Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
victrola
Posts: 913
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:31 pm

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Thu Jul 14, 2022 1:43 am

I am pro life and I am torn on this. No I don't want a 10 year old to be pregnant and have to deal with this at such a young age, but on the other hand, this is a human life that is in her belly and unfortunately an Abortion is fatal to that human life. The only way I see out of this for both sides is to come up with a way to end a pregnancy without it being harmful to the unborn child.

There is no way for both sides to come up with a way to end this pregnancy without being harmful to the unborn child. Your response is a pathetic cop out. I don't give a damn about the so called "human life in her belly". This little girl's life is much more important than this fetus in her body. In my view you are anti-life.
 
apodino
Posts: 4141
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Thu Jul 14, 2022 3:13 am

victrola wrote:
The Democrats have played this issue so pathetically. They should introduce legislation in Congress that permits abortion in the case of rape or incest. That would force everyone in Congress to vote on this. I'm sick of an extremist minority in this country shoving their perverted ignorant religious views on the reasonable majority of Americans who were in favor of Roe vs Wade.


They have and here is the deal. I posted earlier that the Supreme court got the ruling right from a legal perspective which is their job. All that did was kick this issue to the legislative branch where issues like this are decided. If there is widespread support for this, take a vote and put the republicans on the defensive. Pelosi is supposed to be this master legislator, but she can't get this crap done? Better yet, put abortion on the ballot in a number of states and let the people decide. This is what Ireland did. I have noticed that in most other democracies, big social issues are decided through the democratic process; not the courts as always seems to be the case in this country. Obergfell should have been codified a long time ago. There is no reason not to codify it. But it hasn't been done.

victrola wrote:
I am pro life and I am torn on this. No I don't want a 10 year old to be pregnant and have to deal with this at such a young age, but on the other hand, this is a human life that is in her belly and unfortunately an Abortion is fatal to that human life. The only way I see out of this for both sides is to come up with a way to end a pregnancy without it being harmful to the unborn child.

There is no way for both sides to come up with a way to end this pregnancy without being harmful to the unborn child. Your response is a pathetic cop out. I don't give a damn about the so called "human life in her belly". This little girl's life is much more important than this fetus in her body. In my view you are anti-life.

I will always support doing whatever it takes to save the life of a mother. That is non-negotiable for me. What I am saying is, if a woman doesn't want to use her body to develop an unborn child I respect that. But I would like to see the child survive when it is removed from the womb. Maybe one day science will come up with a way for unborn babies to develop outside the womb. Thus a woman can terminate her pregnancy as she chooses, but the unborn child need not pay with his/her life either. There are so many couples waiting to adopt that finding a couple to raise such a child would not be hard to find.
 
bpatus297
Posts: 827
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Thu Jul 14, 2022 10:44 am

petertenthije wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
With that said, the pregnant question can be a valid immigration question. There is a pretty big birth tourist industry where people will visit a country, like the US, as a visitor or other non-immigrant visa classification for the purpose of giving birth. Via the concept of Jus Soli (law of soil), almost all babies born in the US are citizens.

I doubt that there are going to be a lot of Australians trying to get citizenship this way.


Maybe so, I am just giving a reasonable explanation for why that may have been asked.
 
bpatus297
Posts: 827
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Thu Jul 14, 2022 10:48 am

scbriml wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
The abortion question is very very strange. I would be interested as to why they thought that was a pertinent question to ask.


It's beyond strange. I'd venture to suggest it's none of CBP's goddamned business whatsoever.


Why are you so angry towards a country where you don't live?
 
GDB
Posts: 15654
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Thu Jul 14, 2022 11:03 am

scbriml wrote:
B777LRF wrote:
Just heard on the radio this morning that a 10 year old girl has been denied abortion in Ohio.


There's so much wrong in just that one line. SMH. The pro-lifers must be really proud.


That they are, they'll think it's her fault plus GOP states seem somewhat tolerant of child marriage.
Inbreeding causes lower intelligence, so there's that.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 21232
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Thu Jul 14, 2022 10:16 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
The abortion question is very very strange. I would be interested as to why they thought that was a pertinent question to ask.


It's beyond strange. I'd venture to suggest it's none of CBP's goddamned business whatsoever.


Why are you so angry towards a country where you don't live?


Huh? Why is it any of CBP's business how many abortions a woman has or hasn't had? It's nobody's business except her's and her doctor's. Or do you think otherwise?
 
bpatus297
Posts: 827
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Fri Jul 15, 2022 11:04 am

scbriml wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
scbriml wrote:

It's beyond strange. I'd venture to suggest it's none of CBP's goddamned business whatsoever.


Why are you so angry towards a country where you don't live?


Huh? Why is it any of CBP's business how many abortions a woman has or hasn't had? It's nobody's business except her's and her doctor's. Or do you think otherwise?


Did you comprehend what I wrote? I said it was strange why they would have asked that. I'm not going to condemn them out right, there are too many errors in the article for me to believe that there isn't more to the story. Since we don't know the whole story its hard to make a judgement on this. We don't know what she said that could have sparked that question.

I love how everything has become if you don't agree 100% with a person, you are 100% against a person and a perceived "enemy". Humanity is failing.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 16262
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Fri Jul 15, 2022 2:34 pm

While there is significant support of legal abortions for rape, incest rape and save the life of the women (including ectopic pregnancy) for many anti-abortion/pro-livers is their objections of selective 'birth control' or 'defective baby' abortions.

