Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Dieuwer
Topic Author
Posts: 2326
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:27 pm

SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:24 pm

"Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Restrictions"

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/us/s ... siana.html

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voting with the court’s four-member liberal wing but not adopting its reasoning. The chief justice said respect for precedent compelled him to vote with the majority.


Looks like SCOTUS is on a roll this year. So far, I am very pleased with the rulings.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 11017
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:32 pm

This case was a rehash of the 2016 Texas Case, and i kind of expected Roberts to make this decision. At the end of the day there are a lot of end arounds being run in the states to limit access to abortions.

When will the "Right to Life" folks start concentrating their money on paying for women's health care and helping with living expenses instead of lobbying for judge choices and bill writings that are still bound by a very real constitution that protects personal rights/
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8246
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:49 pm

While I'm pleased with the rulings as well, I can't help but wonder if this will bite Democrats in November and turnout conservative voters enough to give Trump and McConnell the slightest of margins. After all, with the prospects of two liberals past their prime, they'll likely want to aim for their seats (though they could also be disenchanted with the recent picks).

Simply put, I think if Biden wins and Democrats capture the Senate, I would want RBG and Steyer to step down at the end of the SCOTUS term so that younger replacements can be named. Normally I wouldn't play this dirty, but after what McConnell did in 2016, I think it's fair to play fire with fire. And I think the same applies with the "blue slip" tradition...I would love to see McConell and Republicans wriggle when die hard liberals are appointed to district courts in red states and conservative circuits.

You reap what you sow.

Then hopefully a more level headed Republican Senate caucus emerges and returns to how things were.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 3763
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:48 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
While I'm pleased with the rulings as well, I can't help but wonder if this will bite Democrats in November and turnout conservative voters enough to give Trump and McConnell the slightest of margins. After all, with the prospects of two liberals past their prime, they'll likely want to aim for their seats (though they could also be disenchanted with the recent picks).

I don't think that will happen - the hard core conservatives are going to turn out for Trump anyhow and I don't see this issue as one that would generate a huge additional turnout of the less hard core. I think Trump has so badly mis-managed his term that center-leaning conservatives are not going to make this issue into one that will have them hold their nose and vote for him regardless of his other shortcomings
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3999
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:52 pm

Republicans have packed courts throughout the US who are far more conservative than the general US population. The citizens of the US have a right to have courts who represent them.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8246
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:00 pm

ER757 wrote:
I don't think that will happen - the hard core conservatives are going to turn out for Trump anyhow and I don't see this issue as one that would generate a huge additional turnout of the less hard core. I think Trump has so badly mis-managed his term that center-leaning conservatives are not going to make this issue into one that will have them hold their nose and vote for him regardless of his other shortcomings

I don't know...I'm not too sold on that just yet. He has reformed the judiciary, for sure, but I wonder if that's enough for them or whether they'll keep salivating at the thought of having a 7-2 conservative Supreme Court vs a potential 5-4 liberal Supreme Court (assuming Thomas retires or goes the way of Scalia).
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
alfa164
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:07 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
While I'm pleased with the rulings as well, I can't help but wonder if this will bite Democrats in November and turnout conservative voters enough to give Trump and McConnell the slightest of margins. After all, with the prospects of two liberals past their prime, they'll likely want to aim for their seats (though they could also be disenchanted with the recent picks).


I am thinking you latter possibility may happen; there were other conservatives I know who held their nose and supported Trump only because of his promise to stack the judiciary with "conservative" judges. With a hoard of those judges now in place, the Courts still recognize rights that the extreme right-wingers would want to destroy. Once they realize the law is the law - and precedent is precedent - their obsession with overthrowing progress is simply over. They might just stay home...
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
apodino
Posts: 3837
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:19 pm

I don't find this ruling from Roberts unexpected, but I have a lot of concerns about what is happening here. (Disclaimer: I am pro-life and I think that any medical procedure performed on a pregnant woman (or person with uterus) needs to protect the life of the unborn child.) One issue I have with Roberts logic here is that even though he personally disagreed with the ruling in the Texas case, he descoded that he cannot overrule that case. I find this dangerous thinking, because what happens in this case is you can have an activist court (I am not going to get into the disagreements that Liberals and Conservatives have over the term activist) make a ruling one way, then you get a different court later and they have no ability to overrule a previous decision even if it was made in error. I will use an example here. Lets say Biden gets to replace Thomas with a liberal justice on the supreme court, giving the court a 5-4 liberal majority. Now lets say Citizens United is relitigated. If you apply the standards that Roberts did in this case, Citizens United could not be overturned under this precedent. Is that what liberals really want? My personal opinion is if Roberts didn't think the Texas case was properly decided, he should have voted the same way he did in this case.

Another concern I have is there are many licensing requirements that state and local health boards will implement on Health providers in order to ensure the safety of their patients. For whatever reason, no one challenges these requirements on any other medical thing other than abortion. But when Abortion is targeted, suddenly all hell breaks loose and lawsuits get filed. Despite what the statistics say (I am not exactly trusting of statistics put out by the Abortion industry for obvious reasons) Abortion is not a riskless procedure, and there are still very real risks to the Woman getting the procedure, and Women have even died in licensed clinics. When you get court rulings like this, it makes it harder for regulators to ensure the safety of the Women undergoing these procedures. Furthermore, another troubling thing that I see is that Abortion providers would rather sue than comply with stricter regulations. If the industry would just comply in the first place, women would still have access to Abortion no problem.

As for the politics of this. My wife is a woman who prioritizes the Abortion issue above anything else, and will not vote for any candidate who wont work to end Abortion. She voted Trump exclusively because of this one issue. I know lots of Women who are in the same boat here. (Look up Abby Johnson, who at one point ran a Planned Parenthood clinic and was employee of the year there) (Unlike the other cases, the Trump judges dissented in this case as Roberts was a Bush appointee.) Another thing I would point out is that this law was passed by Democrats and was signed by a Democratic governor. My guess is John Bel Edwards wont have much of a future as a national Democratic player. But I would say this. From my experience, Pro-Life women actually agree much more on all the other issues with the Democrats than they do with the Republicans. If the Democratic party welcomed these women into the party, the GOP would not stand a chance and likely would never hold power again. Instead, on what should be a political layup, the big players in Democratic circles give these women the finger instead. And then they wonder why many women vote for the GOP and Trump in particular.

