit filed by Atkins’ mother and sister alleged clinic providers failed to identify, diagnose and provide care for the young woman after she showed signs of sepsis two days into a medical induction abortion procedure. Such procedures require a woman to be administered medication to stop the fetal heartbeat, go home, and then return to a medical provider to undergo labor and delivery of the fetus….

    New Mexico permits elective abortions at any phase of a pregnancy, and Boyd’s clinic has been one of the few providers nationwide to offer late-term abortions. The clinic website states abortions are performed up to 32 weeks, and on a case-by-case basis after that time.

    Asked about UNMH’s current policy on performing elective abortions, UNMH spokesman Mark Rudi responded by email, “UNM Health prioritizes patient care and puts patients first. We cannot discuss specific cases or patients.”

    However, a woman who answered the phone at the UNM Center for Reproductive Health said last week that elective abortions are performed at up to 22 weeks…..

    Why Atkins, who worked at a local restaurant, waited so long into her pregnancy to seek an abortion wasn’t addressed in court filings in the case.

    Records in the case show she went to UNM Center for Reproductive Health to seek an elective abortion on or about Jan. 23, 2017, and returned for an exam a week later. At that point she was 24 weeks into her pregnancy, and was referred to Southwestern Women’s Options.

    UNM Medical Group staff contacted the private clinic, confirmed the availability of an appointment time and scheduled the appointment for her, hand delivering their ultrasound results to the clinic on Jan. 31, 2017, the lawsuit alleged.

    The next day, Atkins began the three- to four-day abortion process at the clinic. Two days later she returned to the clinic, and was administered fluids. Nine hours later, her vital signs “and her troubled breathing had not improved since her arrival,” the lawsuit stated.

    An ambulance was summoned and she arrived at the emergency department of UNM Hospital with a fever, respiratory distress and a fast heart rate. She deteriorated further over the next five hours, and late that night was transferred to the operating room to finish the abortion process.

    A lot more detail in the article.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  207. How does DCSCA add value to any discussion?

    Well, he does tend to provide a stimulus.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  208. Going forward, the absurd Texas law needs to be addressed. The crowdsourcing of law enforcement, where the mob is granted standing to bother their neighbors, needs to be stopped before it metastasizes.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 6/25/2022 @ 9:53 am

    In 30 days abortions will be banned in Texas.

    “Last year, [Texas] passed a law that stated if the Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade and abortion is no longer protected by the federal Constitution, then abortion will be completely illegal in the state of Texas,” said Caroline Mala Corbin, a constitutional law professor at the University of Miami School of Law who spoke with the Standard. “So, it is triggered by the Supreme Court overruling Roe v. Wade.”

    That law, Texas House Bill 1280, makes it a second-degree felony “for a person who knowingly performs, induces, or attempts an abortion” according to the bill analysis. The penalty increases to a first-degree infraction “if the unborn child dies as a result of the offense.”

    The legislation makes no exceptions for rape or incest; the only exception is if a pregnancy would kill or severely injure the person carrying the child, Corbin said. It also adds a fine of at least $100,000 for each offense.
    Those fines are for people who perform an abortion, not the people who are getting the abortion, Corbin explained, and punishments could also extend to life in prison for performing an abortion.

    Rip Murdock (215f1b)

  209. 201: Any senator who asks whether a 45 year-old decision is “settled law” deserves whatever answer they get. They would not be asking the question if it WAS “settled law.”

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  210. I don’t mind giving Trump credit. All he wants. There’s stuff you spread on your flower garden that you wipe off your shoes before you go into the house. It still makes the flowers grow.

    But, wait, there’s more. Maybe it took a conman like Trump to clearly see the abortion industry.

    That in 50 years it had gone from a social and political movement to a way its leaders made their living. With Roe v. Wade as their safety net all they really worked at was to keep their rice bowls filled. While the pro-lifers’ fire still burned hot in their bellies.

    Maybe. Just an idea.

    nk (e5c287)

  211. Dana, the author of that essay (written when she was a senior at Princeton) is the wife of Joshua Katz.

    She is a strong woman.

    https://www.commonsense.news/p/what-princeton-did-to-my-husband

    Simon Jester (3c374b)

  212. More on the Texas abortion law:

    Corbin says it’s possible SB 8 could continue to exist alongside the trigger law.
    “It’s true that abortion would be entirely forbidden, but the focus of the trigger law are those performing an abortion,” she said. “There could still be penalties for people who assist with the abortion under the existing law. So, you could have double the effect by targeting both the people who perform and the people who aid anyone getting an abortion.”
    …….
    ……. Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed into law the nation’s strictest abortion ban, which prohibits all abortions with few exceptions. That leaves New Mexico as the last neighboring state where Texas women seeking an abortion can travel for the procedure.
    ########

    Rip Murdock (215f1b)

  213. Rip, the absurd TX crowd-sourcing law allows suits against airlines that fly a pregnant woman to New Mexico, against the New Mexico clinic that performs the abortion, and possibly against family members who assist.

    Banning abortion in TX does not remove the toxicity from this asinine law.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  214. It’s kind of sad that Republicans would be building their own Berlin Wall.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  215. Rip, the absurd TX crowd-sourcing law allows suits against airlines that fly a pregnant woman to New Mexico, against the New Mexico clinic that performs the abortion, and possibly against family members who assist.

    Banning abortion in TX does not remove the toxicity from this asinine law.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 6/25/2022 @ 10:25 am

    Im not arguing that SB 8 is a good idea, just stating that remains the law.

    Rip Murdock (215f1b)

  216. Rip: “If abortion is different because it kills, what makes it ok for some states to allow it and others not? Why doesn’t this fact justify a federal ban?”

    Because there’s nothing in Dobbs about killing. Dobbs is about “who decides”. They’re saying there is no federal right to access abortion. They did not say that fetuses have a right to life, as that too is no where discernible in the Constitution or the common law. Each state can draw a different line…people can argue about it….vote in new people…change the line…and hopefully things settle out in a few years.

    Most people may agree that abortion is morally wrong, but a super-majority also agrees that it should be a woman’s call up to some point. That super-majority could pressure Congress to create some minimal federal line to secure that right. The power of Congress to do this is sketchy, maybe interstate commerce. The road to a Constitutional Amendment is probably too steep for either side….so we’re left with a lot of arguing and not many new arguments….

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  217. In Texas, you can be sued if you don’t choose your words carefully when you order the Filet O’ Fish and not the Big Mac: Defaming beef. 😉

    nk (e5c287)

  218. KM @218-

    Don’t get your hopes up. Texas made its bed, now it needs to sleep in it. As far as I know there haven’t been any successful lawsuits under SB 8.

    Rip Murdock (215f1b)

  219. @194. Rubbish. A mandated constitutional right has been rescinded directly affecting half the population- a freedom- a freedom of choice— when the arc of history for the Republic has been to expand constitutional rights for the citizenry. And you assert that’s a lie. Good luck pitching that spitball by the umpires; the fans can spot it in the nosebleed seats:

    The Supreme Court on Friday struck down Roe v. Wade, eliminating the nearly 50-year-old constitutional right to abortion and handing states authority to drastically limit or ban the procedure.- TheHill.com

    Pretty much bayonets the puffery of ‘American exceptionalism,’ too, putting the be-robed bureaucrats in the docket w/other infamous ‘courts’ which rescinded rights and restricted freedoms of their citizenry; like please-sir-may-you-pump-some-more-oil Saudi Arabia, you-know-who’s Germany; you know who’s USSR/Russia; the emerging world leader, PRC; the classic world follower, NorKo; Hirohito’s Japan, the Taliban’s Afghan… Z’s Ukraine… and many more. A Ukraine, BTW, where billions of U.S dollars are earmarked to fund a corrupt government’s operations; a government that is pro-abortion, financed by U.S. $. Hilarious. And tragic. Yes. such an exceptionally classy group.

    DCSCA (65d26c)

  220. It’s kind of sad that Republicans would be building their own Berlin Wall.

    Sad? REpublican have done it before; your hero built one:

    “H.R, Haldeman along with John Ehrlichman were known as the “Berlin Wall” — you had to get past Haldeman and Ehrlichman if you wanted to see President Nixon.”https://www.npr.org/2005/06/03/4678527/beyond-deep-throat-the-cast-of-watergate

    “What America needs are leaders to match the greatness of her people.” – The Big Dick, August, 1968

    DCSCA (65d26c)

  221. AJ_@221-

    Rip: “If abortion is different because it kills, what makes it ok for some states to allow it and others not? Why doesn’t this fact justify a federal ban?”

    Because there’s nothing in Dobbs about killing. …..

    The discussion was not about Dobbs specifically, but the shaky constitutional basis for the SC contraception and marriage decisions, which properly belong to the states. KevinM is arguing that since abortion KILLS (see post 129: “There are those (like Rip) who get all wound up over contraceptives, or miscegenation, or gays. But it is not like abortion, which KILLS…….” abortion is different from those other issues.

    The fact that abortion does kill justifies a federal ban.

    Rip Murdock (215f1b)

  222. “Govs. DeSantis and Youngkin are both enacting abortion bans that start at 15 weeks, which means that Florida and Virginia will still have more liberal abortion laws than virtually all of Western Europe”

    Obudman (de122d)

  223. @210. The recension of a mandated constitutional right– the right to a freedom; a freedom of choice– merits discussion. The arc of the history of the Republic has been to expand constitutional rights for the citizenry– not contract them. But a cabal of be-robed bureaucrats, who clearly lied to their inquisitors during their confirmation process- and who cannot keep track of a set of papers presume to dictate how the physicality of half the population – modern American women– should be managed have done just that.

    The next right will be just a little easier to tumble; then the next; and the next and so on. It’s merely a matter of patience, perseverance and time. It’s a slippery slope– and a tragic day for the American experience. And certainly merits discussion, if not concern. Or maybe not; it’s baseball season.

    DCSCA (65d26c)

  224. One thing I would like to see: A federal abortion law struck down 9-0 as being outside Congress’s remit.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  225. mandated constitutional right

    Different from a real constitutional right

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  226. If Roe Gets Overruled, Abortion Policy may not be “Left to the States”
    ………
    In the immediate aftermath of a reversal of Roe, the states really would be in control of developments. There is currently very little federal abortion legislation on the books. Red states could enact new restrictions and reactivate old ones blocked by Roe. Blue states could continue to permit abortion, and perhaps even expand its availability. Red-state residents seeking abortions would increasingly try to cross state lines to do so in more liberal states.

    But this state of affairs could change if Congress decided to act. In my view, the text and original meaning of the Constitution do not give Congress any power to restrict abortion, with the exception of those performed in federal territories, such as the District of Columbia, and perhaps those that involve crossing state lines to access a commercial provider. But current Supreme Court precedent strongly suggests otherwise.

    Under cases such as Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the Supreme Court has held that Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce includes the authority to restrict almost any “economic activity,” so long as it has a “substantial effect” on interstate trade. And “economic activity” is defined very broadly to include anything that involves the “production, distribution, and consumption of commodities.” …….
    ………
    If, as is likely, the interstate abortion market expands in the wake of a Supreme Court decision overruling Roe, Congress could claim that suppression of intrastate abortions is necessary in order to enforce restrictions on those that involve crossing state lines. If abortion is banned in State A, but legal in neighboring State B, that creates an incentive for residents of A to cross into B in order to get abortions – even if the feds enact a ban on such crossing. That ban might be more effectively enforced if abortion were illegal in B as well as A. Thus, the argument would go, Congress has the power to restrict abortion within a state, because doing so can help suppress the interstate market in abortion.
    ………
    In addition to trying to directly regulate abortion by using its Commerce Clause powers, Congress could also try to do so indirectly by using its Spending Clause power to condition grants to state governments. For example, it could enact legislation restricting various types of health care grants to state governments unless the latter ban or severely restrict abortion. ……..
    ……..
    The above discussion is based on the assumption that current Supreme Court federalism precedent remains unaltered. But that might not happen.
    ………

    Rip Murdock (215f1b)

  227. mandated constitutional right

    Different from a real constitutional right

    Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 6/25/2022 @ 11:11 am

    You mean like the “mandated” constitutional rights to contraception and gay marriage?

    Rip Murdock (215f1b)

  228. “he recension of a mandated constitutional right”

    Probably “mandated” needs to be replaced by “judicially discovered” (and not enumerated). We certainly have a zone of privacy, but states also have a generalized police power that allows the state to invade that privacy given sufficient due process. The police power traditional includes matters relating to health, safety, welfare, and community standards (morals). The latter showing up with zoning certain businesses out of areas, dancers wearing pasties, and blue laws. When does the state have sufficient interest to intervene in the question of abortion? On one side, life is a continuum. On the other, bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom are competing interests. SCOTUS in 1973 imposed a compromise. There’s always been opposition that the “line” was too liberal. Most abortions already occur in the first trimester. Many later-term abortions are more health related. Moving the line to 15 weeks I suspect will not stop most elective abortions…just move them forward a few weeks. The people should debate the issue….let’s see how they do at that.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  229. Spinning fantasies, speculation and “what ifs”…
    How about we just stop murdering our babies.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  230. @234:

    and “recension” means “edited” not “rescinded.”

