From what I understand, Roe v. Wade ruled that the 14th amendment protects a woman's right to choose having an abortion because otherwise it would be taking away a right. With Alito's draft argument being that abortion is not mentioned in the constitution, it can also be extended to other rulings.

This article goes over it, but it seems like with this line of reasoning it opens up a lot of other rulings to be overturned, which seems to be the point. We could see gay marriage rulings reversed, segregation, and more.

In brighter news, a Republican candidate who bragged about telling his daughters rape was inevitable and they should just enjoy it, lost his race in a shocking defeat. The seat he was running for was R+17 and he still lost to a Democrat.

Signs point to this being a hot issue for Democrats and will make midterms much more competitive.

At 5/4/22 10:45 AM, Zachary wrote:

What the actual FUCK. Saying shit like that would make me look at him sideeyed and ask if his wife, "Are you alright?!"

Lets put the other in perspective. The way I have heard it explained is that Jews believe that a fetus is an empty vessel, not having a soul until it is born. This may have it roots in miscarriages, which is quite common in woman, and childbirth deaths. It may have come out as necessity of not getting attached until it is born.

And abortions have been around for thousands of years, with a lot of the same reasons for it, which has nothing to do with sacrifices.

THIS JUST IN: Party that has won the popular vote one time in over 30 years seeks to alienate even more of the population

I am pretty sure even the bible says something similar. I'm no Christian but I've seen it be explained quite a few times that the verse regarding 'life being breathed into a baby' occurs at the time of birth, but it's ambiguous and so evangelicals have twisted it into well before that since it suits them.

If only the monks writing the bible were also lawyers, it'd have saved a lot of grief down the road. But then that wouldn't help them, so here we are instead.

After Roe? Pregnancy-related deaths could rise 20% or more in states that outlaw abortion, experts say.

Thinking about all this honestly makes me wonder why are conservative Republicans so obsessed with being anti-abortion/pro-life, let alone try to end abortion now after spending decades before simply just putting laws that only banned abortions after x amount of weeks and it simply felt like kicking the can down the road?

(For the record, I generally know why Republicans do this, this is merely a rhetorical question)

'Pro-Life' Candidate Flails When Asked About Assaulting Pregnant Wife

Greg Lopez embodies much of what the modern Republican Party is about.

The Colorado gubernatorial candidate wants to ban voting by mail, even though he has voted by mail in every election since 2013, when Colorado began mail-in voting. He has no qualms about using anti-LGBTQ dog whistles to score political points, but denies he’s homophobic.

And he calls himself “pro-life without exceptions,” but fails to understand how him having been arrested in 1993 for assaulting his pregnant wife undercuts the sincerity of that message.

If the court’s decision to overturn Roe goes through, it will be one of the least popular major political moves in recent memory. According to decades of public polling, only a third of Americans, at most, support overturning the 49-year-old precedent that gives women the right to have an abortion. source

alito's opinion on why roe vs wade should be struck down is what concerns people outside of the pro-choice group, since he openly rejects the interpretation of the 14th amendment protecting the privacy of the citizens and the states' right to delve into your private lives

he specifically mentions that this ruling does not affect obergefell (gay marriage), lawrence (sodomy) and griswald (contraception), yet those are three examples of precedents set on the exact same logic & precedents as roe

all that meant was that this ruling in particular doesn't mean these are in jeopardy, but the moment those come up in court there is literally no reason the same logic used here can't be used for these cases

better watch out, republican states can even go after your right to get blowjobs and watch porn now, unironically; everything that protected you is now gone thanks to this ruling

They can't ban pornography for adults because people will call America a Muslim Nation. :3

edit: Not that theres anything wrong with that, however a lot of the population of the United States is from other countries as well, and people from those countries will disagree, or simply leave.

I agree with @FinaLee that both sides have a motive in releasing this to the public, but I have mixed views on if it was a bad thing.

The whole overturning of Roe vs Wade is highly unpopular in the US. It would also further undermine confidence in the US supreme court, which is already under attack for it's partisan one sided ideological views on cases, and increasingly use of shadow dockets for major decisions - making decision over cases without comment.