The overwhelming number of legal abortions are selective for personal and financial reasons, failures of or use of birth control (their or their partners' choice - some women cannot use birth control pills for certain health reasons) and many object to those justification to get one. For 'defective baby' abortions, if it is determined in a doctor's examination and tests that a developing child may have a serious developmental problem or severe physical disability once born, it might be less cruel, not be a financial or emotional burden to both that developing child and the parent(s) to have an abortion. For the anti-abortion/pro-life absolutists they believe it is 'God's will' as to have been raped, got pregnant in a one-night stand, birth control non-use or failure, have a developing child with serous medical problems.Sadly for too many politicians they have chosen to take hard sides on abortion to win elections and re-elections more that deal with the moral issues as to abortion.

So, how do we reach a new balance between the 'Handmaiden' states and 'Blue' states post the overturning of Roe v. Wade? To me selective abortions, as well as for rape/incest rape should be allowed to about 15-18 weeks of development where a few weeks later with modern medicine can survive outside the womb. The overwhelming numbers of abortions are done in that time frame. A rape victim should be able to use emergency conception within hours or days of the assault on them. Some state have considered that in their laws. As to potential disability of a developing child, it may not be known until after 15-18 weeks and this must be a decision of the parent(s) and the doctors, not governments.. Abortions as late in the 3rd trimester to save the life of the mother, miscarriages, with medical problems of the woman or child should be allowed. Late term abortions are like 1% of all abortions.
 
victrola
Posts: 913
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:31 pm

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Fri Jul 15, 2022 2:50 pm

Why are the Democrats unable to prevail on this issue? A large majority of Americans support the right to abortion in the first trimester and also support it after the first trimester if the woman's life is endangered. A very small minority of fanatics in this country believe abortion should be forbidden under any circumstances. Why are the majority of Americans being dictated to by an extremist minority? Why is it that the sick and perverted belief that a 10 year old rape victim should be forced to endure pregnancy so popular among Republicans?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-AAWSPBN
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 15669
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Fri Jul 15, 2022 3:37 pm

victrola wrote:
Why are the Democrats unable to prevail on this issue? A large majority of Americans support the right to abortion in the first trimester and also support it after the first trimester if the woman's life is endangered. A very small minority of fanatics in this country believe abortion should be forbidden under any circumstances. Why are the majority of Americans being dictated to by an extremist minority? Why is it that the sick and perverted belief that a 10 year old rape victim should be forced to endure pregnancy so popular among Republicans?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-AAWSPBN


Just wait until the september./october ad wars start. You are going to see the GOP blasted by their Jan 6 votes, and their stands on abortion and other rights from the dems.
The GOP is going to try to wage the "Inflation" battle, and the Dems better be prepared to point out that the whole world is battling that issue, but what good is an economy if you have no rights to your own body and marriage, which is what the GOP is working on taking away.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 21232
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Fri Jul 15, 2022 5:54 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
Did you comprehend what I wrote? I said it was strange why they would have asked that.


Did you comprehend what I wrote? I said it wasn't just strange, it's none of their business.

I'm struggling to see where I "condemned" them, or violently disagreed with you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 15669
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Mon Jul 18, 2022 4:53 pm

Remember all those states rights folks arguing for abortion laws to be decided by states.

Yeah.....

https://www.businessinsider.com/anti-ab ... tes-2022-7

A major anti-abortion rights group sent a memo to Republican members of Congress last week saying they should not leave the issue to the states and outlined talking points on how they should "keep pro-lifers on offense."
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 12125
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Mon Jul 18, 2022 5:15 pm

I have been happily framing the discussion as one between those who favor a "No choice" agenda versus those who support rights of women.

No choicers vs women's rights.

Tugg
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24774
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:37 pm

Women and their doctors are afraid of reporting miscarriages now

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-a ... nant-women
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/03/11090153 ... nancy-loss

Because one side wants us to live by their interpretation of their holy book...
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2794
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:36 pm

I'll never have anyone tell me that America isn't a backwards country. And when I've said that before on here before and was warned.

Amazing that a minority percentage of people want to and are able to take basic human rights away from the majority. Abortion is a human right as defined by an interpretation of international law because it affects the whole trajectory of a woman's or girl's life. It is ghastly.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 12125
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Mon Jul 18, 2022 11:32 pm

Pellegrine wrote:
Abortion is a human right as defined by an interpretation of international law because it affects the whole trajectory of a woman's or girl's life. It is ghastly.

It is always a woman's choice whether they want to carry a baby to term or not. That people outside of the woman want to and insist they have the right to control the woman is disgusting.

And if you read the Alito ruling it is also disgusting how he forced his personal agenda into a court judgement. There is little "judgement" or "law" (for that yuo have to look at Roberts opinion, which I find i basically agree with).

