Gross mismanagement and unethical fit the bill. How can you blow the whistle to your bosses when it’s your bosses causing the problem. I think the American people had the right to know what this group of religious nutters were planning on doing!

Kiwirob wrote:

Gross mismanagement and unethical fit the bill. How can you blow the whistle to your bosses when it’s your bosses causing the problem. I think the American people had the right to know what this group of religious nutters were planning on doing!

You go above your boss, and whether you think that or not, its illegal in the USA to do that. The decision will come out when it does.

Kiwirob wrote:

Wouldn't the clerks be protected by whistleblower laws?

They aren't whistleblowers if they leak which way a ruling may go.

bpatus297 wrote:

You go above your boss,

Aren't the supreme court and politicians employed by "we the people"?

petertenthije wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

You go above your boss,

Aren't the supreme court and politicians employed by "we the people"?[

Really, you want to argue that leaking information is the same as whistleblowing? Whistleblowing (and the protections that come with it) is a very specific process that must be followed to get the protections. Political leaks are 100% not covered.

petertenthije wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

You go above your boss,

Aren't the supreme court and politicians employed by "we the people"?

Politicians yes, supreme court justices no.

And to nobody's surprise the final opinion is basically a more "refined" version of the draft opinion.

The partisan hacks of SCOTUS make it such a joke...

Ultimately any abortion ban disproportionally affect females from lower income demographics, such as African-American and Hispanics, but also whites that lives in rural area in red states. But hey, like those out of touch SCOTUS members who lives in mansions in Chevy Chase cares...

zakuivcustom wrote:

And to nobody's surprise the final opinion is basically a more "refined" version of the draft opinion.

The partisan hacks of SCOTUS make it such a joke...

Ultimately any abortion ban disproportionally affect females from lower income demographics, such as African-American and Hispanics, but also whites that lives in rural area in red states. But hey, like those out of touch SCOTUS members who lives in mansions in Chevy Chase cares...

And it will not stop there. Thomas's opinion states that he is ready to gut all laws related to the 14th amendment.

casinterest wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

And to nobody's surprise the final opinion is basically a more "refined" version of the draft opinion.

The partisan hacks of SCOTUS make it such a joke...

Ultimately any abortion ban disproportionally affect females from lower income demographics, such as African-American and Hispanics, but also whites that lives in rural area in red states. But hey, like those out of touch SCOTUS members who lives in mansions in Chevy Chase cares...

And it will not stop there. Thomas's opinion states that he is ready to gut all laws related to the 14th amendment.

Well...that would be one way to rid himself of the anchor that his looney wife has become in the last year or so. Just have the marriage nullified as Loving v. Virginia would be overturned.

I've never understood the topic of abortion.

If Republicans and Trump supporters really are as racist as the left says they are, shouldn't they WANT abortion to be legal as it would mean A LOT less black babies in the the world? Isn't abortion the best possible thing for racists who don't want non-whites in this country?

Not a surprising result at all. I really don't see any point in having a unified country anymore. Maybe devolution to some EU-like loose coalition of independent, sovereign states would be better.

SoCalPilot wrote:

I've never understood the topic of abortion.

If Republicans and Trump supporters really are as racist as the left says they are, shouldn't they WANT abortion to be legal as it would mean A LOT less black babies in the the world? Isn't abortion the best possible thing for racists who don't want non-whites in this country?

They are more sexist than racist, I guess. Frankly, the modern GOP shares a lot of views with ultra-orthodox religious insurgents in Southwest Asia. This ruling returns the choice of abortion to the states. I say we go one step further and let individuals choose to have an abortion or not. It removes individual freedom, choice, and bodily autonomy.

N867DA wrote:

Not a surprising result at all. I really don't see any point in having a unified country anymore. Maybe devolution to some EU-like loose coalition of independent, sovereign states would be better.

We had a unified country before this decision?

N867DA wrote:

Not a surprising result at all. I really don't see any point in having a unified country anymore. Maybe devolution to some EU-like loose coalition of independent, sovereign states would be better.

