Roe v. Wade.

[Lookinagain]

Can they reopen this issue again in the Supreme Court or is it done and dusted?

Say if a few of them die (wishful thinking, the ones that need to be dead are likely too young to die, although Alito and Thomas might drop dead if you're lucky) can they review it?

Yes, just like they just "reopened" Roe. With a change in the court, there could be a new case brought to challenge a state law and then the "new" court could make it's own decision. The sooner the better, before this recent case becomes long established precedent. Although the current court didn't pay much deference to that anyway.

 

[Gloria27]

Right but what can we do? As an individual I feel powerless to make any real difference/ changes but I also can’t sit idly by.

We need to stick together because right now everyone is divided. Too many labels, too many tribes.

 

[Lookinagain]

People need to vote. And vote on this issue and not choose their pocketbook over personal freedoms.

 

[Gussie]

This is a very interesting article in Rolling Stone via MSN due to paywall.

MSN

 

[Bonfire]

I came up in the 60s and 70s, when these hard fought battles for equal rights were central to my life experiences. Now with a dismantling of freedoms that have been long fought for, my daughter’s going to have fewer rights than me, how can that be? If this goes what else can go?
Equality in education, the right to equal pay, the right to use birth control? Unthinkable!! I mean what era are we living in? I have no respect for the Supreme Court.

I read a recent quote from Gloria Steinem,
”Obviously, without the right of women and men to make decisions about our own bodies, there is no democracy.”

 

[RMOO]

If this goes what else can go?
Equality in education, the right to equal pay, the right to use birth control? Unthinkable!! I mean what era are we living in?

Pretty sure this is what a certain campaign meant by making America great again.

 

[Calliecake]

We are probably very close in age @Bonfire. I feel exactly the same way you do.

Our Supreme Court is being swayed by its members religious beliefs. This is SICK. Their religion has no place in our government.

I’m all for Kavanaugh and Gorsuch being impeached.

 

[swingtime]

This is a very interesting article in Rolling Stone via MSN due to paywall.

MSN

Thank you for posting this. It is sad that compassionate, reasonable voices were drowned out by extremists. And those extremists are hypocrites. The churches that have used abortion as an organizing tool were not involved in this issue for years after Roe. Their political involvement was triggered by another Supreme Court decision, one that said that religious schools could not maintain tax-exempt status if they discriminated on the basis of race.

The Religious Right Wasn’t Created to Battle Abortion

As the Supreme Court hears arguments in cases on marriage equality, many fear a decades-long backlash reminiscent of that after Roe v. Wade. It is important, however, to remember the real story behind the formation of the religious conservative movement.

www.americanprogress.org

 

[stracci2000]

Can they reopen this issue again in the Supreme Court or is it done and dusted?

Say if a few of them die (wishful thinking, the ones that need to be dead are likely too young to die, although Alito and Thomas might drop dead if you're lucky) can they review it?

If we wish hard enough.......

 

[swingtime]

Yes, just like they just "reopened" Roe. With a change in the court, there could be a new case brought to challenge a state law and then the "new" court could make it's own decision. The sooner the better, before this recent case becomes long established precedent. Although the current court didn't pay much deference to that anyway.

Agree, and the only way to do that is to expand the court. The Supreme Court now has five radical activist judges (all of whom were hand-picked by an extremist right wing org) and one who’s along for the ride. Three of these judges are in their fifties, likely to be there until my kids are middle aged. Look at their recent decisions—stripping women of the right to bodily autonomy, denying states the right to place restrictions on concealed weapons, as well as their decision that states can’t exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs, even when those school openly discriminate against LGBTQ students. Yes, we need to expand the court.

 

[Bonfire]

Religion is very much involved in this.
The Catholic church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, and held these teachings as definitive and irreformable.

Birth Control

The Catholic Church has always maintained that it is intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

www.catholic.com

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,
I know, I can be annoying. Its just that I am old enough to remember how it was "then", and how it has grown thru the years to add additional "rights, for all. States controlled divorce laws, each state deciding on their own. New York in 1967 only allowed divorce for adultery and was costly and complicated. I was a poor white woman and had to go to Mexico to get a divorce, as most women did in those times.

States' rights have always been part of our American life. Women will overcome. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg was not happy about the logic that Roe vs Wade was decided upon. Women criticized her for not being supportive at the beginning. She of course changed her opinion and championed the decision, but she did think it was flawed.
In 967 you could not get an abortion anywhere. You now have at least 20 states. Its the south thats a problem. Their culture and history lend to their thinking. I;m not suggesting they are right, but I think people should be calmer about what has happened. I don't want anyone getting a heart attack or a stroke about this.