Another issue that I see in this is because the political leaders who tend to be Pro-Life are also from the corporate and libertarian wing of the GOP, it gives the appearance that most pro-lifers only care about the baby when its in the womb and as soon as its born the woman is on her own. This is not true, but its a big problem that people who are pro-life need to address. Maybe if groups such as Live-Action also came out and supported single payer health care, this would give the pro-life movement a lot more credibility. But until this happens, pro-lifers will be seen by many as wanted to control Women's bodies, which is not true at all. (Most pro-lifers I know believe that the pro-life position gives women more control over their bodies than the pro-abortion position) It would also help if people who fought for pro-life causes weren't also tied as much to religion as they are. (Specifically Anti-Gay groups)

Does this have an effect on the election? It's tough to say. This is an issue that I think will be forgotten in a couple of months in general unless it comes up in a debate. The question is, do conservatives place enough emphasis on the courts to override any other concerns about Trump? Or is Trump a lost cause, and they instead focus on keeping a republican majority in the Senate, where Mitch McConnell can block any Biden nominee (if the GOP holds the senate, and Biden wins the White House, look for the filibuster on Judicial nominees to be put back in), forcing Biden to nominate someone in the mold of Gorsuch? The other wildcard here, and this is worthy of its own thread, is the possibility that Trumps poll numbers may get so bad he will drop out and the GOP will run someone else. (My money in this case would be on a Nikki Haley-Jeneane Hampton ticket. The GOP dream ticket would be Nikki Haley and Tim Scott, but that cant happen since both are from South Carolina). If someone else runs, you can be sure that this issue will motivate voters and now they are freed from the Trump nonsense.


One other thing I am going to point out about this court that I find interesting. I have noticed that the court has ruled on high profile cases that get lots of media attention, but other cases that are very important have been decided on the same days and those opinions get buried under the radar. During the Gay rights case, another opinion on the same day allowed construction of an oil pipeline to proceed for example. The other case today that is noteworthy is the court gave the President the authority to fire the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). This is significant because the design of this as an independent agency was supposed to free it from political considerations, but now that the president has more control over the Bureau, that design goes out the window.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3999
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:33 pm

Very conservative males are not just interested in controlling the uterus of women, they are also wanting to control the sexuality of women. It is an evolutionary sort of subjugation, but they call it religion. And there creed is 'only men count'. Any number of Republican men in congress have called for no coverage of pregnancy - because they don't get pregnant. Back in the days when Southern Baptists were still honest they refused to consider abortion a subject for the US legal system, because scriptures don't discuss abortion. They also were opposed to government supporting religious organisations because support always comes with controls. Then they sold out to ultra-conservatives. And at their best, Southern Baptists are not liberals, conservatives, libertarian, just bible christians.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8246
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:58 pm

apodino wrote:
Another concern I have is there are many licensing requirements that state and local health boards will implement on Health providers in order to ensure the safety of their patients. For whatever reason, no one challenges these requirements on any other medical thing other than abortion. But when Abortion is targeted, suddenly all hell breaks loose and lawsuits get filed.

Because abortion seems to be the only medical procedure that's constantly targeted. I somehow have a right to do any kind of operation without worrying about admitting privileges of the doctor performing the operation (some which may be more invasive)...but abortion? Nope. The doctor must have admitting privileges.

The LA law was trying to find a loophole: they're not banning abortion; they're just trying to make it so hard that it's impossible. A doctor will need hospital admitting privileges...a hospital can go ahead and deny that doctor privileges and bam! No longer eligible to perform an abortion. How do you justify that?

Here's the funny kick to this though: even though abortion has been ruled to be an implicit right, conservatives are nuts about putting as many restrictions as possible...but don't ever consider a waiting period for a weapon or a background check or anything like that. #2A

apodino wrote:
Despite what the statistics say (I am not exactly trusting of statistics put out by the Abortion industry for obvious reasons) Abortion is not a riskless procedure, and there are still very real risks to the Woman getting the procedure, and Women have even died in licensed clinics.

I'd ask for evidence for that last part, but if you don't trust the statistics, why should anyone trust the ones YOU'D put out?

Dental surgery is not a riskless procedure either, but I don't see people clamoring for dentists to have an agreement with a hospital for treatment in case of infection or malpractice.

apodino wrote:
When you get court rulings like this, it makes it harder for regulators to ensure the safety of the Women undergoing these procedures.

You're quite naive to think that conservatives are imposing regulations because they care for the safety of women and nothing more.

apodino wrote:
Furthermore, another troubling thing that I see is that Abortion providers would rather sue than comply with stricter regulations. If the industry would just comply in the first place, women would still have access to Abortion no problem.
Uh no. Because this is like using an antibiotic with bacteria: you use a mild one, but find that some survive...you make the dose stronger and some still survive...and you go ahead and make the dose even stronger to totally annihilate the infection. Putting further restrictions and having clinics meet it only makes conservatives even more eager to look for more regulations that will be impossible to meet.

Today, the law said that doctors needed admitting privileges to a hospital 30 miles of a clinic (that would have left a handful of clinics). What's the next step beyond that? ALL hospitals within a 30 mile radius?

And this is not even taking into account the waiting period, the invasive ultrasound, the infosession women have to go through, the time limit (some states are even going down to just a heartbeat), and need to drive to a clinic many miles away that meets the regulations imposed by the state...but sure, clinics just need to abide by the regulations.

This is abortion's equivalent to "if they only complied with the officer's instructions", except the instructions involve impossible tasks.
Last edited by einsteinboricua on Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10279
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:02 pm

apodino wrote:
, another troubling thing that I see is that Abortion providers would rather sue than comply with stricter regulations. If the industry would just comply in the first place, women would still have access to Abortion no problem.

This point in particular is not accurate. The entire focus of "right to lifers" is to find and legislate using elements that restrict access, that are essentially impossible to comply with, and that is what was done in the Louisiana law. Almost no hospitals agree to grant admitting privileges to any doctor that provides abortion services. this is due to a.) abortion is a very low risk procedure so it does not garner the hospital with any new business; and b.) it is such a hot issue and the groups that are working hard to eliminate a women's choice in the matter will publicize any such admitting procedures and that means the hospital will have to battle that. And hospital's don't want that. Additionally these restrictions, requiring admitting privileges, are not applied to other similar procedures and nonsurgical physicians. Perhaps you might have an argument if they actually made a law that encompasses all similar procedures. But the legislatures will never do that as it would then limits all such procedures and they don't want that (they only want to attack a woman's right to an abortion).

https://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2 ... l-effect-/

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
apodino
Posts: 3837
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:25 pm

Tugger and Einsteinboricua here is an article written by a Louisiana Ob/Gyn that I post as a rebuttal to your posts.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/06/24/im-an-ob-gyn-heres-why-i-support-requiring-hospital-admitting-privileges-for-abortion-providers/

One thing I will point at in the article is the law in question was passed with bipartisan support and in fact nearly unanimous support. In other words, in Louisiana, this law was not controversial.
 
luckyone
Posts: 2997
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:55 pm

apodino wrote:
in Louisiana, this law was not controversial.

A lot of laws have been "not controversial" at the time of their passing. That doesn't mean they will hold up to a legal challenge.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8246
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:01 pm

apodino wrote:
One thing I will point at in the article is the law in question was passed with bipartisan support and in fact nearly unanimous support. In other words, in Louisiana, this law was not controversial.

There are two main reasons I can think right off the bat as to why this passed with bipartisan support:

1. Southern Democrats tend to be more conservative than their national counterparts. Even the new mold in the South is still more moderate than your typical one.

2. This law passed in 2014. This is important to note for two reasons:
a) A Democrat was on the ballot that year for US Senate. For state Democrats to have opposed it would have given even more ammo to use against the incumbent Democrat Senator at the time.
b) The leader of the Democrats in the LA House back then is now current Governor Edwards who is also known to be more conservative than your typical Democrat. Given that this law would have still passed without any Democrat votes and that Edwards in 2013 announced he had his eye on the governor's mansion for the election the following year, Democrats had more to gain by voting FOR the bill rather than by opposing it. It meant less ammo when trying to win the governor's mansion.