Perhaps because the EU is a bit like the US already. Never heard of Malta? they don't allow abortion AT ALL, for any circumstance. And they are part of the EU

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

I'm feeling some faint historical echoes of the Dred Scott decision - the Supreme Court steps in to offer a broad ruling on a polarizing issue that the other branches of government can't reach a consensus on, but because it gives one side everything and the other side nothing, it can't serve as the final word and only lengthens and worsens the controversy.

casinterest wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

And to nobody's surprise the final opinion is basically a more "refined" version of the draft opinion.

The partisan hacks of SCOTUS make it such a joke...

Ultimately any abortion ban disproportionally affect females from lower income demographics, such as African-American and Hispanics, but also whites that lives in rural area in red states. But hey, like those out of touch SCOTUS members who lives in mansions in Chevy Chase cares...

And it will not stop there. Thomas's opinion states that he is ready to gut all laws related to the 14th amendment.

Could states that bam abortion also ban birth control?

The US pushes itself further and further away from its peers, it’s just nuts how this is even an issue in the 2020’s.

On the steady road to Gilead, one painful step at a time.

SoCalPilot wrote:

I've never understood the topic of abortion.

If Republicans and Trump supporters really are as racist as the left says they are, shouldn't they WANT abortion to be legal as it would mean A LOT less black babies in the the world? Isn't abortion the best possible thing for racists who don't want non-whites in this country?

I’ve also had the same thought, it makes no sense, it also means a lot more babies will end up in trash cans.

Kiwirob wrote:

Could states that bam abortion also ban birth control?

Sure! But they would be insane to do that if they care about reducing unplanned pregnancies (lol, they don't care about reducing unplanned pregnancies)

luckyone wrote:

casinterest wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

And to nobody's surprise the final opinion is basically a more "refined" version of the draft opinion.

The partisan hacks of SCOTUS make it such a joke...

Ultimately any abortion ban disproportionally affect females from lower income demographics, such as African-American and Hispanics, but also whites that lives in rural area in red states. But hey, like those out of touch SCOTUS members who lives in mansions in Chevy Chase cares...

And it will not stop there. Thomas's opinion states that he is ready to gut all laws related to the 14th amendment.

Well...that would be one way to rid himself of the anchor that his looney wife has become in the last year or so. Just have the marriage nullified as Loving v. Virginia would be overturned.

Not only that, but it would also lay the groundwork for making housing discrimination legal again. He and his wife could find themselves legally required to live in separate neighborhoods.

Fun times ahead. I can't wait to find out what other rights this activist court says we never had but were mistakenly granted because of "egregious" SC decisions.

What a shitfest of a ruling.

The majority struck down Roe v. Wade because abortion is not a right mentioned in the constitution. Carrying weapons for self-defense isn't, either. The 2nd Amendment clearly says "A well regulated militia..."

As is the concept of "monetary donations = speech".

Or that companies have 1st Amendment rights.

Newark727 wrote:

I'm feeling some faint historical echoes of the Dred Scott decision - the Supreme Court steps in to offer a broad ruling on a polarizing issue that the other branches of government can't reach a consensus on, but because it gives one side everything and the other side nothing, it can't serve as the final word and only lengthens and worsens the controversy.

Dred Scott basically put the slavery question to the states, isn't it?

flyingturtle wrote:

Dred Scott basically put the slavery question to the states, isn't it?

It essentially said all prior compromises on slavery were invalid and Congress had no right to bar it from any state. It was a much broader ruling than the legal question before the court demanded and threw away any chance that the Supreme Court could act as a mediator on the issue.

It's not a one-to-one comparison with what this court is doing, admittedly, but I fear that it is likely to have a similar provocative effect.

SoCalPilot wrote:

I've never understood the topic of abortion.

If Republicans and Trump supporters really are as racist as the left says they are, shouldn't they WANT abortion to be legal as it would mean A LOT less black babies in the the world? Isn't abortion the best possible thing for racists who don't want non-whites in this country?

That's because they aren't really as racist as the left says they are. Nor is the left a bunch of "commies" as the right tries to proclaim. Most people are just people and aren't extreme in either direction. The opposition to abortion is primarily because a group of people believe, based on religious or other convictions, that life begins at conception and that abortion kills a living human. Personally, I'm in the solidly "I don't know where life begins" camp so I have no idea how to feel about abortion.

Kiwirob wrote:

casinterest wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

And to nobody's surprise the final opinion is basically a more "refined" version of the draft opinion.

