The Right religious conservatives and who knows who else have today overturned the constitutional right to abortion in the US.
Will this now embolden anti abortionists in this country to fight back?
The US is a cold place for women now.
Who defines righteousness in this case?
Does righteousness extend to telling a distraught rape victim that they will be forced to carry their rapist’s baby for a full pregnancy?
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
we are the righteous as we seek to protect the child. We don’t agree that the choice to murder a baby is something that should be cheered and celebrated. We believe that when a woman becomes pregnant that baby is not just her baby but also the fathers and the grandparents and the communities. We are all gods children
Touched a nerve?
You're also quick to point out men and women whereas a those of a liberal leaning will tell you that gender is a social construct.
They definitely don't need holier than thou catholics like yourself preaching to them about what they should and shouldn't be doing. Take a look closer to home if you're looking for predators.
I'd offer that a fair percentage of America was this way. Trump just helped move it along. So did GWB, GHWB, Reagan, ... Forced birthing has been a thing in the US since forever, and the GOP, the criminal enterprise known as the RCC and the Evangeliban made enormous amounts of money off of it. If anything, they might lose out some now as the simple soundbites won't garner the income anymore.
I am also pleased there's a bit of backlash against the Democratic party. They too, deserve a lot of the blame. RBG not the least among them deserving massive criticism - her ego means all the things she did fight for are now up in smoke.
Isn’t that what you yourself are doing - women don’t need your help to make their points for them. They don’t need you to talk for them
PS - all women hate men who act the white knight, they see them for the predators they are
the idea that abortion is banned is insane trump did such a number on america it got turned into a backwards dark ages country women are now basically second hand citizens and can be made to have laws against them mad stuff altogether
How would you know what pregnancy is or isn't? Have you experienced pregnancy or have some relevant medical training?
This thread and the abortion debate in general is full of smug, self righteous mediocre men spouting opinions on something they haven't a clue about. The rest of us leave it to the women and their doctors and mind our own fúcking business.
Nonsense. Plenty of prescribed medications are available via mail. It's just one particular treatment you are objecting to. Why is that? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/specials/millions-of-americans-receive-drugs-by-mail-but-are-they-safe/amp-index.html
Exactly .. thats the point I was making. No one agrees with non prescribed pills by post for ANY medical treatment.
I think this comment unwittingly highlights the conundrum however. If the legislature does not move to codify individual rights — then how else do those rights find true protection?
For my sins, I have read the Supreme Court’s judgment as well as the dissenting opinion by Sotomayor et al. I am resolutely pro-choice, but if I am honest the Court’s opinion around the Court not being the proper forum for the deciding of the abortion question (as opposed to the State legislatures) is actually not un-compelling*. Roe v Wade, as opposed to solid statute, was always a shaky foundation for such a fundamental issue. But that comes from the perspective of someone in a small common law jurisdiction where constitutional change and the finding of unenumerated rights by the Courts is seen as an almost celebratory process of the evolution of liberty. In America, such process is beset on all sides by division and constitutional fundamentalism.
In the context of the US system, the dissenting opinion — which grounds itself on the rights, liberty and equality of women (as well as the difficulty of placing emphasis on historical context in a wider context where women were excluded from the historical development of law and indeed treated as inferior) — is highly compelling in a country which cannot find itself fit to legislate on this matter. Statute would be better, but the State has failed to provide that protection and thus the Court becomes the next best means for women’s rights to be bolstered.
*some of the other arguments are far less convincing, particularly the reliance on historical considerations which the dissenting opinion correctly dismantles by detaching it from technicality and applying it to reality.
This ruling has thrown progressives in America a bit because their standard line about anti-abortion being driven by elderly white males doesn't entirely fit. The majority in this case are not particularly elderly, and not entirely white and male either. They do have one unifying characteristic though...
I remember reading in a feminist book, possibly Marilyn French's The War Against Women, many years ago that although the pro-life movement's most prominent leaders were generally evangelical Protestants, the real driving force was the Catholic Church. Maybe that is now being fully borne out.
