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.
Until the next round of elections where the GQP take over the Congress and the POTUS. Then, the law goes away. This is why the Roe decision was so powerful and why leaving this up to the States didn't work. Remember at one point 1/2 the States allowed Slavery. It took a war and a few Constitutional amendments to end it.
Either another legal decision or an amendment is where things are at. The SCOTUS has pretty much said any prior SCOTUS decision is fair game, including this one.
Well it seems that RBG was correct in her reasoning around Roe v Wade. If it had been argued around equal protection rather than just a right to privacy it probably wouldn't have been overturned. Even the cases used in the original Roe v Wade around privacy argued that point in conjunction with a standing amendment (1st, 4th, 14th). Trying to argue on privacy alone left it wide open to be overturned.
I full expect to see some cases before the SC in the 12/18 months arguing exactly this point around the right to abortion and equal protection. If they are well put together I could also see them being successful.
And plenty of abortions happen within married couples who already have children. It's not just because of one night stands and it is an entirely responsible decision to choose not to continue a pregnancy. Meanwhile you guys literally want to force women to continue pregnancies against their will.
Well clearly you don't. Because there is no comparison to be made there.
No, I was aware of all that. Making a big deal out of it was a surefire way for it to get to this SC test and on balance that looked a lot more like a First Amendment issue however distasteful some people find it. I'm not surprised at the outcome. Some less knee jerk and a better thought out approach would have resolved this quietly.
What about the men who can't afford to get a vasectomy?
It's almost like you don't understand how comparisons work.
These figures are from 2020, but the cost will have increased significantly since then, and with less health insurance companies willing to provide cover and State prohibitions on ordering medication online, the cost of obtaining an abortion is set to become even more prohibitive for people who could never afford to have an abortion in the first place -
The average price of a medication abortion — which last year accounted for the majority of all abortions — grew from $495 in 2017 to $560 in 2020, per a study published Monday in the journal Health Affairs. The authors expect that trend to have continued into 2022. At the same time, clinics are growing less likely to accept insurance that could help relieve some of that burden.
The cost increase is significant. In 2020, the authors note, the Federal Reserve estimated that 1 in 4 Americans did not have $400 in savings for an emergency medical expense.
https://19thnews.org/2022/04/medication-abortions-pills-difficult-expensive/?amp
Thaaaat’s, not quite what happened either. This is what the SC actually decided -
Writing for the court majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that the school relied exclusively and improperly on concerns that the prayers would be viewed as a religious endorsement by the school. Without evidence that students had been coerced, the majority said, barring coach Joseph Kennedy from praying on the 50-yard line at the end of each game was a form of hostility to religion, in violation of the Constitution.
"Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic. Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a personal religious observance, based on a mistaken view that it has a duty to suppress religious observances even as it allows comparable secular speech. The Constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination. Mr. Kennedy is entitled to summary judgment on his religious exercise and free speech claims," Gorsuch wrote.
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/27/1106290141/supreme-court-high-school-coach-right-to-pray?t=1656363989009
Sure we had a poster earlier claiming there is no real cost associated with a baby until it is born.
It would depend upon what you mean by what real costs you associate with a baby before it’s born. If, for example, you mean responsibility for providing for a baby when they’re born, then that responsibility is on both parents. If you mean before a baby is born, but a person chooses of their own volition to have an abortion, then there is a cost to that too, but nothing in comparison to the costs associated with raising a child.
Seems there is a consistent and unsurprising theme from those who are happy about the supreme court decision that they dont understand the basics about women or babies.
That claim seems to be a consistent theme among those people who are unhappy with the Supreme Court decision, that anyone who doesn’t share their opinions doesn’t understand the basics about women and babies. It’s not borne out by reality however, a reality they choose to either flat-out deny, or outright ignore, given that many people among the pro-life movement are women, and women with children, and women who have had abortions.
It’s really not that difficult to understand the basics once you get past looking over your glasses at people who don’t share your own personal feelings regarding abortion, or why they might be opposed to it, or why they came up with the idea of ‘pro-life’ in the first place. It might help your understanding, to be familiar with the origins of the term, long before Roe v Wade, and not specifically referring to abortion either, although it was always in opposition to abortion -
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term “pro-life” was first introduced to modern language in 1960 by A. S. Neill in his book Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Childrearing(p.138), which promoted progressive parenting and citizen attitudes. Neill wrote, “no pro-life citizen would tolerate our penal code, our hangings, our punishments of homosexuals, our attitude towards bastardy.”
By the late 1960s, anti-abortion started to latch on to the “life” framing: the Right to Life League was founded in 1967 in California and the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life was launched in 1968. But it didn’t quite mean what it does today; in progressive circles at the time, you could be “pro-life” by being both anti-abortion and anti-war. “To be pro-life you have to be for all life,” said Sue Bastyr, a 21-year-old student from the University of Minnesota, to the Chicago Tribune in 1971.
Then, in Jan. 1973, the Supreme Court wrote the landmark Roe v. Wade decision declaring American women have the right to choose to have an abortion. In response, anti-abortion groups began to mobilize rapidly. Part of their move towards organizing was deciding on what to call themselves; “pro-life” was chosen by movement leaders to put forth a positive image. The same month Roe v. Wade was decided, the first iteration of the Human Life Amendment, a proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw abortions, was introduced in congress.
It was a marketing masterstroke: the word “life” has been linked to the opposition of abortion since, and being “pro-life” has come to mean specifically opposing abortion—and not, for instance, opposing war or the death penalty. The success of the label is largely due to its ability to frame the issue not as standing against something (a woman’s choice) but in favor of it (life).
It has been so successful, in fact, that the opposition party was forced to adapt directly to it: the label “pro-choice” was created specifically to counter “pro-life.”
https://qz.com/896566/where-does-the-term-pro-life-come-from/amp/
As history goes in relation to Roe v Wade, the woman and the unborn child who were at the centre of the case, she never did have an abortion, and the child is an adult today, who does not care to offer an opinion on abortion -
Shelley had long considered abortion wrong, but her connection to Roe had led her to reexamine the issue. It now seemed to her that abortion law ought to be free of the influences of religion and politics. Religious certitude left her uncomfortable. And, she reflected, “I guess I don’t understand why it’s a government concern.” It had upset her that the Enquirerhad described her as pro-life, a term that connoted, in her mind, “a bunch of religious fanatics going around and doing protests.” But neither did she embrace the term pro-choice: Norma was pro-choice, and it seemed to Shelley that to have an abortion would render her no different than Norma. Shelley determined that she would have the baby. Abortion, she said, was “not part of who I was.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/09/jane-roe-v-wade-baby-norma-mccorvey/620009/
It’s rather unfortunate, but understandable, that it is you who doesn’t understand people, instead choosing to categorise people in political terms that ignores the reality and the complexity of each individual human being. You’re actually closer to the people you want to dismiss, than you think, with your politics being fundamentally identical in it’s simplistic attitudes towards other people who don’t share your opinions -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_are_either_with_us,_or_against_us
Not to be Crass but can anyone actually provide the cost of an abortion in the USA. Average I mean without health Insurance. Seems to me most poor would not be able to afford one in the first place.
so its ok to have an abortion if step one and two don't work?
no they are trying to compare my body my choice to how dare you try and stop my spreading a communicable. they don't really understand the difference, or just pretend not to
its almost like you don't understand the difference between a communicable disease and an abortion.
how is not everyone having money to go to another state not a real scenario? Do you understand the level of poverty in many parts of the US? Sure🙄 except if the right decision is to have an abortion...So what is your solution for them then? beyond just suck it up.
Or, you know, men should just get vasectomies.
If we’re going to force women to do something we should surely even the playing field, right?
I find I have fabulous control of my body, never had anyone jizz in me before and don't intend to do that in future. That's about the end of the my body my choice argument right? Until you get into vaccines or edge cases I guess. I'm more interested in the Grand Seiko Kodo constant-force tourbillion. How did they actually make that, for real? Like I know they had prior examples of tourbillions, but jesus that thing is outrageous.
I'm laughing at celebrities.
Evofem biosciences stock up over 240% in 2 days following the announcement:
Evofem is the manufacturer of Phexxi, a contraceptive gel that prevents pregnancy by altering users' pH levels and has proven to be up to 93% effective in FDA trials. The gel is marketed as one of the few birth control options available for women who are hesitant or unable to use hormonal methods.
That's what it's all about for you isn't it? Laughing at people.
Greendays Billy something or other has said he has renounced his American citizenship and won't be going back.
Also:
"At England’s Glastonbury music festival, Phoebe Bridgers, Billie Eilish, Olivia Rodrigo, Megan Thee Stallion, Lorde and Kendrick Lamar all addressed the Roe vs. Wade news during their respective sets. Performers hurled the F-word repeatedly at the Supreme Court throughout the event.
Teen pop sensation Rodrigo and English musician Lily Allen dedicated a duet of the song “F— You” to the anti-Roe justices, while singer-songwriter Bridgers urged the audience to chant “F— the Supreme Court!” Rapper Megan Thee Stallion also led an expletive-laced rallying cry: “My body, my m— choice!”
Lol
"Why do you keep comparing public health measures during a pandemic with a woman's right to bodily autonomy?"
He's not comparing an abortion to a pandemic. He's saying the "my body my choice" is a defense of abortion that doesn't really work because the anti-vaxers, as an example, tick the boxes for that excuse. So the "my body my choice" argument in this case needs to be expanded on if it's to stand up to any scrutiny. It's too oversimplified.
I wore a mask no problem and got my jabs so you needn't go down that road.
There is a difference between following public health advice and some of the insane crap that was being spouted from the left during the pandemic relating to mandates etc.
There's a clear hypocrisy there whether you care to see it or not.
hes probably for forced pregnancy to "own the libs"
sad.
Why do you keep comparing public health measures during a pandemic with a woman's right to bodily autonomy?
On the flip side, were you one of the "my body my choice" crowd when you were asked to wear a mask? Shame you don't extend the same logic to abortion.
Nothing wrong with it at all. Men who want to have sex and not get a woman pregnant absolutely should be considering a vasectomy, or else prepare for the possibility of fatherhood. No one is trying to let men off the hook here. It's just that this vasectomy stuff is a pointless rabbit hole to go down because you could have all of the men in the world either snipped or prepped for fatherhood, the discussion still has to come back to the woman.
(sidenote, I'm pretty sure even the snip even 100%, so you really need to go into things with you're eyes open)
Do tell ?..you who know the many ,many ways ?
My relative who had numerous children by emergency caesarean section due to her fitting with preeclampsia on every pregnancy , would have loved to have ' many , many ways to stop ' getting pregnant .
I believe the approved way was called " the Billings method " back then .
By the way she suffered brain death and she and her last baby died .
And before you talk about contraceptives , aren't these next on the right fundamentalists lists for the axe ?
Not really.
I highlighted the fact that the left were all for government regulation on people's bodies during the pandemic, beyond masks into discussions about forcing people to accept vaccine mandates etc.
There is a irony to that being a line the left were happy to walk but women's bodily autonomy in relation to abortion is a sacrosanct thing.
That's before we get into the whole "what is a woman?" discussion.
You have to admit that being a leftie requires a fair amount of moral and logical flexibility.
And if these points are put to them, it's 'childish', 'unhinged', 'juvenile' as a means to avoid answering them.
You must not have read the story. Here is what happened:
Kennedy became an assistant coach of the varsity football team at Bremerton High School in 2008 and later began offering a brief prayer on the field after games ended and the players and coaches met midfield to shake hands. The school district eventually told him he should find a private location to pray.
But he declined and continued his practice of dropping to one knee and praying on the 50-yard line. He later invited journalists and a state legislator to watch. The district gave him a poor performance evaluation, and he did not apply to renew his contract after the 2015 football season. Kennedy sued, claiming violations of his right to free expression and religious freedom.
Lower federal courts said that because he chose to say his prayers in such a prominent place, he was acting as a public employee and his conduct was therefore not protected by the First Amendment. Those rulings cited past Supreme Court decisions that said when public employees act in their official capacities, they are speaking more for the government than for themselves.
Kids on his team complained that they were feeling understandable pressure to join him in his prayer.
The Republicans in some places have outlawed gay couples mentioning their husband/wife for fear of what it will do to children yet support teachers pressuring kids to pray with them in a given religion in a setting which is supposed to provide religious free environment.
Who is talking about free speech? We're discussing about the absurd myth that Republicans are against big government.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbba4c22aa1d352d2cdbb076e36aea8c.svg)
