President Joe Biden

If the ruling goes through...the beauty is it basically goes back to the people in the various states to decide.

Rather than have some unelected group of people decide the issue, it can finally be resolved in the states according to the publics wishes.

Most people support abortion in the first trimester. Most do not in the 2nd trimester. And overwhelmingly people are against abortions in the 3rd trimester.

I suspect we move to more or less around the US allowing it in the 1st trimester. Pretty much in line with what most other countries that allow abortion set at the time limit.
 
Plans in the Health Insurance Marketplace® must cover contraceptive methods and counseling for all women, as prescribed by a health care provider.
Plans must cover these services without charging a copayment or coinsurance when provided by an in-network provider — even if you haven’t met your deductible.

Covered contraceptive methods
FDA-approved contraceptive methods prescribed by a woman’s doctor are covered, including:

  • Barrier methods, like diaphragms and sponges
  • Hormonal methods, like birth control pills and vaginal rings
  • Implanted devices, like intrauterine devices (IUDs)
  • Emergency contraception, like Plan B® and ella®
  • Sterilization procedures
  • Patient education and counseling


www.healthcare.gov

Birth control benefits and reproductive health care options in the Health Insurance Marketplace®

Learn about birth control benefits at Healthcare.gov. Read about the many health care services available at the Health Insurance Marketplace®.
www.healthcare.gov www.healthcare.gov
.
 
Roe v Wade should never have happened instead the Supreme Court should have said that a woman's right to control her body is one of the many unalienable rights spoken about in the Declaration of Independence. Government has no authority to interfere with these kind of rights. Our rights are our rights because we are people. Rights are not given to us by the Constitution and if they were they could be taken away. the Constitution's primary purpose is to limit the government. Religion brought marriage into the government and it should not be an issue of government. The word marriage should be removed from any and all regulations, laws, whatever. To have a relationship (could be a called marriage) is again one of the unalienable rights spoken about in the Declaration of Independence. So many of things the American Revolution was fought over and the Constitution was written to protect us from are happening to us all and it isn't really that new. Abortion/Marriage are not issues the government should be considering or in any way involved but We the People have allowed the government to over step its authority as authorized by the Constitution. Get government out of our daily lives.
 
@espola and @Hüsker Dü- I told the both of you a long time ago that abortion will end and will not be the "thing to do" so dd can finish college and kill baby instead. Espola ignores me because I always wanted babies to have a voice in the womb and a right to speak and a right to breath fresh air. I will speak for them until I die you losers!!! Husker Du say's I need medication because I disagree with killing innocent babies before their birth. You two will go down as the biggest losers ever at the forum. You want my dd to roll her arm up to take the jabs filled with aborted baby tissues, rats, bats and snake venom so she can enroll for in person college and have free access to abortions? Talk about total nonsense. You guys are two Coo Coo birds all in one. My dd is alive today because my biological mother escaped from pure hell so I can be born and then sold to my mom so I could be safe. I came to the earth to bring a voice of reason to the table. You men are selfish killers!!!
 
Hüsker Dü said:
Roe v Wade should never have happened instead the Supreme Court should have said that a woman's right to control her body is one of the many unalienable rights spoken about in the Declaration of Independence. Government has no authority to interfere with these kind of rights. Our rights are our rights because we are people. Rights are not given to us by the Constitution and if they were they could be taken away. the Constitution's primary purpose is to limit the government. Religion brought marriage into the government and it should not be an issue of government. The word marriage should be removed from any and all regulations, laws, whatever. To have a relationship (could be a called marriage) is again one of the unalienable rights spoken about in the Declaration of Independence. So many of things the American Revolution was fought over and the Constitution was written to protect us from are happening to us all and it isn't really that new. Abortion/Marriage are not issues the government should be considering or in any way involved but We the People have allowed the government to over step its authority as authorized by the Constitution. Get government out of our daily lives.
Click to expand...
you are going to group marriage and abortion together? really? one is a medical procedure that always results in death, the other..well, the other may grant you years of joy..or not..
 
what-happened said:
you are going to group marriage and abortion together? really? one is a medical procedure that always results in death, the other..well, the other may grant you years of joy..or not..
Click to expand...
Group together? Only in the way that government should not be using religious beliefs as a basis for law. You either believe in the Constitution or you don’t.
 
what-happened said:
you are going to group marriage and abortion together? really? one is a medical procedure that always results in death, the other..well, the other may grant you years of joy..or not..
Click to expand...
One of the bedrocks of Row v Wade was the right to privacy (between a woman and her doctor and nobody else's business). The same bedrock has been used in same sex marriage & even inter racial marriage. Alito has gone to lengths to state that that doesn't apply there because a life at stake. That premise could be extended to say it doesn't apply for other reasons, i.e. its either a right or not, or the Supreme court is now saying they can decide when or if its a right. Take a vaccine mandate, the mantra has been along the lines of "my body, my choice", but if you take Alito's position that if lives are at stake, then you don't have the right to make that choice necessarily, and certainly you don't have a constitutional right to make decisions for your body if another life is at stake.
 