I love Mrs B. She showing the way. An underground railroad that women can use. I think its a wonderful idea.

Annette

 

[fel]

I completely understand. It's the same for rape and incest, very low percentages. But those reasons are the ones used like it happens all the time. It doesn't. So to many opponents it seems like proponents don't discuss in good faith. It's too polarized by the extremes on both sides.

The percentages of rape, incest, and coercion under threats are not as low as some ignorant people like to claim. I wish they were. Consider -- age of consent in Texas is 17. That means ever girl under 17 who is pregnant is technically subjected to statutory rape -- EVERY single one of them. Further, ever single study on this shows that rapes are drastically under reported. Anecdotally: I know countless women who have been raped or attempted rape. I have 0 friends who have reported it to the police. I have several friends male and female who were subjected to incest. 0 reported it to the police. I myself have been subjected to sexual assault and attempted rape and have not reported it. Do you know anyone who has been sexually assaulted? How many do you know who reported it to the police?

Further if someone's intimate partner rapes her and fails to use protection, reporting that man may put the woman's or other children's lives at risk. Women die from reporting rapes. Finally we have seen how rape is used as a weapon of war. Al Qaeda in their "caliphate" would rape women and then hold them hostage long enough that they could not abort as a means to bring war and commit genocide for indigenous people. Russian soldier raped women in WW II on a huge scale, and are now doing the same in Ukraine. Now, in Oklahoma, if a male wants some woman to be forever tethered to them, all they have to do is rape them. The women then can never never escape that man. They may even have to share custody of the baby with the rapist. And now the rapist can rape them again because they will have frequent contact. Rape has historically been used as a tool of domination against women, and it is not as rare as you think. Men in power know they can rape and get away with it, because it is her word against his.

 

[swingtime]

Hi,
I know, I can be annoying. Its just that I am old enough to remember how it was "then", and how it has grown thru the years to add additional "rights, for all. States controlled divorce laws, each state deciding on their own. New York in 1967 only allowed divorce for adultery and was costly and complicated. I was a poor white woman and had to go to Mexico to get a divorce, as most women did in those times.

States' rights have always been part of our American life. Women will overcome. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg was not happy about the logic that Roe vs Wade was decided upon. Women criticized her for not being supportive at the beginning. She of course changed her opinion and championed the decision, but she did think it was flawed.
In 967 you could not get an abortion anywhere. You now have at least 20 states. Its the south thats a problem. Their culture and history lend to their thinking. I;m not suggesting they are right, but I think people should be calmer about what has happened. I don't want anyone getting a heart attack or a stroke about this.

I love Mrs B. She showing the way. An underground railroad that women can use. I think its a wonderful idea.

Annette

You're not annoying me. I think it's important to discuss openly, I disagree with the states' rights argument. Do you think Brown v. Board of Ed was decided improperly? No U.S. citizen should be relegated to second class status, just because they happen to live in the wrong state. It's also worth pointing out that the current Supreme Court just stripped the state of NY of its right to place restrictions on concealed weapons - so it really isn't about states' rights.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

Yes Brown vs Board of Ed was an issue of States"
Rights. Separate but equal was the basic premise the States used in their argument. I agree with the SC decision.
The NY decision is not about states rights, but 2nd amendment rights.

Please do not think I in any way are happy with this decision. I
prefer to try to deal with what is.

Annette

 

[Cerulean]

It's not all Christians.

Episcopal Church statement on reports concerning Supreme Court case pertaining to abortion​

May 3, 2022
Office of Government Relations
Since 1967, The Episcopal Church has maintained its “unequivocal opposition to any legislation on the part of the national or state governments which would abridge or deny the right of individuals to reach informed decisions [about the termination of pregnancy] and to act upon them.” In light of the recent report about a pending decision in the Supreme Court case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, The Episcopal Church reaffirms our commitment to “equitable access to women’s health care, including women’s reproductive health care,” which we view as “an integral part of a woman’s struggle to assert her dignity and worth as a human being.” The Office of Government Relations will continue to advocate at the federal level to protect reproductive rights.
We encourage you to read this overview of The Episcopal Church’s positions on abortion and women’s reproductive health.

I've been tempted to make this point. I'm glad you did.

The anti-religious discourse in response to this decision is misplaced. Like in many other parts of the world that are rife with conflict due to religious beliefs, we are under the thumb of fundamentalists and far-right evangelicals. They show up to vote, and will vociferously push their beliefs onto others with a type of fanaticism that the typical Christian simply won't because they don't fancy themselves martyrs.

