Friday, 24 June 2022

Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending right to abortion upheld for decades

quote [ The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the constitutional right to an abortion, reversing Roe v. Wade, the court's five-decade-old decision that guaranteed a woman's right to obtain an abortion. ]

We still be fightin' over roe versus wade
[SFW] [politics] [+10 Balls Nasty ]
[by ScoobySnacks@2:45pmGMT]


Hugh E. said @ 8:24pm GMT on 24th Jun [Score:3 Balls Nasty ]
Conception begins with nasty balls.
damnit said @ 9:02pm GMT on 25th Jun [Score:2]
Some good news: Here's a cute kitten
Hugh E. said @ 8:39pm GMT on 24th Jun [Score:1 Balls Nasty ]
By the way, they're just getting started.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, laid out a vision that prompted concerns about what other rights could disappear: The same rationale that the Supreme Court used to declare there was no right to abortion, he said, should also be used to overturn cases establishing rights to contraception, same-sex consensual relations and same-sex marriage.

In the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel A. Alito, the court said that nothing in its decision “should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Justice Thomas said he agreed with that.

However, he noted that in its rationale, the court’s majority found that a right to abortion was not a form of “liberty” protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution — as the court had said in Roe.

Then, he took aim at three other landmark cases that relied on that same legal reasoning: Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 decision that declared married couples had a right to contraception; Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 case invalidating sodomy laws and making same-sex sexual activity legal across the country; and Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case establishing the right of gay couples to marry.

Justice Thomas wrote that the court “should reconsider” all three decisions, saying it had a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents. Then, he said, after “overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions” protected the rights they established.

This kind of language is just what advocates for reproductive rights and for L.G.B.T.Q. rights have been fearing. Defenders of the right to abortion have repeatedly warned that if Roe fell, the right to contraception and same-sex marriage would be next.

Abortion opponents, who fought hard to overturn Roe, have insisted they have no interest in trying to undo the right to contraception.

But already, states like Missouri are trying to restrict access to contraception by banning public funding for certain methods: intrauterine devices and the so-called morning after pill. And some Republicans, notably Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, have said that the Griswold case was wrongly decided. Earlier this year, Ms. Blackburn called Griswold “constitutionally unsound.”

Justice Thomas alone signed the concurring opinion.

Lawrence O. Gostin, a professor at Georgetown University Law School who specializes in public health law, said it would be “easy to dismiss Thomas as a lone wolf” and to do so would be a mistake. Now that the majority on the court has destroyed the foundation on which Roe was built, he said, “the other rights may well come crumbling after.”

Mr. Gostin cited another contentious legal area — gun rights — as an example. In ruling that the Second Amendment applies to individuals, he said, the court overturned a longstanding precedent. At the time, he said, Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision would not affect other gun safety regulations. But “that promise didn’t last,” he said, noting that on Thursday, the court issued a major decision expanding gun rights.
Bruceski said @ 1:59am GMT on 25th Jun [Score:2 Underrated]
The same argument could be made for Loving v Virginia couldn't it? Interesting that Thomas has no issue with that one.
hellboy said @ 11:34am GMT on 25th Jun
You’re forgetting the Zeroth Amendment: The Rules don’t apply to Republicans.
damnit said @ 8:29pm GMT on 25th Jun
He did tell his clerks in the 90s that he’ll serve for 43 years to make liberal’s lives miserable.
mechanical contrivance said @ 6:07pm GMT on 24th Jun
I predict a large increase in back-alley abortions and babies born to mothers who can't afford to raise them.
cb361 said @ 9:15pm GMT on 24th Jun
Useful cannon fodder for the American army.
the circus said @ 12:52am GMT on 25th Jun
What people probably aren't realizing is they've got momentum. They've got their ducks in a row and they're going to keep going. Absolutely gay rights will be gutted, and so too will be rights to contraceptives. I can all but guarantee you that the right to discriminate for any reason will be declared constitutional by this court. It won't be the same as repealing civil rights, but it will have much the same effect. We've hit "too late" and things are absolutely going to get worse before there's an effective correction, if democracy still exists for there to be one down the line.

That being said, abortion isn't a valid debate. Outlawing it is straight up a crime against humanity. Making it a law doesn't change that. Simply getting the freedom back isn't justice, making the justices who did this face justice for their crimes against humanity is needed.
Hugh E. said @ 2:05am GMT on 25th Jun
We've hit "too late" and things are absolutely going to get worse before there's an effective correction
"But my student loans!!!!"
Hugh E. said @ 4:56am GMT on 25th Jun [Score:0 Underrated]
Would someone like to use their words?
steele said @ 2:04pm GMT on 25th Jun
Even ignoring how politically ignorant you are, I didn't think you needed me to spell out to you that MOCKING POOR PEOPLE FOR WANTING HELP IS BAD.
Hugh E. said @ 5:39pm GMT on 25th Jun
It's not mocking poor people for wanting help, it is mocking the selfish whiners who say they won't vote for the Democrat because they don't support their pet issue.