I think most of the Conservative justice know that they are in a corner with Republicans whipping their base into a frenzy by passing almost Orwellian abortion laws in their states for moral grandstanding - while not fixing the actual problem of why people turn to abortions in the first place. They know that it will hurt the the court's reputation (with Justice Roberts quite concerned about that), and excite the left to turn out and vote for more left leaning candidates in upcoming elections and putting them in even more uncomfortable situations if they win more majorities.

So, that gives a reason why they might leak it. And of course, the other side could have leaked it to make the conservative justice reconsider supporting it out of conservative activism.

There's chatter on various placed that the Roe v Wade being overturned is a foot in the door for the federal government to violate the privacy of the individual and this is the fourth place I've heard about it. I'll see if I can find out more about it this weekend.

As if you had privacy in the first place. Let's be serious, you had it on paper, that's about it.

Side-eying all the Democratic supermajorities over the past 50 years that had the opportunity to pass federal law legalizing abortion and didn't because it was useful for fearmongering and soliciting donations.

You could always place some blame on Republicans, since they are actively realizing that so called fear mongering, Rydia.

There's plenty of blame to go around.

Including NOW and the other "feminist" organizations who spent the '70s and '80s chasing some quixotic Equal Rights Amendment instead of lobbying for abortion laws/other concrete measures which were a much, much easier lift than changing the Constitution. If GWB and his cronies couldn't get an amendment outlawing gay marriage, no way in hell was this gonna happen.

Or, if you want to go slightly forward in time, I suppose you could blame Joe Biden for helping put Clarence Thomas onto the Supreme Court while throwing Anita Hill under the bus.

Of course, the Dems are asking people to donate to their "fighting" grift. Not that they're actually gonna do something about it (and folks on Twitter are catching on), they just need to look like they're doing something about it. Because if they do, people might expect them to do other things (God forbid).

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi was flitting around receiving a Shiny Princess Olga Award. I'm so reassured.

just look at alito's draft statement on the vote, he specifically states that bills that interpreted the 14th amendment to mean privacy should be protected overstepped their bounds, so therefore roe vs wade should be revoked

the dissolution of the precedent isn't because abortion bad, according to alito, but because the supreme court never had any right protecting privacy federally, leaving whether the states want to impose laws on people's private lives to state law

that's why privacy precedents are such a huge concern all of a sudden

That paper is pretty handy to have. Bad idea to just give it up.

I wonder if they think 'if we fix this, how can we frighten them again?', or something like that?

Also that's one reason why I say career politicians can never fix anything aside from their pockets.

which senate had over 60 democrats in power?

carter did, i guess, so you could blame it on him if you want, but literally no other congress has had a supermajority since then (no, not even obama - he had 58 democratic senators, not 60)

tell me, how would you like to tell republican senators to commit political suicide by helping to pass abortion into law?

There is no single country in Europe which has "freedom of speech" in it's legal documents. You wouldn't believe some of the things we talk about. Just saying.

Again, you could put more blame on Republicans, who are passing these Orwellian laws in their state controlled legislatures. That not an overreaction, that is realization of these fears. Placing much of the blame on Democrats shoulders for their apparent inaction, over things they would have been accused of overreacting over, before Republicans starting chipping away at people's personal freedoms, would have probably led to it faster by helping Republicans out. People are only concerned by something when they actually lose it, because they think people are just overreacting up to that point so they are unconcerned until then with other important matters on their minds.

And let's be realistic. Democrats haven't had 60 seats in the Senate in ages to pass shit on their own, and even if they did they would still have a bunch of blue dog Democrats thwarting these types of social laws - as they are already doing to deny lifting the filibuster on many things. You think Joe Manchin, who is a critical vote for Democrats, is going to left the filibuster to protect abortion right? Nope.

A lot of Americans take it for granted, but too many zoomers believe freedom of speech is a bad thing and it crushes me.

I literally want people to have more freedom and they resent me.

I think because it's often seen as virtual signaling, supporting chaos, and hypocrisy when you start supporting some form of moderation on it because of something you don't like. That's the problem with supporting absolutes, and extremes. You paint yourself in a corner when it starts to bite you in the ass.