As is the case in a general election: sometimes a vote for someone/something isn't so much as support for them as it is more as against someone else. Voting for the bill doesn't mean the Democrats supported it (especially if the outcome wouldn't have been any different), but it meant one less talking point in a general election (especially one where an unpopular Republican was term limited).
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10279
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:02 pm

apodino wrote:
Tugger and Einsteinboricua here is an article written by a Louisiana Ob/Gyn that I post as a rebuttal to your posts.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/06/24/im-an-ob-gyn-heres-why-i-support-requiring-hospital-admitting-privileges-for-abortion-providers/

One thing I will point at in the article is the law in question was passed with bipartisan support and in fact nearly unanimous support. In other words, in Louisiana, this law was not controversial.

Sorry but I don't find that article/opinion piece supportive of the case for admitting privileges. How do you find that it is? Being an OB/GYN has no real relevance and the doctor shows a core lack of knowledge of the issue with the statement: "it was such a truly modest proposal, one to merely hold doctors performing abortions to the same standards as other doctors, I was shocked that it eventually became such a contested law.". Because as you know that is not the case, the law in question was not holding all to the same standards.

And if the privileges are needed, they are only needed for surgical issues as the Dr. notes in his piece and not for the many non-surgical abortions. How do you reconcile that Dr's performing non-surgical procedures are not required to have admitting rights? Unless you are performing non-surgical abortions? And how do these admitting privileges provide anything assistive when any person with a complication from a procedure will go to the nearest hospital and not the one the doctor has privileges with?

Your argument does not make sense.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
alfa164
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:34 pm

apodino wrote:
I find this dangerous thinking, because what happens in this case is you can have an activist court (I am not going to get into the disagreements that Liberals and Conservatives have over the term activist) make a ruling one way, then you get a different court later and they have no ability to overrule a previous decision even if it was made in error. I will use an example here. Lets say Biden gets to replace Thomas with a liberal justice on the supreme court, giving the court a 5-4 liberal majority. Now lets say Citizens United is relitigated. If you apply the standards that Roberts did in this case, Citizens United could not be overturned under this precedent.


Actually, Citizens United is a bad example; it could easily be overturned, because in Justice Kennedy's written opinion, he indicated his support could necessarily be reconsidered and changed if the decision's outcome should prove be detrimental to elections and to democracy. There is ample evidence that is what has happened, and reconsideration by a more liberal Court is certainly not out of the question.


apodino wrote:
Another concern I have is there are many licensing requirements that state and local health boards will implement on Health providers in order to ensure the safety of their patients. For whatever reason, no one challenges these requirements on any other medical thing other than abortion. But when Abortion is targeted, suddenly all hell breaks loose and lawsuits get filed.


It is no secret that most of these "licensing requirements" were not put in place to make abortion safer, but to eliminate the procedure itself. Sponsors of such legislation are infantile in their obsession to eliminate abortion, and none of their bills have ever been based on recommendations of recognized medical groups or associations. Indeed, these bills are usually written by anti-abortion lobbyists, and merely copied-and-pasted by legislators as they introduce them.

I don't think you can name any other health requirements that follow that path into law.


apodino wrote:
Furthermore, another troubling thing that I see is that Abortion providers would rather sue than comply with stricter regulations. If the industry would just comply in the first place, women would still have access to Abortion no problem


These formidably restrictive laws are usually written in a way to make it virtually impossible for providers to comply; indeed, that is their raison d'etre - to make it impossible. Thus the Court majority's ruling that the Louisiana statue presented an "almost impossible burden" on the medical providers and their patients.


apodino wrote:
As for the politics of this. My wife is a woman who prioritizes the Abortion issue above anything else, and will not vote for any candidate who wont work to end Abortion. She voted Trump exclusively because of this one issue. I know lots of Women who are in the same boat here.


I don't know your wife, so I can't (and shouldn't) comment on her personally, but I tend to think that anyone who is so obsessive that he/she would vote for any scoundrel just because of a single issue probably is not a benefit to democratic institutions. Once we outgrow our obsession with this issue - and, with it now becoming closer and closer to being "settled law" - they better off we will be to face the real governmental (as opposed to religion-dictated social issues) that face our nation.


apodino wrote:
Another issue that I see in this is because the political leaders who tend to be Pro-Life are also from the corporate and libertarian wing of the GOP, it gives the appearance that most pro-lifers only care about the baby when its in the womb and as soon as its born the woman is on her own. This is not true, but its a big problem that people who are pro-life need to address. Maybe if groups such as Live-Action also came out and supported single payer health care, this would give the pro-life movement a lot more credibility. But until this happens, pro-lifers will be seen by many as wanted to control Women's bodies, which is not true at all. (Most pro-lifers I know believe that the pro-life position gives women more control over their bodies than the pro-abortion position) It would also help if people who fought for pro-life causes weren't also tied as much to religion as they are. (Specifically Anti-Gay groups)


While I am not so sure that most anti-abortion disciples care about the baby after he/she leaves the womb - they certainly have made no efforts to improve post-natal child care, family leave requirements, or support for public education, just to cite a few examples - it would help their position if they were to provide any support to mothers and families after delivery of the child. And good luck prying "pro-lifers" away from their religious dogma; most of them justify their position by simply citing religion - or the indoctrination they get from some self-proclaimed "religious leader", claiming to be connected directly with god to get his message.


apodino wrote:
Does this have an effect on the election? It's tough to say. This is an issue that I think will be forgotten in a couple of months in general unless it comes up in a debate. The question is, do conservatives place enough emphasis on the courts to override any other concerns about Trump? Or is Trump a lost cause, and they instead focus on keeping a republican majority in the Senate, where Mitch McConnell can block any Biden nominee (if the GOP holds the senate, and Biden wins the White House, look for the filibuster on Judicial nominees to be put back in), forcing Biden to nominate someone in the mold of Gorsuch?


There is also a possibility that single-issue voters may realize their time has come and gone, and might just feel less-energized to go to the polls - particularly in light of the recognition some have already express about Trump's almost-total incompetence and the realization that he is in office only to satisfy his personal ego (and in hopes of padding his bank accounts in the process).

As a sidelight, your mention of Gorsuch brings up another issue; specifically commenting on Roe v. Wade at his nomination hearing, Gorsuch explained, “[the opinion] is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992, and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent, like any other case.” He also repeated his respect for precedent in a personal meeting with Susan Collins. So there is now reason to believe that Trump's nominee was either (1) coached to lie; or (2) decided on his own to lie. (Kavanaugh also confirmed that he had told Senator Collins, who supports abortion rights, that he considered Roe vs. Wade to be “settled law,” so the same possibilities apply to him).


apodino wrote:
The other wildcard here, and this is worthy of its own thread, is the possibility that Trumps poll numbers may get so bad he will drop out and the GOP will run someone else. (My money in this case would be on a Nikki Haley-Jeneane Hampton ticket. The GOP dream ticket would be Nikki Haley and Tim Scott, but that cant happen since both are from South Carolina). If someone else runs, you can be sure that this issue will motivate voters and now they are freed from the Trump nonsense.