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  231. Glenn Reynolds is the real disappointment, having failed the “who goes fascist?” test.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  232. How does DCSCA add value to any discussion?

    DRJ (dbfc09) — 6/25/2022 @ 10:09 am

    Yes. He’s a lighthouse. Here be rocks and hazards. If you find yourself agreeing with him you should take a moment to reflect and review. He’s not always wrong but you should check yourself.

    frosty (10827b)

  233. @239 funnies thing I’ve read all day.

    Time123 (1677a9)

  234. Examining what other countries do, parts of Canada allow elective abortion up through 24 weeks, others stop at 12 weeks. The Netherlands are at 24 weeks, Sweden is at 18 weeks. Every other EU country is at 14 weeks or less. More than a few EU countries (England, Scotland, Wales, Hungary, Poland) do not allow elective abortions.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  235. A truck ran over women protesters in Iowa yesterday. That state like many in the south has laws protecting drivers who run over protesters. Armed antifa and John Brown gun club memebers should be escorting women protesters. Now that right to lifers are trying to kill pro-choice women its time to take the gloves off and hit back hard. AOC is now leading the response to court ruling.

    asset (c959be)

  236. >Banning abortion in TX does not remove the toxicity from this asinine law.

    And of course California has responded by passing a law barring California courts from giving full faith and credit to civil judgments enforcing the asinine law, which (a) will be enormously popular here, (b) makes sense as a matter of California public policy, but (c) adds to the destabilizing effect of the law.

    aphrael (095ae4)

  237. @239. Better still, change your course. 😉

    DCSCA (4f9c6a)

  238. AOC is now leading the response to court ruling.

    How will this help?

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  239. How will it hurt? Biden isn’t tough enough. At least eleven people have been murdered by anti-abortionists. AOC can lead the counter-offensive against republican politicians. The right to lifers were lucky yesterday as the woman protester run over in Iowa was only injured. The martyr’s power begins with their death like ashlee babbit and the tyrant’s power ends with their death.

    asset (c959be)

  240. DCSCA (65d26c) — 6/25/2022 @ 10:43 am

    This is nuclear-level cope.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  241. @247. 1+1 = 2; not 11.

    DCSCA (4f9c6a)

  242. @245 How awesome will it be that the leader of the revolution uptalks every sentence? Charge the barricades? Fight the power? Down with the patriarchy?

    frosty (10827b)

  243. @249. He blew it the day he failed to shut down all further, pending court proceedings and immediately run to ground the source of the leaker. The leaker lit the fuse but it’s all on CJ Roberts for failing to stamp it out, letting what little integrity and respect was left of the court to disintegrate:

    Confidence in Supreme Court at All-Time Low Ahead of Roe v. Wade Decision

    Ahead of the Supreme Court’s crucial ruling on a Mississippi abortion rights case that could overturn Roe v. Wade, Americans’ confidence in the court has sunk to an all-time low, according to a recent poll.

    Only 25 percent of Americans have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the Supreme Court, according to Gallup’s annual update on confidence in the nation’s institution. The number shows a significant deterioration of confidence in the court, having dropped by 11 percentage points compared to a year ago. It’s the steepest decline in confidence of all U.S. institutions.https://www.newsweek.com/confidence-supreme-court-all-time-low-roe-v-wade-decision-1718791

    Mourn the passing of yet another American institution beclowning itself:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laa4DDMFmi8

    “… a little song; a little dance; a little seltzer down your pants.”

    DCSCA (4f9c6a)

  244. Mr M wrote:

    Rip, let’s say that you have a billion dollars and all the lawyers you need. What cause of action do you propose to undo Griswold, Obergefell or Loving? How are you harmed?

    Griswold and Loving would be difficult, but Obergefell starts to trample on my rights to state that two males or two females cannot be legitimately married. As a private individual, I’m not harmed, but if I am a corporation, and must treat homosexual couples the same way I treat heterosexual married couples, in a manner which forces me to recognize that they are married, then yes, I could claim an injury to my freedom of religion.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af)

  245. @Dana@199 The study you linked to used the number for late term abortions as 21 weeks or greater, when they fall precipitously as time goes on. And the doctor is, but in the interview interweaves 2nd and 3rd trimester. When she’s talking about later abortions, she mostly talks about medical need and one of the “elective” examples she gives is of an 11 yrs old and in other interviews a rape victim. She also talks about women who come specifically because of health reasons like fetal abnormality “But with a fetal indications patient — if she refers to it as her baby, I’ll refer to it as her baby. If she’s named the baby, I’ll use the baby’s name too. I would say that most of these patients do decide to see and hold their baby, although many of them have a hard time dealing with the idea at first. We’ll take remembrance photographs, we’ll give them a teddy bear, the footprints. I mean, imagine being six months pregnant and finding out your baby’s missing half its brain, and you’ve got this nursery you’ve painted at home, you’re so ready — I don’t want them to go home from the procedure with absolutely nothing to remember and honor the baby, and its birth.” She say, ” A woman would never do this casually. The procedure lasts three or four days, and is fairly disagreeable.”

    Now, I would like to be clear. I think that all things being equal, abortion isn’t a good idea. There are a lot of things that people can legally do that I think are not good ideas or are immoral. However, I also don’t think that it should be legal to force another person to be a life support system for another person. And, frankly, our society is not set up in a way that values (people, really but…) pregnancy and/or parenting and certainly not young unmarried mothers, so I can’t really blame some young woman who decides that it would be too hard.

    Nic (896fdf)

  246. Obergefell compels sovereign states to be parties to a three-way contract that is against their public policy and they had never entered into before. So did Loving and the miscegenation statute’s rationale of only marrying kinfolk predates Pericles.

    The Five Of Nine did not do Constitution, they did public policy and, no joke, their rationale was a Bruce Springsteen lyric, “Don’t make no difference what nobody says, ain’t nobody want to be alone”.

    nk (e5c287)

  247. How does DCSCA add value to any discussion?

    DRJ (dbfc09) — 6/25/2022 @ 10:09 am

    He’s interesting when he tells stories of his own life and career, but when it comes to politics, he often reminds me of this word:

    facile–(especially of a theory or argument) appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue

    norcal (da5491)

  248. “Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Tina Smith (D-Minn.) on Saturday urged President Biden to take action after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade the day prior, writing in an op-ed: “We need action, and we need it now…”The Supreme Court has spoken: Roe is gone. But the Supreme Court doesn’t get the final say on abortion. The American people will have the last word through their representatives in Congress and the White House,” they wrote.”

    Funny how Roe was “the law of the land” for 50 years, and the second it’s been repealed, suddenly the Court doesn’t have final say.

    Further proof that Democrats view politics as a game of Calvinball, where they get to change the rules if the outcome isn’t to their liking. Ironically, they’re arguing the very thing that should have been argued 50 years ago.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  249. Obergefell, the plaintiff in the SCOTUS same-sex marriage ruling, said it’s ‘quite telling’ Clarence Thomas omitted the case that legalized interracial marriage after saying the courts should go after other right to privacy cases

    Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff behind the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on same-sex marriage, said Friday that Justice Clarence Thomas omitted Loving v. Virginia on his list of Supreme Court decisions to “reconsider” because it “affects him personally.”

    https://www.businessinsider.com/obergefell-telling-clarence-thomas-didnt-bring-up-loving-v-virginia-2022-6

    DCSCA (a78721)

  250. @FWO@256 Grandstanding. As some of their people’s representatives, if they want things changed they need to get together with their counterparts in the house and present legislation. The President doesn’t pass legislation.

    Nic (896fdf)

  251. @257: Or maybe it’s been 60 years and there is no pressing reason to revisit it.

    But Obergefell has a point, if only that the case of gay marriage, as a matter of equity, is more compelling than what was presented in Loving. Without SSM, a gay person cannot enter into a fulfilling marriage. A heterosexual, even confined to their race, can.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  252. MY issue with AOC, MTG and the like, is that a Congressperson is supposed to represent their district and help their constituents navigate the federal system. I doubt either of those honorable women does much of that. It’s also why I expect that Sarah Palin will lose in Alaska.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  253. A heterosexual, even confined to their race, can.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 6/25/2022 @ 5:35 pm

    I’m sorry, Kevin, but I’m a white man who has a thing for Chinese women, so that’s not true in my case. 😁

    norcal (da5491)

  254. 246-asset, avenge this lower hanging fruit , reminiscent of a particular Pantera album cover, and then I’ll start believing the bombast / buying what you’re selling.

    urbanleftbehind (6280da)

  255. I’m a white man who has a thing for Chinese women, so that’s not true in my case.

    Is that working for you?

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  256. @260. It’s also why I expect that Sarah Palin will lose in Alaska.

    Palin, Begich, Gross advance in Alaska US House race

    JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) June 15, 2022 — Republican former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Republican Nick Begich and independent Al Gross have advanced to the August special election for the state’s only U.S. House seat… With 132,730 votes counted, Palin had 28.3%, followed by Begich with 19.3% and Gross with 12.8%. Democrat Mary Peltola had 8.7% and Republican Tara Sweeney, 5.5%.

    https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-sarah-palin-alaska-government-and-politics-35d4e10f112fa2551aa63d3680dd0dbd

    DCSCA (a78721)

  257. Is that working for you?

    Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 6/25/2022 @ 5:43 pm

    Off and on

    norcal (da5491)

  258. Fertility Doctors Move Embryos, Expecting Abortion Law Changes
    ………
    More than 2% of 3.7 million babies born in the U.S. in 2019 were conceived through in vitro fertilization, the latest federal data show. Many embryos created through IVF aren’t viable, fertility specialists said, and those that aren’t ultimately transferred into a uterus may be discarded.
    ……..
    Angeline Beltsos, chief executive officer of clinical at Kindbody, which has clinics in 12 states and the District of Columbia, said some patients had asked doctors to move embryos out of state in case Roe v. Wade was overturned.

    “We’ve started the process of moving embryos from states like Missouri to states that patients think may be safer for their decision-making,” Dr. Beltsos said. Those decisions include the option to freeze embryos for storage, a process that can cause damage to some embryos, and to discard embryos if they aren’t viable or ultimately transferred.
    ……..
    A bill that Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, signed into law last month banning most abortions from the point of fertilization explicitly excludes contraceptives including so-called morning-after pills but not IVF, said Michelle Banker, director of reproductive rights and health litigation at the National Women’s Law Center.

    I. Glenn Cohen, a deputy dean at Harvard Law School, said that the bill likely wouldn’t affect IVF but that the language was vague enough to raise questions. “If lawmakers don’t want to touch IVF, they should be clearer in their language,” he said.
    ……….
    If laws against abortion extend to the protection of all embryos, (Dr. Alan Penzias, a reproductive endocrinologist at Boston IVF, a Massachusetts fertility company, and an associate professor at Harvard Medical School) said Boston IVF physicians might only create embryos for immediate transfer into a patient’s uterus, reducing the potential rate of success. Alternatively, sperm and eggs might be collected in-state and shipped to Boston IVF’s headquarters in Massachusetts to be fertilized and stored, he said.
    …….
    Egg harvesting, fertilization and transfer can cost $10,000 to upward of $20,000 per cycle, according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Several cycles are often necessary for a successful pregnancy.

    Some people might pay to store embryos indefinitely or transport them out of state to be discarded if embryos created through IVF become protected where they live, said Dr. Penzias.
    ……….

    Rip Murdock (c0b43b)

  259. @FWO@256 Grandstanding. As some of their people’s representatives, if they want things changed they need to get together with their counterparts in the house and present legislation. The President doesn’t pass legislation.

    Nic (896fdf) — 6/25/2022 @ 5:20 pm

    Well, sure it is. The problem here is that the court just established that Roe was poorly crafted jurisprudence and that you couldn’t just establish a constitutional right to a medical procedure out of thin air. They might be grandstanding, but it’s because they and their allies unironically believe they can speak their wishes in to existence.

    The other problem is that they truly believe that the majority of Americans REALLY want abortion on demand, despite all evidence to the contrary, primarily due to the cultural feedback loop from their allies in the media and entertainment industry who desperately want such laws put in place.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  260. @FWO@256 Grandstanding.

    Nic (896fdf) — 6/25/2022 @ 5:20 pm

    Yes, and both sides of the aisle do this.

    One thing I’ve learned from this blog is how to wade through all the squid ink.

    norcal (da5491)

  261. How does DCSCA add value to any discussion?

    Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    Rip Murdock (c0b43b)

  262. The problem here is that the court just rescinded a mandated constitutional right– the right to a freedom; the freedom of choice, while the arc of the history of the Republic has been to expand constitutional rights for the citizenry– not contract them.

