Roe vs Wade Overturned

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

But they don't though.  They are making the restrictions tighter, not helping girls like this.  NC is trying to make abortion a death penalty offense.  That's my issue.  In that case, shouldn't they have left abortion legal and worked towards it from there rather than what they've done?

That’s the debate society is going to have….but what the court said is that it it’s not up to the judicial branch to make these decisions. That’s not what the court does! So, you petition your state  legislature to make adjustments to your state’s laws. It’s how the process works.

[ChiGoose]

13 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

That’s the debate society is going to have….but what the court said is that it it’s not up to the judicial branch to make these decisions. That’s not what the court does! So, you petition your state  legislature to make adjustments to your state’s laws. It’s how the process works.

“If women live in deep red states, screw them! Make children carry pregnancies to term no matter the risk! That’s what the people want! Trust the process! America!”

 

I have to admit, it’s not a very convincing argument. What other rights should we let legislatures decide? Interracial marriage? Access to contraceptives? Which religion people practice?

 

I mean, I’m sure all of that would be fine so long as we “trust the process” right?

Edited July 25, 2022 by ChiGoose

[cle23]

52 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

That’s the debate society is going to have….but what the court said is that it it’s not up to the judicial branch to make these decisions. That’s not what the court does! So, you petition your state  legislature to make adjustments to your state’s laws. It’s how the process works.

 

Exactly what ChiGoose said.  The Supreme Court's job isn't to make laws, but it is to make sure the rights of the people are not infringed upon, and that includes from states and the populace.  Majority rule is not how a republic works.  That's how a pure democracy works, and that is also why we are not a pure democracy.

[ChiGoose]

In Ohio, the people trusted the process and now rapists get to choose the mother of their children.

 

So we should all be happy that things have worked out well, right?

[B-Man]

 

FROM PRO-CHOICE

 

TO PRO-ABORTION

 

TO ANTI-BIRTH: 

 

In Show Of Pro-Abortion Brutality, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer Just Slashed Care For Pregnant Women From Michigan’s Budget.

By Margot Cleveland

 

Last week, Michigan’s Democrat Gov. Gretchen Whitmer vetoed funding for maternity homes, adoption tax credits, and other budget items that assist pregnant women.

 

While post-Dobbs, Whitmer and her fellow Democrats seek to conceal the party’s pro-abortion agenda by pushing state courts to institute the extreme abortion regime they demand, in striking from the budget any spending that has a semblance of supporting the choice of life, Whitmer exposes her party’s abortion-first position. 

 

https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/25/in-show-of-pro-abortion-brutality-gov-gretchen-whitmer-just-slashed-care-for-pregnant-women-from-michigans-budget/

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

3 hours ago, cle23 said:

 

Exactly what ChiGoose said.  The Supreme Court's job isn't to make laws, but it is to make sure the rights of the people are not infringed upon, and that includes from states and the populace.  Majority rule is not how a republic works.  That's how a pure democracy works, and that is also why we are not a pure democracy.

That is NOT the job of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is there to make distinctions about whether things are spelled out in the Constitution….not to create ‘rights’ that are not spelled out. So relax and let the process work itself out. If then the Legislative Branch appears to have stepped on people’s constitutional rights THEN the Court will be asked for an opinion. Our legislative process is not a democracy, but instead representative government…which is why they’re called Representatives. 

[ChiGoose]

51 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

That is NOT the job of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is there to make distinctions about whether things are spelled out in the Constitution….not to create ‘rights’ that are not spelled out. 

This would come as a surprise to the authors of the 9th amendment and the Bills of Rights in general.

[All_Pro_Bills]

22 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

This would come as a surprise to the authors of the 9th amendment and the Bills of Rights in general.

Shouldn't those additional rights be either spelled out in the Constitution or provided through the establishment of law by the Legislative branch?  And not through Judicial proclamations or interpretations as the court is not in the business of granting or defining rights.   Given that context, I'm not clear how the court ruling violates or contradicts the 9th amendment. 

Edited July 25, 2022 by All_Pro_Bills

[ChiGoose]

18 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Shouldn't those additional rights be either spelled out in the Constitution or provided through the establishment of law by the Legislative branch?  And not through Judicial proclamations or interpretations as the court is not in the business of granting or defining rights.   Given that context, I'm not clear how the court ruling violates or contradicts the 9th amendment. 

This is a good question, I’ll take a stab at explaining it.

 

The text of the constitution generally talks about what the government itself can or cannot do. It explains the boundaries of the government.

 

However, at the time there was concern about the rights of the people themselves. So while the Constitution spoke to the government, the Bill of Rights was drafted to outline the rights of the people.  
 

This was controversial, because how could you possibly list every single right a person has? Many founders were concerned that future generations would interpret the Bill of Rights to be an exhaustive list of rights and that if something does not appear in its text, then it is not a right. The consequences of them not thinking of a right they believe in while drafting the amendments could be massive.
 

The solution was the 9th amendment which states that just because a right isn’t listed in the text does not mean it doesn’t exist. This is where we’re find the unenumerated rights. It is further expounded through subsequent amendments like the 14th. The Bill of Rights explicitly states some important rights, but it is not exhaustive of all rights retained by the people.

 

So I think it is fair to say that part of the Supreme Court’s job is to draw some lines in that gray area. And we can debate about where the best place is to draw that line.

 

However, the argument that something isn’t a right simply because it doesn’t appear in the text of the constitution or its amendments is antithetical to what the founders intended. 

It’s hard to argue that something left to a legislature is a reliable right since it can easily be revoked by the legislature. I’d also encourage you to think about things that are not explicitly stated in the constitution that maybe you wouldn’t want to leave to the whims of politicians. Interracial marriage, privacy, even the right to travel, are all unenumerated rights not explicitly stated in the constitution. Do you think all of these should be left to politicians to decide, or would it be better for those rights to be established guardrails that legislatures cannot override?

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

This is a good question, I’ll take a stab at explaining it.

 

The text of the constitution generally talks about what the government itself can or cannot do. It explains the boundaries of the government.

 

However, at the time there was concern about the rights of the people themselves. So while the Constitution spoke to the government, the Bill of Rights was drafted to outline the rights of the people.  
 

This was controversial, because how could you possibly list every single right a person has? Many founders were concerned that future generations would interpret the Bill of Rights to be an exhaustive list of rights and that if something does not appear in its text, then it is not a right. The consequences of them not thinking of a right they believe in while drafting the amendments could be massive.
 

The solution was the 9th amendment which states that just because a right isn’t listed in the text does not mean it doesn’t exist. This is where we’re find the unenumerated rights. It is further expounded through subsequent amendments like the 14th. The Bill of Rights explicitly states some important rights, but it is not exhaustive of all rights retained by the people.

 

So I think it is fair to say that part of the Supreme Court’s job is to draw some lines in that gray area. And we can debate about where the best place is to draw that line.

 

However, the argument that something isn’t a right simply because it doesn’t appear in the text of the constitution or its amendments is antithetical to what the founders intended. 

It’s hard to argue that something left to a legislature is a reliable right since it can easily be revoked by the legislature. I’d also encourage you to think about things that are not explicitly stated in the constitution that maybe you wouldn’t want to leave to the whims of politicians. Interracial marriage, privacy, even the right to travel, are all unenumerated rights not explicitly stated in the constitution. Do you think all of these should be left to politicians to decide, or would it be better for those rights to be established guardrails that legislatures cannot override?

Why is this so FREAKING hard? You do NOT have the right to kill to someone!!

[ChiGoose]

57 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Why is this so FREAKING hard? You do NOT have the right to kill to someone!!

So you, and solely you, get to determine when life begins?

[Boatdrinks]

13 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

So you, and solely you, get to determine when life begins?

And therein lies the b*+<#. Who shall determine this? Some compromise will likely be reached on this issue, with limitations at a certain point. Not all states will rule on this the same way. This diversity will continue to be our strength, as we can freely choose the state in which we reside. 

[ChiGoose]

Just now, Boatdrinks said:

And therein lies the b*+<#. Who shall determine this? Some compromise will likely be reached on this issue, with limitations at a certain point. Not all states will rule on this the same way. This diversity will continue to be our strength, as we can freely choose the state in which we reside. 

We had that compromise: bodily autonomy in first trimester, right of the baby in the third trimester and states could regulate in the second trimester. 

[SoCal Deek]

22 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

So you, and solely you, get to determine when life begins?

No….but neither does the court. Geez you’re insufferable. 

2 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

And therein lies the b*+<#. Who shall determine this? Some compromise will likely be reached on this issue, with limitations at a certain point. Not all states will rule on this the same way. This diversity will continue to be our strength, as we can freely choose the state in which we reside. 

Thank you!!!

[BillsFanNC]

 

 

[Boatdrinks]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

We had that compromise: bodily autonomy in first trimester, right of the baby in the third trimester and states could regulate in the second trimester. 

Via a bad ruling that was overturned. Some states may continue with that guideline and others may not. There is no problem here. Just diversity. 

[ChiGoose]

8 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Via a bad ruling that was overturned. Some states may continue with that guideline and others may not. There is no problem here. Just diversity. 

Yeah, and if states decide that rapists get to decide the mothers of their children even if the would-be mothers are children themselves, that’s fine! It’s the process working!

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Yeah, and if states decide that rapists get to decide the mothers of their children even if the would-be mothers are children themselves, that’s fine! It’s the process working!

And to quote you….and YOU get to be the one to decide for everyone else? 

[ChiGoose]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

And to quote you….and YOU get to be the one to decide for everyone else? 

No. In the tradition of the founders, the courts should try to draw the lines on where our rights are. By abdicating this and leaving it to the states without any guardrails, we are asking for terrible things to happen. 

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

No. In the tradition of the founders, the courts should try to draw the lines on where our rights are. By abdicating this and leaving it to the states without any guardrails, we are asking for terrible things to happen. 

Wrong. First, let the legislature do its job. If cases arise from their legislative actions, then the court can rule, or the legislature can rewrite their legislation. Trust the Process.

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Wrong. First, let the legislature do its job. If cases arise from their legislative actions, then the court can rule, or the legislature can rewrite their legislation. Trust the Process.

“Trust the process” is an incredibly belittling and asinine response.

 

All day, every day on this board, everyone talks about how corrupt all politicians are. How they don’t care about the people, only their own power and money. 
 

And when we see something like a 10 year old rape victim having to cross state lines into Indiana, the actual reaction by politicians is for Indiana to pass tougher restricting and their AG to threaten to prosecute the doctor who performed the abortion.

 

In Texas, we see doctors waiting until a woman’s life is in danger to treat a non-viable pregnancy, and women who were trying to start families are now giving up because it’s too risky under the laws just passed by the legislature. A long-sought victory for “pro-life” people is resulting in an increase in sterilizations.

 

And in red states across the country, the reaction from politicians is to try to pass laws similar to those that resulted in these scenarios. Not prevent them, but to create more of them.

 

And your response is to ignore all of reality, put your blinders on, bury your head in the sand, and pretend none of this is happening and it will all magically be solved at some point in the nebulous future by virtuous legislatures responding to the will of the people.

 

How could anyone be convinced by that argument? It requires an insane amount of ignorance of reality. 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

“Trust the process” is an incredibly belittling and asinine response.

 

All day, every day on this board, everyone talks about how corrupt all politicians are. How they don’t care about the people, only their own power and money. 
 

And when we see something like a 10 year old rape victim having to cross state lines into Indiana, the actual reaction by politicians is for Indiana to pass tougher restricting and their AG to threaten to prosecute the doctor who performed the abortion.

 

In Texas, we see doctors waiting until a woman’s life is in danger to treat a non-viable pregnancy, and women who were trying to start families are now giving up because it’s too risky under the laws just passed by the legislature. A long-sought victory for “pro-life” people is resulting in an increase in sterilizations.

 

And in red states across the country, the reaction from politicians is to try to pass laws similar to those that resulted in these scenarios. Not prevent them, but to create more of them.

 

And your response is to ignore all of reality, put your blinders on, bury your head in the sand, and pretend none of this is happening and it will all magically be solved at some point in the nebulous future by virtuous legislatures responding to the will of the people.

 

How could anyone be convinced by that argument? It requires an insane amount of ignorance of reality. 

Nice Goose. When you don’t get your way, start tossing out the asinine label. I’m willing to let the legislature give it a try. You apparently are not. It doesn’t make me an ass. It just makes me a guy with a different opinion. DEAL WITH IT.

[ChiGoose]

45 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Nice Goose. When you don’t get your way, start tossing out the asinine label. I’m willing to let the legislature give it a try. You apparently are not. It doesn’t make me an ass. It just makes me a guy with a different opinion. DEAL WITH IT.

I think it’s fair to debate when life begins. That’s a reasonable thing to have differing opinions on. 
 

But to look at the current abortion law landscape, their effects, and the trends, and to think that they are moving in a direction that balances the rights of women and their healthcare against that of the fetus takes an incredible amount of credulity. 

[SoCal Deek]

10 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

I think it’s fair to debate when life begins. That’s a reasonable thing to have differing opinions on. 
 

But to look at the current abortion law landscape, their effects, and the trends, and to think that they are moving in a direction that balances the rights of women and their healthcare against that of the fetus takes an incredible amount of credulity. 

Goose, I’ve come to respect the depth and reasoning that you come to your opinions but no matter how many REALLY LONG entries you post they’re still just your opinions. Try and respect other people’s opinions. I think you’ll find it to be fun! 

Edited July 26, 2022 by SoCal Deek

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

10 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Goose, I’ve come to respect the depth and reasoning that you come to your opinions but no matter how many REALLY LONG entries you post they’re still just your opinions. Try and respect other people’s opinions. I think you’ll find it to be fun! 

daGoose seems to love the purity of the process on certain issues, letting things play out, trusting the process and people involved….but not so much on other issues.   

[ChiGoose]

51 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Goose, I’ve come to respect the depth and reasoning that you come to your opinions but no matter how many REALLY LONG entries you post they’re still just your opinions. Try and respect other people’s opinions. I think you’ll find it to be fun! 

Yes, it is my opinion that allowing states to legislate rights is dangerous and in this case will result in increases of maternal morbidity, uncertainly in healthcare, and pave a nice slope for zealots to see how many things that Americans currently enjoy they can outlaw. 

[SoCal Deek]

11 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Yes, it is my opinion that allowing states to legislate rights is dangerous and in this case will result in increases of maternal morbidity, uncertainly in healthcare, and pave a nice slope for zealots to see how many things that Americans currently enjoy they can outlaw. 

The liberal dogma runs deep you in Goose.  The Legislature will not to be writing laws to legislate 'rights'....especially rights you do NOT have. If the Court believed you had those rights, they wouldn't have given the opinion they just did.  Instead the Legislature will be crafting medical practice laws. (That may not be the correct term, or even what they choose to call them, but I believe those sort of laws are well within their power/jurisdiction.)  Once again, you do not have the right to kill a child, and neither does your doctor.  The core of the legislative debate will be, and always has been, when does society believe that the yet born infant becomes a child....and you know it.

[B-Man]

 

 

No comment necessary.

 

 

Democrats Push Bill to Allow U.S. Aid to Fund Abortions Around the World

Newsweek, by Khaleda Rahman

 

The Supreme Court's historic decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was quickly felt around the country as states quickly moved to enact abortion bans. But abortion rights advocates fear not enough attention is being given to how the impact of the decision will ripple around the world.

 

(snip)

 

To expand access to abortion globally, Democrats introduced a bill—the Abortion is Health Care Everywhere Act—in the Senate on Wednesday that seeks to repeal the Helms Amendment.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-push-bill-allow-us-aid-fund-abortions-world-1728338

 

 

 

[BillStime]

Vote BLUE no matter who

 

 

[Plano]

On 7/28/2022 at 10:36 AM, B-Man said:

 

 

No comment necessary.

 

 

Democrats Push Bill to Allow U.S. Aid to Fund Abortions Around the World

Newsweek, by Khaleda Rahman

 

The Supreme Court's historic decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was quickly felt around the country as states quickly moved to enact abortion bans. But abortion rights advocates fear not enough attention is being given to how the impact of the decision will ripple around the world.

 

(snip)

 

To expand access to abortion globally, Democrats introduced a bill—the Abortion is Health Care Everywhere Act—in the Senate on Wednesday that seeks to repeal the Helms Amendment.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-push-bill-allow-us-aid-fund-abortions-world-1728338

 

 

 

 

No comment necessary in the fact that women should be the only ones who choose what is best for their body.

 

Governments should have ZERO say in who can and cannot get an abortion. Want the baby? Great, keep it. Don't want it? Cool, here's an abortion.

 

It's SUPER ***** easy, actually. 

[B-Man]

13 minutes ago, Plano said:

 

 

It's SUPER ***** easy, actually. 

 

 

Unless, like hundreds of millions of people, you believe that you are killing a baby.

 

So there is that .

 

 

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Unless, like hundreds of millions of people, you believe that you are killing a baby.

 

So there is that .

 

 

 

And despite the fact that the idea of life beginning at conception is a relatively new concept (especially in the US), these people get to impose their beliefs and will upon everyone else?

 

[Plano]

20 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Unless, like hundreds of millions of people, you believe that you are killing a baby.

 

So there is that .

 

 

Sit down. If you want to thump the bible all day, that's all well and good. 

 

But it is LITERALLY not a discussion. 

 

If someone wants an abortion, it's their right.

 

People seem dead set on really caring about that baby until it's born, then it's no longer their issue.

 

"BUH GAWD THOSE PEOPLE ON WELFARE, THEIR MONEY COMIN' OFF OF OUR BACKS!" 

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, Plano said:

Sit down. If you want to thump the bible all day, that's all well and good. 

 

But it is LITERALLY not a discussion. 

 

If someone wants an abortion, it's their right.

 

People seem dead set on really caring about that baby until it's born, then it's no longer their issue.

 

"BUH GAWD THOSE PEOPLE ON WELFARE, THEIR MONEY COMIN' OFF OF OUR BACKS!" 

In a word….yikes! Is it possible to bury your head in the sand any deeper? Sure….that’s not a baby. Why? Because you can’t see it from your house? Nice! 

[Plano]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

In a word….yikes! Is it possible to bury your head in the sand any deeper? Sure….that’s not a baby. Why? Because you can’t see it from your house? Nice! 

Pot, kettle, kettle, pot. Now that you're properly introduced...

 

It is absolutely NONE of your ***** business as to what anyone does with their body. 

 

Now, please... YOU, sit down and shut up. 

 

 

[ArdmoreRyno]

2 hours ago, Plano said:

 

No comment necessary in the fact that women should be the only ones who choose what is best for their body.

 

Governments should have ZERO say in who can and cannot get an abortion. Want the baby? Great, keep it. Don't want it? Cool, here's an abortion.

 

It's SUPER ***** easy, actually. 

 

You mean abortion? No one cares if a woman gets a boob job or face life. 

 

It's only abortion we are talking about. Why beat around the bush with "their body"? 

[Plano]

4 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

You mean abortion? No one cares if a woman gets a boob job or face life. 

 

It's only abortion we are talking about. Why beat around the bush with "their body"? 

You obviously know what I meant, so stop cherry picking.

 

Again, nobody should give two ***** and a ***** what they do with their body. Be it abortion, sex change, boob job, nose job, tummy tuck, etc. 

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, Plano said:

Pot, kettle, kettle, pot. Now that you're properly introduced...

 

It is absolutely NONE of your ***** business as to what anyone does with their body. 

 

Now, please... YOU, sit down and shut up. 

 

 

The discussion is not about her body. It’s about the baby’s body…but you know that. 

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

The discussion is not about her body. It’s about the baby’s body…but you know that. 

 

If the people advocating these laws *actually* cared about the baby, they would enact laws that supported pregnant women, made it easier to make the decision to keep the baby, and support mothers and babies after the birth.

 

But instead, states with restrictive abortion laws also have worse maternal and child health outcomes than those with looser abortion laws.

They have higher rates of child poverty, uninsured women and children, low-birthweight babies, infant mortality, and maternal mortality.

 

So clearly, they don't actually care about the babies.

[Plano]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

The discussion is not about her body. It’s about the baby’s body…but you know that. 

Of course I know that. I also know a thing or two about a woman's body, too.

Which I'm sure you have zero experience with that.

 

Again, sod off. 

 

And it's not a discussion. You are an ass-hat if you think that governments controlling abortions= even REMOTELY acceptable.