whatithink said:
One of the bedrocks of Row v Wade was the right to privacy (between a woman and her doctor and nobody else's business). The same bedrock has been used in same sex marriage & even inter racial marriage. Alito has gone to lengths to state that that doesn't apply there because a life at stake. That premise could be extended to say it doesn't apply for other reasons, i.e. its either a right or not, or the Supreme court is now saying they can decide when or if its a right. Take a vaccine mandate, the mantra has been along the lines of "my body, my choice", but if you take Alito's position that if lives are at stake, then you don't have the right to make that choice necessarily, and certainly you don't have a constitutional right to make decisions for your body if another life is at stake.
Click to expand...
I get all of that - I'll leave it to "man" to argue over the eaches of constitutional law. Abortion is a polarizing topic, one I'd rather not get into with people who are mired in partisan politics. Moral arguements and reflection should certainly occur. At the end of the day, for abortion, it's a medical procedure that results in death. You can argue within small margins that the procedure is sometimes required to save life, sometimes. There is nuance in life and death decisions. But to humanely argue you have a right to choose a medical procedure that results in death just because you can is morally askew (in my opinion). Again, not wanting to get into a political discussion about medical procedures.
 
whatithink said:
One of the bedrocks of Row v Wade was the right to privacy (between a woman and her doctor and nobody else's business). The same bedrock has been used in same sex marriage & even inter racial marriage. Alito has gone to lengths to state that that doesn't apply there because a life at stake. That premise could be extended to say it doesn't apply for other reasons, i.e. its either a right or not, or the Supreme court is now saying they can decide when or if its a right. Take a vaccine mandate, the mantra has been along the lines of "my body, my choice", but if you take Alito's position that if lives are at stake, then you don't have the right to make that choice necessarily, and certainly you don't have a constitutional right to make decisions for your body if another life is at stake.
Click to expand...
Jane Roe is talking today and she is letting everyone know the real truth about the real dealings that were going on with her in Texas back in 1973. My wife is Native American and so is my dd and ds. They DO NOT allow for anything to enter their body that they don't want to enter their body. This is because of deeply and sacred and ancestral held beliefs that are passed down from generation to generation. Way before the English came to settle on their land that they willingly shared with others ((The English)). We must honor and respect the true Natives and their peoples and not kick out Native American females in the pursuit of their freedom and happiness without being forced to take bat and snake poison mixed with all sorts of other things I dont even want to talk about any more. I can see how many of my pals are now turning into angry bats and some even seem possessed with so much anger that their not the same person I used to know. It's truly sad.
Crush is a whole different story. I am from deep Scottish Highlander bloodline with the birth name of Kirk. My body, my choice regarding the jabs for me personally. I get to choose. People like me who believe in this kind of freedom are getting fired, blacklisted or worse. It's sure beats being bought, bribed and blackmailed but both are troubling. We all have to live with the choices we make, even if were born into some crazy ass places and families. It's proven in my past religious and day to day circle that those who got jabbed + boosters are getting sicker and meaner as each day passes. I know strong followers of Jesus who said you must obey and get the jab on FB. Now their saying their pro-choice Christians and debating other pro-life Christians. It's all a trip and very divisive right now in the Christianism. So much division over the right to abort up to 6 months or longer. Roe was not looking for 6 months back then. They ((the far left)) have taken this issue way to far and we all know why. They have Docs doing 200 a week and then selling the baby parts to make $$$. That is not what Jane had in mine either or most mothers. I am monitoring three hard gore left leaning pals and they are not doing well. Full of anger and always sick. We now know 100% that those who get angry are scared are just fearful of the future and they are projecting their worst fears unto all of us, to make our lives like their lives or else they will scream and go nuts on everything they are against. I believe all humans need to be re-educated and re-taught about the real truth about the real meaning of life and we came. Pay to play with sex has to have some responsibility to it. We need to initiate the male better as a society and teach him a few things about sex and all that fun stuff. Males need help and so do the females. Things like respect, self control, patience, birth control, the moon cycle and so much more. We need to appreciate life better and not kill a beating heart. I like that. No kill when their is a heart. Lets tighten things up at each State level.
 
Last edited:
whatithink said:
One of the bedrocks of Row v Wade was the right to privacy (between a woman and her doctor and nobody else's business). The same bedrock has been used in same sex marriage & even inter racial marriage. Alito has gone to lengths to state that that doesn't apply there because a life at stake. That premise could be extended to say it doesn't apply for other reasons, i.e. its either a right or not, or the Supreme court is now saying they can decide when or if its a right. Take a vaccine mandate, the mantra has been along the lines of "my body, my choice", but if you take Alito's position that if lives are at stake, then you don't have the right to make that choice necessarily, and certainly you don't have a constitutional right to make decisions for your body if another life is at stake.
Click to expand...
My understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, was that Alito's position is that it involved a 3rd party. So from his position "my body, my choice" isn't necessarily applicable. IMO I believe that to extrapolate that this decision will impact gay marriage, interracial marriage etc is a bit of fear mongering, but only time will tell. I didn't think Roe v. Wade would ever be overturned since there had been a majority of Republican appointed judges for quite some time. I've been wrong before and I will be wrong again. I think the extremes from both sides are being disingenuous about what this decision means.

