Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

[yuna628 9,671]

3 minutes ago, ROK2USA said:

Thinking something similar to what happens in Korea might happen. 

Are you aware if you obtain an abortion and someone finds out they can report you and the doctor?

Korea also has laws in effect where citizens are prosecuted for crimes committed outside Korea. 

If someone suggests you smoked an illegal substance while visiting another country. They can test you when you return to Korea.

If drugs are found in your system. This equals possession. You go to jail. 

Some extreme "pro life" people are also suggesting IUDs should be illegal. 

No access to birth control seems extremely restrictive. 

Anti-abortion advocates have argued incorrectly that certain birth control methods, such as Plan B and certain intrauterine devices (IUDs), work as abortifacients because they may prevent the implantation of fertilized eggs. But there is no pregnancy without implantation, so these medications cannot terminate pregnancies.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/03/roe-v-wade-birth-control

 

 

 

 

Right, like I said Louisiana legislation will define personhood and constitutional rights to any fertilized egg that is not yet even implanted. And if eggs are now people with rights, sperm will be too. Wait until men realize what sort of regulation these people would like for them!

[Dashinka 24,487]

3 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Right, like I said Louisiana legislation will define personhood and constitutional rights to any fertilized egg that is not yet even implanted. And if eggs are now people with rights, sperm will be too. Wait until men realize what sort of regulation these people would like for them!

Brings back memories of a Monty Python skit.

[Redro 4,611]

1 minute ago, Dashinka said:

Brings back memories of a Monty Python skit.

A good skit! 

Tried to get husband into Monty Python and he wasn't a fan. 

[Boiler 45,466]

I have seen a few articles suggesting that this could be a deciding factor in 2022 elections, like most things they are an influence but did not expect it to be significant. I was expecting an over reaction to likely balance out any positive leverage and it seems to be happening.

 

I am waiting for them to turn up outside Mosques, like that will happen, they do not seem to realise that Ruth would not have sent them either.

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

20 hours ago, laylalex said:

 But I'm a migraine sufferer, and even though that wasn't supposed to get worse with this particular pill, it eventually did.

 

sounds like you had a headache, which is oftentimes a "No!" - so it appeared to work.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

9 hours ago, Dashinka said:

So states will start issuing passports and restricting interstate commerce?

Bingo. The interstate commerce clause would shut that down quickly. 

[yuna628 9,671]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Bingo. The interstate commerce clause would shut that down quickly. 

You'd think so right? But they are not deterred by that. 

 

Quote

The provision didn’t succeed this time around, but its author, state Representative Mary Elizabeth Coleman, wasn’t wrong when she responded to claims the provision was unconstitutional by telling the Washington Post, “That’s what they said about the Texas law, and every bill passed to protect the unborn for the last 49 years.” It’s only unconstitutional until you get the right court.

In a forthcoming paper, Cohen and co-authors Greer Donley and Rachel Rebouché argue chillingly that the governing law is by no means settled. “The Constitution’s general prohibition of state restrictions on interstate travel, burdens on interstate commerce, or application of a state’s law outside its borders should make it difficult for antiabortion states to enforce these laws,” they write. “Yet, these constitutional defenses are underdeveloped and subject to debate, leaving federal courts as the ultimate arbiters of these interjurisdictional battles.” https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/05/can-republicans-stop-out-of-state-abortion-patients.html

I could show you pages of people arguing that states can use a variety of ways to bar someone from leaving. It might seem laughable to some, but they are very serious about it, and will continue to try.

Edited May 9, 2022 by yuna628

[laylalex 7,284]

12 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Brings back memories of a Monty Python skit.

Today my husband was talking about Listerine and mouth abortions when we were in the car and when I didn't laugh I had to tell him: too soon, sweetie.

[TBoneTX 45,266]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

I could show you pages of people arguing that states can use a variety of ways to bar someone from leaving. It might seem laughable to some, but they are very serious about it, and will continue to try.

Most of us here can probably agree that 99.44% of the regular public, and all U.S. law, would shut that down in very short order.

[TBoneTX 45,266]

https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-repeats-false-claim-he-once-had-an-abortion

[Dashinka 24,487]

8 hours ago, yuna628 said:

You'd think so right? But they are not deterred by that. 

 

I could show you pages of people arguing that states can use a variety of ways to bar someone from leaving. It might seem laughable to some, but they are very serious about it, and will continue to try.

If this was easy for a state to do, why did the most radical Covid lockdown states not attempt it?  Only Hawai'i got close, but I don't think they restricted the movements of their residents off the islands, it was more of a restriction of incoming travelers.  We could also compare this to the various state laws regarding marijuana, does a state with no exception to marijuana keep its residents from going to an open marijuana state to partake?  Do they states prosecute someone from going to a marijuana free state and coming back (without bringing any marijuana back)?

 

We hear the same rhetoric with gun laws when states pass more restrictive gun laws.  With the gun advocates claiming any law will lead to almost total restrictions of a person's 2nd amendments right, and to be fair, some of them get pretty close.  We shall see what happens in the end.  As I said, I expect the Dems and hardcore pro-abortion activists to push completely unrestricted abortions throughout the pregnancy, and there will be extremist on the other side of the issue that will push for a total ban.  This is what happens when we leave the lawmaking up to SCOTUS.  It is interesting when we look at the abortion laws in the various European countries, they did not rely on the court system to create the laws, and they do not restrict their citizen/resident's movements.  I was reading the proposal in Louisiana, and it does appear very draconian.  Currently Louisiana has a Dem governor, so if this in fact passes and the governor signs it, can it be considered bi-partisan?

