BS: Roe v. Wade

Subject: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Lighter
Date: 24 Jun 22 - 11:26 AM

Completely overturned by SCOTUS a few minutes ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 24 Jun 22 - 11:34 AM

They are arseholes aren't they. Not a problem, women can still get an abortion in Canada!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 24 Jun 22 - 11:46 AM

States move to ban abortion after US supreme court overturns Roe v Wade – live Landmark ruling was split on ideological lines, with six conservatives voting in favor and three liberals dissenting

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 24 Jun 22 - 12:06 PM

They can also come to UK - like the Irish girls do!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Jun 22 - 12:17 PM

the supream court has corrected previous decisions that were mistakes to begin with like the Dred Scott decision when Southerners demanded that Blacks be counted with whites. The Court clearly reflected the strength of the pro-slavery forces. The “Three-fifths Compromise” allowed a state to count three fifths of each Black person in determining political representation in the House.

The decision on Roe Wade is a 5/4 decision and it is the first time a 'Right' has been erased by the Court.

The approval rating of the Court is at an all time low of 24%.


( If you are as body language literate as I, take notice the only Supream Court Justice who can not naturally smile is Cavanaugh. All he can do is grimmace with exposed teeth.) I'm not saying if it means a thing except it looks super creepy.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 24 Jun 22 - 01:02 PM

Herself reads aloud the ticker about this on the BBC news coverage. "Welcome to the Republic of Gilead," says I.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: keberoxu
Date: 24 Jun 22 - 01:06 PM

I've got to the point where I actively avoid certain posts,
on threads like this.

To be fair,
there are probably Mudcat members
who treat posts from me the same way.

Decisions like this one make history.
But do things have to get this much worse
before they get better?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Jun 22 - 01:08 PM

Poor women can't travel to Canada or the UK for abortions, there may need to be an underground railroad bus system or something to take women to nearby states that still offer them.

The pill method of abortion will probably grow considerably, as we see parcels shipped from innocuous senders, in "plain brown wrappers," and hope it works.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Lighter
Date: 24 Jun 22 - 01:41 PM

The "Three-fifths Compromise" was in the Constitution. It limited the Congressional power of the slave states.

It had nothing to do with Dred Scott.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Jun 22 - 01:54 PM

They were both vile circumstances brought about by rich white men landowners.

Women in the US can carry a gun if they wish but according to the Supremes, they must carry a child if they find themselves so situated and live in the wrong state. Women are now second class citizens without bodily autonomy concerning one of the most important decisions they make in their lives. Gilead indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Jun 22 - 02:12 PM

Lighter is 'righter'

Missouri's Dred Scott Case, 1846-1857. In its 1857 decision that stunned the nation, the United States Supreme Court upheld slavery in United States territories, denied the legality of black citizenship in America, and declared the Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional.

Dred Scott confused in school too.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Jun 22 - 02:26 PM

At any rate it looks like women are separate but not equal in conservative eyes. Title 9 is also in jeopardy along with contraception and states like Alabama pushing to make any kind of abortion a felony for the woman. Same sex marriage is in trouble again with this Trump Court. Perhaps the Trump judges lied a little when they told Congress that "if confirmed I will not overturn Roe..."

80 million people who did not vote (some I bet are women) bear some respondsibility for today's outcome. Some are the young and others are the old who say "I don't speak of religion or politics".

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 24 Jun 22 - 04:01 PM

Herself (who is quite religious - convent educated): "Although strictly speaking abortion is a sin because it's taking an innocent life, sins can be forgiven; and there are some circumstances where, awful though abortion might be, it's the least worst option, and women should not be criminalised if they have to make this choice. Women in some circumstances will always seek abortions, and in these circumstances these should be legal and as safe as possible. Isn't it better to lose one life rather than two? I think it's very sad that this has got polarised like this, although it makes me cross when I see (generally speaking) middle-aged right-wing men, who will never be put in that position, telling women what they should do.

It's set a precedent; where will it end? Welcome to Gilead, indeed."

MaJoC's TL;DR : It should be hard, but it shouldn't be impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 24 Jun 22 - 04:04 PM

.... and it'll hit the poorest hardest, as has been noted on the news coverage over here.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jun 22 - 04:19 PM

"Although strictly speaking abortion is a sin because it's taking an innocent life..."