You are right; that would be worthy of another thread. Unfortunately, I don't see Trump willing to admit defeat. He won't even admit to his own quotes, when it is inconvenient.


apodino wrote:
One other thing I am going to point out about this court that I find interesting. I have noticed that the court has ruled on high profile cases that get lots of media attention, but other cases that are very important have been decided on the same days and those opinions get buried under the radar. During the Gay rights case, another opinion on the same day allowed construction of an oil pipeline to proceed for example. The other case today that is noteworthy is the court gave the President the authority to fire the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). This is significant because the design of this as an independent agency was supposed to free it from political considerations, but now that the president has more control over the Bureau, that design goes out the window.


The Court has specific "decision days"; during May and June, the Court meets at 10 a.m. every Monday to release opinions. In months when the Court is hearing oral arguments, decisions may be handed down before the arguments are heard. While the latest Roe v. Wade interpretation may be the first thing most observers are waiting for, the other decisions might even have more importance, in the long term, for many Americans. But abortion has become an obsession - an unhealthy obsession for the body politic, I would argue - for people on both sides. So today entire factions in out country will either be crying in their beer or celebrating with it.

All while social distancing, I hope. ;)
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3999
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:01 am

Libertarians are the among the most hypocritical bunch in the US. Basically libertarians are for any sin they are in favor of, and against the sins of any they oppose. Add to that most of them are ultra-right wing nuts. As one of them said to me years ago in the gym, "I am a libertarian, but those gays just don't deserve rights". Right on, I read you loud and clear. Plus just about all of them are on the state or federal t*t.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
Alias1024
Posts: 2606
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:12 am

casinterest wrote:
This case was a rehash of the 2016 Texas Case, and i kind of expected Roberts to make this decision.


I’ve always thought this case should have been a summary reversal. A legal slap down of the 5th Circuit judges that ignored a clear precedent from the Supreme Court.

But I guess Roberts wanted a closer look to make sure it really was sophistry by the 5th Circuit in their “examination“ of the facts. That and a summary reversal with a per curiam opinion and four dissenting opinions would have been a bad look.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 12947
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:22 am

Trump had the house and the senate for two years, why wasn't abortion banned ? Sure, it would have probably been struck down by the SCOTUS, but so what, that didn't stop him for other stuff.

Bush was a born again nut, why didn't he ban abortion ?

Bush 1 ?

Reagan ?

I just don't get it. Here in France a law was passed in 1975 allowing abortion and defining rules (for example it's banned after 12 weeks, except if medically needed or the fetus is malformed), it's a medical procedure like another, so paid for by the public healthcare system, and since then everyone has moved on. In 1975 the French government was right-wing, BTW.

apodino wrote:
(Disclaimer: I am pro-life and I think that any medical procedure performed on a pregnant woman (or person with uterus) needs to protect the life of the unborn child.)


So pro-life of the unborn, screw the life of the mother ? How nice.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12756
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:43 am

Aesma wrote:
apodino wrote:
(Disclaimer: I am pro-life and I think that any medical procedure performed on a pregnant woman (or person with uterus) needs to protect the life of the unborn child.)


So pro-life of the unborn, screw the life of the mother ? How nice.


the fun part of that line of thinking: If any abortion ban based on that argument ever gains traction, eating meat has to be made illegal or the argument doesn´t make sense. An adult cow, pig or Turkey is way, way smarter and sentient than an outside the womb viable fetus.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2829
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Tue Jun 30, 2020 10:57 am

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Libertarians are the among the most hypocritical bunch in the US. Basically libertarians are for any sin they are in favor of, and against the sins of any they oppose. Add to that most of them are ultra-right wing nuts. As one of them said to me years ago in the gym, "I am a libertarian, but those gays just don't deserve rights". Right on, I read you loud and clear. Plus just about all of them are on the state or federal t*t.

Sounds like both you and the "libertarians" you've spoken to are pretty ill-informed on libertarianism. Pro-gay/trans rights, pro-choice, pro-drug legalization, pro-immigration et al are not in the slightest bit compatible with "gays not deserving rights" and "ultra-right wing" views.
 
apodino
Posts: 3837
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:15 pm

alfa164 wrote:
While the latest Roe v. Wade interpretation may be the first thing most observers are waiting for, the other decisions might even have more importance, in the long term, for many Americans. But abortion has become an obsession - an unhealthy obsession for the body politic, I would argue - for people on both sides. So today entire factions in out country will either be crying in their beer or celebrating with it.

All while social distancing, I hope. ;)


The reason that people are obsessed with Abortion is because there are many people, myself included, who believe that Abortion takes the life of a Human Being. If people believe that innocent lives are being lost, would it not be reasonable to think that there would be people who fight for those lives? Every Year in January, Washington DC draws hundreds of thousands of protesters from across the country to draw attention to this issue. I find it funny that protests like the Women's March and BLM get all sorts of press, but no body covers the March for Life despite the huge number of participants it draws from around the country.

This is why Abortion is still a hot button topic, and other social issues such as Gay Marriage are pretty much settled. People can have their own opinions on Gay Marriage, but two people of the same sex getting married is not causing harm to anyone. For the most part, I think most reasonable people can say that Gay folks who are married actually mind their own business for the most part and what they choose to do in their private life affects no one else. Abortion is much different. In the case of Abortion, human life is actually being harmed. Big difference. Put another way, the only arguments against Gay Marriage are religious ones, where you can make arguments against Abortion without even bringing up religion. This is a big mistake that many pro lifers make, is that they lump arguments against abortion with homophobic arguments. That wont work. There is a group out there called Secular Pro-Life. That is the model I think the pro-life side needs to make.

I am also going to say this. I am pro-life, but I also support Single Payer Healthcare, paid child care, better paid maternity and paternity leave, as well as safety nets so that Mothers can get by, and I am also a staunch opponent of the Death Penalty. Being pro-life to me isn't just about saving the child in the womb, but making sure that child, and mother are well taken care of even many years after birth.
 
Dieuwer
Topic Author
Posts: 2326
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:27 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:20 pm

"Pro-lifers" are often hypocrites. On the one hand they make a big stink about abortion because... "life", but if GW Bush or Trump bombs the hell out of people in Africa or Asia those same people are cheering and high-fiving each other.
No, the "abortion debate" is about one and one thing only: Playing boss over the bodies of women.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8246
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:30 pm

apodino wrote:
I am also going to say this. I am pro-life, but I also support Single Payer Healthcare, paid child care, better paid maternity and paternity leave, as well as safety nets so that Mothers can get by, and I am also a staunch opponent of the Death Penalty. Being pro-life to me isn't just about saving the child in the womb, but making sure that child, and mother are well taken care of even many years after birth.