Tugg
 
luckyone
Posts: 4530
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Wed Aug 03, 2022 12:33 pm

In a perhaps somewhat surprising result, Kansas voters have rejected increased abortion restrictions in a referendum.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3 ... -movement/
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 21232
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Wed Aug 03, 2022 12:40 pm

luckyone wrote:
In a perhaps somewhat surprising result, Kansas voters have rejected increased abortion restrictions in a referendum.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3 ... -movement/


Frankly, I’m shocked that Kansas would vote that way. Assuming the projection is confirmed, will this affect other Red states who had or will have almost a total ban on abortions in any circumstances? Why haven’t other states let the people vote on this issue?
 
luckyone
Posts: 4530
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Wed Aug 03, 2022 12:46 pm

scbriml wrote:
luckyone wrote:
In a perhaps somewhat surprising result, Kansas voters have rejected increased abortion restrictions in a referendum.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3 ... -movement/


Frankly, I’m shocked that Kansas would vote that way. Assuming the projection is confirmed, will this affect other Red states who had or will have almost a total ban on abortions in any circumstances? Why haven’t other states let the people vote on this issue?

My best guess (whatever that's worth) is that pretty much every other state that has attempted abortion restrictions did so or had processes in place to do so prior to the Dobbs ruling and weren't prepared to catch the truck. I suspect the GOP was 1. Caught off guard that the SCOTUS would actually rule the way they did, and 2. They weren't prepared for the breadth of the blowback. I wonder if Kansas buried this in a primary in an attempt to make it go away so the legislature doesn't have to deal with it.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 16262
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:21 pm

A personal experience this past weekend supports my belief that abortion must be legal especially as to saving the life of the mother. A niece of mine here in NJ had a problem with her pregnancy at about 24-25 weeks. She went to the nearest hospital who then transferred her to a hospital with specialized abilities to deal with her crises situation. They delivered the baby by cesarean, thankfully saving both her and the baby. The baby will have to stay in the hospital for 6-8 weeks until more fully developed and my niece will be recovering as well. Apparently she has good health insurance. I told her over 4th of July weekend that I am glad she was in NJ, not in one of the 'handmaiden' states. If instead of what happened she was in danger of dying and the baby not surviving, she would have needed an abortion it could be done to save her life.Her mother before she was born in the late 1980's had 2 mid-term miscarriages that required an abortion to save her life and able to have her daughter and son a few years later.
The referendum vote in Kansas to amend their state Constitution to end access to abortion failed to pass. That shows that even in a hard Conservative state many have limits on trying to limit or ban legal abortions including for the saving the life of the mother as in the cases I noted above.
 
Avatar2go
Posts: 1392
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:42 pm

scbriml wrote:
luckyone wrote:
In a perhaps somewhat surprising result, Kansas voters have rejected increased abortion restrictions in a referendum.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3 ... -movement/


Frankly, I’m shocked that Kansas would vote that way. Assuming the projection is confirmed, will this affect other Red states who had or will have almost a total ban on abortions in any circumstances? Why haven’t other states let the people vote on this issue?


It depends on the individual state. All the blue states will maintain pro-choice rights. A fair fraction of the red states will as well, at least in some form. But some red states will not. The benefit of Roe was that it universalized those rights under a Constitutional premise. There was huge value in that, that was overturned in Dobbs, in the name of states rights. Really sad but I'm willing to bet that in the long term, it's a fluke of the conservative majority that will eventually be undone.
 
luckyone
Posts: 4530
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:46 pm

Avatar2go wrote:
scbriml wrote:
luckyone wrote:
In a perhaps somewhat surprising result, Kansas voters have rejected increased abortion restrictions in a referendum.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3 ... -movement/


Frankly, I’m shocked that Kansas would vote that way. Assuming the projection is confirmed, will this affect other Red states who had or will have almost a total ban on abortions in any circumstances? Why haven’t other states let the people vote on this issue?


It depends on the individual state. All the blue states will maintain pro-choice rights. A fair fraction of the red states will as well, at least in some form. But some red states will not. The benefit of Roe was that it universalized those rights under a Constitutional premise. There was huge value in that, that was overturned in Dobbs, in the name of states rights. Really sad but I'm willing to bet that in the long term, it's a fluke of the conservative majority that will eventually be undone.

Fair point. The ultimately irony of extreme positions is that eventually some of them will be codified into law, and people will have to live with the unintentional consequences of those policies, which they (shockingly!) suddenly find problematic.
 
apodino
Posts: 4141
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Wed Aug 03, 2022 3:15 pm

luckyone wrote:
scbriml wrote:
luckyone wrote:
In a perhaps somewhat surprising result, Kansas voters have rejected increased abortion restrictions in a referendum.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3 ... -movement/


Frankly, I’m shocked that Kansas would vote that way. Assuming the projection is confirmed, will this affect other Red states who had or will have almost a total ban on abortions in any circumstances? Why haven’t other states let the people vote on this issue?

My best guess (whatever that's worth) is that pretty much every other state that has attempted abortion restrictions did so or had processes in place to do so prior to the Dobbs ruling and weren't prepared to catch the truck. I suspect the GOP was 1. Caught off guard that the SCOTUS would actually rule the way they did, and 2. They weren't prepared for the breadth of the blowback. I wonder if Kansas buried this in a primary in an attempt to make it go away so the legislature doesn't have to deal with it.


A couple of points on Kansas. One is that although Kansas is a red state, it is more republican in line with the libertarian wing of the party and it is not what i would consider a christian conservative state, which is probably true of a lot of Red states west of the Mississippi save for possibly Utah. Remember that this is the home state of the Koch Brothers and the Koch Brothers are well known as being Pro-Choice and actually left of center on a number of social issues. Secondly, burying this election in a primary was for one of two reasons. First is that the Pro-Life side as many have suggested tried to sneak this in when there was a primary and other real reason for Democratic voters to come out. Second is that the many in the GOP establishment actually are personally on the pro-choice side but can't vote that way because of the social conservatives would immediately primary them. By doing this, they can now prove that they don't need to go all in on this issue and actually have more freedom to put this issue aside and run on other issues.