The partisan hacks of SCOTUS make it such a joke...

Ultimately any abortion ban disproportionally affect females from lower income demographics, such as African-American and Hispanics, but also whites that lives in rural area in red states. But hey, like those out of touch SCOTUS members who lives in mansions in Chevy Chase cares...

And it will not stop there. Thomas's opinion states that he is ready to gut all laws related to the 14th amendment.

Could states that bam abortion also ban birth control?

The US pushes itself further and further away from its peers, it’s just nuts how this is even an issue in the 2020’s.

It is nuts, but it is what you get when you elect a criminal traitor, and he nominates three to the bench that are confirmed with 50% of the vote including traitors that tried to overthrow the government.

Whilst it’s a shame that this ruling has occurred it makes me feel all the more lucky to live in a country where we can still have our personal freedoms upheld, a true land of the free.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

Whilst it’s a shame that this ruling has occurred it makes me feel all the more lucky to live in a country where we can still have our personal freedoms upheld, a true land of the free.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Any American can still get a legal abortion, even under this ruling.

So how are they going to ban the morning after pill, will other states now have to enact Texas like laws that if someone crosses state lines to buy the pill they will be reported then charged? It would be much simpler to get the Federal government to ban the pill altogether, not sure if that is possible as that would be a restriction of trade for those states who allow abortion.

par13del wrote:

So how are they going to ban the morning after pill, will other states now have to enact Texas like laws that if someone crosses state lines to buy the pill they will be reported then charged? It would be much simpler to get the Federal government to ban the pill altogether, not sure if that is possible as that would be a restriction of trade for those states who allow abortion.

Biden said that the DoJ will oppose any laws prohibiting the right to travel for medical care. Also will uphold FDA rulings as to what medications are safe and permitted in terms of care.

Hopefully we can eventually turn the tide and finally ban bibles, crosses and religion in general

Some very wealthy people are abhorred by this, I wonder if they could set up an abortion hotline, with free transportation to the nearest state allowing abortion ?

LabQuest wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Whilst it’s a shame that this ruling has occurred it makes me feel all the more lucky to live in a country where we can still have our personal freedoms upheld, a true land of the free.

Fred

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Any American can still get a legal abortion, even under this ruling.

Didn't some of the states vote laws that make it illegal to seek an abortion anywhere ?

About European Union comparisons, the setup of the EU is very different from the US, healthcare isn't a competency of the EU for example (as we realized during the pandemic). Abortion is legal in most EU countries, for some of them it's very new (Ireland), and in some of them it's still a hot topic issue (Poland).

On the other hand plenty of rules and regulations are unified across the EU, whereas in the US they vary state by state or even county by county, complicating business.

SL1200MK2 wrote:

Hopefully we can eventually turn the tide and finally ban bibles, crosses and religion in general

This isn't really about religion. The Bible has more to say about mixing fabrics, eating shellfish, and masturbation than it does abortions. It's about a naked lust for power, and the cult of power that killed Christianity in the United States and wears its skin as a disguise.

SL1200MK2 wrote:

Hopefully we can eventually turn the tide and finally ban bibles, crosses and religion in general

Like North Korea or the USSR? No thanks. Also, zero percent chance of that happening here.

TriJets wrote:

Like North Korea or the USSR? No thanks. Also, zero percent chance of that happening here.

If a totalitarian despotism comes to the United States, it's pretty obvious to me who's going to be running it - and it isn't the atheists. No, it'll be wrapped in God and the flag like every other hustle that's been run on the American people since they passed the Civil Rights Act.

LabQuest wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Whilst it’s a shame that this ruling has occurred it makes me feel all the more lucky to live in a country where we can still have our personal freedoms upheld, a true land of the free.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Any American can still get a legal abortion, even under this ruling.

Semantics game aside, we know this raises incredible burdens for poor people to get an abortion if they live in a Handmaid's Tale State. Those same people deserve must-issue permits, but not basic privacy or body autonomy? This ruling is a step back for liberty, individual freedom, and choice.