This is why it's a hot button issue. Because you're a minority. If this were the mentality everywhere, abortion wouldn't even be an issue. Conservative voters are not pro-life; they're all about being pro-birth. But as soon as that fetus is out of the womb, both the baby and the mother are on their own...and if she couldn't afford to have a baby then she should have kept her legs closed (because let's face it, even condoms and contraceptives are no-nos). And if she puts the baby up for adoption, then she is reckless for putting yet another soul into the hands of an adoption agency (which the conservative crowd believes should not get public funding either).

Women don't go through an abortion because they want to; they go through it because they're not ready to be parents and there's barely any support for them if they choose to continue. You have the very late stages of abortion as well, which I also think should be allowed: if I had a baby that will have some form of birth defect that will not let them enjoy life and will require far more resources than a typical child, I would much rather terminate it than have to beg agencies for support. Some states are good about helping out, but there's the risk that at the federal level, the funds may be gutted and the state may end up canceling the program as well (because it's better to buy more F35s...freedom and all).
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22179
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:31 pm

apodino wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
While the latest Roe v. Wade interpretation may be the first thing most observers are waiting for, the other decisions might even have more importance, in the long term, for many Americans. But abortion has become an obsession - an unhealthy obsession for the body politic, I would argue - for people on both sides. So today entire factions in out country will either be crying in their beer or celebrating with it.

All while social distancing, I hope. ;)


The reason that people are obsessed with Abortion is because there are many people, myself included, who believe that Abortion takes the life of a Human Being.


So do covid-19, cops, guns, opioids.......

Besides, when all those babies are born and the parents can not care for them in any way, will you be willing to pay higher taxes to feed, house, clothe, and educate them? Are you willing to pay more in taxes to forgive medical debt for families of the women and babies who die in childbirth?

When was the last time a newborn paid taxes or voted or served in the military? This argument that "a fetus is a human" is bordering on the lazy. Besides, we are talking about a small number of pregnancies per year. Let individuals make their own decisions regarding their own lives.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3478
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:38 pm

apodino wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
While the latest Roe v. Wade interpretation may be the first thing most observers are waiting for, the other decisions might even have more importance, in the long term, for many Americans. But abortion has become an obsession - an unhealthy obsession for the body politic, I would argue - for people on both sides. So today entire factions in out country will either be crying in their beer or celebrating with it.

All while social distancing, I hope. ;)


The reason that people are obsessed with Abortion is because there are many people, myself included, who believe that Abortion takes the life of a Human Being. If people believe that innocent lives are being lost, would it not be reasonable to think that there would be people who fight for those lives? Every Year in January, Washington DC draws hundreds of thousands of protesters from across the country to draw attention to this issue. I find it funny that protests like the Women's March and BLM get all sorts of press, but no body covers the March for Life despite the huge number of participants it draws from around the country.

This is why Abortion is still a hot button topic, and other social issues such as Gay Marriage are pretty much settled. People can have their own opinions on Gay Marriage, but two people of the same sex getting married is not causing harm to anyone. For the most part, I think most reasonable people can say that Gay folks who are married actually mind their own business for the most part and what they choose to do in their private life affects no one else. Abortion is much different. In the case of Abortion, human life is actually being harmed. Big difference. Put another way, the only arguments against Gay Marriage are religious ones, where you can make arguments against Abortion without even bringing up religion. This is a big mistake that many pro lifers make, is that they lump arguments against abortion with homophobic arguments. That wont work. There is a group out there called Secular Pro-Life. That is the model I think the pro-life side needs to make.

I am also going to say this. I am pro-life, but I also support Single Payer Healthcare, paid child care, better paid maternity and paternity leave, as well as safety nets so that Mothers can get by, and I am also a staunch opponent of the Death Penalty. Being pro-life to me isn't just about saving the child in the womb, but making sure that child, and mother are well taken care of even many years after birth.

If there was a shortage of blood in the banks, Should people be forced to give blood? If somebody of a rare blood type fails to give blood and somebody dies because that one person didn’t give blood has that person effectively killed a person/taken a life? Should they be taken through a court?

It strikes me that a woman can decide how to use her own resources as she sees fit and if it’s her choice not to support a parasitic life form then that’s up to her.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12756
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:42 pm

seb146 wrote:
This argument that "a fetus is a human" is bordering on the lazy.


Its not just lazy, it is always hypocrisy. "Pro-lifers" don't have a coherent argument at all, and never had. It's pure desire to control women, no matter what excuse is made up.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12756
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:46 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
apodino wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
While the latest Roe v. Wade interpretation may be the first thing most observers are waiting for, the other decisions might even have more importance, in the long term, for many Americans. But abortion has become an obsession - an unhealthy obsession for the body politic, I would argue - for people on both sides. So today entire factions in out country will either be crying in their beer or celebrating with it.

All while social distancing, I hope. ;)


The reason that people are obsessed with Abortion is because there are many people, myself included, who believe that Abortion takes the life of a Human Being. If people believe that innocent lives are being lost, would it not be reasonable to think that there would be people who fight for those lives? Every Year in January, Washington DC draws hundreds of thousands of protesters from across the country to draw attention to this issue. I find it funny that protests like the Women's March and BLM get all sorts of press, but no body covers the March for Life despite the huge number of participants it draws from around the country.

This is why Abortion is still a hot button topic, and other social issues such as Gay Marriage are pretty much settled. People can have their own opinions on Gay Marriage, but two people of the same sex getting married is not causing harm to anyone. For the most part, I think most reasonable people can say that Gay folks who are married actually mind their own business for the most part and what they choose to do in their private life affects no one else. Abortion is much different. In the case of Abortion, human life is actually being harmed. Big difference. Put another way, the only arguments against Gay Marriage are religious ones, where you can make arguments against Abortion without even bringing up religion. This is a big mistake that many pro lifers make, is that they lump arguments against abortion with homophobic arguments. That wont work. There is a group out there called Secular Pro-Life. That is the model I think the pro-life side needs to make.

I am also going to say this. I am pro-life, but I also support Single Payer Healthcare, paid child care, better paid maternity and paternity leave, as well as safety nets so that Mothers can get by, and I am also a staunch opponent of the Death Penalty. Being pro-life to me isn't just about saving the child in the womb, but making sure that child, and mother are well taken care of even many years after birth.

If there was a shortage of blood in the banks, Should people be forced to give blood? If somebody of a rare blood type fails to give blood and somebody dies because that one person didn’t give blood has that person effectively killed a person/taken a life? Should they be taken through a court?


Well... lots of body parts to chose from. A kidney, a retina, half a lung.... forced organ donation is just a fraction of a hair width down that slippery "pro life" slope.

Someone can for sure calculate how many people get killed by underfunded government, tax evasion is hence murder, tax cuts usually unconstitutional.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7200
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:25 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Republicans have packed courts throughout the US who are far more conservative than the general US population. The citizens of the US have a right to have courts who represent them.

Personally I think the judiciary shouldn't be swayed by any kind of politics or party. The courts should be there only to interpret the Constitution, not be prey to politics; that's what the legislative and executive branches are for.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3999
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:32 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
Republicans have packed courts throughout the US who are far more conservative than the general US population. The citizens of the US have a right to have courts who represent them.