This is going to have little effect in any red states in the South, save for possibly Florida, because all of them are socially conservative and even in Louisana, the anti-abortion laws were passed with Democratic help in the legislature and signed by a Democratic governor. The reason I say Florida, is because Florida is culturally different from the rest of the south outside the Panhandle, and with a lot of Acela transplants, this could be an issue. The Red States aren't going to stop this, but some other states are going to think twice about really pushing this, even if they are under immense pressure from the Pro-Life activists to do so.


Lastly, I am pro-life and I make no secret about my views on this. I had no issues with the Supreme Court ruling, because I thought that Roe was a wrongly decided ruling from strictly a legal standpoint, and the Supreme Court corrected that mistake. However, when something like this is decided by a Democratic process, I have no issues with that. That is the way democracy is supposed to work. I am glad that in Kansas anyways, this was decided by a democratic process and not by unelected judges. We need more of this in the future.
 
apodino
Posts: 4141
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Wed Aug 03, 2022 3:20 pm

ltbewr wrote:
A personal experience this past weekend supports my belief that abortion must be legal especially as to saving the life of the mother. A niece of mine here in NJ had a problem with her pregnancy at about 24-25 weeks. She went to the nearest hospital who then transferred her to a hospital with specialized abilities to deal with her crises situation. They delivered the baby by cesarean, thankfully saving both her and the baby. The baby will have to stay in the hospital for 6-8 weeks until more fully developed and my niece will be recovering as well. Apparently she has good health insurance. I told her over 4th of July weekend that I am glad she was in NJ, not in one of the 'handmaiden' states. If instead of what happened she was in danger of dying and the baby not surviving, she would have needed an abortion it could be done to save her life.Her mother before she was born in the late 1980's had 2 mid-term miscarriages that required an abortion to save her life and able to have her daughter and son a few years later.
The referendum vote in Kansas to amend their state Constitution to end access to abortion failed to pass. That shows that even in a hard Conservative state many have limits on trying to limit or ban legal abortions including for the saving the life of the mother as in the cases I noted above.

As a pro life person, this is the big issue I have with what is going on at the state level. These bills are being written so hastily and in such a manner that unintended consequences like these are going to happen more and more. And when called on it, the pro-life activists are in denial saying this doesn't apply to this situation. Well, the problem is the language in the bills you are passing does mean it applies in these situations. I know these people think they are doing the right thing, but the issue is so black and white to them, there are so many situations that happen that these people don't even consider that although they might stop some abortions, which I think is a good thing, too many other women will suffer needlessly because they are not getting care they need because of technicalities buried in these laws.
 
Avatar2go
Posts: 1392
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Wed Aug 03, 2022 5:00 pm

apodino wrote:

Lastly, I am pro-life and I make no secret about my views on this. I had no issues with the Supreme Court ruling, because I thought that Roe was a wrongly decided ruling from strictly a legal standpoint, and the Supreme Court corrected that mistake. However, when something like this is decided by a Democratic process, I have no issues with that. That is the way democracy is supposed to work. I am glad that in Kansas anyways, this was decided by a democratic process and not by unelected judges. We need more of this in the future.


Important to point out that the legal philosophy surrounding abortion rights, actually is a balance of competing philosophies, both established in the Constitution. Neither can be said to be right or wrong. Viewing the issue in black & white terms is part of what drives the controversy.

Namely, the rights of states to establish their own governing legislation over individuals, vs the rights of the individual, which may not be infringed by any state. Both sides can be fairly argued.

Roe was a popular decision because it struck a balance between these philosophies. States had some rights to limit abortion, but individuals had some rights to pursue them, in certain circumstances. Dobbs essentially removed the balance, swinging more to the side of states rights, and so is unsurprisingly unpopular with individuals.

The result is as we've seen, some states trying to remove the rights of the individual, while other states preserve them. Which is a regression to where we were before Roe, in the minds of most people.

This is why I view Dobbs as an artifact of the current conservative majority. I don't think it will survive in the long run, because the same problems will develop again.

I do agree that the best solution is federal legislation to resolve the issue. But the practical reality is that neither side has the necessary majority, and even if they did, each side will always override the other's legislation, when they are the majority.

That's why Roe made sense, because it took the issue out of the political realm, and thus was stable for 50 years. That is the value of the courts, in relying on established case law (stare decisis) instead of political beliefs. But now the fear is that the court will end up in the same political realm as the legislature, which each majority overriding the other as a majority is gained, over time. That would be a damaging development for the nation.
 
bennett123
Posts: 11290
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Wed Aug 03, 2022 9:37 pm

victrola wrote:
The Democrats have played this issue so pathetically. They should introduce legislation in Congress that permits abortion in the case of rape or incest. That would force everyone in Congress to vote on this. I'm sick of an extremist minority in this country shoving their perverted ignorant religious views on the reasonable majority of Americans who were in favor of Roe vs Wade.