Most people, especially poor people, don't have student loans. Half the people, including poor people, have a uterus.

Political ignorance is thinking something is settled, so let's move on to the next thing. You've got to churn the soil to grow.
steele said[1] @ 11:14pm GMT on 25th Jun

spoilers: he didn't.

Obama says abortion rights law not a top priority

President Barack Obama said on Wednesday he favored abortion rights for women but that passing a law guaranteeing those rights was not his top priority, trying to avoid inflaming divisions over the issue.

he didn't either

Why Tim Kaine can oppose abortion and still run with Hillary Clinton

“We all have beliefs that we wouldn't impose on others."

They totally would have though!

Nancy Pelosi: "Of course" you can be an anti-abortion Democrat

House Minority Leader Pelosi says that it’s absolutely possible for someone to be a member of the Democratic Party and also be against abortion.

Democratic Leadership Still Supporting the House’s Only Anti-Abortion Democrat

Henry Cuellar was the only Democrat to oppose codifying Roe v. Wade. He’s getting leadership support in his runoff election against a progressive pro-choice challenger.

Wow, so much churning.

if only I could remember who fucked over the multiple women accusing Clarence Thomas of sexual harassments at his hearings....
Hugh E. said @ 8:17am GMT on 26th Jun
Interesting blaming Democrats for what Republicans did.
rylex said @ 3:43pm GMT on 26th Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
it's because theyre complicit by not actually taking action.

do you not get that just paying lipservice while not raising your hand is the same as doing nothing?
steele said[1] @ 4:13pm GMT on 26th Jun
It's even worse because it blocks people who are actually trying to do something from doing so. Nancy Pelosi endorsed an anti-abortion candidate over a progressive one. Surprising no one but liberals.
steele said @ 4:14pm GMT on 26th Jun
Interesting how you keep blaming poor people for things millionaires do for billionaires.
gendo666 said @ 5:27pm GMT on 25th Jun
I suspect a rash of shooting in the US as people gun down the judges, lawyers and Republican party members who took part in this and in the obstruction of gun control.
And, except for those caught in the crossfire I have little or no pity.
mechanical contrivance said @ 7:31pm GMT on 25th Jun [Score:2 Insightful]
The kind of people who would do that are the people who support this decision.
gendo666 said @ 7:44pm GMT on 28th Jun
So you are saying a non-reactive reaction?
I suspect I am closer to the truth on this one.
Especially when they come for other contraceptive controls and same sex unions.
Passive resistance will not sway anyone.
the circus said @ 1:39am GMT on 26th Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
I predict absolutely nothing will happen. Not even any riots of note. Just a bunch of fund raising opportunities that'll mostly be spent on more fund raising opportunities.
ComposerNate said @ 6:51pm GMT on 25th Jun
Republican distraction from Republican insurrection and attempted election heist, Republicans continue attacking and must be uprooted
steele said @ 11:17pm GMT on 25th Jun
Crack appears in Jan. 6 committee wall

On Monday, June 13, the first crack appeared in the otherwise cohesive wall of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol. The fissure opened when commi…

ComposerNate said @ 9:44am GMT on 26th Jun
The Jan. 6 committee may be waiting for the DOJ to request a criminal referral or that none be made, or more likely for their hearings to first be concluded.
steele said @ 4:38pm GMT on 26th Jun
The same DOJ that just argued a case that cops don't have to inform you of your rights?

Supreme Court rules out suing police for Miranda violations

The Supreme Court has ruled law enforcement officers can’t be sued for money damages when they violate the rights of criminal suspects by failing to provide the familiar Miranda warning before questioning them

gendo666 said @ 7:45pm GMT on 28th Jun
After watching the testimony today the Republicans and Mr. Trump are FUCKED.
at least in a world where justice takes place.
ComposerNate said @ 8:09am GMT on 29th Jun
Do you mean the Cassidy Hutchinson testimony?
mechanical contrivance said @ 1:55pm GMT on 29th Jun
I avoid news and know nothing about the situation, but I will bet money that Trump and the republicans will be just fine.
gendo666 said @ 9:17pm GMT on 29th Jun
Well she testified he allowed (or wanted to allow) armed civilians stating "they aren't here to hurt me." (paraphrasing)
If they have actual proof of this aside from one testimony....
Again. the committee has been cherry picking for televised testimony.

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.

Posts of Import
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things

Karma Rankings