BTW Row v Wade is a fishing decision and not a Supreme Court decision. ;)
 
Hüsker Dü said:
Group together? Only in the way that government should not be using religious beliefs as a basis for law. You either believe in the Constitution or you don’t.
Click to expand...
You either believe in the Constitution or you don't......

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.”
“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
 
Lion Eyes said:
You either believe in the Constitution or you don't......

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.”
“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
Click to expand...

What do we the people think about this? (You remember them/us? They/We are the first mentioned in the Constitution)
 
espola said:
What do we the people think about this? (You remember them/us? They/We are the first mentioned in the Constitution)
Click to expand...
And that is the beauty of this decision if this is what it actually is.

They are saying the issue should be left up to the various legislatures elected by the people, rather than be decided by a court.

In other words we the people will now finally have a say in the issue.
 
THEY FORGET THIS: Supreme Court leak confirms Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s prescient warning about Roe v. Wade: Ginsburg firmly supported abortion, but she lamented the court’s decision to unilaterally create a new ‘regime’ on the subject.
Ginsburg warned against major judicial shifts in a 1992 lecture at New York University, citing Roe as an example.
“Measured motions seem to me right, in the main, for constitutional as well as common law adjudication,” she argued. “Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped, experience teaches, may prove unstable. The most prominent example in recent decades is Roe v. Wade.”
Ginsburg noted that Roe struck down far more than the specific Texas criminal abortion statute at issue in the case.
“Suppose the court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force,” she said. “A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why, might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy.” . . .
Ginsburg went on to contrast the court’s landmark decision in Roe with a slew of decisions from 1971 to 1982 in which the court struck down “a series of state and federal laws that differentiated explicitly on the basis of sex.”
Rather than creating a new philosophy of law and imposing it on the nation immediately, “the court, in effect, opened a dialogue with the political branches of government.”
“In essence, the court instructed Congress and state legislatures: rethink ancient positions on these questions,” Ginsburg noted. “The ball, one might say, was tossed by the justices back into the legislators’ court, where the political forces of the day could operate.”
Click to expand...

I suspect that if things had been left to legislatures, we’d have something like what’s common in Europe, easy availability in the first 12 weeks, much more difficult after. By European standards, by the way, the Mississippi law in question in Dobbs, which allows abortion for any reason through week 15, isn’t extreme at all.
 
espola said:
What do we the people think about this? (You remember them/us? They/We are the first mentioned in the Constitution)
Click to expand...
You are including ALL the people, right Magoo? Pro choice & pro abortion are part of "we the people".
The court is sending the issue back to the States..."to the people's elected representatives".
If the ruling is final, abortion in California will not change.
If we the people want abortion to be a Constitutional Right, then put forth a Constitutional Amendment and add it to the Constitution.
See the 18th & 21st Amendments as examples...
 
Desert Hound said:
And that is the beauty of this decision if this is what it actually is.

They are saying the issue should be left up to the various legislatures elected by the people, rather than be decided by a court.

In other words we the people will now finally have a say in the issue.
Click to expand...
The only problem I have with this is that abortion rights weren't on the ballot when the current representatives were elected. I know some people that would change their vote based on this single issue alone.

I understand the rationale for the decision and I fully support the idea that when in doubt let the individual states decide, but I think it would be more appropriate for the issue of abortion to be voted on individually by the state voters and not through an elected representative.
 
what-happened said:
I get all of that - I'll leave it to "man" to argue over the eaches of constitutional law. Abortion is a polarizing topic, one I'd rather not get into with people who are mired in partisan politics. Moral arguements and reflection should certainly occur. At the end of the day, for abortion, it's a medical procedure that results in death. You can argue within small margins that the procedure is sometimes required to save life, sometimes. There is nuance in life and death decisions. But to humanely argue you have a right to choose a medical procedure that results in death just because you can is morally askew (in my opinion). Again, not wanting to get into a political discussion about medical procedures.
Click to expand...
It is certainly nuanced, examples being an abortion to save the mother's life or in cases of rape. I'm not an abortion free for all advocate, but I also don't believe that I can choose what someone else's wife, mother, daughter can do against their will, in this instance.
 
watfly said:
My understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, was that Alito's position is that it involved a 3rd party. So from his position "my body, my choice" isn't necessarily applicable. IMO I believe that to extrapolate that this decision will impact gay marriage, interracial marriage etc is a bit of fear mongering, but only time will tell. I didn't think Roe v. Wade would ever be overturned since there had been a majority of Republican appointed judges for quite some time. I've been wrong before and I will be wrong again. I think the extremes from both sides are being disingenuous about what this decision means.

BTW Row v Wade is a fishing decision and not a Supreme Court decision. ;)
Click to expand...
The problem is that when you are at pains to explain that it doesn't extend to other things, like gay marriage, as the basis for that decision was at least partly the same, then you are acknowledging that it could extend to those things, if someone else decides it does. Basically, people with diametrically opposing views (re abortion) both feel they are the rational one and the other isn't. So "fear mongering" to one person is actual fear to another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top