Absolutely not so. If you believe in God you believe in sin. If you think that God is the omnipotent being, then just remember that one in four pregnancies is aborted by Mother Nature. Except that we prefer to use the term "miscarriage." That's another word that is intended to put the burden of guilt on women. "She miscarried..." If you have God, then he's responsible for hundreds of millions more miscarriages/abortions than all the women in history. Next time you hear someone excoriating a woman for having an abortion, just remember that. Especially if the man (yeah...) is invoking the name of the Lord...

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Lighter
Date: 24 Jun 22 - 05:35 PM

To hear some people, you'd think the federal government had been forcing people to have abortions.

If you believe abortion is a sin, no one was making you get one.

BTW, Justice Thomas's opinion explicitly encourages litigation to overturn protections for sexual acts between consenting adults, gay marriage, and (not making this up) use of contraceptives.

You'll also notice that, like abortion, women are not mentioned in the Constitution.

So being one may be ruled unconstitutional in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jun 22 - 06:18 PM

And it's a cast-iron bet, though I haven't checked, that the eminent triumphalist anti-abortionists who are currently crowing aloud are the self-same people who support the death penalty and who support the right to bear the arms that kill tens of thousands of Americans every year. So much for pro-life, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Jun 22 - 07:35 PM

The pro lifers have 26 States with 'TRIGGER LAWS' that will immediately make abortions illegal and criminalize various participants regarding abortion.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 25 Jun 22 - 02:34 AM

At Glastonbury, Phoebe Bridgers, the American singer-songwriter, led chants of “Fuck the Supreme Court” after saying she had been having “the shittiest time”.

She asked if any Americans were in the audience, which drew boos from the crowd, then added: “Who wants to say, ‘Fuck the supreme court’? One, two, three…”

“Fuck that shit. Fuck America and all these irrelevant old motherfuckers trying to tell us what to do with our fucking bodies. Fuck it.”

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jun 22 - 06:24 AM

Good for her. I caught a bit of that. Though the thing is we need the good people in America to fight to overturn this. So "fuck America" doesn't really cut it for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 25 Jun 22 - 06:31 AM

The supreme court has done what it has never done before: expressly take away a constitutional right that is so fundamental to so many Americans that had already been recognized.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jun 22 - 06:38 AM

From the BBC:

Billie Eilish has used her Glastonbury headline set to protest the US Supreme Court's decision to end the constitutional right to abortion.

"Today is a really, really dark day for women in the US," the 20-year-old said from the Pyramid Stage.
"I'm just going to say that because I can't bear to think about it any longer."

She went on to dedicate Your Power, a song about older men who abuse their position, to everyone affected.

And she's bloody good, isn't she?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: PHJim
Date: 25 Jun 22 - 07:11 AM

Lighter said: "BTW, Justice Thomas's opinion explicitly encourages litigation to overturn protections for sexual acts between consenting adults, gay marriage, and (not making this up) use of contraceptives."

*********************************************************************
Interracial marriage in the United States has been fully legal in all U.S. states since the 1967 Supreme Court decision that deemed anti-miscegenation state laws unconstitutional (via the 14th Amendment adopted in 1868) with many states choosing to legalize interracial marriage at much earlier dates. This falls into the same category as these other proposed litigations and if it were overturned, would make Justice Thomas's marriage illegal. He's a bit of a hypocrite, don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jun 22 - 08:14 AM

Is there any country in the world where there is a constitutional right to abortion?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 25 Jun 22 - 08:49 AM

Is there any country in the world where there is a constitutional right to own a gun? Ah yes, the usa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Jeri
Date: 25 Jun 22 - 09:51 AM

The long range result of this is that we always respected the Supreme Court for being apolitical.
I think we don't respect them any longer.

I think it's significant that there aren't many (any?) psycho gun nuts on the left. I imagine if there were, things might be different. I also hope that doctors ignore the SCOTUS, and Congress amend the Constitution to make control of one's body and what grows in it constitutional right.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Jun 22 - 11:28 AM

To amend the Constitution, 2/3 of both Houses of Congress must vote for the amendment (won't happen soon). Then it must be ratified by 3/4 of the states (ditto).

On average, it takes four years to ratify an Amendment.

Like the other rights that Thomas wants srutinized, Roe v. Wade is based on the 14th Amendment. It's been sustained by courts about a dozen times, notably by the Supreme Court in 1989.

Now yesterday's decision states that the reasoning behind Roe was "weak," and all the judges and who upheld it (appointed by Democratic and Republican Presidents) were essentially fools.

