President Joe Biden

[Lion Eyes]

The Supreme Court basically ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that segregation laws were legal. Creating a racist 'separate but equal' law.
The ruling was in 1896. 58 years later, in 1954 the Supreme Court overturned the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.
Surely Democrats screamed and howled that segregation -separate but equal - had been legal for 58 years and this would not stand.
The sky was not falling then and it's not falling now.

 

[Lion Eyes]

Ruth Bader Ginsberg had concerns about the Roe V. Wade ruling for decades...

“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,”

Supreme Court leak confirms Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s prescient warning about Roe v. Wade (nypost.com)

 

[Hüsker Dü]

I will hazard another prediction.
1. Population of minorities in states where abortion is illegal will rise to the horror of right wing racists. This being that they are historically the group that have least access to birth control. Families with 7 to 8 people will be common like those you see in Latin America where abortion is illegal in many countries.
2. More single parent where girls are left holding the bag as boys deny being the dad. Just like what is seen in many countries where abortion is illegal.
3. Baby drops will be more common where unwanted babies can be dropped off, no questions asked.

How about making birth control free and readily available. How about holding men responsible for their actions, all men.

 

[Lion Eyes]

Meanwhile "transitory" trends we are living in.
Gas is higher, food is higher, electricity & natural gas is higher, illegal immigration is out of control & Afghanistan is a painful reality.

 

[Brav520]

I will hazard a prediction -- if this ends up being the final result of the Supreme Court, it will become the #1 issue in the November elections. We might see a parallel to the 2020 elections, where t's behavior galvanized the opposition to support what would otherwise have been seen as a weak slate just to get t out of office. That prediction is based on a survey of everyone I know or see on social media, which is more than 0.

unlikely this becomes the #1 issue if inflation is still out there

 

[watfly]

How about making birth control free and readily available. How about holding men responsible for their actions, all men.

While I agree whole-heartedly with your sentiment, the problem is a lot more complicated than your suggestions. Birth control is available if you want it, its not that hard to track down. Every liquor store has condoms, plenty of Planned Parenthood's around and even the rhythm method is effective (but not foolproof, although far more effective than the Covid vaccine or masks). I would support free birth control. As far as deadbeat dads are concerned, what's your solution? Send them to jail...I could get behind that. I just don't know that we (the royal we) could reach a legal definition of "dead beat".

We could take the Olympic approach and handout condoms for free, but that doesn't mean they will get used. Their is still individual responsibility for birth control regardless of how available and affordable you make birth control.

 

[tenacious]

I will hazard a prediction -- if this ends up being the final result of the Supreme Court, it will become the #1 issue in the November elections. We might see a parallel to the 2020 elections, where t's behavior galvanized the opposition to support what would otherwise have been seen as a weak slate just to get t out of office. That prediction is based on a survey of everyone I know or see on social media, which is more than 0.

My guess is with the morning after pill and the creation of male birth control... that the need for abortion services were destined to become less about birth control and more about a means of dealing with unborn children with major birth defects.

So therefore in the long term, while I think it's a beautiful thing if a family decides to raise a child with down syndrome or severe birth defects- 99% of America isn't going to want to play that game. Even in the reddest states, when folks start realizing what lack of abortion services means to them personally they are going start pushing back.

 

[Hüsker Dü]

While I agree whole-heartedly with your sentiment, the problem is a lot more complicated than your suggestions. Birth control is available if you want it, its not that hard to track down. Every liquor store has condoms, plenty of Planned Parenthood's around and even the rhythm method is effective (but not foolproof, although far more effective than the Covid vaccine or masks). I would support free birth control. As far as deadbeat dads are concerned, what's your solution? Send them to jail...I could get behind that. I just don't know that we (the royal we) could reach a legal definition of "dead beat".

We could take the Olympic approach and handout condoms for free, but that doesn't mean they will get used. Their is still individual responsibility for birth control regardless of how available and affordable you make birth control.

In some cases health insurance will pay for ED medication but not birth control for women . . . and who’s making those decisions?

 

[watfly]

In some cases health insurance will pay for ED medication but not birth control for women . . . and who’s making those decisions?

Or pay to deliver a baby, but not birth control. The cost/benefit analysis seems to be lacking.

 

[Desert Hound]

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.

 

[espola]

Or pay to deliver a baby, but not birth control. The cost/benefit analysis seems to be lacking.

Or pay for infant and child health care.

 

[Lion Eyes]

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

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

.

 

[Hüsker Dü]

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.

 

[crush]

@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!!!

 

[what-happened]

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.

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..

 

[Hüsker Dü]

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..

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]

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.

fundamentally agree.

 

[whatithink]

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..

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.

 

[what-happened]

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.

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.

 

[crush]

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.

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.

 

[watfly]

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.

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.