Roe vs Wade Overturned

Couple of thoughts on this;

First off, it’s just a draft. Not the official finalized opinion.

Secondly it was leaked. Who leaked it, and why???? The Supreme Court is not known for leaking decisions.

This could be a shit hits the fan moment regarding the already existing divide in this country.

Third, why now?

Why when there’s a bill for war in the Ukraine with actual US military involvement

Also this comes right on the heels of the new ‘ ministry of truth’ department in the department of homeland security.

The timing and the leak seems very suspect.
 
Dave Matthews said:
Awesome!
Let's go back 50 years based on a certain group of peoples religious convictions!
Yay!
NOT!
Click to expand...
If the decision went through, all it would do is take abortion out of the federal government’s hands and turn it over to the individual states.
It’s not like it would make abortion illegal nationwide.
 
Dave Matthews said:
Awesome!
Let's go back 50 years based on a certain group of peoples religious convictions!
Yay!
NOT!
Click to expand...

Why not serve them at a restaurant as baby-back ribs?
Seriously. What's wrong with cannabalism.
Hey Beaky, do ya want yours roasted or grilled? 😋🥴
 
Last edited:
RFR said:
Secondly it was leaked. Who leaked it, and why???? The Supreme Court is not known for leaking decisions.
Click to expand...

The Republicans on the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board knew last week who was writing the decision and what it was going to say. The only reason they could know that is if leaks were already happening among conservatives.

The rumor is that Chief Justice Roberts was convincing one of the other conservatives on the court not to go along with the decision. In that case, it would be leaked so that outside conservatives could improperly lobby the specific justice to do what conservatives want and hand over women's medical decisions to Government control.
 
ibleedburgundy said:
hand over women's medical decisions to Government control.
Click to expand...
Your medical records are confidential.
Doctors can be sued for releasing them without your permission.
As I understand it, the decision sends the roe v wade decsions back to the state level so each state can decide by vote.
Democracy decides it rather than a courtroom.
The federal government will no longer be a part of it.
ie there will not be a big brother watchdog.
 
Last edited:
RFR said:
If the decision went through, all it would do is take abortion out of the federal government’s hands and turn it over to the individual states.
It’s not like it would make abortion illegal nationwide.
Click to expand...
So it's OK if individual states tell women what to do based on a group of individuals religious convictions?
Bullshit.
Church has no place in state.
 
Last edited:
Dave Matthews said:
So it's OK if individual states tell women what to do based on a group of individuals religious convictions?
Bullshit.
Church has no place in state.
Click to expand...

On a state level, the voters of that state get to decide what laws they want.

Some states may approve abortion up to and including even after birth.

Some states may enact laws to make it completely illegal.

Most would probably fall in between those two.

But, the whole point is the states would have the power to decide what’s right for them. Not the federal government.

What’s your problem with that?
 
WWLaidback said:
Conservatives stick with due process. Leaks aren't kosher.
Click to expand...
It would not be in the best interests of conservatives to have been the source of the leak. Conservatives have nothing to gain by it.

Politically, even if some conservatives knew of the ruling, the prudent thing would be to just wait till SCOTUS formally announced their vote and released their final official majority opinion.
 
RFR said:
On a state level, the voters of that state get to decide what laws they want.

Some states may approve abortion up to and including even after birth.

Some states may enact laws to make it completely illegal.

Most would probably fall in between those two.

But, the whole point is the states would have the power to decide what’s right for them. Not the federal government.

What’s your problem with that?
Click to expand...
In this case, you're either a country or you're not.
 
Dave Matthews said:
In this case, you're either a country or you're not.
Click to expand...
Well, we are a country. A bit dysfunctional, but a country we are.

Constitutionally, states are supposed to have the power and the federal govt has limited powers.
But like the cancer it is, it’s grown out of control
Ed Fones said:
Also no state has any right to tell you what to do with your own bodies.
Click to expand...

Yes, but there’s a bit of hypocrisy there.
Re: the jab mandates , where was the “my body, my choice” then?

As to abortion, there’s two bodies involved. One gets killed for the benefit of the other.

It’s not like the growing baby is a tumor, it’s a living person just not fully developed.
 
RFR said:
Well, we are a country. A bit dysfunctional, but a country we are.

Constitutionally, states are supposed to have the power and the federal govt has limited powers.
But like the cancer it is, it’s grown out of control


Yes, but there’s a bit of hypocrisy there.
Re: the jab mandates , where was the “my body, my choice” then?

As to abortion, there’s two bodies involved. One gets killed for the benefit of the other.

It’s not like the growing baby is a tumor, it’s a living person just not fully developed.
Click to expand...
Scruples or morals. Swings and roundabouts. Six of one and half a dozen of the other.

When is a fertilized egg a human life? Humans are just animals, so why one rule for them and another for humans?

Some animals will abort their own unborn to survive. Some animals will even eat their young to survive.

Only a human can tie itself up in knots and incapacitate itself with making a decision.
 
RFR said:
Well, we are a country. A bit dysfunctional, but a country we are.

Constitutionally, states are supposed to have the power and the federal govt has limited powers.
But like the cancer it is, it’s grown out of control


Yes, but there’s a bit of hypocrisy there.
Re: the jab mandates , where was the “my body, my choice” then?

As to abortion, there’s two bodies involved. One gets killed for the benefit of the other.

It’s not like the growing baby is a tumor, it’s a living person just not fully developed.
Click to expand...
The vaccine mandates aren't quite a direct comparison, because of the ability for someone to infect others with a disease that has killed a lot of people.

I mean .. take it to another level. What if a disease hit with something crazy like a 50% mortality rate? Or higher? Would a vaccine mandate be acceptable then?

But I do agree with you about two bodies being involved. I never could understand why people would use that as an argument (don't tell me what to do with MY body). I mean ... sure .. the government shouldn't tell you what to do like that. But, in this instance, it's not just YOUR body. It's clearly two bodies, one of which has no voice at all.

That said, I don't know that I could outlaw all abortion. I personally would never want my wife to get one (thankfully neither would she), but I'm glad I don't have to be the one who makes the law.

The thing is, there's a bit of a disconnect. A women's body will naturally abort a pregnancy regularly, before it's even really gotten started, because it wasn't viable. Yet conservatives also often argue against birth control, which would, in essence, stop many of those naturally occurring abortions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top