Pity there wasn't a majority in the Supreme Court.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 12125
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Wed Aug 03, 2022 10:27 pm

bennett123 wrote:
victrola wrote:
The Democrats have played this issue so pathetically. They should introduce legislation in Congress that permits abortion in the case of rape or incest. That would force everyone in Congress to vote on this. I'm sick of an extremist minority in this country shoving their perverted ignorant religious views on the reasonable majority of Americans who were in favor of Roe vs Wade.


Pity there wasn't a majority in the Supreme Court.

Actually the real pity was Alito's opinion and the others joining it. It was badly reasoned and very much a personal vendetta by Alito. Roberts' opinion was reasoned and solid.

Tugg
 
apodino
Posts: 4141
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Thu Aug 04, 2022 2:58 am

Avatar2go wrote:
apodino wrote:

Lastly, I am pro-life and I make no secret about my views on this. I had no issues with the Supreme Court ruling, because I thought that Roe was a wrongly decided ruling from strictly a legal standpoint, and the Supreme Court corrected that mistake. However, when something like this is decided by a Democratic process, I have no issues with that. That is the way democracy is supposed to work. I am glad that in Kansas anyways, this was decided by a democratic process and not by unelected judges. We need more of this in the future.


Important to point out that the legal philosophy surrounding abortion rights, actually is a balance of competing philosophies, both established in the Constitution. Neither can be said to be right or wrong. Viewing the issue in black & white terms is part of what drives the controversy.

Namely, the rights of states to establish their own governing legislation over individuals, vs the rights of the individual, which may not be infringed by any state. Both sides can be fairly argued.

Roe was a popular decision because it struck a balance between these philosophies. States had some rights to limit abortion, but individuals had some rights to pursue them, in certain circumstances. Dobbs essentially removed the balance, swinging more to the side of states rights, and so is unsurprisingly unpopular with individuals.

The result is as we've seen, some states trying to remove the rights of the individual, while other states preserve them. Which is a regression to where we were before Roe, in the minds of most people.

This is why I view Dobbs as an artifact of the current conservative majority. I don't think it will survive in the long run, because the same problems will develop again.

I do agree that the best solution is federal legislation to resolve the issue. But the practical reality is that neither side has the necessary majority, and even if they did, each side will always override the other's legislation, when they are the majority.

That's why Roe made sense, because it took the issue out of the political realm, and thus was stable for 50 years. That is the value of the courts, in relying on established case law (stare decisis) instead of political beliefs. But now the fear is that the court will end up in the same political realm as the legislature, which each majority overriding the other as a majority is gained, over time. That would be a damaging development for the nation.

The problem with Stare Decisis as a philosophy is that it yields no room for the supreme court to act if a decision is wrong and needs correcting. Lets assume for example that in the future a democratic president gets to fill openings created by retirements of Thomas and Roberts (the two longest serving conservatives on the court). Now let's assume a case comes before the supreme court challenging Citizens United. Under the concept of Stare Decisis, this is settled law and the liberals would have no recourse to overturn it without throwing out Stare Decisis. (For the record, I do believe grudgingly that this Citizens united was properly decided, but for the sake of the argument I assume the court got it wrong)

You also mention states rights vs individual rights. States Rights is actually specifically mentioned in the constitution under Amendment 10, which states that the states shall have all powers not delegated to the federal government. The right to abortion is mentioned nowhere in the constitution. In fact the word abortion isnt even mentioned. Roe V Wade used some legal gymnastics to craft the right. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg said that the legal rationale behind Roe was completely wrong. I still maintain the supreme court got this ruling right. I am even more convinced of this by the Dissent that was penned by Elena Kagan. I did not see any legal argument in the dissent, rather the dissent was a political statement. I have no issues with dissents when they use legal rationale to state the reason for the dissent. When none exists, and you get a political statement, that to me is telling. I know we won't agree on this, but this is how I think on this issue.

If you truly want to take this out of the political relm, the way to do it is not through the courts, but with a constitutional amendment. If this is actually specifically mentioned in the constitution, there is no political debate here.
 
Avatar2go
Posts: 1392
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Thu Aug 04, 2022 4:51 am

apodino wrote:
The problem with Stare Decisis as a philosophy is that it yields no room for the supreme court to act if a decision is wrong and needs correcting. Lets assume for example that in the future a democratic president gets to fill openings created by retirements of Thomas and Roberts (the two longest serving conservatives on the court). Now let's assume a case comes before the supreme court challenging Citizens United. Under the concept of Stare Decisis, this is settled law and the liberals would have no recourse to overturn it without throwing out Stare Decisis. (For the record, I do believe grudgingly that this Citizens united was properly decided, but for the sake of the argument I assume the court got it wrong)

You also mention states rights vs individual rights. States Rights is actually specifically mentioned in the constitution under Amendment 10, which states that the states shall have all powers not delegated to the federal government. The right to abortion is mentioned nowhere in the constitution. In fact the word abortion isnt even mentioned. Roe V Wade used some legal gymnastics to craft the right. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg said that the legal rationale behind Roe was completely wrong. I still maintain the supreme court got this ruling right. I am even more convinced of this by the Dissent that was penned by Elena Kagan. I did not see any legal argument in the dissent, rather the dissent was a political statement. I have no issues with dissents when they use legal rationale to state the reason for the dissent. When none exists, and you get a political statement, that to me is telling. I know we won't agree on this, but this is how I think on this issue.