Susan Collins has just graduated from being "concerned" to "sad", claiming that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were being "inconsistent' with what they told her. If you want to blame anyone, blame her for pushing these guys, especially Kavanaugh, through.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/susan-col ... ion-rights

Whatever happened to "states' rights" and "settled law"? I know, this is far right wing extremists legislating from the bench to turn this into a "christian" theocracy. All because heterosexual white "christian" men demand more protections than everyone else. Like before.

flyingturtle wrote:

What a shitfest of a ruling.

The majority struck down Roe v. Wade because abortion is not a right mentioned in the constitution. Carrying weapons for self-defense isn't, either. The 2nd Amendment clearly says "A well regulated militia..."

As is the concept of "monetary donations = speech".

Or that companies have 1st Amendment rights.

Newark727 wrote:

I'm feeling some faint historical echoes of the Dred Scott decision - the Supreme Court steps in to offer a broad ruling on a polarizing issue that the other branches of government can't reach a consensus on, but because it gives one side everything and the other side nothing, it can't serve as the final word and only lengthens and worsens the controversy.

Dred Scott basically put the slavery question to the states, isn't it?

You need to look up what "well regulated milita" meant in the late 1700s.

TriJets wrote:

SoCalPilot wrote:

I've never understood the topic of abortion.

If Republicans and Trump supporters really are as racist as the left says they are, shouldn't they WANT abortion to be legal as it would mean A LOT less black babies in the the world? Isn't abortion the best possible thing for racists who don't want non-whites in this country?

That's because they aren't really as racist as the left says they are. Nor is the left a bunch of "commies" as the right tries to proclaim. Most people are just people and aren't extreme in either direction. The opposition to abortion is primarily because a group of people believe, based on religious or other convictions, that life begins at conception and that abortion kills a living human. Personally, I'm in the solidly "I don't know where life begins" camp so I have no idea how to feel about abortion.

I'm am right where you are, but a lot of people are going to say we are lying and that its about controlling women.

flipdewaf wrote:

Whilst it’s a shame that this ruling has occurred it makes me feel all the more lucky to live in a country where we can still have our personal freedoms upheld, a true land of the free.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Out of curiosity, what are the abortion laws in your country?

Avatar2go wrote:

par13del wrote:

So how are they going to ban the morning after pill, will other states now have to enact Texas like laws that if someone crosses state lines to buy the pill they will be reported then charged? It would be much simpler to get the Federal government to ban the pill altogether, not sure if that is possible as that would be a restriction of trade for those states who allow abortion.

Biden said that the DoJ will oppose any laws prohibiting the right to travel for medical care. Also will uphold FDA rulings as to what medications are safe and permitted in terms of care.

As they should.

N867DA wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Whilst it’s a shame that this ruling has occurred it makes me feel all the more lucky to live in a country where we can still have our personal freedoms upheld, a true land of the free.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Any American can still get a legal abortion, even under this ruling.

Semantics game aside, we know this raises incredible burdens for poor people to get an abortion if they live in a Handmaid's Tale State. Those same people deserve must-issue permits, but not basic privacy or body autonomy? This ruling is a step back for liberty, individual freedom, and choice.

You really asked to put semantics away then mention "Handmaid's Tale" in the same sentence?

seb146 wrote:

Whatever happened to "states' rights" and "settled law"? I know, this is far right wing extremists legislating from the bench to turn this into a "christian" theocracy. All because heterosexual white "christian" men demand more protections than everyone else. Like before.

This just pushed the issue back to the states. I think a women and black man voted for this too.

bpatus297 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Whilst it’s a shame that this ruling has occurred it makes me feel all the more lucky to live in a country where we can still have our personal freedoms upheld, a true land of the free.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Out of curiosity, what are the abortion laws in your country?

Legal and free up to 23wks and 6 days. A timescale generally in line with a foetus being viable, I.e. when it can survive without behaving as a parasite.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

leader1 wrote:

Susan Collins has just graduated from being "concerned" to "sad", claiming that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were being "inconsistent' with what they told her. If you want to blame anyone, blame her for pushing these guys, especially Kavanaugh, through.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/susan-col ... ion-rights

Boo hoo Suzie. People like you and your supporters are why I left your state after graduation. I'm embarrassed to even say I'm even from Maine.

That said, how do two mostly white, poorly-educated rural states (KY and ME) have so much power in the Senate right now?

flipdewaf wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Whilst it’s a shame that this ruling has occurred it makes me feel all the more lucky to live in a country where we can still have our personal freedoms upheld, a true land of the free.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Out of curiosity, what are the abortion laws in your country?