    A court, BTW, ‘only 25 percent of Americans have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in, according to Gallup’s annual update on confidence in the nation’s institution… and cannot even keep track of a set of papers. Perception is reality. The number shows a significant deterioration of confidence in the court, having dropped by 11 percentage points compared to a year ago. It’s the steepest decline in confidence of all U.S. institutions.https://www.newsweek.com/confidence-supreme-court-all-time-low-roe-v-wade-decision-1718791

    FIFY.

    Bring on The Dancing Alitos!

    DCSCA (cad990)

  263. @270 mandated by who or what?

    frosty (09987e)

  264. @271 Just be glad he stopped writing “recension”.

    norcal (da5491)

  265. @256 the court of last resort is not the supreme court but the street. That gives my side the edge. AOC could barely contain her excitement yesterday knowing this will finish the corporate establishment democrats hold on the democrat party. She and the left will put the question to establishment corporate democrats Malcolm X and we on the left say by any means necessary . Do you agree pelosi, schumer, clintons, biden and DNC?

    asset (5c62f2)

  266. @273. There’s some validity to that given the recent polling on the court, pre-Friday’s decision, which won’t boost those popularity and confidence numbers w/t majority of Americans. That, on top of the utter bureaucratic incompetence of the paper shufflers pretty much destroys any respect and gravitas of these clowns in an era when simmering at the boil populism erodes confidence.

    But abortion specifically isn’t exactly a broad-based rallying issue; it’s too personal of a decision and an individual matter- but rescinding the broader, constitutional right; a freedom of choice citizens; women had the option to exercise for half a century could light a fire under that voting block by November for some kind of backlash- but it’s a real stretch.

    W/high gasoline prices, supply chain issues etc., it’ll likely fade to a shrill, fundraising issue by the usual pols hungry for TeeVee face time and fade just as the constitutionally mandated right itself. But the self-inflicted damage the court bureaucracy has done to itself along w/t the cadre of religious zealots who lied to their inquisitors during their confirmation process is going to take generations to heal. The rescinded right and further loss of respect for the court is the tragic legacy of all this. And the trends in the Gallup numbers show it:

    https://www.newsweek.com/confidence-supreme-court-all-time-low-roe-v-wade-decision-1718791

    DCSCA (17b504)

  267. @274 It will be difficult for republicans to campaign effectively from behind paid security. Republicans will have to spend a lot of time guarding their campaign signs. Thats just for starters. I was at my state capital today doing a teach in with angry mostly women. As an old anti-war warrior from the 1960’s. I taught them tactics that are at least semi-legal can make republicans campaigning for office a living hell. Just waiting for a martyr(s) to take the gloves off. Almost had one in Iowa last night so we can wave the bloody shirt (blouse)! As Malcolm X said by any means necessary. Some democrat politicians Clinton/biden drones were uncomfortable with the question and walked away as usual to the contempt of the crowd.

    asset (5c62f2)

  268. DCCCP: “but rescinding the broader, constitutional right; a freedom of choice citizens; women had the option to exercise for half a century”

    Actually, this is far from the first time the Court has reversed a 14A discovered right. Consider the broad swath of economic rights that were recognized even pre-Lochner. You might moan, well those aren’t ones that I care about, but still, Lee Optical in 1955 represented a tidal wave shift where economic regulations now would only receive rational basis (minimal) review (West Coast Hotel kicked off the shift earlier).

    Now you can argue that this just shifts rights….from owners to consumers and workers, but not completely, as it did restrict flexibility generally and impact workers who would prefer to work outside the regulation. Minimum wage rules may also crowd out some from jobs that they would otherwise have.

    The Court also changed people’s right to not have their property seized under eminent domain for anything other than public use (think ultimately Kelo). By now including “economic development” as a rational for takings, poor people can now be cleared out of areas for the “greater good”. What about their rights being stripped away?

    Dobbs also doesn’t extinguish the right completely, but moves it to the purview of the states….where in some cases, the states explicitly protect access to abortion in their Constitutions. In the other cases where abortion will be illegal, like with economic liberties, the right calculus has shifted to the unborn and a right to enjoy life.

    Now if you want to attack Dobbs based on reliance issues, I think there is a case to be made. But I think repeating ad nauseum that this is the first time a right has been stripped away is not that persuasive.

    AJ_Liberty (411e90)

  269. But I think repeating ad nauseum that this is the first time a right has been stripped away is not that persuasive.

    AJ_Liberty (411e90) — 6/26/2022 @ 5:33 am

    I disagree. DCSCA isn’t the only person tirelessly repeating poorly reasoned tired and worn out talking points. It’s both informative and persuasive. Just not in the way they would probably want.

    frosty (cd9b1d)

  270. @256 the court of last resort is not the supreme court but the street. That gives my side the edge. AOC could barely contain her excitement yesterday knowing this will finish the corporate establishment democrats hold on the democrat party. She and the left will put the question to establishment corporate democrats Malcolm X and we on the left say by any means necessary . Do you agree pelosi, schumer, clintons, biden and DNC?

    asset (5c62f2) — 6/25/2022 @ 11:35 pm

    Just to be clear, are you saying you want war in the streets?

    NJRob (3dbda4)

  271. @275 That sounds like a lot of jibber jabber talkie talk. You sound like those guys that go on about the trilateral commission and how they’re preparing to make gunpowder from their own urine for when SHTF.

    AOC already had a chance to influence Nancy and the house and she refused to do it. She pulled the tried and true this isn’t the hill to die on routine. She’s just the D version of the R who promises much but finds reasons to go along with the establishment. She playing you while she sips her Starbucks and drives her Tesla to Whole Foods.

    frosty (cd9b1d)

  272. Just to be clear, are you saying you want war in the streets?

    NJRob (3dbda4) — 6/26/2022 @ 6:35 am

    It’s cute that asset thinks this gives their side the edge. Sure, riot in a deep blue city that is already crumbling. I notice that these riots don’t happen a lot in deep red areas.

    The BLM riots didn’t accomplish anything other than proving the left is all about the violence or threats of violence and all of the compromise and democracy and finding common ground talk is just lies.

    frosty (cd9b1d)

  273. It’s also worth noting:

    Asserting that Biden is an illegitimate president is unacceptable and will get you in moderation. Asserting that the SCOTUS is illegitimate is fine.

    Excusing Jan/6 is unacceptable and promoting violence in that context would likely get you banned. Excusing or promoting pro-abortion violence is fine.

    frosty (cd9b1d)

  274. “Nice institution you got there, hate to see anything happen to it…”

    —- Any Pro-abortion Vampire Democrat

    Colonel Haiku (dae905)

  275. History supports Republicans filling the seat. Doing so would not be in any way inconsistent with Senate Republicans’ holding open the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. The reason is simple, and was explained by Mitch McConnell at the time. Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies at any time — even in a presidential election year, even in a lame-duck session after the election, even after defeat. Historically, when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees sent up in a presidential election year, and hold the seat open for the winner. Both of those precedents are settled by experience as old as the republic.”

    A Crucial Reminder Of How Never-Trumpers Got It Wrong

    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2022/06/25/dobbs-decision-is-a-crucial-reminder-of-how-much-the-2016-election-mattered-n2609317

    Obudman (de122d)

  276. @275. Well, that’s likely true; anti-war protests did come to mind before reading your post; so you know the drill- reminded me of Chapin’s musings about surrounding the fenced in White House with buses back in the Vietnam days. Today armed guards for the SCOTUS bureaucrats, their workplace a fenced in fortress w/armed guards patrolling the grounds– not a good look; perception is reality. Though it’s really going to come down to a matter of sustaining any ‘rage’ and temper it. Maxine Waters and Chuck Schumer aren’t doing that. But “Hell hath no fury… ‘ etc., can pack a punch. Pissing off modern American women isn’t a smart move by Republicans who think the midterm a a lock thanks to Biden’s incompetence. They should have done this after the midterms.

    But the election will be one over pocketbook issues; gas prices, inflation, supply chain, etc. Abortion rights will be a hard sell in that mix; rescinding a constitutional right as well- until they quill out one directly affecting enough folks. But the court itself has beclowned itself into a punch line– and it took religious zealotry to cheapen their cache. At times throughout history, crusading Catholicism has done that. Burning witches, inquisitions and all that. It will take generations to repair and restore the court to a level of respect, too.

    @276/@277. =yawn= Don’t project. It’s understandable why you’re choking on the reality of a constitutional right rescinded when the arc of the history of the Republic has been to expand rights to the citizenry, and you’re trying to talk circles around it. The next right will tumble just a little easier now. Then the next… and the next… It’s merely a matter of perseverance, patience and time.

    Supreme Court Overturns Roe V. Wade, Wiping Away Constitutional Right to Abortion

    https://www.healthline.com/health-news/supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-wiping-away-constitutional-right-to-abortion#The-Courts-decision-on-Roe

    “[The] decision—which abandons nearly 50 years of precedent—marks the first time in history that the Supreme Court has taken away a fundamental right.”

    https://reproductiverights.org/supreme-court-takes-away-right-to-abortion/

    Keep working on that spitball, fellas.

    DCSCA (adccc1)

  277. @278. Just to be clear, are you saying you want war in the streets?

    Been there; done that. Just to be clear: have you ever heard of 1968?

    😉

    DCSCA (adccc1)

  278. DCSCA (adccc1) — 6/26/2022 @ 7:57 am

    That’s right. It didn’t end well then, nor will it end well now.

    Let me add my voice to those who have questioned asset’s latest comments. I rarely say this, but a time-out for asset is prolly a good idea as I sense that asset’s comments are testing the bounds in which he may advance.

    felipe (484255)

  279. “The irony of today’s abortion decision is the primary
    refrain of Democrats is “Nine unelected men in robes
    should not decide what I can do with my body
    The Justices said “You’re right. We should never have
    decided that” and returned the decision to the
    people.”

    Colonel Haiku (dae905)

  280. @286. Well, the war ended and Americans stopped dying; so in the end, all’s well that ended well. But it was a helluva price to pay.

    DCSCA (adccc1)

  281. Before my time. I’m not trying to relive my youth like some of the wannabe anti-war hippies posting nonsense.

    NJRob (3dbda4)

  282. DCSCA (adccc1) — 6/26/2022 @ 8:20 am

    Amen, brother.

    felipe (484255)

  283. NJRob (3dbda4) — 6/26/2022 @ 8:20 am

    Quite right. It reminds me of what Jesus said [I paraphrase]:

    “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the Kingdom of G*D.”

    felipe (484255)

  284. “Nine unelected men in robes should not decide what I can do with my body…”

    And when did three women, Elena, Sonia and Amy, have their still constitutionally protected sex change operations? Dol tell. 😉

    DCSCA (adccc1)

  285. DCSCA (adccc1) — 6/26/2022 @ 8:24 am

    Those dear ladies did not take part in the Roe decision. I blame the confusion on the lexical ambiguities employed.

    felipe (484255)

  286. @289. It wasn’t a pleasant time, NJ.

    But hey, some great music:

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

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGLGzRXY5Bw

    And some memorable quotes:

    “Go, baby, go!” – Walter Cronkite

    “Burn, baby, burn!” – Nathaniel “Magnificent” Montague

    DCSCA (adccc1)

  287. Let me add my voice to those who have questioned asset’s latest comments. I rarely say this, but a time-out for asset is prolly a good idea as I sense that asset’s comments are testing the bounds in which he may advance.

    Noted. I find nostalgia for the Days of Rage to be rather pathetic, though sadly on-brand for elderly Baby Boomer leftists. I’ve long been reluctant to moderate or ban a commenter for anything short of gross trolling or outright threats, but the Boss is a little bit more strict about these things than I am. I hope asset heeds the warning.

    JVW (020d31)

  288. @295. I find nostalgia for the Days of Rage to be rather pathetic, though sadly on-brand for elderly Baby Boomer leftists.

    Nostalgia? Lest you forget the nostalgic observations of a fella named Thomas Jefferson:

    “God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.

    If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?

    Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” – Thomas Jefferson

    https://thefederalistpapers.org/founders/jefferson/thomas-jefferson-god-forbid-we-should-ever-be-twenty-years-without-such-a-rebellion

    DCSCA (adccc1)

  289. A Crucial Reminder Of How Never-Trumpers Got It Wrong

    Counterpoint:

    Donald Trump was, until he decided he wanted the Republican presidential nomination, an across-the-board social progressive: not only pro-abortion but “very pro-choice” in his own words, a supporter of gay marriage, a supporter of left-wing gun-control proposals, etc. He was economically on the left, too: For example, Trump supported a national wealth tax far in excess of anything dreamed up by Elizabeth Warren or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. When Trump was asked what kind of justice he’d nominate for the Supreme Court, he suggested his sister — who is not exactly Clarence Thomas.

    [. . .]