If you truly want to take this out of the political relm, the way to do it is not through the courts, but with a constitutional amendment. If this is actually specifically mentioned in the constitution, there is no political debate here.


These arguments are not entirely valid, although they are frequently given by conservatives.

First, the principle of stare decisis does not mean that judicial interpretation of the law cannot change, it just means that such change must occur within the context of earlier settled case law. So for example if a decision is interpreted differently, the decision should show a legal basis for why the earlier decision required modification. Without sufficient basis, the earlier interpretation should stand. The more extensive the case law history is, the higher the bar for overturning it.

This is why Justice Alito had to reach back 150 years to find case law that supported his opinion. The reason that was questioned by legal scholars, is that if you go back far enough, you can overturn almost all of civil rights, and many modern interpretations of the Constitution. Stare decisis, when practiced properly, should limit that by considering the progression of interpretation over time, which is assumed to be a valid correction. It's basically both a rate-limiting and trend-limiting mechanism, so that erratic changes & reversals (like Dobbs) don't occur.

Second with regard to abortion, it has good company with other unenumerated rights that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, such as discrimination, voting, travel, privacy etc. The 9th Amendment specifically states that Constitutionally enumerated rights, shall not limit or disparage other rights held by the people. It was written specifically to allow for the future & non-inclusive interpretation of rights. Further the 14th Amendment specifically provides that states may not infringe upon unenumerated individual rights. Abortion is an unenumerated right, under previous case law.

Third with regard to amending the Constitution, agreed that would be good solution, but it's a bit disengenous to hold it out as a practical solution. If the legislature is not able to pass the necessary law, from lack of sustained majority over many decades, the amendment process is a far more difficult task, and so has no real chance of successful resolution.

As I stated originally, the abortion issue comes down to balancing states rights, with rights of the individual. Which Roe did to the satisfaction of the majority of the nation, for 50 years. It was consistent with the trend and progression of case law concerning individual rights, up until that time, and thus was also consistent with the principle of stare decisis.

What happened in Dobbs, was not consistent with that principle, or either of the amendments which establish unenumerated rights. It rolled back a long-established individual right, in favor of states rights, something the court has almost never done in it's long history.

But that is the interpretation of the law now, so we will have to see where it goes from here. This is the US, so we accept the law whether we personally agree with it or not. There are sure to be problems ahead, as there were before Roe. States will have to hash that out with the individuals they govern, but those individuals will certainly appeal to the courts again, as is also their right.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 14298
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Thu Aug 04, 2022 2:19 pm

Pellegrine wrote:
I'll never have anyone tell me that America isn't a backwards country. And when I've said that before on here before and was warned.

Amazing that a minority percentage of people want to and are able to take basic human rights away from the majority. Abortion is a human right as defined by an interpretation of international law because it affects the whole trajectory of a woman's or girl's life. It is ghastly.


I wouldn’t say all of America is backwards, some parts of the US are modern and progressive, it’s unfortunate that the tail wags the dog, rather publicly in this instance.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24774
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Thu Aug 04, 2022 5:48 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Pellegrine wrote:
I'll never have anyone tell me that America isn't a backwards country. And when I've said that before on here before and was warned.

Amazing that a minority percentage of people want to and are able to take basic human rights away from the majority. Abortion is a human right as defined by an interpretation of international law because it affects the whole trajectory of a woman's or girl's life. It is ghastly.


I wouldn’t say all of America is backwards, some parts of the US are modern and progressive, it’s unfortunate that the tail wags the dog, rather publicly in this instance.


A majority of Americans want abortion to be safe and legal. But the minority wants it banned completely because of their interpretation of their holy book. If a person wants to live their life by their holy book, go for it. Do not legislate that holy book on the majority who do not want it. And that is what we are seeing: the tyranny of the minority.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... t-cases-2/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk ... f94bb4795c
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2794
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Thu Aug 04, 2022 7:33 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Pellegrine wrote:
I'll never have anyone tell me that America isn't a backwards country. And when I've said that before on here before and was warned.

Amazing that a minority percentage of people want to and are able to take basic human rights away from the majority. Abortion is a human right as defined by an interpretation of international law because it affects the whole trajectory of a woman's or girl's life. It is ghastly.


I wouldn’t say all of America is backwards, some parts of the US are modern and progressive, it’s unfortunate that the tail wags the dog, rather publicly in this instance.


I mean, I just tell it like it is from my experience living here. Living in my bubble, and experiencing moments outside it. My bubble is progressive, liberal, elitist, bi-coastal, international. It's a rather jarring society taken all in at all levels. Most people are segregated still by class and "race" to such an extreme that they would never understand one another's lives were they to end up in the other's shoes. Things are so disparate. I could take you to an island few people know about where people land at a landing strip in $20-75M Gulfstreams, the cheapest room at the hotel is $1500/night, and semi-formal attire is required for dinner, the whole island is private 24/7 and guarded. Or, pick an inner city, or eastern Kentucky, or southwest West Virginia, or north Mississippi/south Arkansas, or areas in the Dakotas....widespread poverty and misery. People jockeying for power over backwards 15th-century ideas. People having such backward ingrained attitudes towards the human construction that is "race", when for most people there isn't even the necessity of debate. The debate should be class and money, and who is pulling the strings. People struggling for $15 an hour in 2022, when they should have been given it in 2010. The Georgia minimum wage being $7.25 in 2022. There are things that are more just and true...the overall rule of law...where corruption is not de facto. The possibility of truly changing one's life circumstance, even if for most it is just a tantalizing dream. Sometimes when you think about it, it is truly bizarre.
 
sierrakilo44
Posts: 964
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:38 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Fri Aug 05, 2022 1:34 am

seb146 wrote:
A majority of Americans want abortion to be safe and legal. But the minority wants it banned completely because of their interpretation of their holy book. If a person wants to live their life by their holy book, go for it. Do not legislate that holy book on the majority who do not want it. And that is what we are seeing: the tyranny of the minority.