TL;DR- there are many American Christians who do not buy into this fundamentalist rhetoric and in fact, abhor it.

I'm quite unsettled by the anti-religious remarks from people (here and elsewhere) who I think know better.

 

[swingtime]

Hi,

Yes Brown vs Board of Ed was an issue of States"
Rights. Separate but equal was the basic premise the States used in their argument. I agree with the SC decision.
The NY decision is not about states rights, but 2nd amendment rights.

Please do not think I in any way are happy with this decision. I
prefer to try to deal with what is.

Annette

Nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it say that states can't place reasonable restrictions on gun usage. Even Scalia, who wrote the Heller decision, acknowledged that there can be restrictions. Per Scalia, it is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Nor does the constitution say anything about the right to carry concealed firearms. Bottom line: if you agree that Brown v. Board of Ed was decided correctly, I think we're on the same page - that no American should be relegated to second class status just because they happen to live in the wrong state.

 

[Tekate]

I don't know. But there's so many who need help and aren't getting it. Elderly, veterans, mentally impaired.

So basically you are saying 'you have no idea' but money could be better spent on veterans (which I disagree as TONS of money is spent on veterans) and sure let's spend less on the military and way more for the mentally, physically impaired.

 

[whitewave]

Abortions in Louisiana start again tomorrow. The state has a TRO signed today by a judge in part because Louisiana’s 3 trigger laws contradict each other.

The shreveport clinic has a 400 person waiting list.

 

[Calliecake]

@smitcompton, You could never be annoying. I love hearing your opinions on this and all subjects.

@Tekate, I’ve missed you and hope you are doing well. I’ve been thinking of you knowing your reaction to Friday’s ruling would probably be very close to mine. I was so happy to see you here Tekate!

 

[Calliecake]

Statistics from Rainn (Rape Abuse Incest National Network)

Out of every 1,000 women who are raped, 995.4 perpetrators will walk free.

230 will be reported to the police.

46 will lead to an arrest.

9 cases get referred to prosecutors.

5 cases will lead to a felony conviction

4.6 rapists will be incarcerated.


@Redwood, Do you sincerely believe that a pregnancy after a rape is very rare?

 

[yssie]

Louisiana’s 3 trigger laws contradict each other.

I probably shouldn’t laugh but… FFS.

 

[mrs-b]

At this point, I'm willing to play the numbers.

90% of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks. So to that end, I think abortion on demand up to 12 weeks should be included as an amendment to the Constitution. Let's at least start from the point where the fetus is non-viable, does not feel pain, has not developed independent organs and is 100% dependent on the mother. I think this could garner wide ranging support.

But sadly, I think it's 3rd trimester abortion that needs to be most protected. Nobody goes through 7 months of pregnancy then thinks - "Naaah - I think I'm gonna change my mind...." I once did an in depth numerical (ie case by case, as far as I was able to access - and there's more information about this out there than you might think) breakdown of third trimester abortion in Australia and it came down to one of two things. ALWAYS. Severe deformation/non-viability of the fetus, or threat of death to the mother. Anti abortion proponents almost always say they're against allowing late term abortion because "threat to the mother" is far too broad a term - including depression and "I've decided this might wreck my otherwise perfect life." This was virtually NEVER the case. And - more interestingly - threat to the mother's life was also almost never the reason for a late term abortion. The reason was almost ALWAYS that the baby would be non-viable outside the womb. Overwhelmingly, late term abortion was carried out to spare the baby pain after birth. The whole argument of "We can't allow late term abortion on the basis of threat to the mother because that's too broad a definition and women might be frivolous about it or self indulgent or just plain indecisive and moody and not know their own minds etc etc <insert endless sexist crap talk>" was, in practice, never the case. Some women aborted because they were going to die. But most aborted to save their child pain. Why did they choose late term abortion on this basis? Because THEY ARE THE ONES WHO LOVE THE FETUS/BABY THE MOST. They are that child's MOTHER, and they know it's THEM who is responsible to protect that baby - even if it means ending the fetus's life a day, a week, a month early.

But these Supreme Court justices - do you think they've read the numbers? Nope. These policy makers - have they researched the REAL issue - not the nightmare, made up scenario that exists only in their head? No. Do they trust these would-be, heart broken mothers to make a clear minded, compassionate choice? No. Why?

Because we're women. We're 'the other'. Because they think they're the only people who could possibly know best. In the final analysis - because we're not them.