Personally I think the judiciary shouldn't be swayed by any kind of politics or party. The courts should be there only to interpret the Constitution, not be prey to politics; that's what the legislative and executive branches are for.


If we were talking about moderately conservative, moderately progressive, middle of the road independents then what you are saying would be correct.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
alfa164
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:32 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
This argument that "a fetus is a human" is bordering on the lazy.

Its not just lazy, it is always hypocrisy. "Pro-lifers" don't have a coherent argument at all, and never had. It's pure desire to control women, no matter what excuse is made up.


:checkmark: This. I would be more inclined to give more respect to the "pro-life" oracles if they actually were defending a life - not an unformed, unviable mass of cellular matter. I have a question I ask my anti-abortion friends: "If I am in a forest, and destroy an acorn I find on the ground, should I be prosecuted for cutting down a tree?"

I have yet to get a credible answer.


TWA772LR wrote:
Personally I think the judiciary shouldn't be swayed by any kind of politics or party. The courts should be there only to interpret the Constitution, not be prey to politics; that's what the legislative and executive branches are for.


:checkmark: :checkmark: Unfortunately, the entire process - witness both Gorsuch's and Kavanaugh's promises to uphold precedent when questioned in their confirmation hearings, versus their actual actions in the instant cause - has become political theatre, with an almost-equivalent amount of posturing, evading, and outright lying as you could find in any political campaign.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
FGITD
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:44 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
This argument that "a fetus is a human" is bordering on the lazy.


Its not just lazy, it is always hypocrisy. "Pro-lifers" don't have a coherent argument at all, and never had. It's pure desire to control women, no matter what excuse is made up.

Best regards
Thomas


I used to try to see both sides of the argument. But Sandy Hook was the last straw;the proof that the party of "pro life" doesn't care about that life once it's out of the mother.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3999
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:12 pm

Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Genesis

Hence the Jewish traditional interpretation that life begins with the first breath.

Note: this does not mean that a person informed by the biblical tradition cannot be opposed to abortion, just that there is NO biblical support for calling abortion murder.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12756
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:49 am

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Genesis


Hence the Jewish traditional interpretation that life begins with the first breath.


that is when you get a soul. So, Christians are really trying to protect a soulless lump of cells.

Note: this does not mean that a person informed by the biblical tradition cannot be opposed to abortion, just that there is NO biblical support for calling abortion murder.


The Lord demands abortion in the Bible, technically they will burn in hell for all eternity for being pro life....

alfa164 wrote:
"If I am in a forest, and destroy an acorn I find on the ground, should I be prosecuted for cutting down a tree?"

I have yet to get a credible answer..


:checkmark:
until birth, in scripture, the fetus is a body part of the woman, so the question should be "if i plug an acorn".

Its funny that there doesn´t seem to be any overlap between "pro lifers" and frutarians .... :rotfl:

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8246
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:14 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Note: this does not mean that a person informed by the biblical tradition cannot be opposed to abortion, just that there is NO biblical support for calling abortion murder.

If we're to get technical, then the Christian God is OK with abortion, as Hosea 9:14 and 13:16 would tell you. And, because the same crowd loves citing Leviticus to deny gays anything, Leviticus 27:6 says that newborns have no value until 1 month of age (meaning that abortion at any point in the pregnancy is OK). Furthermore, Numbers 5:15-22 talks about the Christian God's miracle abortion formula to be used if a woman has committed adultery and has become pregnant as a result (a miscarriage will result if it did).

Somehow, people like apodino's wife will say that this doesn't apply and that the Bible is not to be taken literally or that beliefs trump facts.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
apodino
Posts: 3837
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:01 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
Note: this does not mean that a person informed by the biblical tradition cannot be opposed to abortion, just that there is NO biblical support for calling abortion murder.

If we're to get technical, then the Christian God is OK with abortion, as Hosea 9:14 and 13:16 would tell you. And, because the same crowd loves citing Leviticus to deny gays anything, Leviticus 27:6 says that newborns have no value until 1 month of age (meaning that abortion at any point in the pregnancy is OK). Furthermore, Numbers 5:15-22 talks about the Christian God's miracle abortion formula to be used if a woman has committed adultery and has become pregnant as a result (a miscarriage will result if it did).

Somehow, people like apodino's wife will say that this doesn't apply and that the Bible is not to be taken literally or that beliefs trump facts.

I like how the religious arguments in here are being made for Abortion, and there haven't been any religious arguments made on the pro-life side in here. :) Without turning this into a thread on religion (Its not), I will simply say that the old testament, which is what has been quoted repeatedly, is in there so that we better understand the New Testament and where Jesus was coming from in his ministry. Very few Christians will actually argue that Leviticus is iron clad cannon law and must be complied with or you are going to hell.




by frmrCapCadet » 30 Jun 2020 20:12
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. GenesisHence the Jewish traditional interpretation that life begins with the first breath.Note: this does not mean that a person informed by the biblical tradition cannot be opposed to abortion, just that there is NO biblical support for calling abortion murder.

Which is exactly why the arguments against abortion should not be religion based but science based. And I try to do just that.

TWA772LR wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
Republicans have packed courts throughout the US who are far more conservative than the general US population. The citizens of the US have a right to have courts who represent them.

Personally I think the judiciary shouldn't be swayed by any kind of politics or party. The courts should be there only to interpret the Constitution, not be prey to politics; that's what the legislative and executive branches are for.

Agreed 100%. Sadly many rely on the courts for just this because the legislative and executive branches are too lazy to do their own job. (Same Sex marriage should have never reached the courts, that is a law that should have been passed way before Obergfell happened)

tommy1808 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
This argument that "a fetus is a human" is bordering on the lazy.


Its not just lazy, it is always hypocrisy. "Pro-lifers" don't have a coherent argument at all, and never had. It's pure desire to control women, no matter what excuse is made up.

Best regards
Thomas

I am not interested in controlling anyone. I personally believe that Abortion actually gives women less control rather than more. There are lots of Horny men out there who know that if they impregnate a woman she can always get an abortion. Thus it becomes much much easier for them to pressure women into Sex. Human Trafficking is another big problem. Abortion makes this horrific crime much much easier to get away with. I can go on.

Also a couple of points. One is that more Women are pro life than Men, and if you break it down further, the split between pro life women and pro choice women is a lot closer than people believe it is. How can anyone claim that something is good for Women when Women themselves cant even agree on what is good or not for women. Secondly, a gallup poll came out today that said more Americans find Abortion morally wrong than not.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/312929/record-low-say-death-penalty-morally-acceptable.aspx

einsteinboricua wrote:
Women don't go through an abortion because they want to; they go through it because they're not ready to be parents and there's barely any support for them if they choose to continue. You have the very late stages of abortion as well, which I also think should be allowed: if I had a baby that will have some form of birth defect that will not let them enjoy life and will require far more resources than a typical child, I would much rather terminate it than have to beg agencies for support. Some states are good about helping out, but there's the risk that at the federal level, the funds may be gutted and the state may end up canceling the program as well (because it's better to buy more F35s...freedom and all).