While this has little to do with Roe Vs. Wade overall, a lot of this I feel like is a cultural problem that is related. There were times when I have attended church in my recovery from alcoholism and have had discussions about stuff like this. And being someone who is pro-choice I disagreed with those who believed that it was okay to ban abortions and have stated that I have no place to talk about what a woman decides to do with their unborn children.

Back when the Pandemic was still fairly new, I was going through a recovery phase of my own and was very desperate to find some sense of comfort. With that said even though I have expressed being agnostic, when I was going through my recovery during 2020 when the first year of sobriety was very rough I happened to be at a mass at an interesting moment at some point in the spring of that year.

One of my neighbors I had at the time whom, mind you was a woman who attended the same church, supported abortion was allowed to have a speech about donating to that cause. During that mass, a man that was sitting close by to myself and father stood up, and he definitely had something to say at that point. Rather than waiting for my neighbor to finish he decided to just speak and address the Priest “I’m sorry Father, but I came here to pray, not to discuss politics”

There was a small argument that happened at that point, but the man did not grandstand for either side on abortion, he just walked out after clearly expressing his issue and the Priest at that point de-escalated the conflict by telling the rest of the mass to let it be since he also knew the man in question.

After that mass, my father and I had a discussion, he didn’t necessarily agree with how the man decided to speak out after that mass, and if I recall correctly and expressed that even if that is true, I said that don’t think it was right for politics to be brought in either. I don’t recall how the rest of that conversation went that day, however thinking back to this experience, there were shades of gray in that dilemma that I can’t help but ponder…

With what is going on in politics right now I can’t help but think if this is something that Jesus, if he did exist, he would have done the same thing if he was in that exact same mass in that moment. And he probably would have if anyone is familiar with why he was crucified when he protested to how people were treating the temples, just in the same way that he had made a challenge to the people who were about to stone a woman over adultery.

Yet here we are in modern society, where there is a cultural problem with religion and The United States.

Part of this comes from an image post that I have written for a facebook photo, albiet slightly revised. But the point still stands that I feel that it's become a cultural problem where religion is becoming to forced into politics and vice-versa. Abortion is one of those hot topic issues that gets brought up and this one in particular made me think about this experience.

When it comes to Roe v. Wade, or Abortion in general, I'm not for nor against it, I'll explain.

I don't fully agree with aborting a child just because you are too lazy to take responsibilities of raising a child because you were willing to do things with your significant other. If you were unwilling raped and such, then sure, I understand aborting the child, in fact, that would be the best option, but if you weren't raped and you're just doing it just so you don't want to take responsibilities of raising a child, that's a whole other ball game.

Remember the saying... "actions have consequences", and if you decided to have sex willing (like you agree to it and everything), you should in fact suffer the consequences of having said sex, by going through labor and raising a child for 18 years, and if you abort the child, that tells you that you don't want to take any responsibilities for your actions.

Honestly, If I sign a bill into law, this is how it should go:

"An Individual can have the option of aborting a child if granted orders by the [[Insert County/Parish/Borough here]] court to approve the abortion of the unborn child, that is only if the defendant in the case is found guilty of rape. Otherwise, without approval of the area court, no action of abortion should ever take place, and any illegal action of abortion that take place without the approval of the area court will be heavily fined and/or forced the closure of the abortion facility."

-

So, all and all

If you were raped, then I do support abortion 100%

If you weren't, and you just want to abort it because you don't feel like raising a child, then I'm against abortion 100%

Chiristian fundamentalists are not so different, and people on my side have been pointing out their hypocrisy the entire time.

"Everyone has the right to express and proliferate their opinion freely in speech, writing, and art, and to inform themselves from all generally available sources unhindered." - German constitution, article 5, translation mine.

Once Close Allies, Roberts and Alito Have Taken Divergent Paths

Once partners, Roberts and Alito are now emblems of a stark divide at the court as it confronts a crucial choice: whether to eliminate the constitutional right to abortion entirely in a case challenging a Mississippi law that bans the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Howard Stern slams potential Roe v. Wade repeal: 'If guys got raped and pregnant, there'd be abortions available on every corner'

If y'all care about abortion so much you should go to Malta and see how you like it there lol