Legal and free up to 23wks and 6 days. A timescale generally in line with a foetus being viable, I.e. when it can survive without behaving as a parasite.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And there will still be plenty of states that have, minus the free part. I personally think the heartbeat is a good compromise since I am really not convinced one way or another when life begins. However, the minute you call a fetus a parasite, I'm done.

bpatus297 wrote:

This just pushed the issue back to the states. I think a women and black man voted for this too.

And several states have already stated that, by God, they will ban such infidel acts.

The fact that some women are in favor of this act doesn't change that it fundamentally opresses women. For any reasonably controversial topic, you'll always find some who've internalized the oppression and support their own oppression. Did you know that there was an association of Jews who welcomed Hitler's rise to power despite his open distaste for anything jewish (until the organisation was dissolved and their members were thrown into concentration camps)?

bpatus297 wrote:

N867DA wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

Any American can still get a legal abortion, even under this ruling.

Semantics game aside, we know this raises incredible burdens for poor people to get an abortion if they live in a Handmaid's Tale State. Those same people deserve must-issue permits, but not basic privacy or body autonomy? This ruling is a step back for liberty, individual freedom, and choice.

You really asked to put semantics away then mention "Handmaid's Tale" in the same sentence?

It's a bit dirty, but I can stand by it. Saying 'any American can get an abortion' is asking a reader to intentionally ignore that people with limited funds, young people, and people with mobility or travel restrictions are de facto precluded from having an abortion. It asks a reader to accept that it is possible for anyone to have an abortion the way it's possible for me to win the lottery despite not buying a ticket. It's kind of a deceitful argument--not one of exaggeration or creative liberty. Bringing in the Handmaid's Tale is an unnecessary reference to a dystopia that's a bit excessive, but doesn't really ask for any suspension of disbelief. I know I'm biased here, but I'm pretty disappointed in this ruling and take it as a huge step back.

bpatus297 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Out of curiosity, what are the abortion laws in your country?

Legal and free up to 23wks and 6 days. A timescale generally in line with a foetus being viable, I.e. when it can survive without behaving as a parasite.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And there will still be plenty of states that have, minus the free part. I personally think the heartbeat is a good compromise since I am really not convinced one way or another when life begins. However, the minute you call a fetus a parasite, I'm done.

Parasite: A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host organism and gets its food from or at the expense of its host. A fetus is a parasite by the medical definition. Nevermind that the term has been given a larger emotional connotation, but plenty of parasites exist without being an entirely negative relationship with the host.

bpatus297 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Out of curiosity, what are the abortion laws in your country?

Legal and free up to 23wks and 6 days. A timescale generally in line with a foetus being viable, I.e. when it can survive without behaving as a parasite.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And there will still be plenty of states that have, minus the free part. I personally think the heartbeat is a good compromise since I am really not convinced one way or another when life begins. However, the minute you call a fetus a parasite, I'm done.

Parasite: An organism living in, on, or with another organism in order to obtain nutrients, grow, or multiply often in a state that directly or indirectly harms the host

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasite

Talking about life is simply a distraction from the issue that is really about limiting the personal freedoms a certain fraction of society.

Tell me, are you in favour of enforced organ and/or blood donation in the name of life saving or is your ‘innocent life’ argument not intellectually consistent when it doesn’t help your argument.

It’s clear why you say you are done as it’s not very convenient for you…

I’m not done.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

N867DA wrote:

This ruling is a step back for liberty, individual freedom, and choice.

Yes, it is. I agree 100%.

But at the same time, it’s a step forward for the rule of law. To allow judges to run wild with their imaginations of what is actually stated and meant in the US Constitution is essentially the same as revoking the entire Constitution. Might as well not have it, then. So to then decry a “loss of a constitutional right” becomes almost hypocritical when the judges that created it made it up out of thin air, which means you practically didn’t have a constitution in the first place if they’re allowed to do that.

The right to an abortion will need to go through the proper, democratic steps to consolidate itself. That means congress, not unelected judges. Just like it was done in other liberal countries. That’s the solid way to do it, the way that gives women judicial/legal security and stability.