It's a bit of a head-scratcher for them as the Catholic Church is in many ways a progressive force in American life but this may be the reality liberals will have to grasp if they are to respond effectively to this ruling.
A New York Times opinion column from Maureen Dowd Saturday claimed the Catholic Church is imposing its moral view on America by way of the Catholic conservatives on the Supreme Court.
America is a cesspit. The country is tearing itself apart. First it was the BLM race riots, ya know the ones where cities were burning but the news was reporting 'mostly peaceful protests' even though the flames were burning behind the reporter. Now it's abortion. A fractured broken country. You couldn't pay me enough to live there. Drug users openly shooting up on the streets and now all the woke lefties who voted on colour and feelz are up in arms and demanding something be done about the huge surge in crime. Be careful what you wish for. The American dream has become an ugly nightmare. Women should have the right to choose, their body their choice.
Pregnancy is not a disease, despite the best efforts of some on here to frame it as such.
More juvenile drivel from the man-child liberals.
Further, some anti-choice states allow for abortion in the cases of incest and rape. How are either proven? How are they proven in time?
Lest we forget, many anti-choice states are in the top 10 in the US for maternal mortality risk. I imagine this won't go lessen over time.
I was not talking about abortions for other reasons, I was looking for a definition of mother's life at risk. Is it a number? Odds of 10% of death and you can get one? How does a cancer which would likely not kill the mother during pregnancy fall in as delayed treatment obviously increases the risk of death? What if we say 5% chance of killing the mother and 75% chance of fetus not surviving. Obviously though the odds of the mother dying depends pretty heavily on geography in the US so do we take into account what hospital they can afford or are we assuming they are getting the best treatment money can buy anywhere in the country?
If you want to allow abortion if the woman's life is at risk then you have to be able to define what that means and what level of risk you are willing to force others to take for that fetus. There is always a level of risk with pregnancy and medical services frequently offer no absolutes. Of course the more liberal you are with this the more will take advantage for "societal reasons" using medical as an excuse. The more conservative you are the more risks you are forcing others to take with their lives.
Latest Supreme Court Photo.
Checks out
If you read the logic of the decision its frightening, eg abortion is not mentioned in the constitution and the laws of 1700s, 1800,s forbid it. So by that logic it would be easy to make marital privacy illegal. Contraception illegal, gay marriage illegal, women in America are now second hand citizens, and its a decision that's profoundly Christian, eg it ignores the fact that Jewish and other religions allow abortion to protect the woman's life or maybe in the case of rape, so it also legalised discrimination against jews, Muslims etc
And also the supremes said states must now pay for religious schools even schools discriminate against lgbt teachers or students
The laws of separation of church and state are nearly gone in America
This is a direct attack on the public school system some states could make it illegal for non married people to buy contraceptives
One option is Irish people can protest don't travel to America as a tourist don't buy American products or maybe products made in states controlled by republicans
like the 80s boycott of South Africa
Don't give them your money
If you are over 50 you'll remember Ireland in the 80s the church had great political power women had not many rights it was very difficult to acess contraception that's the direction many American states are heading in
And the Catholic Church and right wing groups have for years been campaigning for this ruling even though it go, s against the beliefs of most Americans
There will be likely more rulings against women's rights and against lgbt rights in the supreme Court this court is dominated by extreme right wing Catholics
You took some leap there at the end. It’s interesting the way you try and frame it as though you have some sort of compassion for women, yet would wilfully intrude on their privacy when it comes to things as sensitive as this.
Explain to me how I don’t support or “give a hoot” about women, when I am the one who will let a woman do what she needs and trust her decision her herself and her well being. But you need to know why they are doing it…yeah, sounds like you really have their back on this one there.
It is about choice, some choose not to, with this ban the choice is taken away from all women. And, just to point out for what feels like the millionth time, abortion bans do not stop abortions.