 

Extreme rhetoric is just what it is.  Political theatre.

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

10 hours ago, laylalex said:

Today my husband was talking about Listerine and mouth abortions when we were in the car and when I didn't laugh I had to tell him: too soon, sweetie.

Lord Alex the Munificent Piledriver for Man of the Year!

[yuna628 9,671]

10 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Most of us here can probably agree that 99.44% of the regular public, and all U.S. law, would shut that down in very short order.

I could hope that we'd agree on that. I also think most of the population of the US agree on that, and I think they also agree that governments should stay out of our sex lives - however that doesn't stop pastors, activists, and state legislators from trying this. These people care nothing for what the Constitution says, they care even nothing for state Constitutions, they care nothing about any of it - they only care about the objective.

4 hours ago, Dashinka said:

If this was easy for a state to do, why did the most radical Covid lockdown states not attempt it?  Only Hawai'i got close, but I don't think they restricted the movements of their residents off the islands, it was more of a restriction of incoming travelers.  We could also compare this to the various state laws regarding marijuana, does a state with no exception to marijuana keep its residents from going to an open marijuana state to partake?  Do they states prosecute someone from going to a marijuana free state and coming back (without bringing any marijuana back)?

 

We hear the same rhetoric with gun laws when states pass more restrictive gun laws.  With the gun advocates claiming any law will lead to almost total restrictions of a person's 2nd amendments right, and to be fair, some of them get pretty close.  We shall see what happens in the end.  As I said, I expect the Dems and hardcore pro-abortion activists to push completely unrestricted abortions throughout the pregnancy, and there will be extremist on the other side of the issue that will push for a total ban.  This is what happens when we leave the lawmaking up to SCOTUS.  It is interesting when we look at the abortion laws in the various European countries, they did not rely on the court system to create the laws, and they do not restrict their citizen/resident's movements.  I was reading the proposal in Louisiana, and it does appear very draconian.  Currently Louisiana has a Dem governor, so if this in fact passes and the governor signs it, can it be considered bi-partisan?

 

Extreme rhetoric is just what it is.  Political theatre.

Many states did attempt to restrict travel. Most notably MD-PA-DE-NY. I recall there being checkpoints and needing to have documents just in case of being stopped. Long lines often formed. You realize that there still remains laws on the books that restrict a person from one state from bringing an item into another state that prohibits it. If one state has defined all abortion as murder (even the simple use of birth control) then a state will certainly be determined to stop anyone from doing it. If you've not been around activists engaging in these positions then you won't know that stopping abortion (or things they conflate as abortion) must be done at all costs. There is no room for the Constitution in these positions, because these positions restrict life, liberty, and happiness to begin with. Activists have sent generations of kids to schools to perfect this type of ideology and give them a basis in law to argue these positions.

 

If you note that there is often restrictions placed in areas that concern you successfully, why is this any different? Legislators overrule a governor veto all the time. Those that want this to become law in Louisiana are interested in the long game, not the short one. You find it draconian, so do I, that's the point - they want it to be that way.  Politicians are not serious about caring how draconian it is, so long as it gets them the votes. But the people actually writing these things do care.

[Dashinka 24,487]

37 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

I could hope that we'd agree on that. I also think most of the population of the US agree on that, and I think they also agree that governments should stay out of our sex lives - however that doesn't stop pastors, activists, and state legislators from trying this. These people care nothing for what the Constitution says, they care even nothing for state Constitutions, they care nothing about any of it - they only care about the objective.

Many states did attempt to restrict travel. Most notably MD-PA-DE-NY. I recall there being checkpoints and needing to have documents just in case of being stopped. Long lines often formed. You realize that there still remains laws on the books that restrict a person from one state from bringing an item into another state that prohibits it. If one state has defined all abortion as murder (even the simple use of birth control) then a state will certainly be determined to stop anyone from doing it. If you've not been around activists engaging in these positions then you won't know that stopping abortion (or things they conflate as abortion) must be done at all costs. There is no room for the Constitution in these positions, because these positions restrict life, liberty, and happiness to begin with. Activists have sent generations of kids to schools to perfect this type of ideology and give them a basis in law to argue these positions.

 

If you note that there is often restrictions placed in areas that concern you successfully, why is this any different? Legislators overrule a governor veto all the time. Those that want this to become law in Louisiana are interested in the long game, not the short one. You find it draconian, so do I, that's the point - they want it to be that way.  Politicians are not serious about caring how draconian it is, so long as it gets them the votes. But the people actually writing these things do care.

So you are saying there is indoctrination (only on one side I assume) going on to be a pro-life advocate?  That is a laugh given the state of our public and private school system today. That being said I seem to be seeing a lot of radicals doing things this last weekend that were not pro-life.  I really expect some Bernie Bro., or Warren acolyte to take a pot-shot at a Justice in the near future to give Senile Joe another appointment.  People believe what they do, and if a state closes its borders (somehow), it will be dealt with.  As you well know, the leaked opinion did nothing to outlaw abortion, and if folks like you want abortion without exception, then you need to vote in the people that will give that to you, as that is where it belongs (e.g. Europe). Otherwise, people often vote with their feet unless you are saying we will have a completely closed state like the DPRK with that state sending out law enforcement to round up defectors from said state.

 

 

[beloved_dingo 1,976]

I feel like Matt Gaetz referring to pro-choice women as "over-educated" is kind of a self burn.