The ego inherent in that belief is just overwhelming.

Anybody who had read the information that's readily available would know that late term abortion is the most heartbreaking and sacred act of all when it comes to abortion. The people who don't know this, don't know it because they don't want to.

To combine this topic with, oddly enough, jewelry....

I used to know a woman who carried a baby that was found to have trisomy 21 aka Downs Syndrome. The baby she carried had a severe form which included a large hole in the heart, no eyes and no nose. Other organs, like the liver and kidneys, were also under-developed. Brain damage was assumed due to malformation of the skull. She chose to have a late term abortion to save the baby the agony of child birth and immediate death once outside the womb. The baby went from floating in the dim warm fluids of its mother's belly, to being anesthetized and ultimately delivered calmly and respectfully, still born at 7 months.

Her husband bought my friend a 5 stone diamond ring after her baby died, representing her and her husband and their three children. My friend had one of the diamonds removed, and forever wore her ring with 4 diamonds and one empty hole, which she said always represented the hole left in her life by the passing of her baby. To the best of my knowledge, over 10 years later, she still wears her ring and actively grieves for her lost baby. But she does not regret her decision.

This is one story of many. None of them are frivolous. All of them are heartbreaking. And every single one should be the choice of the mother - the person who cares the most.

 

[Lookinagain]

Hi,

Yes Brown vs Board of Ed was an issue of States"
Rights. Separate but equal was the basic premise the States used in their argument. I agree with the SC decision.
The NY decision is not about states rights, but 2nd amendment rights.



Annette

But Brown was decided based upon the 14th Amendment. Plessy v. Ferguson, which came up with "separate but equal" said separate but equal didn't violate the 14th. So because of that, states could segregate. Brown said separate but equal did violate it. So Brown was decided on an interpretation of a constitutional amendment, just as the NY decision was. I never thought of Brown as a state's right case. It's a 14th amendment case, just like Roe. These justices have just narrowed the 14th while expanding the 2nd.

 

[m-cubed]

So basically you are saying 'you have no idea' but money could be better spent on veterans (which I disagree as TONS of money is spent on veterans) and sure let's spend less on the military and way more for the mentally, physically impaired.

I think the point is that we already don’t have a sufficient social services net, without adding potentially exponentially to those who need services. Are there hungry children in this country? There sure are, and there are going to be a hell of a lot more of them before the day is out if this ruling stands.

 

[swingtime]

But Brown was decided based upon the 14th Amendment. Plessy v. Ferguson, which came up with "separate but equal" said separate but equal didn't violate the 14th. So because of that, states could segregate. Brown said separate but equal did violate it. So Brown was decided on an interpretation of a constitutional amendment, just as the NY decision was. I never thought of Brown as a state's right case. It's a 14th amendment case, just like Roe. These justices have just narrowed the 14th while expanding the 2nd.

Yes, Brown v Board of Ed overturned Plessy. States' rights were at issue, because Southern states argued that they should have the right to segregate based on race in their own states. The same right wingers who dog whistle about states' rights were behind the decision striking down New York's gun law, which has resulted in expanding concealed carry.

 

[Venti25]

I'm so sorry. It's such a slap to the face to* bodily autonomy. I haven't felt so insulted as a female from afar since Trump beat Hillary (and 100% saw the SC being "lost" as a result).

What these morons don't get is that no-one wants to be pushed to make the choice to get an abortion. Make multiple types of birth controls free and easy access for both sexes if politicians actually cared... But that clearly isn't the case. It's all about control.

 

[mrs-b]

I'm so sorry. It's such a slap to the face to* bodily autonomy. I haven't felt so insulted as a female from afar since Trump beat Hillary (and 100% saw the SC being "lost" as a result).

What these morons don't get is that no-one wants to be pushed to make the choice to get an abortion. Make multiple types of birth controls free and easy access for both sexes if politicians actually cared... But that clearly isn't the case. It's all about control.

The horrible part, I think, @Venti25, is that it isn't even about control alone. It's about meanness. It's about vindictiveness. It's about blame and shame. AND control.

It's cruelty signed into law.

 

[redwood66]

So basically you are saying 'you have no idea' but money could be better spent on veterans (which I disagree as TONS of money is spent on veterans) and sure let's spend less on the military and way more for the mentally, physically impaired.

Well hello.

And that isn't what I said at all.

 

[Venti25]

The horrible part, I think, @Venti25, is that it isn't even about control alone. it's about meanness. It's about vindictiveness. it's about blame and shame. AND control.

It's cruelty signed into law.

. Just no words.