The decision also says that the 1973 decision "divided America."

Presumably unlike this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 25 Jun 22 - 12:20 PM

There will be back street abortion clinics all over the usa - you mark my words!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Jeri
Date: 25 Jun 22 - 12:26 PM

First, there will be busses. Map of states where abortion is legal/illegal.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jun 22 - 12:32 PM

Relevant part of 14th Amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Jun 22 - 05:23 PM

Rectifying the Court will be more accepted as time goes by.
How it can be done:
Stacking a 12 judge court.
Impeaching one or two like Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/03/30/impeach-supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-00021480
Then there is nature's imperative.
Besides,Clarence doesn't look well.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jun 22 - 05:32 PM

Wouldn’t it be better to accept that it's not a matter of constitutional rights, but of legislation, as in all other countries? Either at state or federal level.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 25 Jun 22 - 05:49 PM

Forced birth in a country with no universal healthcare, no universal childcare, no paid family and medical leave, one of the highest rates of maternal mortality among rich nations. This isn’t about “life”. It’s about control.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Jun 22 - 08:47 PM

Never had the votes McGrath.
Extreme control bonz
The Court ALSO weakened Miranda rights you know "You have the right to remain silent..." Well by a 6 to 3 decision the court made it less than a suggestion and impossible to sue law enforcement if not mirandized.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Jun 22 - 01:18 AM

In my opinion every state and community that bans abortion should IMMEDIATELY pass a law that requires the male who sired the pregnancy to take on the financial support, under penalty of law, of the child-to-be. Until the child is aged 18.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 26 Jun 22 - 02:06 AM

Who are these bible bashing pricks who made this decision anyway?? Is there nothing Biden can do??

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jun 22 - 07:30 AM

It should clearly be the legal responsibility of both parents to support their children. Isn't that already legally required in the USA?

Making sure that such laws are effectively applied, and that all children do get the support they need is self-evidently a paramount obligation on any government, especially where the parents do not or cannot provide it.

That doesn't appear to be the case in most countries. And changing that seems to be only a peripheral issue for too many political activists.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 26 Jun 22 - 01:35 PM

Comment made on British TV: The Supreme Court judges must be very brave, to make that decision in a country where women can carry guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jun 22 - 06:18 PM

One small step for ass holes one giant leap for misogynists.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jun 22 - 06:55 AM

Life begins at conception is a religion for those who use the issue for conservatives. Which came first, the woman or the egg? It is a big lie that a sperm has nothing to do with it. Historicly life begins at perception or a live birth. Clarence Thomas warns that contraception is next on the chopping block. Will that include vasectomies and condoms?
There is alot of dishonerty in this debate. sorry. Its not a debate anymore, its a crime. The Court decision will leave women dead while men go on their merry way. Women die from unsafe abortions.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Jun 22 - 10:46 AM

Clearly life does begin at conception. The question is at what stage does that that life get given the status of a human being. That is essentially a cultural and political decision, not a scientific one. Historically different societies have held to a range of alternatives in between the point of conception and the time of birth.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jun 22 - 10:55 AM

Some say the age of reason begins at 13. Brain wiring is mostly complete at 21. The age of gun ownership ranges from 11 up.The age of gun purchase is 18.
The age of wisdom is rarely achieved as demonstrated by the Supream Court.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jun 22 - 11:35 AM

Life began (we think) in nutrient-rich water about 3.5 billion years ago and has been continuous, burgeoning and evolving ever since. The "life begins" argument, laden with the requisite dose of emotion according to who's making it, is bogus. Sperms and eggs are every bit as alive as an embryo, a foetus or a fully-grown human. From what I've heard coming out of America in the last few days, it isn't pointless arguments about "when life begins" that are at the core of the issue. Rather, it's the siren voices of particular people who like to call themselves "Christians" who harbour the cruellest of cruel notions about women. When those people's time comes, the Jesus who they love to invoke is certain to refuse them admission. Sadly, that means they'll never be punished.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Lighter
Date: 27 Jun 22 - 12:10 PM

A male lawgiver was being interviewed on cable a couple of weeks ago. He asserted that life begins at fertilization.

The female interviewer then asked if implantation wouldn't be a more reasonable moment for the beginning of life.

There was an embarrassing silence while his eyes shifted back and forth. The man clearly didn't know what she was talking about. Then he answered some imaginary, vaguely related question.