The hypocritical thing is the Bible is written towards individuals not societies. It’s full of statements like “you, personally, should live your life like this”. Nowhere will you find statements like “you must get into government and legislate to ensure every other person in your country lives their life like this as well”.

Of course religions is just a furphy, it’s about power and control with these people. If the Bible didn’t exist they’d make up some other text to justify their actions.
 
AirbusCheerlead
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:20 pm

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Sat Aug 06, 2022 9:20 am

I have some question about the new abortion ban in Indiana. Quote from the Guardian article:
It includes limited exceptions, including in cases of rape and incest, and to protect the life and physical health of the mother. The exceptions for rape and incest are limited to 10 weeks post-fertilization, meaning victims could not get an abortion in Indiana after that. Victims would not be required to sign a notarized affidavit attesting to an attack.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... o-governor

First: what does the last sentence mean?

Two: Since Incest is illegal in Indiana and has an advisory penalty of 1 to 6 years, do the two family members go to jail afterwards? Thus putting the woman in jail anyway?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalit ... ted_States

Three: After an abortion in case of rape, must the woman peruse her rapist? What happens if the rapist is found not guilty? Has the woman to endure a second trial for the abortion? (Case of he said she said)

Best regards
Jonas
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 15669
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Sat Aug 06, 2022 2:14 pm

AirbusCheerlead wrote:
I have some question about the new abortion ban in Indiana. Quote from the Guardian article:
It includes limited exceptions, including in cases of rape and incest, and to protect the life and physical health of the mother. The exceptions for rape and incest are limited to 10 weeks post-fertilization, meaning victims could not get an abortion in Indiana after that. Victims would not be required to sign a notarized affidavit attesting to an attack.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... o-governor

First: what does the last sentence mean?

Two: Since Incest is illegal in Indiana and has an advisory penalty of 1 to 6 years, do the two family members go to jail afterwards? Thus putting the woman in jail anyway?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalit ... ted_States

Three: After an abortion in case of rape, must the woman peruse her rapist? What happens if the rapist is found not guilty? Has the woman to endure a second trial for the abortion? (Case of he said she said)

Best regards
Jonas


The last sentence, says they don't have to file an official report for the issues you listed in 2 and 3.
 
SEAorPWM
Posts: 400
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:41 pm

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Wed Aug 10, 2022 6:12 pm

https://journalstar.com/news/state-and- ... 01c71.html

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/10/11167167 ... n-abortion

This unfolding story is sick at so many levels and just shows how screwed up this country is.

While I'm not happy with the late time frame or the irresponsible "reasoning" of the abortion in this case, the way this was all handled by the Nebraska authorities and Facebook makes me want to leave that state in the "flyover country" category.

If you're going to consider 17 year olds adults, maybe strip away all the red tape to allow them to buy Plan B at their own accord starting at 16 (age of consent), and also allow consent to their own medical care without parental involvement. I'd throw voting in there but that's off topic.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 12125
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Thu Aug 25, 2022 3:01 pm

Aren't people allowed to defend themselves when their body is attacked? Even kill someone if they are being forced to do something they do not want to and wish to get free of the other person?

I do not support "personhood" for a fetus, but in states where they do this, then that "person" is causing an unwanted situation for the person carrying them and is should just be a simple case of self defense.

Tugg
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6405
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Thu Aug 25, 2022 5:31 pm

Tugger wrote:
I do not support "personhood" for a fetus, but in states where they do this, then that "person" is causing an unwanted situation for the person carrying them and is should just be a simple case of self defense.


The U.S. constitution expressly forbids involuntary servitude. A pregnant woman who is forced to carry out a fetus to term is nothing else than a slave.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 12125
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Thu Aug 25, 2022 6:48 pm

flyingturtle wrote:
Tugger wrote:
I do not support "personhood" for a fetus, but in states where they do this, then that "person" is causing an unwanted situation for the person carrying them and is should just be a simple case of self defense.


The U.S. constitution expressly forbids involuntary servitude. A pregnant woman who is forced to carry out a fetus to term is nothing else than a slave.

Especially in the case of rape and incest (there are additional cases like abused women in such relationships, but I am sure those fun red state pols would insist such situations are really consensual).

I have said it before here: We are granting the right for a man can take control of a woman's body for 9 months. Fun times!

Tugg
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 15669
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Thu Aug 25, 2022 10:02 pm

Well .
It is interesting how the abortion rights has turned a "personhood bill" primary campaign into a let's worry about late term abortions campaign for senate/
Just after releasing the ad, Masters' campaign published an overhaul of his website and softened his rhetoric, re-writing or erasing five of his six positions. NBC News took screenshots of the website before and after it was changed. Masters' website appeared to be refreshed after NBC News reached out for clarification on his abortion stances.