    It was movement conservatism — the institutions derided as “Conservative Inc.” by the rage-monkeys of Twitter and talk radio — that kept the Trump presidency from being a disaster for the Right. Trump signed Paul Ryan’s tax bill, he took up the Club for Growth’s deregulatory agenda, hired a couple of National Review editors for economic-policy advice (he should have listened to them more than he did), and, critically, delegated his judicial selections to the Federalist Society — because he did not really have any choice as a matter of political reality. You can’t be a Republican presidential candidate without backing — or at least saying you back — an originalist approach to the federal judiciary.

    That is where you see the success of the long-term efforts of the conservative movement: Trump didn’t find Amy Coney Barrett on The Apprentice. And you have the Federalist Society and the broader conservative movement to thank for the fact that there was no Omarosa Manigault Newman nomination for the Supreme Court — or, God help us, a Maryanne Trump Barry nomination.

    JVW (020d31)

  290. JVW (020d31) — 6/26/2022 @ 8:40 am

    Thank you. My hope is aligned with yours.

    felipe (484255)

  291. @297
    only two things happened under trump:
    1. good things that he had nothing to do with
    2. bad things

    JF (38d910)

  292. Donald Trump was, until he decided he wanted the Republican presidential nomination, an across-the-board social progressive: not only pro-abortion but “very pro-choice” in his own words, a supporter of gay marriage, a supporter of left-wing gun-control proposals, etc. He was economically on the left, too: For example, Trump supported a national wealth tax far in excess of anything dreamed up by Elizabeth Warren or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. When Trump was asked what kind of justice he’d nominate for the Supreme Court, he suggested his sister — who is not exactly Clarence Thomas.

    Shorter: ‘A native New Yorker’- which makes Trump pretty savvy at fielding life’s curves, pop-ups, grounders while swinging for the fences playing ball in the greatest city in the world:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpQ6NtbZxiE

    The court nominees were a fair trade off- from the Federalist Society’s hand-picked list via McConnell and nominated by Trump, for shaking out the modern ideological conservative fleas nested in the tail that wagged the dog long enough. SCOTUS is their Alamo.

    DCSCA (adccc1)

  293. Someone help me out here, please. I see the Dobbs decision reported as being 5-4, and 6-3. Well which is it? I know Roberts didn’t sign on, but issued his own concurrence.

    felipe (484255)

  294. What passes for “nostalgia” for the post-baby-boomer, 30, 40 somethings:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYeNuISN4Dc

    Hilariously ironic!

    DCSCA (adccc1)

  295. “You don’t like the decisions yesterday and today?
    You’re really not going to like the next part.
    I mean, it’s your fault, but you’re not going to like it.”

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1540486553931218950.html

    Colonel Haiku (dae905)

  296. @301, Roberts supported the Mississippi ban at 15 weeks (6-3) but did not support completely over-riding Roe (5-4).

    AJ_Liberty (411e90)

  297. Some call that fascism… go figure!

    Colonel Haiku (dae905)

  298. Felipe,

    It’s as the rumors stated. Roberts signed on to the decision upholding the Mississippi law, but didn’t agree with overturning Roe.

    NJRob (3dbda4)

  299. Thank you, one and all. I appreciate your help.

    felipe (484255)

  300. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YHzBDDAr0s

    Home run.

    =mike-drop=

    DCSCA (cfce78)

  301. The constitution does not establish a right to divorce — and some states used to make it really, really, hard.

    Justice Thomas made a very general critique of substantive due process. He agrees with Justice Hugo Black in in 1948. He thinks a lot of things are incorpporated by the privileges and immunities clause – and the court should evluate what other rights miight be included. (this would be the 9th amendment)

    Sammy Finkelman (c89e81)

  302. ‘Bring rifles’: Extremist groups call for violence over abortion ruling
    …….
    “DEFEND YOUR CHURCHES TONIGHT,” cried far-right activist Nicholas Fuentes on his personal channel on the messaging app Telegram, where he has more than 44,000 followers.

    With people across the country taking to the streets to protest and support the decision, officials warned that the United States could face a wave of violence from extremists. In many posts, Fuentes and other far-right influencers referenced a memo published Friday by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security warning that churches, judges and abortion providers could be at a heightened risk of violence “for weeks” in response to both the ruling and expected changes in state laws and ballot measures stemming from the decision.

    Though the DHS memo said all sides were at risk, on far-right channels such as Fuentes’s, the memo was being referenced as a call to arms to protect pregnancy centers and churches from abortion rights extremists, according to disinformation researchers. …….

    “Guard and protect your local church. Guard and protect your local pregnancy centers. Call them in advance. Bring rifles and men with you,” read another post on a far-right Telegram channel. The posting called on “American Patriots” to “defend the faith.” ……
    ………
    ……… One post on a far-left channel called for burning all churches except Black ones.
    “Only Black churches should be left standing. Burn them all,” one post read.
    ………
    The DHS memo specifically identified a far-left “network of loosely affiliated suspected violent extremists, known as ‘Jane’s Revenge,’” that it said was linked to several threats calling for a “night of rage” over the ruling. DHS said the group allegedly claimed responsibility for vandalizing a building that houses a Congress member’s campaign office and a antiabortion group, and for at least three arson attacks since May targeting antiabortion organizations in Oregon, New York and Wisconsin.

    Many of the far-right posts urged followers to gear up to fight anticipated violence by Jane’s Revenge. Some of the posts mentioned specific churches that could be targeted, including churches in Stockton and Costa Mesa, Calif., and Detroit, and also noted the exact locations where abortion rights groups were planning protests over the weekend. Other posts targeted Black Lives Matter activists, the left-wing group antifa, and lesbians.
    ………
    Other posts were more conspiratorial, arguing that Jane’s Revenge is really the FBI. Others were antisemitic.
    ########

    Rip Murdock (c0b43b)

  303. ““You don’t like the decisions yesterday and today?
    You’re really not going to like the next part.
    I mean, it’s your fault, but you’re not going to like it.””

    “Look what you made me do” is the language of abusers.

    Davethulhu (763837)

  304. The constitution does not establish a right to divorce — and some states used to make it really, really, hard.

    Nor does the Constitution establish a right to marry or allow contraception, both of which should be reserved to the states under the 10th amendment.

    Rip Murdock (c0b43b)

  305. Focus on taking down the statues, Cthulhu.

    Colonel Haiku (8b99b0)

  306. And allow abortifacients instead of fighting against them. Give Planned Parenthood a chance to demonstrate what other health services they claim to offer, other than cutting babies to pieces.

    Colonel Haiku (8b99b0)

  307. “DEFEND YOUR CHURCHES TONIGHT,” cried far-right activist Nicholas Fuentes on his personal channel on the messaging app Telegram, where he has more than 44,000 followers.

    Meh. “Remember the Alamo!” It was a mission/church, too.

    That went well, didn’t it. 😉

    DCSCA (53b644)

  308. Graham: Alito ‘set the right tone’ in Roe ruling by arguing same-sex marriage, contraception not in jeopardy – TheHill.com

    … said the pitcher to the catcher calling the signals before tonight’s double-header.

    Too funny.

    DCSCA (53b644)

  309. “Focus on taking down the statues, Cthulhu.”

    Still mad.

    Davethulhu (763837)

  310. mandated constitutional right

    You say that as if “mandated” made it more of a right than, say, “historical” or “enumerated” or “common law” would.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  311. Maybe the Democrats will stop blocking over the counter pills because they’ve been lobbied to do so.

    NJRob (3dbda4)

  312. 315, yeah but wasn’t San JAcinto a few weeks later?

    urbanleftbehind (d5b707)

  313. Nor does the Constitution establish a right to marry or allow contraception

    The 9th amendment does support a “right to marry” and probably contraception as both existed at the Founding. Perhaps not sodomy, although it is hard to know if such laws existed in the 1790s, or if they were enforced. I suspect that marriage didn’t require the State’s permission in that era. There were no anti-misegenation laws ever passed in 5 of the original 13 colonies and 7 of the original 13 colonies had no such laws at the Founding.

    Gay marriage, of course, is ahistorical. While I think that Obergefell short-circuited a process, it was a process that was pretty much ordained and has accrued a great deal of acceptance, making any attempt to overturn Quixotic.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  314. Meh. “Remember the Alamo!” It was a mission/church, too.

    That went well, didn’t it. 😉

    DCSCA (53b644) — 6/26/2022 @ 10:44 am

    Of course what happened in 1836 has nothing to do what is going on in 2022. Another useless non-sequitur from Raymond Babbitt.

    Rip Murdock (c0b43b)

  315. Comparing the pro-abortion movement to the anti-war movement is interesting.

    To the degree that some in the anti-war movement didn’t really care about war or violence or death, they were marxists using the movement as a vehicle to advance marxism, there is a strong overlap. There are a number of pro-abortion people who don’t really care about abortion per se. It is simply a movement they can use to undermine any reactionary elements standing in the way of the marxists march through history.

    To the degree that some in the anti-war movement did want less violence and war and death and destruction there is little overlap with the pro-abortion people who are promoting more death.

    frosty (509433)

  316. @289. …I’m not trying to relive my youth…

    Here’s your ‘youth,’ NJ; wallow in your hilariously ironic nostalgia:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYeNuISN4Dc

    BTW, if you’ve got smell-o-vision, that odd scent oozing from the screen historians call– ‘Aqua-Velva.’

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28-Y4tc6nCo&t=13s

    😉 A favorite in the Lindsay Graham household!

    DCSCA (53b644)

  317. KevinM: “Gay marriage, of course, is ahistorical. While I think that Obergefell short-circuited a process, it was a process that was pretty much ordained and has accrued a great deal of acceptance”

    This is the catch-22 with some of this rights analysis from an originalist perspective. It’s stacked against political minorities. The justices ask the question whether something like gay marriage or abortion is “deeply rooted in in this Nation’s history and tradition”?, meaning, in the interval from 1790 to 1870, when the Constitution was drafted and the 14A emerged. Now that would seem to lock-in all of the bigotry that was common against blacks, women, and gays in that era. With women not yet voting, having few economic rights, and few opportunities outside of the home, what would you reasonably expect to find regarding attitudes toward abortion?

    I’m not going to argue that nine unelected virtually non-removable elites should dictate how society should resolve contentious cultural issues. Not at all. Gay marriage may have eventually gained acceptance in some states and then created a problem of what happens when a gay couple moves from Massachusetts to Alabama….are they suddenly unmarried? Is the right answer that they can’t or shouldn’t move? So there is some question of uniformity and impact that may justify a less-than-optimal judicial approach there. If you’re not gay, the immediacy of these solutions may not be especially pressing.

    The challenge with Dobbs is that women have made life decisions based on the perception that Roe/Casey was settled law and that they would have access to abortion services (in any state). I wonder if the Court should have planned a phase-in approach (like the phase-out approach of affirmative action), to facilitate the transition. In some cases with Roe overturned, states are being governed by laws written in the 1890’s. There are laws written now that surprisingly don’t have any exceptions for rape or incest. This is a pretty abrupt transition. The Court should have considered that impact a bit more seriously.

    In these toxic contentious partisan times, the Court needs to act a bit more like Lincoln in his second inaugural address and look for healing (meaning, appear to be the Court for all Americans, not just red state americans). The Court should bend over backwards to not appear partisan and find ways to acknowledge all views. I think Roberts might have had the better argument….though we will see…..

    AJ_Liberty (411e90)

  318. MAGA Lawmaker Thanks Trump For ‘Historic’ Supreme Court Ruling For ‘White Life’

    Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) said the quiet part out loud Saturday when she thanked former President Donald Trump at an Illinois rally for his role in overturning Roe v. Wade by picking conservative justices.

    “President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court,” she said, to cheers and applause.

    A spokesperson for Miller later told NBC News that she had misread the prepared remarks, and intended to say “right to life.”

    ……..Just days after taking office in January 2021, constituents called for her resignation for praising Adolf Hitler in a speech to a conservative women’s group, the Chicago Tribune reported.

    “You know, if we win a few elections, we’re still going to be losing unless we win the hearts and minds of our children. This is the battle,” Miller said at the time. “Hitler was right on one thing: He said whoever has the youth has the future.”
    ……….
    (After the Uvalde massacre in May,) Miller attacked those fighting for gun safety as “trying to destroy our society’s central pillars of faith, family and freedom,” the Tribune reported. “We need to go back to God,” she added.
    ………

    Uh huh. Right.

    Rip Murdock (c0b43b)

  319. Democrats have to actually defend their position now. They can’t hide behind the “it’s a constitutional right” facade anymore, and that means the horrors of what they support will be laid bare.

    mg (8cbc69)

  320. Is roc the dumbest broad in gubmint.

    mg (8cbc69)

  321. aoc

    mg (8cbc69)

  322. Maybe its time to stop pretending the loudest people in the country matter.

    mg (8cbc69)

  323. The challenge with Dobbs is that women have made life decisions based on the perception that Roe/Casey was settled law

    Why would they assume that something that raised the volume to eleven every time there was a vacancy on the Court was “settled”?