'Social' and 'societal' is a very peculiar way of framing things. The very act of being pregnant for nine months is 100% a health issue (and may have implications for the mother's mental health too).
Prove it.
I've no idea what you are talking about. 97% of abortions in America are for social reasons that have nothing to to with the life or health of the mother or the viability of the fetus. Why are you 'amazed' that there needs to be a conversation about the 93% of abortions that have nothing to do with medial need and pertain so social and societal reasons?
My guess would be that you could easily get an abortion bill to pass for first trimester abortion in America and more then that in the case where, medically, the life of the mother was at risk or fatal fetal abnormality was evident, but that would require a compromise of the mantra of 'my body my choice'.
Not buying this. If such a bill could have been easily passed at various junctures, surely the rational thing for a pro-choice president/Congress to do would be to get it passed as a sort of baseline, then let individual states introduce more liberal abortion regimes if they wished.
Think the point is that it needs medical supervision rather than pills in the post .
So dangerous especially if someone in later stages of pregnancy , unable to legally access abortion or medical services and availing of this.
Given that these guys are all fervent Catholics, I think we can call it a 'mental reservation'...
I never understood the life of the mother is at risk line. What odds do you want on the mother surviving to stop it? Pregnancies are massively complicated things with a variety of risks and different possible events. I was always amazed that this didn't allow abortion on demand in Ireland, if you are pregnant then your life is at increased risk, even for the most ordinary of pregnancies. This risk also depends on where you live and your financial situation. Especially in the US where outcomes vary massively by state and it has to be considered that any and all abortion laws will only be for the poor and so the odds are naturally worse if/when complications arise. How will a fetus that is likely to not survive factor into this as you mention fatal fetal abnormality? I mean they might survive but are you willing to bet the woman's life on this? Latter treatment can cause more issues than stopping a problem earlier but you also don't have definitives for if a mother or fetus will survive all the time.
There would be no abortion limts if rich people were effected by them. You will find many "pro life" politicians will have had abortions themselves or helped organise the logistics for their partners/ relatives and this will continue into the future because of course theirs is different.
Do you want lawyers making this call or doctors, either of whom could get reputations for being more or less liberal again changing this law pretty heavily. Are you going to have a list of relevant doctors when making these laws. I am curious how many doctors with relevant knowledge (i.e. not brain surgeons or doctors of history) were consulted about the various trigger laws that went up.
Ah yeah, the judges put on specifically to remove protections for abortions all changed their minds about it from the hearing. They all knew they would be asked about it and hadn't considered it beforehand? Shockingly enough I am not buying it.
People called it out when they were put on the bench that their likelihood to vote on this matter was why they were put forward and have been proven correct. They assured us otherwise under oath and a few democrats either didn't care or were dumb enough to believe it. This was a large chunk of the reason Republicans repeatedly changed their minds on when it was appropriate to put someone on the Supreme Court but obviously that is all a massive coincidence.
Interestingly enough we already have a list of other rulings on the potential chopping block though the person who wrote it interestingly enough left out the only one that would actually affect him. Presumably he has a strong legal argument as to why that one is different.
Well that entirely depends on what kind of legislation you want. In this country you can abort a child up until birth, which when you think about it, is utterly obscene. It comes down to what you can get the majority of society to accept. My guess would be that you could easily get an abortion bill to pass for first trimester abortion in America and more then that in the case where, medically, the life of the mother was at risk or fatal fetal abnormality was evident, but that would require a compromise of the mantra of 'my body my choice'.
What has become evident lately is that society (if it exists any more) is so fractured that compromise has become a dirty word and a limit to personal choice or the 'good of society at large' is not on the table. We have become very 'everything or nothing', and right now America it seems would prefer nothing rather than an adult debate in which compromise on what is actually best for society or acceptable to society is seen as secondary to a 'I win, you loose' scenario.
How do cats change someone's soldiering ability? You've lost me.