"I am 100% pro-life," Masters' website read as of Thursday morning.

That language is now gone.

Another notable deletion: A line that detailed his support for "a federal personhood law (ideally a Constitutional amendment) that recognizes that unborn babies are human beings that may not be killed."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-e ... -rcna44808

How will the general population of Arizona react to it?
Will the Pro-lifers abandon such a cheat?
Will the Religious abandon a person that changed his position on abortion?
 
Avatar2go
Posts: 1392
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Thu Aug 25, 2022 10:10 pm

The question arises as to whether his positions can be trusted. He appeals to the centrists here, but we've seen before the pivot back to the right after election.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 12125
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Thu Aug 25, 2022 10:19 pm

Any of the forced-birth candidates are questionable on any claim of "I'm not that".
The popular thing is to say "I'm for forced birth but really I oppose a federal abortion ban". Of course that isn't what matters, any who make this claim need to be asked "OK, but would you vote with your party if such legislation came up?"
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/25/politics ... index.html

Not that I would trust them to stick to what they answer of course.

Tugg
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 15754
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Fri Aug 26, 2022 3:36 pm

Trusting any Republican claiming anything other than "pro-life extremist" is showing low intelligence at this point.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 15669
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Fri Aug 26, 2022 3:53 pm

Avatar2go wrote:
The question arises as to whether his positions can be trusted. He appeals to the centrists here, but we've seen before the pivot back to the right after election.


It is going to be a question of how much power these GOP representatives want. Do they want the money of the rich, or do they want the votes of all those they have been pandering too? And will they survive either one should they forgo the other?
 
luckyone
Posts: 4530
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Fri Aug 26, 2022 5:08 pm

casinterest wrote:
Avatar2go wrote:
The question arises as to whether his positions can be trusted. He appeals to the centrists here, but we've seen before the pivot back to the right after election.


It is going to be a question of how much power these GOP representatives want. Do they want the money of the rich, or do they want the votes of all those they have been pandering too? And will they survive either one should they forgo the other?

Well that's been the question I've been asking since the populist-driven Trump election of 2016. Trump's base is what we used to call the "blue collar worker." That is existentially at odds with the business crowd. It is a tenuous coalition and it won't last forever.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 21232
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Mon Aug 29, 2022 10:30 am

luckyone wrote:
Well that's been the question I've been asking since the populist-driven Trump election of 2016. Trump's base is what we used to call the "blue collar worker." That is existentially at odds with the business crowd. It is a tenuous coalition and it won't last forever.


It's unbelievable that those people honestly believe that someone like Trump is working in their best interests and will defend him to the hilt, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 18140
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Mon Aug 29, 2022 10:33 am

scbriml wrote:
luckyone wrote:
Well that's been the question I've been asking since the populist-driven Trump election of 2016. Trump's base is what we used to call the "blue collar worker." That is existentially at odds with the business crowd. It is a tenuous coalition and it won't last forever.


It's unbelievable that those people honestly believe that someone like Trump is working in their best interests and will defend him to the hilt, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


Have you seen the waistlines and vehicle decorations of some MAGA event attendees? Good judgment is not exactly their defining characteristic.
 
luckyone
Posts: 4530
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:45 am

scbriml wrote:
luckyone wrote:
Well that's been the question I've been asking since the populist-driven Trump election of 2016. Trump's base is what we used to call the "blue collar worker." That is existentially at odds with the business crowd. It is a tenuous coalition and it won't last forever.


It's unbelievable that those people honestly believe that someone like Trump is working in their best interests and will defend him to the hilt, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

To some degree I get it. The blue collar worker bore the brunt of the negative effects of globalization and economic transition. Some of that could have been handled differently, but most of it couldn't AND WOULDN'T have -- the reality is only the worker cares about his well-being. Everybody else bellyached about the increased price of steel/cars/pick a consumer good that could be made for cheaper elsewhere, and that included other manufacturers who didn't want to buy the more expensive American product, as well as consumers in other industries who griped about the increased cost and subpar quality and blamed the "union," but the union was also the voter. But tell that to a family of steel workers whose way of life disappeared in a decade. Trump tells them what they want to hear, and he acts like an old school union boss -- never mind that he's attached to products like Trump Tower in Chicago that was built with Chinese steel. This is getting way off topic, but it will also be interesting to see what happens with manufacturing workers in states like Georgia, Texas, Tennessee, and Arizona during the next big economic downturn and when these industries mature and their hiring stabilizes. These states have seen a lot of manufacturing growth the last few years, particularly in the auto sector, but those workers haven't lived through the downturns of yore. My prediction is there will be a lot of the same pushback when these people don't feel their job is secure. It probably won't proceed in the same way as history doesn't always necessarily repeat itself exactly, but it does rhyme.
 
jetwet1
Posts: 3578
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:42 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Tue Aug 30, 2022 3:29 am

And now we have GOP candidates scrubbing their PR to hide their voting records on abortion.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/08 ... tion-views

Maybe they have figured out that backing the vocal minority isn't such a good idea for their political careers.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 12125
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Updated: US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe vs. Wade

Tue Aug 30, 2022 4:36 am

Yeah, run from what you believe.

So everyone just needs to ask these feckless politicians "Would you vote with your party if such legislation came up? Please speak clearly..."

Tugg

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bennett123, BlueberryWheats, DH106, VolvoBus and 29 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