I agree that there is very little support and this is an issue that worries me deeply. You mention babies with birth defects. What kind of message does that send to the people already on this planet who were given that chance? I know lots of people who have had some issues since birth. That doesn't mean they are any less worthy of living than you or I are. (I do agree with you on the military spending, its gotten out of control)
 
User avatar
johnboy
Posts: 3098
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 9:09 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:31 pm

The OB/GYN’s feigned lack of understanding would be better purposed by asking why hospitals are refusing to give admitting privileges to abortion clinic physicians.

If she’s THAT concerned about women’s reproductive health (and I can assure you she’s not), she should marshall a bipartisan effort to remedy this with legislation *requiring* hospitals to give admitting privileges to all qualified primary care providers.

Right now, a woman who experiences the (incredibly rare) post-abortion complication calls the clinic or 911 and goes to the hospital. Strangely enough, as with post-care from any procedure, there are explicit instructions to call the provider or call 911. The ER physician may call the abortion provider to get information, if needed. It’s not rocket science, it’s what happens on a daily basis everywhere.

So the admitting privileges argument is an old canard for people wanting to stop all abortions.

Just because it’s an abortion doesn’t mean women should get substandard care by being forced to limit their reproductive health options, in the caring words of the good doctor.

If the anti-abortion crowd wants to go down that primrose path, they’re in for a big surprise. Well not that much of a surprise since the Supremes just told them to STFU.
 
Jetty
Posts: 1279
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:27 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:13 am

Aesma wrote:
Trump had the house and the senate for two years, why wasn't abortion banned ? Sure, it would have probably been struck down by the SCOTUS, but so what, that didn't stop him for other stuff.

Bush was a born again nut, why didn't he ban abortion ?

It's a state issue bar for the supposed constitutional right of abortion. A president can do nothing about it. Just as it isn't an issue of the EU but of it's members i.e.

While I do support abortion the SCOTUS is extremely activistic from an European perspective. Most European states allow for abortion by democratic decision, but not one of them ever had a court that dared to be as creative to read a right to abortion in a right to privacy. Any judge being so activistic would be frowned upon: if your ambition is in making policy you should become a politician and not a judge.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3999
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:31 am

Science does not provide the answer to moral questions. It is simply ignorant to say it does. Science does provide date about what is, but 'is' is not 'ought'. And ovum is half a potential life, and a sperm is another half of a potential life. A fertilized ovum fails to implant or thrive in any number of cases, and that failure has about never been regarded as a record-able death, nor have traditional religions require burials. Such spontaneous abortions are often sad events, but that is another topic.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12756
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Thu Jul 02, 2020 4:48 am

apodino wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
This argument that "a fetus is a human" is bordering on the lazy.


Its not just lazy, it is always hypocrisy. "Pro-lifers" don't have a coherent argument at all, and never had. It's pure desire to control women, no matter what excuse is made up.

Best regards
Thomas

I personally believe that Abortion actually gives women less control rather than more.


Ah.. "believe".

There are lots of Horny men out there who know that if they impregnate a woman she can always get an abortion. Thus it becomes much much easier for them to pressure women into Sex.


Well, then i guess we need laws against men. Since you are so willing to interfere with women´s bodies, i recommend doing that to those men instead, cutting their balls of as punishment. Restricting abortion access to fight that is exactly the same as banning short skirts, alcohol for women, mixed gender parties and leaving the house without a man at her side to fight rape.

Human Trafficking is another big problem. Abortion makes this horrific crime much much easier to get away with.


:rotfl:
Because human trafficking victims go to legal abortion clinics instead of falling down stairs........ But you are right, for the kind of people making women compliant by turning them into drug addicts can not possibly get Mifegyne. Or force them to be on birth control, or, or, or...

I can go on.


I am sure you can make up lots of obviously faulty "arguments".

One is that more Women are pro life than Men,


liar. From you source, Page 21:

Abortion is morally acceptable: 47% women, 42% men
Abortion is morally unacceptable: :45% women, 48% men
Depends: 8% women, 10% men.

Abortion rights have majority suppport from both, men and women, 55% women, 52% men.

And while your source doesn´t have data to break that down as far as i can tell, among people that are effective, women in their reproductive age, even less.

Also: Pro-lifers are more likely to have an abortion than pro-choice people, so that opinion seems to change when people are personally effected, and hence "public opinion" doesn´t man much, if anything.

Secondly, a gallup poll came out today that said more Americans find Abortion morally wrong than not.


and you are lying again.

And there is this:
https://www.pewforum.org/religious-land ... -abortion/

seems to be "pro-life" is a essentially a fundamentalist Christian thing. What religiou

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12756
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:10 am

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Science does not provide the answer to moral questions. It is simply ignorant to say it does. Science does provide date about what is, but 'is' is not 'ought'. And ovum is half a potential life, and a sperm is another half of a potential life. .


so.. masturbation is reckless abandonment of a child? :D

Science is absolutely able to check almost all moral positions for internal consistency, and it is absolutely clear that no "pro lifer" is consistent, unless they are hardcore fruiterians.

Science can quantify suffering by monitoring stress and pain indicators, and i would be highly surprised if a cow doesn´t suffer more when its calf if removed to get more milk out of her than essentially all abortion "victims".

And since the PRC is forced sterilizing women and aborting their fetusses, and had forced abortions for decades, any pro lifer that ever bought any product "made in the PRC" is a hypocrite anyways.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22179
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:17 am

apodino wrote:
I am not interested in controlling anyone. I personally believe that Abortion actually gives women less control rather than more. There are lots of Horny men out there who know that if they impregnate a woman she can always get an abortion. Thus it becomes much much easier for them to pressure women into Sex. Human Trafficking is another big problem. Abortion makes this horrific crime much much easier to get away with. I can go on.


Then there are the girls and women who are raped. The girls and women who are raped by their brother, father, son, uncle under the guise of "I love you". There are the women who have the heart wrenching and painful choice of "both I and my fetus will die if I continue with this pregnancy". There are the women who say "meh... .pregnant again...." There are the women who's birth control failed or were not allowed birth control because "the government should not pay for something I don't believe in".

Abortion is not a one note answer. Let the individual decide. No matter what you or I think.

For the record, I think abortion in place of birth control is horrible. But, it is none of my business. I would rather have safe abortions for stupid reasons because my morals are not everyone's morals.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3478
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Thu Jul 02, 2020 7:16 am

apodino wrote:
I like how the religious arguments in here are being made for Abortion, and there haven't been any religious arguments made on the pro-life side in here. :) Without turning this into a thread on religion (Its not), I will simply say that the old testament, which is what has been quoted repeatedly, is in there so that we better understand the New Testament and where Jesus was coming from in his ministry.

For starters it’s a fictional story, like lord of the rings. There is no evidence to suggest that that is what the Old Testament is at all. It’s all just a collection of some good and some bad stories, some with apparent good morals and some not so. For anyone to determine which are good or bad suggests that there that there is an overriding sense of morality to overlay on the meaning of the stories. This means that the bible either conveys morals or it doesn’t, any judgement you have made upon the morals therein is outside and so not the bible driving.

Either take all the stories of the bible as moral or accept that it isn’t moral guidance, anything else is intellectually dishonest.

apodino wrote:
Very few Christians will actually argue that Leviticus is iron clad cannon law and must be complied with or you are going to hell.