    Loving. Lawrence and Griswold are settled. Obergefell is pretty much settled. Hell, gay is damn near “straight” these days.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  324. Democrats have to actually defend their position now.

    Both sides have to do that now. Before, it was all just posturing as the Supremes held all the cards. Now it’s an actual political question and nobody gets a bye.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  325. I think Roberts might have had the better argument… though we will see…..

    Do you rip the Band-Aid off quickly or slowly? Both methods have adherents supporters.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  326. SCOTUS is now in session:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj8n4MfhjUc

    Surprise! Fish Stick Friday’s in the SCOTUS cafeteria, too!

    DCSCA (a10503)

  327. @333 It’d be interesting to see a Jan/6 style hearing on abortion where all of the networks are expected to air it in prime time and watching is promoted as your civic duty. Then simply have an objective explanation of what a 3rd trimester abortion involves. Then an explanation of a 2nd trimester abortion. And finally one involving RU-486. Then some presentation on how often these various procedures are performed per day or week on average. All using pictures and videos and high quality visualizations.

    Then we can have a debate on how women must be allowed to do these things if their health is in danger. Followed by a debate on how this must be allowed for simple convenience or to avoid any burden on women who can’t be expected to make good decisions regarding their sexual activity.

    Because that debate is exactly what the pro-abortion crowd is scared to death of.

    frosty (509433)

  328. @336. … All using pictures and videos and high quality visualizations.

    Funny, that’s the exact argument my friend, who lost a relative in the Aurora theatre massacre and just got back from a few days in Uvalde, makes about releasing images of the fist-sized holes in adults and destroyed faces and limbs in bullet-riddled corpses of kiddies from AR-15s and gun control. It’s up to families, though– and they won’t do it.

    DCSCA (a10503)

  329. ^ See, that debate with the carnage in full color, is exactly what the pro-assaault weapons crowd is scared to death of.

    DCSCA (a10503)

  330. @335 the anti-Catholic bigotry thing seems to be working out for you. I think you’re winning some people to your side. You should start telling everyone about the Jesuits next.

    frosty (509433)

  331. @339. Them Pythons weren’t keen on fish stick Fridays at the BBC commissary, were they; bangors and mash boys all.

    DCSCA (a10503)

  332. But then, there’s always spam.

    DCSCA (a10503)

  333. So, we are again seeing local DAs nullifying state laws, this time about abortion. Between this, immigration sanctuaries, and rural sheriffs refusing to enforce certain gun laws the Rule of Law has become the Rule of Men.

    At some point we are going to have to decide if the Law actually means anything, or if we just have a collection of satraps making up whatever law they deem fit.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  334. @342. … the Rule of Law has become the Rule of Men.

    Your hero embraced it; even championed it on national television:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytngo1gdiSg

    DCSCA (a10503)

  335. @377 it’s amazing how you’ve always got a friend involved in a thing or you were there when. You’re like that person everyone knows who’s always got a story to top everyone else’s story at the party.

    As to the fist sized hole, when you’ve lost snopes you should consider toning down the lies and hyperbole.

    frosty (509433)

  336. @336: Also, a segment about how abortion is just another medical procedure and/or an alternative form of birth control.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  337. @344. Do yourself a favor, frosty; get smart: don’t tell others what they’ve seen, experienced and know. Seen the photo of the fist-sized hole in the cousin’s body. It’s not pretty.

    She was.

    DCSCA (a10503)

  338. it’s amazing how you’ve always got a friend involved in a thing or you were there when.

    DCSCA, the Zelig of PP.

    Rip Murdock (c0b43b)

  339. Or Forrest Gump.

    Rip Murdock (c0b43b)

  340. @348. ROFLMAOPIP Let’s go w/Gump, Rip. He was wealthy. Besides, I’ve met Hanks.

    DCSCA (a10503)

  341. @frosty@336 When I was 14 years old in my biology class they showed us a film of a surgical abortion (without informing our parents BTW). I’ve seen more pictures of dead fetuses than probably most people other actual medical professionals (or other people who also went to tradCath HS) and been repeatedly subjected to anti-abortion domestic terrorist propaganda(a specific had-attacked-and-terrorized-OBGYNs group used to come speak at our school on the regular, so, no, I’m not exaggerating for effect), mostly before I even turned 18. I still don’t think you should be able to force one person to be the life support system of another person.

    Nic (896fdf)

  342. @350. Nic… you can be his ‘Zelig.’ 😉

    DCSCA (a10503)

  343. @DCSCA@351 I had to look it up, I’m afraid. I was a little young for Woody Allen in 1983. 😛 In all fairness though, I would say that those of us who move around do learn to code-switch to fit in with whatever our locality is pretty quickly, so at least we outwardly blend (or sometimes deliberately to choose not to. I will never, not ever in my life, call a hotdog a wiener and I feel very little need to call soda “pop” :P).

    Nic (896fdf)

  344. 336… a winning prescription to help remove the blinders and provide total clarity.

    Which is why the Dims would flee.

    Colonel Haiku (7783d9)

  345. . I still don’t think you should be able to force one person to be the life support system of another person.

    No tax money for the homeless?

    No tax money for “refugees?”

    No tax money to the Ukraine?

    BuDuh (340919)

  346. Do you have any children, Nic?

    Colonel Haiku (7783d9)

  347. @352. LOLOLOL! ‘Soda pop’ can be regional, too; some places one or the other– and still in others places, both!

    DCSCA (a10503)

  348. “Free” school lunches?

    No more income based subsidies for all matter of things like education, housing, transportation, etc?

    BuDuh (340919)

  349. @BuDuh@354 I hope you don’t work in the medical industry because you have a very strange idea of what medical life-support is.

    @DCSCA@356 😀

    Nic (896fdf)

  350. No child support?

    BuDuh (340919)

  351. It is all forced support, isn’t it?

    The distinction of medical vs financial isn’t the escape pod you would like it to be.

    BuDuh (340919)

  352. With all the birth control available, one should be able to live as an adult and have sex responsibly.

    Or live like a sybarite, with no personal accountability, and let whatever happens happen.

    An important choice, one would think.

    Colonel Haiku (7783d9)

  353. Or live like a sybarite, with no personal accountability, and let whatever happens happen.

    The 80’s had a name for that: Reaganomics. 😉

    DCSCA (a10503)

  354. @360 Nope, it is not the same. Paying for a thing is not the same as having something attached to your body 24/7. I bet you pay for your residence, do you want to physically carry it?

    Nic (896fdf)

  355. 362… I think that may be the most leftard thing I’ve read this month. And I read a lot.

    Colonel Haiku (7783d9)

  356. Nope, it is not the same. Paying for a thing is not the same as having something attached to your body 24/7. I bet you pay for your residence, do you want to physically carry it?

    What’s missing from this is the fact that in one case it is a life being carried by the body. It is not a non-living entity. I realize that complicates the picture, but it must be acknowledged if there is to be any honest discussion. Carrying a life is not the same thing as carrying an inanimate object. And the wording “attached to your body 24/7,” while accurate in one sense, is inaccurate in the picture it presents. It ignores that a woman’s body is wholly and uniquely designed to do just that.

    Dana (1225fc)

  357. Besides, I’ve met Hanks.

    Our point exactly. You have a connection to everyone and everything.

    Rip Murdock (c0b43b)

  358. @350 I don’t expect it to have much impact on you. But if the pro-abortion lobby didn’t think It would have an effect on most people they wouldn’t lie, evade, resort to euphemisms and otherwise do so much to hid what’s going on.

    frosty (509433)

  359. Although I see up-thread you did refer to a person:

    I still don’t think you should be able to force one person to be the life support system of another person.

    Dana (1225fc)

  360. Tucker Carlson says corporations are helping their employees get an out-of-state abortion because those ‘without families are much cheaper for the company’

    Tucker Carlson on Friday said companies that help their employees get abortions are “against families.”
    ………
    “Notice that it’s abortion that is the red line for (Democrats),” Carlson said. “Abortion? Of all the issues, why is that so important to them?”

    “It’s obvious why it’s so important to America’s corporations, almost all of whom immediately weighed in to say, ‘We’ll fly you to get an abortion at the state of your choice,'” Carlson continued. “Well, of course, employees without families are much cheaper for the company.”
    ………
    “It’s much cheaper to pay for an abortion than it is to pay for maternity leave, or an extra name on the insurance policy,” Carlson said. “So, it’s all about the money for corporate America. It always is. Families are bad for big corporations. Therefore, they’re against families.”
    ……..

    Rip Murdock (c0b43b)

  361. @Dana@365 It is, but I still don’t think one person should be forced to be the life support system to another. And, yes, that means the person needing the life support dies. There are many times in our system where people are allowed to judge their own lives (or sometimes just their property or bank accounts) are more important than someone else’ life. Generally speaking, I think that all things being equal, a person should, if they feasibly can, carry a pregnancy to term. However, our society is not set up in a way that really values that choice, especially for unmarried young women, so I don’t blame some young women for choosing not to.

    Nic (896fdf)

  362. @366. Translation: No argument. Live a little, Rip; as the years go by, you’ll fill out your own dance card– unless your worries over Putin nuking everybody come true. 😉

    DCSCA (a10503)

  363. @370 Society isn’t setup to value that choice because people making the same arguments you’re making are doing everything possible to convince everyone that sexual activity is a meaningless consequence free activity. And people making the same arguments you’re making mock the very idea of discipline and moral choices and self restraint.

    If you think society should value motherhood and carrying children to term and making good decisions maybe you should promote different values and not be so quick to accept the opposite.

    frosty (09987e)

  364. @369 He’s not wrong. And abortion has an overall lower cost to the company than a live birth. Especially when dad’s get some sort of maternity leave as well.

    I usually don’t like boycotts but I’ve been reconsidering that. I hope someone starts keeping a list of these companies. Hopefully they do that themselves by including this in their corporate propaganda.

    frosty (09987e)

  365. @frosty@372 Nope. In the 1950s sex was not considered to be an act of meaningless consequence-free activity, yet people still did it and young unmarried women still got pregnant and if they could, they got an abortion however they could attain one and if they couldn’t, they got shamed and punished and sent off to the convent for 6-8 months where their child was taken way from them or they were told it was still-born, or if that couldn’t happen, they spent the rest of their lives being shamed as wh0res and very often being seen as fair game for harassment or even rape. Our society has never been set up to value young unmarried mothers, no matter how consequential sex was made to be.

    Nic (896fdf)

  366. DCSCA just can’t stand all that Trump winning.

    Rip Murdock (c0b43b)

  367. @274. He’s never read or seen Peyton PlaceGod’s Little Acre… or Lolita.. Or perused the Kinsey Reports. 😉

    Victorian England had its fair share of mistresses and knocking shoppes, too.

    DCSCA (a10503)

  368. ^Nic- @374 typo.

    DCSCA (a10503)

  369. @373. Gonna boycott gas/oil firms? The oil company my old man worked for stopped transferring personnel with families overseas due to the cost and on going expenses; single people only.

    DCSCA (a10503)

  370. Dana: “It ignores that a woman’s body is wholly and uniquely designed to do just that.”

    No question about it. But there are risks and medical conditions that can get complicated from pregnancy. If you add in the financial costs, social costs, and psychological stresses, it’s understandable that there will always be some demand for abortion, even with birth control being more available than ever. People are marrying later in life. Woman are investing more in careers. Children are expensive…especially child care if family is not available to help with that.

    Even giving up a baby for adoption requires managing a lot of health risks and potentially career risks too. There are great people out there trying to help, but there’s only so much they can do when it comes to the carrying part. Some women will die. Some women will die or harm themselves with a homemade abortion. For the poor, there is a certain expectation here that I hope also comes with greater support systems, either public or private. My worry is that many applauding the decision will resort to having short alligator arms….

    AJ_Liberty (411e90)

  371. @DCSCA@376 For all it’s vaunted prudishness, Victorian England is kind of horrifying if you look under the hood a little.

    @AJ Yep.

    Nic (896fdf)

  372. Our society has never been set up to value young unmarried mothers, no matter how consequential sex was made to be.

    No society should be set up (“up?”) to value the lowest common denominator.

    And they’re not even called “unwed mothers”, anymore, let alone shamed and shunned. They call themselves “single moms” proudly, and they and their offspring use it as a resume enhancer, or at the very least to qualify for EBT cash, SNAP, and Section 8 housing, on top of child support from the DNA match.

    nk (c1183c)

  373. I still don’t think you should be able to force one person to be the life support system of another person.

    Neither do I. But I think that 3 months on it’s not “force.” It’s a decision.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  374. 362… I think that may be the most leftard thing I’ve read this month. And I read a lot.

    Not necessarily, but the competition comes from the same source.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  375. @kevin@382 Depends on the situation (women’s bodies do weird things, all the time). I don’t know their situation, so I don’t get to choose for them.

    Nic (896fdf)

  376. Tucker Carlson says corporations are helping their employees get an out-of-state abortion because those ‘without families are much cheaper for the company’

    That’s not quite it. Aiding the employee in what the employee wants is good for the company. That it unburdens her and avoids maternity leave, is a plus. Carlson is mostly right on this one though. Corporations have no souls; just look at Fox and who it employs.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  377. When an abortion is less “shamed”ful and “shunned”able than a child born out of wedlock, there’s something wrong with the world.

    nk (c1183c)

  378. @kevin@382 Depends on the situation (women’s bodies do weird things, all the time). I don’t know their situation, so I don’t get to choose for them.

    I’m talking elective abortions; no reason given. You’re talking about some reason. Not the same.

    I’m with the 70% who are OK with first trimester “choice” AND with the majority who are against 2nd trimester “choice.”

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  379. @380. Yep. You shudda seen the ol’ “postcards” sold at Portobello Road and Petticoat Lane. Much of Terry Gilliam’s animation segments for Monty Python used them. Repression x 10 to the 23rd power.

    DCSCA (a10503)

  380. @ AJ_Liberty,

    Dana: “It ignores that a woman’s body is wholly and uniquely designed to do just that.”

    But there are risks and medical conditions that can get complicated from pregnancy. If you add in the financial costs, social costs, and psychological stresses, it’s understandable that there will always be some demand for abortion, even with birth control being more available than ever. People are marrying later in life. Woman are investing more in careers. Children are expensive…especially child care if family is not available to help with that.

    Even giving up a baby for adoption requires managing a lot of health risks and potentially career risks too. There are great people out there trying to help, but there’s only so much they can do when it comes to the carrying part. Some women will die. Some women will die or harm themselves with a homemade abortion. For the poor, there is a certain expectation here that I hope also comes with greater support systems, either public or private. My worry is that many applauding the decision will resort to having short alligator arms….

    AJ_Liberty,

    My observation about women’s bodies being designed for child bearing was not meant to suggest that there are not a myriad of issues surrounding pregnancy/birth/raising children. That would be foolish and incorrect. Obviously, I agree with all of your points of concern. I feel that the pro-life crowd glosses over these issues, and basically believes that “just have the baby” is the answer while ignoring a mountain of associated hurdles that come with just having a baby – before, during, and after. But I also think the pro-aborts do the same thing on the other side of the coin: “just get an abortion, easy-peasy, solves the problem”. No, it’s not easy, it solves one problem on one level while leaving an aftermath that often involves a lot of emotional pain and sorrow that often leads to depression, etc. I believe both sides play politics with this very volatile issue and attempt to minimize what should not be minimized. Thus any honest debate is very limited.

    While I believe the SC decision was the right one legally, I do worry about women and the total abortion bans that we are seeing pop up in various states. To not have it available in the first tri, or have exceptions for rape, incest, medical emergencies, miscarriages at any stage where a D&C is necessary, ectopic pregnancies or anything where the mother’s life is at risk seems foolish and very shortsighted at the least. Also, I can think of nothing more cruel than forcing a woman to deliver a stillborn, or a miscarried baby because laws may prevent the evacuation of it from their bodies (obviously a doctor would have to determine the viability of such a procedure depending on how far along in the pregnancy they were).

    Dana (1225fc)

  381. Frankly, any elective abortion after 3 months is almost certainly due to procrastination or a serious behavior problem.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  382. And the “if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament” fatuousness. We’re seeing right now who have made it into a sacrament.

    nk (c1183c)

  383. I suspect that there will be a national law setting a firm time limit, on the order of 12-13 weeks as that is where it has ended up in nearly every democracy. I say this because there is very little difference in behavior and needs in all these countries.

    Why will this happen:

    Democrats will want to override the no-abortion-ever states.
    Republicans will want to override the any-abortion-any-time states.

    There’s a place where the sides can settle, and it’s pretty much been at 12-13 weeks whenever the issue has come up.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  384. I read that Republicans are looking at 15 weeks, Kevin M.

    Dana (1225fc)

  385. @374 On average over 1000 abortions happen per day, and that’s a conservative number. Do you think that 1000 women per day were getting put through the litany of horrors you describe in the 50s? Even adjusting to per-capita the numbers aren’t close.

    You haven’t found the better solution.

    On the force issue; when do you think a person becomes a person? When do you think they stop?

    frosty (09987e)

  386. @389 Dana, completely agree. Well stated.

    @390, Kevin, not sure that is correct. Google it. I’m pretty sure most late term abortions are for medical reasons. There will always be a handful of people who are conflicted or have a serious change in life situation, but those are the exception. No rational woman wants to wait and push towards viability to then terminate. What would be the point?

    AJ_Liberty (411e90)

  387. “I suspect that there will be a national law setting a firm time limit”

    This should have been built into the decision…time for legislatures to react. I would imagine 15weeks will get bipartisan support. The DEMs would be wise to propose it (I’m not optimistic). The GOP would be wise to sign on (I’m not optimistic). People are focused on electioneering….not governing. I guess we’ll see…

    AJ_Liberty (411e90)

  388. @389 I’m not aware of any abortion bans that apply to ectopic pregnancies. This is a myth based on FUD from pro-abortion groups that doctors might delay because of confusion in the supposed vague language of some legislation.

    The idea being that this confusion would simply exist indefinitely with doctors simply wondering around saying they don’t know what to do.

    This applies to all of the medical emergencies and necessity situations. Yes, there are examples of something like this with an idiot legislator and in those cases the idiocy was caught.

    frosty (09987e)

  389. This should have been built into the decision…time for legislatures to react.

    It usually is built into the decision. It takes time for the mandate to issue from the Supreme Court and then more time in the lower court to which the case was remanded.

    nk (c1183c)

  390. @389 I’m also not aware of anyone suggesting what you are referring to with miscarriages. If a baby dies there’s no way to abort it.

    frosty (09987e)

  391. @frosty@394 1000 women is 20 per state across 50 state on average, so I wouldn’t be surprised given that it would’ve been happening on an ongoing basis for a full 6 or more months per woman, not to mention the continuing shaming for girls who kept their babies.

    My solution is to let people choose their set of circumstances. Are there things we could do to lessen abortion numbers without outlawing abortion itself? Almost certainly, since abortion numbers have been going down steadily for the last 40 years and comprehensive sex ed had increased, birth control availability has increased, and women being able to provide for themselves has increased.

    When does a person become a person or stop being one? I have an opinion, as do all of us, on when that happens, but it doesn’t matter. No person should be forced to be the life support system for another person, no matter how old or young that other person is.

    Nic (896fdf)

  392. @400 my numbers are per day. For 2020 it was 930k which is an increase from previous years. You don’t get to compare that to 20 or so women counting the same ones across multiple days.

    This life support argument is how you excuse 60m people killed, the vast majority of them simply because they weren’t convenient? This wording makes it sound like getting pregnant was something forced on them at random. No one is forcing anything. Getting pregnant is the natural consequence of voluntary choices they’ve made. They are simply being told killing their babies isn’t an acceptable solution.

    frosty (509433)

  393. @frost@401 Yes I know per day. You asked if I thought 1000 women per day were experiencing those circumstances. Yes, I think they were. Each woman was experiencing them for at least 180 days at a time and on any given day, I think at least 1000 women (and probably thousands more than that) were experiencing those circumstances.

    My argument is very simple. The person who owns the body decides if they use it as a life support system. It makes no claims about the morality of that decision one way or another. It makes no claims of when the personhood of that other does or does not start. It makes no quibbles about how careful they were or were not about birthcontrol or the long term status of their relationship (maybe they were on the Pill and married, but they already have 4 kids and dad just lost his job, maybe it was a casual hookup with no birthcontrol at all and they only know eachother’s first names or tinder handle, this doesn’t matter for my argument). The person who owns the body should not be forced by someone else to be a life support system for another person. The person who owns the body decides.

    You have attempt to argue arguments I’m not making. You’ve attempted to argue from emotion. You’ve attempted to argue from a moral/religious point.

    It’s very simple.

    I am arguing (with a full understanding that if they do not, the other person will die) that a person should not be forced against their will to use their body as a life support system and you are arguing that they should be forced against their will to use themselves as a life support system in order to save the other person because their loss of that choice is worth it to keep someone else alive. I don’t think the government should be able to tell a woman how to use or not use her uterus. You believe the government should, in order to save someone else.

    We are not going to agree on this issue. On some issues, I am probably somewhat more for government interference than you are. On this issue, I am for less government interference than you are. Sometimes that happens.

    Nic (896fdf)

  394. Nic (896fdf) — 6/26/2022 @ 9:59 pm

    That is one of the best arguments I’ve seen for choice.

    Having said that, I don’t think this is a black and white issue, but rather a spectrum of gray. The longer a pregnancy goes on, the more uncomfortable I am with abortion.

    That is why I draw the line at the halfway point. If a woman can’t be bothered to make a decision prior to that time, then might as well carry it to term, since she’s on the downslope by then. She can give the child up for adoption. There are so many people willing to adopt a newborn.

    Of course, I would make an exception for late term abortions if the mother’s life is threatened.

    I don’t expect many to be happy with my idea, because people love the feeling of absolutes. As in, “I know God exists”, or “I know that he doesn’t.” I’m okay with it being a mystery.

    norcal (da5491)

  395. Kevin, not sure that is correct. Google it. I’m pretty sure most late term abortions are for medical reasons.

    Go back and read #390: ELECTIVE

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  396. @395: A woman died in Albuquerque during an elective abortion early in the third trimester at a clinic that specializes in same. No one knows why she waited but she was turned away from the UNM medical center which refuses to do elective third trimester abortions. They would have done one if it had been medically necessary. UNM had to pay part of the judgement for referring her to the butchers at the clinic.

    https://www.abqjournal.com/2497307/unm-clinic-settle-for-126m-in-lateterm-abortion-death.html

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  397. This should have been built into the decision…time for legislatures to react.

    1) Why say “In 5 weeks we will set your feet into the fire”? You know that Congress never does anything until they get to that point. Toss ’em into the fire now.

    2) Not their job. The whole point of the decisions was “Not our job!”

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  398. I’m not optimistic either, at least as far as getting something done. I guess the Dems think they’re getting a Senate super-majority so they can stack the Court. After the midterms I think the Democrats will be worse off.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  399. If a baby dies there’s no way to abort it.

    Well “abort” as such, no. But the same procedures (e.g. D&C) are often needed to clear the dead tissue from the womb.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  400. To not have it available in the first tri, or have exceptions for rape, incest, medical emergencies, miscarriages at any stage where a D&C is necessary, ectopic pregnancies or anything where the mother’s life is at risk seems foolish and very shortsighted at the leas

    I believe that a law banning life-saving procedures is both immoral and unconstitutional. The right of self-defense, if nothing else. Passing a law imposing a requirement to die on other people is beyond the pale.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  401. Nic, I go along with that argument for a while. But can you explain why it should still operate during the last day of pregnancy? The last week? Do you see that there is some point past which “choice” must end?

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  402. Oh, BTW, insurrection in AZ, as the legislature has to flee pro-abortion protesters.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  403. Nic @ 402,

    This rationale would allow for a woman to abort her baby up until delivery. To act as if this could be done devoid of morality is a deception designed to help ease the conscience. The morality is already baked-in because, as you’ve said, that’s a person in the womb. The lack of humanity involved in your rationale is surprising.

    Dana (1225fc)

  404. Unless pro-choicers act like whiny democrat snowflakes and say shame shame and accept the supreme court decision as settling the issue here too many want to ban those they can not beat in debate. You want all the pro-choice advocates to whine and cry like biden, pelosi, clintons and schumer. When AOC says lets hit the street. To many here say not fair you can’t go after republican politicians you have to accept court ruling and ban those who don’t. Pointing out what will happen is not what the anti-abortion conservatives want to here so ban all non wimp liberal.

    asset (dba912)

  405. @411 if I haven’t ben banned yet not insurrection just protesting the law in arizona. I was down their doing a teach in about successful tactics for a group of women who had not protested on how power politics work and a few law enforcement under cover agents.

    asset (dba912)

  406. @Norcal@403, Kevin@410, Dana@412 I’m not against the idea that at some point a person, knowing they were pregnant and not doing anything one way or the other, has made the decision to stay pregnant by not deciding to take action and I’m open to discussion of at what point in the pregnancy that might be.

    @Dana, Yes there’s morality baked into the decision, but it’s the person making the decision’s morality. And, yes, my position is kind of cold. It’s an issue I’ve thought about a lot over the years (see earlier comment about being shown a surgical abortion at age 14) and I’ve heard a lot of impassioned arguments from all sides and what I ultimately decided was that everyone had their own opinion and their own morality regarding the issue and their own set of strongly reasoned life circumstances and that everyone was probably right for themselves. And I thought about who had ownership of our choices and our bodies and if any rights exist at all, shouldn’t they be at very least the right to what is inside our own skin and who or who does not get to be inside us?

    Nic (896fdf)

  407. @me@415 I realized I posted too early and didn’t really finish my thought.

    So my position on abortion formed around that and I thought about the consistency of other issues around similar thing involving keeping other people alive and our own choices and so the simple position statement I decided on, that was consistent regardless of all other factors like age or personhood was that no one should be forced to be the life support system for anyone else.

    Nic (896fdf)

  408. @402 You should have a better reason for killing almost 1m people in 2020 than convenience. That’s not a particularly religious argument and that objection is disingenuous given the religious framework of the pro-choice position.

    Is it a moral argument? Absolutely. This is only a point of objection with people who want to hold open the option of killing a lot of people if they’re inconvenient.

    The forced life support argument is simply a lie of omission.

    This isn’t even an argument from emotion, although you don’t seem to have a problem making those yourself, it’s just a simple statement about the numbers and the lack of reasonable. I can understand why it’s emotionally triggering and why you’d want to make this objection.

    frosty (3f0993)

  409. AOC is doing something while biden whines. Explore the possibility of abortion clinics on federal land in states that ban abortions. (AOC)

    asset (dba912)

  410. @415 Individual and internally defined ethics is an interesting concept. And it’s definitely tied to a religious framework.

    Is it just this issue that’s subject to this ethical system? Do we all get to participate in the ethics of other behaviors?

    frosty (3f0993)

  411. Indian reservations could privately fund ( with donations ) abortion clinics to get around the hyde amendment in states that ban abortions. Supreme court has already ruled indian reservations are sovereign nations. (AOC) Hoisted on their own petard! Others whine while AOC acts!

    asset (dba912)

  412. Because that debate is exactly what the pro-abortion crowd is scared to death of.
    frosty (509433) — 6/26/2022 @ 4:15 pm

    I agree. Especially as the science on the subject progresses. Although even hard science can be hi-jacked.

    felipe (484255)

  413. See, that debate with the carnage in full color, is exactly what the pro-assaault weapons crowd is scared to death of.
    DCSCA (a10503) — 6/26/2022 @ 4:25 pm

    This is not true, because no proponents of the 2nd amnd ever try to shut down the speech of their opponents.

    felipe (484255)

  414. Others whine while AOC acts!

    An Oscar-winning performance.

    nk (019b33)

  415. Others whine while AOC acts!

    She’s so … Ruthless!

    nk (019b33)

  416. Others whine while AOC acts!

    Those streets won’t hit themselves.

    nk (019b33)

  417. BuDuh (340919) — 6/26/2022 @ 4:59 pm

    Well done, BuDuh.

    felipe (484255)

  418. There so many commenters on here, lately, producing thoughtful dialogue with others. The world may be so much tinder, ready for the match, but I see a lot of fire-fighters here.

    felipe (484255)

  419. Probably the main reason the NRA won on Wednesday and NARAL lost on Thursday is that the RKBA people can focus on a single — guns, guns, more guns, and don’t forget the ammo — while the pro-choice people have no choice but to load themselves down with all the baggage of whatever The New Morality is today.

    nk (019b33)

  420. on a single *issue*

    nk (019b33)

  421. AOC is doing something while biden whines. Explore the possibility of abortion clinics on federal land in states that ban abortions. (AOC)

    asset (dba912) — 6/27/2022 @ 12:45 am

    Yeah, great…like the reservation clinic in Yellowstone??

    urbanleftbehind (553bd2)

  422. 427, if matches are involved, I’d rather the world be tinder and not a grinder.

    urbanleftbehind (553bd2)

  423. ‘There was violence’: Morning Joe shocked by delight Alito took in ‘radical’ ruling taking away abortion rights

    ‘MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough was astonished by the “violence” implied by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned abortion rights.

    The majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito took a confrontational tone in striking down Roe v. Wade, and the “Morning Joe” host said he and his fellow lawyer friends noticed the delight he seemed to take in the “radical” move.’

    Alito is the leaker.

    DCSCA (46c923)

  424. Not so fast, I bet you Alito is going to take on the personality of a Spike Lee film villain with (“dat mook”) Clarence Thomas getting much more plaudits in recent days for the reversal ruling.

    urbanleftbehind (553bd2)

  425. @431 Yea. They’re hoping you’ll ignore that whole history of racism thing. It’s worked so far with the black peoples.

    frosty (3f0993)

  426. 415. Nic (896fdf) — 6/26/2022 @ 11:50 pm

    and if any rights exist at all, shouldn’t they be at very least the right to what is inside our own skin and who or who does not get to be inside us?

    In a question of basic morality, can anyone be a judge in their own case? Conflict of interest!

    Sammy Finkelman (b434ee)

  427. Indian reservations could privately fund ( with donations ) abortion clinics to get around the hyde amendment in states that ban abortions. Supreme court has already ruled indian reservations are sovereign nations. (AOC) Hoisted on their own petard! Others whine while AOC acts!

    asset (dba912) — 6/27/2022 @ 1:07 am

    It’s interesting that this is the point where someone decides they’ve got a brilliant plan to further denigrate and abuse the indigenous peoples. Would these privately funded clinics go on reservations with casinos so that they’re a sort of full service tourist destination? Or would they go on the ones where they’re living in abject poverty?

    I’d love to see the pitch to the elders on that. Something like, we’d like to funnel money to the reservation so that white women can travel here for abortions. We know how much y’all like getting back at the white man. And no we don’t have extra money for things like actual healthcare or schools or substance abuse or domestic violence or any of the other things plaguing your people but we can give you a good deal on abortions. And if white women show up for abortions you can put out all of the roadside stands with the turquoise jewelry because you know they live that.

    frosty (3f0993)

  428. White supremacist Pelosi elbows little brown girl out of her way…

    https://youtu.be/EJWr9NHdSug

    Colonel Haiku (fb8054)

  429. @437. Very Trumpian of her:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVtA79j6540

    DCSCA (df7d2c)

  430. The furthest east of the res’s would still get mostly black clientele from TX and LA. The fractionally native elders might not be keen on the Carnival Cruise/Chuck E Cheese party atmosphere.

    urbanleftbehind (553bd2)

  431. 438/DC…he was caught up in a thirst trap (there was a comely female diplomat or head of State in a red dress – barely in view of of your video) he was trying to stand next to.

    urbanleftbehind (553bd2)

  432. And I thought about who had ownership of our choices and our bodies and if any rights exist at all, shouldn’t they be at very least the right to what is inside our own skin and who or who does not get to be inside us?

    Nic (896fdf) — 6/26/2022 @ 11:50 pm

    This is why the life support argument is a lie of omission. You did decide. That’s what engaging in sexual activity is no matter how much you’ve tried to convince yourself otherwise. I think it’s insidious that people deny this obvious fact. Two people are rolling the dice with mother nature knowing that one possible outcome is creating a person. Pretending that you didn’t make a choice is at best willful blindness or word games.

    When an armed robbery goes wrong the robber doesn’t get to claim they didn’t intend to kill anyone since they just came for the money and statistically speaking most bullets fired from a gun don’t kill someone.

    frosty (3f0993)

  433. Why aren’t Planned Parenthood clinics “providing reproductive health care” already on Indian reservations? They’ve had 106 years in which to do it? No safe place to park the Lambo? Can’t find a decent brioche and Perrier? They’d help bring more “dark people” into the world than they would take out?

    nk (18ae23)

  434. Supreme Court says public school officials can pray openly

    https://www.axios.com/2022/06/27/religion-prayer-public-school-supreme-court-ruling

    Yeah.

    Pray they teach STEM as well as how to spin and run, punt, pass and kick.

    DCSCA (df7d2c)

  435. I suspect that there will be a national law setting a firm time limit……

    I would hope that in two years there will be a national law banning abortion……

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  436. “I would hope that in two years there will be a national law banning abortion……”

    This doesn’t seem consistent with polls, where 61% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases

    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/

    It’s the illusion of Dobbs. Be careful what you wish for. If there is a national sentiment, it will be for abortion to be legal up to 12-15 weeks with later exceptions for health of the mother and unusual medical circumstances. People are evenly split about the morality of abortion as a personal issue,

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/350756/record-high-think-abortion-morally-acceptable.aspx

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  437. what I ultimately decided was that everyone had their own opinion and their own morality regarding the issue and their own set of strongly reasoned life circumstances and that everyone was probably right for themselves

    That’s a problem for me when the stakes are this high and a life (or even a potential life) is involved. Society and its laws are all about making moral choices. Every last one of them. Lines are drawn by consensus about what constitutes fraud, or theft, what are “fighting words”, what portion of a person’s income or wealth can be seized by the State to support the common good. “Ordered liberty” requires some order.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  438. Indian reservations could privately fund ( with donations ) abortion clinics to get around the hyde amendment in states that ban abortions.

    Indian nations have generally been quite hostile to abortion. They often will not provide it even in states where it is otherwise easy to obtain.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  439. “I would hope that in two years there will be a national law banning abortion……”

    Might want to rethink that proposal:

    “I would hope that in two years there will be a national law banning cigarettes……”

    “I would hope that in two years there will be a national law banning booze [oops- been there, tried that]……”

    “I would hope that in two years there will be a national law banning tattoos……”

    “I would hope that in two years there will be a national law banning wax beans……”

    “I would hope that in two years there will be a national law banning rock and roll……”

    “I would hope that in two years there will be a national law banning the internal combustion engine……”

    “I would hope that in two years there will be a national law banning ugly……”

    And in Germany, a fella w/a Charlie Chaplin moustache banned a certain people.

    DCSCA (856981)

  440. . Explore the possibility of abortion clinics on federal land in states that ban abortions. (AOC)

    Brilliant. An indigenous people who have faced genocide being compelled to provide a setting in which to legally kill innocents. Sure, that makes sense.

    Dana (1225fc)

  441. I would hope that in two years there will be a national law banning abortion……

    Won’t happen and even if somehow it did, it would be ephemeral. The country would be whipsawed every time power transferred. What is needed is a compromise. And would you actually have the law require a woman to die in favor of a chance her fetus might still be delivered?

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  442. @449-

    No one is deliberately killed under any of the circumstances you list.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  443. AJ_Liberty (ec7f74) — 6/27/2022 @ 9:20 am

    That Gallup page is (I think intentionally) misleading. They have fuller information, particularly where they break down abortion by trimester, or by reason, that shows that the “approval” loses a majority after the first trimester, and even in the first trimester for convenience.

    The page you linked to conflates “all abortions” with “first trimester abortions” in a way that misleads about the actual public support for a 15 week limit.

    See here (scroll down for breakdown by trimester of reason):

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

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  444. *OR reason

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  445. And would you actually have the law require a woman to die in favor of a chance her fetus might still be delivered?

    I wouldn’t “require” it, but very few women die during childbirth. Fewer than 900 in 2020 (23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births).

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  446. @453, argumentative. I stated what the poll suggests: “If there is a national sentiment, it will be for abortion to be legal up to 12-15 weeks with later exceptions for health of the mother and unusual medical circumstances.”

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  447. “I would hope that in two years there will be a national law banning the internal combustion engine……”

    Might want to talk to JB and AOC about that one.

    “I would hope that in two years there will be a national law banning ugly……”

    The constitution protects ugly. And it’s not one of those mandated rights.

    frosty (e06071)

  448. @455:

    So, let’s say that a woman develops preeclampsia at week 23. The doctor tries several things but is unable to reduce the symptoms to a manageable level. The fetus is unlikely to survive a Caesarean delivery. Several doctors decide that terminating the pregnancy is necessary for the woman’s health, if not life.

    Does the state overrule this? What moral authority does it have to do so? It is questionable whether the mother will survive long enough to bring the baby to term.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  449. I stated what the poll suggests: “If there is a national sentiment, it will be for abortion to be legal up to 12-15 weeks with later exceptions for health of the mother and unusual medical circumstances.”

    Even though public opinion is 53-45 against elective abortion even in the first trimester? I think that the 12-15 week limit is likely, but for political reasons, not because there is a majority in favor (there isn’t).

    In discussion of “abortion” it is important to discuss not only the gestation period, but also the reason. Two-thirds support a THIRD-trimester abortion to save the life of the mother. A slight majority disapproves of ALL elective abortions.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  450. Two-thirds support a THIRD-trimester abortion to save the life of the mother

    My bad. Three-quarters support a THIRD-trimester abortion to save the life of the mother

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  451. @458 You haven’t described a situation where an abortion is required to save the mother’s life, at least not fully.

    In this scenario the Caesarean delivery may be the path of least harm to both lives. Even if you reduced unlikely to nearly impossible the path of least harm is to attempt to remove the child without killing it.