"Dismaying" would be an understatement.

BTW, pro-lifers have recently started to employ the phrase, "The science says," as in "The science says that life begins at conception" and "The science says that women have died from taking [FDA-approved] abortion pills."

Of course, it's a phrase that's commonly used by physicians and public-health officials when debunking claims that covid vaccines don't work.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jun 22 - 01:39 PM

Try telling them that the science says there probably isn't a God.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Jun 22 - 04:24 PM

THE science - something they feel the need to appropriate (and misrepresent). One thing only, as if science wasn't a large and complicated field. GOP and religious zealots make it up as they go along.

There's a painkiller ad I hear on TV frequently, one I'm not tempted to try, but they have two or three older white men seated at a table in white lab coats (we are to assume they are physicians instead of actors) answer a question about pain killers. The line they use is "based upon clinical studies" they recommend X. The company probably couldn't produce any science, but they make that broad statement as if there is evidence.

Weasel words.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 27 Jun 22 - 04:52 PM

Paracetamol does me !!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Jun 22 - 05:36 PM

"Based upon clinical studies" is really a more valid thing to say than "the science says". Though without further information it's just as vacuous.

Cells are of course alive, but a cell is never going to develop into a human being. That requires a fertilised ovum. There's nothing in anyway controversial about saying that a life provisionally starts at conception. Where differences can arise is about the stage of development at which it should be regarded as entitled to continue developing. That's a matter of culture and politics rather than science. (Religious views being one aspect of the culture.)

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jun 22 - 07:25 PM

And round and round we go. "Life starts at..." (finish in your own way, shout it to the world then realise that there is no answer and that it's a pointless road to take).

The problem with this whole argument is that many people are anti-abortion but no-one is actually pro-abortion, in the sense that no-one advocates it enthusiastically as a lifestyle choice. No-one thinks that it's a great idea. No-one views it airily as a consequence-free pastime. Pro-life is a bogus concept. People claiming to be pro-life really mean that they are anti-abortion. Many of them are anti-abortion but pro-gun and pro-death penalty. They are not pro-life.

A great starting point would be to agree that abortion is a poor outcome in every case. Then we can ask what we can do about it. Why would someone get pregnant then want to get un-pregnant? Men, women, boys and girls have the right to be educated about love, sex, relationships, self-esteem and respect for others. I'm not talking about abject sex-ed lessons with condoms rolled on bananas and diagrams in books, lessons given by the school nurse or the embarrassed biology teacher overseen by the priest (yes, really!). We are failing badly if boys can somehow make girls feel that they have to have sex. We are decades behind the curve in all these things because we allow pornography to exist and make it easy for ten-year-olds to access it. Pornography that portrays twisted attitudes to sex and which is designed to stop you thinking and start you lasciviating, which confuses sex that should come with love with sex that comes with power, with dominance and submission, with perversion.

Because we've allowed this to happen it's become very difficult to see how we can fight it. My cloud-cuckoo land is one in which there is no pornography, in which all parents and teachers are expected to show responsibility for nurturing young people's attitudes to relationships, which provides free and unlimited contraception along with advice as to how to use it. Society would strive for equality and to eliminate sexist attitudes. Abortion should be freely available on demand, no time limits (they are bogus: vanishingly few abortions are sought by the third trimester, and that would go down to nothing given good education of the kind we are currently scared to provide). In my cloud-cuckoo land, abortions would hardly be needed at all.

I like barbs, so I'd just say that what we need like a hole in the head are priests, imams and rabbis telling us that our thoughts are impure and that Jesus (or equivalent) is watching us if we do anything to ourselves or each other six inches below the neckline and a foot above the kneeline. That abstinence is a Good Thing that will make us holy. That sex is for marriage only. I was told at school that I must gaze upwards and say a prayer to the Virgin Mary whenever I was soaping up my private parts (their words: my 15-year-old self didn't know what they were talking about). I might have had fun avoiding that advice but I'm too old to remember... ;-)

Like everything else, it's all about edukashun...

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jun 22 - 08:09 PM

The meaning of life...The size of the universe...Life begins at...By eating the body and drinking the blood, religion will save your everlasting soul...Answer these questions correctly and they will not burn you at the stake for being a heretic. But get even one wrong...
Religious extremism holds a 29% majority. You may have noticed 29% isn't even a plurality but thats The Court and religion for ya.