So what you are saying is:
People who believe a man in the clouds impregnated a 14year old virgin with himself so that he could come down to the earth and be tortured to death to forgive the people of wrong doings they didn’t do because he decided that’s how it works after a magic rib lady ate an apple because the talking snake told her to, those are the people to trust?


Apodino, should people be compelled by law to give blood if someone is in need?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12756
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Thu Jul 02, 2020 7:50 am

flipdewaf wrote:
apodino wrote:
I like how the religious arguments in here are being made for Abortion, and there haven't been any religious arguments made on the pro-life side in here. :) Without turning this into a thread on religion (Its not), I will simply say that the old testament, which is what has been quoted repeatedly, is in there so that we better understand the New Testament and where Jesus was coming from in his ministry.

For starters it’s a fictional story, like lord of the rings. There is no evidence to suggest that that is what the Old Testament is at all. It’s all just a collection of some good and some bad stories, some with apparent good morals and some not so. For anyone to determine which are good or bad suggests that there that there is an overriding sense of morality to overlay on the meaning of the stories. This means that the bible either conveys morals or it doesn’t, any judgement you have made upon the morals therein is outside and so not the bible driving.

Either take all the stories of the bible as moral or accept that it isn’t moral guidance, anything else is intellectually dishonest.


The OT commands abortions to be performed, and makes no fuzz about killing pregnant women, children or newborn babies ... heck god himself slow killed a new born instead of having King David stoned for murder. Different from slavery, that is absolutely supported by the Bible, there isn´t support for the "pro-life" stance.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3478
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:06 am

tommy1808 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
apodino wrote:
I like how the religious arguments in here are being made for Abortion, and there haven't been any religious arguments made on the pro-life side in here. :) Without turning this into a thread on religion (Its not), I will simply say that the old testament, which is what has been quoted repeatedly, is in there so that we better understand the New Testament and where Jesus was coming from in his ministry.

For starters it’s a fictional story, like lord of the rings. There is no evidence to suggest that that is what the Old Testament is at all. It’s all just a collection of some good and some bad stories, some with apparent good morals and some not so. For anyone to determine which are good or bad suggests that there that there is an overriding sense of morality to overlay on the meaning of the stories. This means that the bible either conveys morals or it doesn’t, any judgement you have made upon the morals therein is outside and so not the bible driving.

Either take all the stories of the bible as moral or accept that it isn’t moral guidance, anything else is intellectually dishonest.


The OT commands abortions to be performed, and makes no fuzz about killing pregnant women, children or newborn babies ... heck god himself slow killed a new born instead of having King David stoned for murder. Different from slavery, that is absolutely supported by the Bible, there isn´t support for the "pro-life" stance.

best regards
Thomas

It’s obvious why both the old and New Testament have the content they do and it’s that those were the prevailing morals at the time, some of those are still acceptable and some not, it isn’t making morals, it’s following and so shouldn’t be used as a guide to moral behaviour.

Back on the topic however Apodino hasn’t justified why I should be legally compelled to give my blood to someone else, my guess is that he’s already too worn out from all the gymnastics that’s had to be done already.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12756
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:19 am

flipdewaf wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:

For starters it’s a fictional story, like lord of the rings. There is no evidence to suggest that that is what the Old Testament is at all. It’s all just a collection of some good and some bad stories, some with apparent good morals and some not so. For anyone to determine which are good or bad suggests that there that there is an overriding sense of morality to overlay on the meaning of the stories. This means that the bible either conveys morals or it doesn’t, any judgement you have made upon the morals therein is outside and so not the bible driving.

Either take all the stories of the bible as moral or accept that it isn’t moral guidance, anything else is intellectually dishonest.


The OT commands abortions to be performed, and makes no fuzz about killing pregnant women, children or newborn babies ... heck god himself slow killed a new born instead of having King David stoned for murder. Different from slavery, that is absolutely supported by the Bible, there isn´t support for the "pro-life" stance.

best regards
Thomas

It’s obvious why both the old and New Testament have the content they do and it’s that those were the prevailing morals at the time, some of those are still acceptable and some not, it isn’t making morals, it’s following and so shouldn’t be used as a guide to moral behaviour.


Actually..... if you randomly pick one of the 600+ commandments and follow them, you are quite likely to end up in prison....

Back on the topic however Apodino hasn’t justified why I should be legally compelled to give my blood to someone else, my guess is that he’s already too worn out from all the gymnastics that’s had to be done already.


and you very likely won´t..... and why stop with blood? Why not kidney, bone marrow and such, and of course mandatory, no-opt out, organ donation after death. Salvaging anything usable from a carcass has exactly zero health downside for the spare part shop after all, and not having a will, being dead and all ..... that has to come a long time before anyone nags about abortions.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12756
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:43 am

alfa164 wrote:
:checkmark: :checkmark: Unfortunately, the entire process - witness both Gorsuch's and Kavanaugh's promises to uphold precedent when questioned in their confirmation hearings, versus their actual actions in the instant cause.


Two conservative supreme court judges lying under oath.... ? Imagine that. I am shocked. Not.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
stl07
Posts: 2288
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:26 am

This law was written by a Democrat (and black and women :) ) for all you yelling death to the GOP (although I myself am not opposed to that). Also, for those of you talking with apodino, part of being pro-choice means that you CHOOSE. So if apodino CHOOSES life, good on him. He is not telling you to not abort your child, he is simply saying he doesn't want to kill his.
Instead of typing in "mods", consider using the report function.
Love how every "travel blogger" says they will never fly AA/Ethihad again and then says it again and again on subsequent flights.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 12947
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Thu Jul 02, 2020 11:25 am

Jetty wrote:
Aesma wrote:
Trump had the house and the senate for two years, why wasn't abortion banned ? Sure, it would have probably been struck down by the SCOTUS, but so what, that didn't stop him for other stuff.

Bush was a born again nut, why didn't he ban abortion ?

It's a state issue bar for the supposed constitutional right of abortion. A president can do nothing about it. Just as it isn't an issue of the EU but of it's members i.e.

While I do support abortion the SCOTUS is extremely activistic from an European perspective. Most European states allow for abortion by democratic decision, but not one of them ever had a court that dared to be as creative to read a right to abortion in a right to privacy. Any judge being so activistic would be frowned upon: if your ambition is in making policy you should become a politician and not a judge.


So a president can't campaign on and support an amendment to the constitution ? Lawmakers can't vote on it ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 12947
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: SCOTUS Strikes again: Abortion rights prevail

Thu Jul 02, 2020 11:26 am

stl07 wrote:
This law was written by a Democrat (and black and women :) ) for all you yelling death to the GOP (although I myself am not opposed to that). Also, for those of you talking with apodino, part of being pro-choice means that you CHOOSE. So if apodino CHOOSES life, good on him. He is not telling you to not abort your child, he is simply saying he doesn't want to kill his.


No.

He wants the choice to be illegal. He's anti-choice.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alberchico, Boston92, casinterest, FGITD, lentokone, Newark727, skyservice_330, WingsFan and 33 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos