If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

US Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 32,138 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so

    In a fair election you do but in the gerrymandered manipulation of the US and where State laws can often look like a throwback to the 17th century, you get what they give you. For the rest of the world where it is permissible it's truly baffling that the US just can't address such rights once and for all.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 21,550 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson

    America and the shìtes Trump left behind are desperate to bring back that 17th Century glory that made America "great".

    A lot of the marketing guff America used to brand itself on has fallen apart.

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,069 ✭✭✭Cody montana

    The majority of people support it though.

    Abortion won’t stop.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,830 ✭✭✭Sudden Valley

    Has to be a positive for the democrats though, if it happens. They basically have very little that gets their base energised. They were basically only the anti Trump party in the last election and minorities make up about 2/3 of abortions so this is something for them to rally their base.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,141 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump

    To be fair, most females in the US have freely available access to birth control (and it would seem that most are on it). Obviously mistakes happen or whatever. So it isn't quite women being forced to have children.

    Anyway, I'm off to buy a few shares in coat hanger manufacturers.

    (dark humour maybe but reflects the point that there is still going to be a demand for it)

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,141 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump

    Those stats are the stats for a person who uses only that method to prevent getting pregnant in a year. It's not quite the same as a 1-in-100 chance every time you get the ride (I'm sure you know, but many get confused). And people can combine different protections anyway. Still, my point was only to the implication that women were going to be almost forcibly rounded up and forced to push out baby after baby. That's a bit dramatic. At least in the US they have fairly robust procedures for chasing down the fathers.

    From a skimming of the reports, it seems they will strike down the Constitutional right to it. There won't be an automatic and immediate ban of it. It would just put it back to the lawmakers in their respective states (In Ireland, the Constitution now explicitly delegates the provision of termination of pregnancy to Legislation) . I would imagine that if this judgment is real in the US, there would be a later constitutional challenge at the SC to try to have abortion outlawed explicitly. But I didn't gather that the OP's links were suggesting that was at play yet.

  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 23,115 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl

    I would imagine that if this judgment is real in the US, there would be a later constitutional challenge at the SC to try to have abortion outlawed explicitly.

    The very nature of this (apparent) ruling would make that highly unlikely. The very logic they use to allow legislatures to ban it would equally apply to legislatures ability to explicitly allow it.

    What is potentially does open the door to would be a federal ban through congress.

  • Registered Users Posts: 39,412 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail

    and even if that didnt happen we would see at a state level not just bans but criminalisation of abortion for women in red states including those who travel out of state to get one.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,141 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump

    Well if you are coerced into getting pregnant, then you're probably at risk of being retaliated against for not being pregnant later on. So I wouldn't put too much emphasis on that unless there was no other point to make

    If it goes to the State level, some will provide it and some won't. You wouldn't have a hope of getting it banned in liberal States. There will be some where it would be banned almost immediately.

    If people decide to use language like "God botherers" to push a certain agenda, that likely won't help any argument as it will merely distract from the issue at hand.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,141 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump

    It would be open to take a case all the way to the Supreme Court to have something akin to "right to life of the unborn" recognised as a constitutional right. If that was done and succeeded, then the States could not legislate to allow for it.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,141 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump

    That's fine. If you are only interested in your own agenda against "god botherers" then push that and distract from what others consider to be the actual issue if you want.

    A person would have to be retarded not to know that one way to rally the "other side" in certain US States is to make something about religion or to try to slur them for it. It would be easily discernible from your actions whether you actually cared about the substantive issue or whether it just happened to be a convenient tool for a different agenda.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,353 ✭✭✭growleaves


    Sam Goldwyn: "I'm tired of the old clichés. Bring me some new ones."

This discussion has been closed.