    Obviously, you can alter the scenario so that there is no chance the child lives or the child is already brain dead or any number of other options. But the one you’ve described here isn’t one were abortion is the only choice.

    The earliest premature baby to survive was at 21 weeks. The moral choice is to a) increase our ability to give premature babies a chance to survive and b) chose the option that gives both mother and child the highest chance of surviving.

    frosty (e06071)

  452. @459, “Even though public opinion is 53-45 against elective abortion even in the first trimester?”

    Where are you getting that? I see 67-27 in the Gallop poll that it should be legal in the first three months

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  453. @462 I’m thinking this one but you need to read into the page about midway to find it:

    When the woman does not want the child for any reason
    2018 May 1-10 45 53 2

    That is 45 for legal and 53 for illegal.

    I’m guessing you’re working from:

    Thinking more generally, do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during each of the following stages of pregnancy. How about

    This is the one were people keep fooling themselves into thinking that generally means all.

    frosty (e06071)

  454. That poll is fascinating though. It’s about 50/50 on killing babies with Downs Syndrome and its 56/41 on mentally disabled. Imagine if they ever track down that gay gene.

    frosty (e06071)

  455. Tech Companies Won’t Say If They’ll Give Cops Abortion Data

    Many of the biggest tech and social media companies in the world, including Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, and Snapchat, have refused to clarify whether they would fulfill or deny law enforcement requests for data that related to investigations involving those seeking or providing abortions.
    ………
    Motherboard has reported extensively on the threat posed by location and other data companies around abortion clinic visits. In those cases, we showed how trivially easy it was for anyone to buy data related to clinic visits. Those purchasers could include anti-abortion vigilantes, who have historically shown a willingness to exploit data to target and harass those seeking or providing abortions…….
    ………
    ……….Companies in the U.S. are generally required to respond to lawful requests for data from government agencies; a search warrant for location data related to a specific abortion clinic, for example, is a legally defensible request in those states.
    ……….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  456. The earliest premature baby to survive was at 21 weeks.

    I was born early (no where near that early) and I had significant health issues as a child, touch and go at times. I’m not sure that you understand just how effed-up a 21- or even 25-week old fetus would be if delivered.

    Still, the thought experiment is easy to understand. I guess punting was easier than responding.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  457. Where are you getting that? I see 67-27 in the Gallop poll that it should be legal in the first three months

    I linked to it in 453. SCROLL DOWN to:

    Now I am going to read some specific situations under which an abortion might be considered in the FIRST THREE MONTHS of pregnancy. Thinking specifically about the FIRST trimester, please say whether you think abortion should be legal in that situation, or illegal. How about … [RANDOM ORDER]?

    When the woman's life is endangered
    2018 May 1-10 83 15 2
    2003 May 19-21 82 15 3
    When the child would be born mentally disabled
    2018 May 1-10 56 41 3
    2003 May 19-21 50 46 4
    When the child would be born with a life-threatening illness
    2018 May 1-10 67 31 3
    2003 May 19-21 60 35 5
    When the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest
    2018 May 1-10 77 21 2
    2003 May 19-21 72 24 4
    When the woman does not want the child for any reason
    2018 May 1-10 45 53 2
    2003 May 19-21 41 56 3
    When the child would be born with Down Syndrome
    2018 May 1-10 49 48 2

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  458. It seems to me that there is some gaslighting going on about poll numbers, or at least a conflation of answers cherry-picked to present a false view.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  459. Still, the thought experiment is easy to understand. I guess punting was easier than responding.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 6/27/2022 @ 11:47 am

    How is don’t abort the baby punting? You’re failing to describe a situation where an abortion is required. You’ve just got a different line than the “pops out on it’s own and starts breathing” crowd.

    I was born early (no where near that early) and I had significant health issues as a child, touch and go at times. I’m not sure that you understand just how effed-up a 21- or even 25-week old fetus would be if delivered.

    So, not worth the trouble then? Not worth putting some effort into making that an easier and more successful process?

    You’re trying to make this a “life of the mother” issue but this is just another argument around convenience.

    If you’re going to go this route how do you draw the line between whatever your position is and claiming that anything short of the perfect situation is grounds for termination?

    frosty (e06071)

  460. One of my closest friend’s ex-wife had an abortion at 16 weeks because she developed PPROM (premature rupture of the amniotic sac) at 14 weeks and was told that there was a less than 50% chance of carrying the fetus the ten weeks needed to get to viability, and that attempting to do so entailed a greater than 50% chance of his ex-wife dying due to bacterial infection incident to the premature rupture. It took them two weeks from diagnosis to action simply because it was an *incredibly* hard position to be in, and because of the logistics of making appointments, etc. A decade later, my friend still weeps when telling the story.

    Should she have been forced by law to attempt to carry the baby to term, with those odds?

    aphrael (82a178)

  461. @467, That seems inconsistent with 58-35 saying that the Court SHOULD NOT overturn Roe or 55-39 describing themselves pro-choice vs pro-life. Roe is not consistent with aborting the fetus for any reason in the first trimester. Being pro-choice implies that the decision…especially in the first trimester….is the woman’s….meaning, for whatever reason, so it’s hard to make sense of that one.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  462. No one is deliberately killed under any of the circumstances you list.

    @452. Pfft. No one? No person? Really? Might wanna check w/that fella w/t Charlie Chaplin moustache and the 6 million plus no-ones, first, Rip– then reassess that slippery slope you’re teetering on. Or perhaps you march to a different tune:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6lpT6e8nAA&t=20s

    DCSCA (674f06)

  463. @452. Pfft. No one? No person? Really? Might wanna check w/that fella w/t Charlie Chaplin moustache and the 6 million plus no-ones, first, Rip

    He wasn’t an American.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  464. @452. Pfft. No one? No person? Really? Might wanna check w/that fella w/t Charlie Chaplin moustache and the 6 million plus no-ones, first, Rip

    He wasn’t an American.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/27/2022 @ 12:42 pm

    He wasn’t an American in 2022. Or ever.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  465. @457. The constitution protects ugly. And it’s not one of those mandated rights.

    So for now, you’re safe, eh, frosty. Until they slide down the slope; come down the list– and come for you. 😉

    DCSCA (674f06)

  466. @474. No one? No person? Really? Might wanna check w/Moran, Capone, Nitty and Ness in and around Chicago in the 30s, too. And try a little German mustard on that pretzel of yours.

    ‘It doesn’t take much to tip the scales. People forget. Jews in Germany thought they were safe, too. They thought they were Germans.’https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/353575

    DCSCA (674f06)

  467. https://www.foxnews.com/media/portland-abortion-protesters-target-pregnancy-support-center-violence-horrible

    Portland’s leftist terrorists doing what leftist terrorists do.

    NJRob (7e05db)

  468. @470. These decisions are never easy. There was this couple I knew where the wife had a developed a late stage difficulty w/her pregnancy and she and her husband were faced w/a hard decision; the doctor told them it could very well come down to saving the wife or the child; so they had to decide; the decision: if it came down to it, save the wife- they could always try for another child. Fortunately the child made it.

    Me.

    DCSCA (674f06)

  469. @451. Kevin; he’s young.

    See #478. For some it isn’t a hypothetical.

    DCSCA (674f06)

  470. @475 Did you give up on the mandated rights? What happened to the mike drops? Are you waiting for a new one?

    frosty (e06071)

  471. Somebody slapped Giuliani hard but Giuliani takes it as related to politics in general and the upcoming New York gubernatorial election.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  472. 47. This is the reason save the life of the mother is a vague, undefinied, tern,

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  473. @478, I’m not tracking. Is that an argument for or against abortion?

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  474. @480. Mandated Rights– that’s the title of Lindsay Graham’s new biography he’s pitching, right?

    =mike-drop= Happy?! 😉

    DCSCA (674f06)

  475. @484 Not as much as I was hoping for. Maybe the new is wearing off.

    frosty (e06071)

  476. Trigger law blocked by local judge in Louisiana, probably for being too vague as to what qualifies as being done for the purposes of saving the life of the mother. He set a hearing for July 8.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/27/us/louisiana-trigger-law-blocked.html

    Abortion providers in Louisiana argued that the state’s trigger laws violate the state’s constitution and “are void for vagueness” because it is unclear if they would take immediate effect after the Supreme Court’s ruling, and they do not provide enough specifics about banned actions — such as what exceptions exist for medical workers trying to save a pregnant woman’s life.

    Joanna Wright, one of the lead lawyers on the case, said that abortion clinics have been unable to provide services since the Supreme Court ruling because they cannot risk criminal prosecution, which could include mandatory jail time.

    Cowards? But they have a point. But then you could say any pregnancy risks the death of the mother.

    This is an issue in dispute

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22270271

    …The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the one recent comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.

    Conclusion: Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion….

    Right to Lifers argue:

    https://nifla.org/abortion-not-safer-women-childbirth

    They say there are no accurate statistics on deaths after abortion, and there was a study in Finland that says that women are four times more likely to die in the year following an abortion than in the year past childbirth.

    But obviously there are all sorts of confounding factors. For one thing they may have gotten the abortion because of health problems or because they do risky things..

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  477. To further complicate matters, some Louisiana DAs, including Jason Williams of New Orleans, have said they will not prosecute violations of the Louisiana trigger law.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  478. 478.

    she and her husband were faced w/a hard decision; the doctor told them it could very well come down to saving the wife or the child; so they had to decide; the decision: if it came down to it, save the wife- they could always try for another child.

    I deduce that you left something out — they could also wait some more and see if it got critical. Or did they induce labor?

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  479. > they could also wait some more and see if it got critical.

    by the time there’s a bacterial infection in the amniotic sac, it’s too late to have any guarantee of successful resolution.

    “wait and see” is “gamble on death”.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  480. @483. Adjust your tracking; it’s not a “for or against abortion” argument at all; merely a real world example of choice, AJ. Wasn’t told about it by the folks until in my 20’s.

    DCSCA (349790)

  481. @489 This is always the underlying reality. There is never any guarantee of successful resolution. Sometimes people notice it. Usually they don’t.

    frosty (e06071)

  482. @488. The detailed specifics were never fully shared w/me, Sammy, other than it was quite a difficult situation and a very lengthy labor– immediate family called/gathered at hospital and so forth as they said, if the decision had to be acted upon… the ‘child’ was finally born w/some bruises and such- per the photos they had kept. But it was the decision they’d reached that the folks shared which was new to me in my 20s. Never knew that. As their first born, they were pretty straight-forward about it and about trying again if events went south.

    DCSCA (349790)

  483. https://www.wsj.com/articles/where-abortion-is-legal-and-where-it-loses-protections-without-roe-v-wade-11656080346

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/us/abortion-laws-roe-v-wade.html

    These first appeared in the Saturday printed edition of the papers but they seem to be updated.

    Basically, abortion is legal in the Northeast and on the WestCoast (california, Oregeon, Washington and Nevada) plus Colorado and New Mexico and in the midwest, Illinois and Minnesota. It is also legal for now in Virginia.

    39% of women aged 15 to 44 live in either neartotal ban, soon to be near total ban or could revive old law states; 22% live in states with no law regarding abortions, and 38% live in states where abortion is specifically protected. One of them is Kansas where its top court ruled it was protected by the state constitution – a referendum amending the state constitution to remove that ruling is scheduled for August. In Pennsylvania a Dem Governor will veto any anti-abortion law, in Virginia split control of the state legislature will likely prevent any anti-abortion legislation from being enacted until after the 2023 elections.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  484. For DCSCA, it’s all about me!

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  485. Please note my comment 494 was in relation to DCSCA’s post below.

    @348. ROFLMAOPIP Let’s go w/Gump, Rip. He was wealthy. Besides, I’ve met Hanks.

    Note, I didn’t call you Tom Hanks. You’re confusing Hanks with Forrest Gump, whom you greatly resemble.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  486. Periodic reminder to dial back the personal insults, fellas.

    JVW (020d31)

  487. @frosty@417 Frosty, I don’t have a reason for killing one million people at all. Forced life support is literally what it is if you force someone to keep another person alive with their body when they would rather not. It’s not a lie of omission or commission or any kind of lie at all, it’s a (as dana said, cold) description of what would be happening.

    @sammy@435 “In a question of basic morality, can anyone be a judge in their own case? Conflict of interest!”

    Generally speaking, I think as Americans we are almost always called to be a judge in our own cases on the topic of morality. There are others who decided if we broke the law, but ultimately we have to decide internally if we acted morally or not.

    @frosty@442 Is this another claim that when you drive a car you intend for a car accident to happen?

    @kevin@447 We all make a lot of decisions where the stakes are life, we just don’t think about it that way.

    Nic (896fdf)

  488. @. 495. ROFLMAOPIP. If you’re explainin’- you’re losin’, Rip. Mustard on that pretzel tastes pretty good– don’t it. 😉

    DCSCA (d6ced8)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3622 secs.