Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

That’s somewhat besides the point though. At issue was whether or not Washington State regulations violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment -

Nevertheless, in 2007 the Washington State Board of Pharmacy (Board) issued rules mandating that pharmacies like Ralph’s stock and sell contraceptives like Plan B. Under these regulations, a pharmacy may not “refuse todeliver a drug or device to a patient because its owner objects to delivery on religious, moral, or other personal grounds.”

Brief in Opposition for Washington State Respondents. The dilemma this creates for the Stormans family and others like them is plain: Violate your sincerely held religious beliefs or get out of the pharmacy business.

Ralph’s, joined by two pharmacists with similar beliefs who work at other pharmacies, contends that the regulations target religiously motivated conduct for disfavored treatment and thereby “suppress religious belief or practice” in violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.

Washington State Board of Pharmacy appears to have changed it’s rules since then to allow for facilitating refusal and referral -

Other states have laws regarding healthcare providers that may also be applied to pharmacists. These states may have conscience laws with or without patient protections. For example, they may allow pharmacists to reject certain prescriptions and services pertaining to abortion and sterilization. These states include: 

1. Alabama
2. Illinois
3. Maine
4. Nevada
5. New Jersey
6. Washington
7. Wisconsin

https://www.singlecare.com/blog/can-a-pharmacist-refuse-to-fill-a-prescription/

It is about control. Not about any actual care for others. Only reason the same states that are against abortion will have more against contraceptives and more against proper sexual education. It makes no sense in terms of actually helping anyone.

Similar to the set of rules the Church managed to get enforced in Ireland in the not so distant past as part of its control on the country.

Easy to say this today. They both have prior art around being economical with the truth.

Come off it. I meant more the fact that Boofs clearly felt like he wasn't going to turn his thinking around on this to spite the home protestors.

What is it now, 80% Catholic SCOTUS while they make up about 25% of the US population - and most of that 25% are pro-choice.

Of course this could all just be a coincidence and it's actually all about legal methodology...

You know better than to argue correlation implies causation.

Especially when you’re willing to acknowledge that most of the 25% of Catholics are pro-choice, as if that ratio wouldn’t extend to the 80% of Catholic SCOTUS, and your reasoning isn’t simply based upon one decision, foregoing their decades of legal experience by which they earned the right to be nominated by the President?

You’d have to have better evidence of any bias on the part of individual Justices than just the idea that when you’re dissatisfied with the outcome of a review, the Court is biased based upon the criteria you’ve selected. You probably have little interest in reviewing the other 150 or so cases -

In almost all instances, the Supreme Court does not hear appeals as a matter of right; instead, parties must petition the Court for a writ of certiorari. It is the Court’s custom and practice to “grant cert” if four of the nine Justices decide that they should hear the case. Of the approximately 7,500 requests for certiorari filed each year, the Court usually grants cert to fewer than 150. These are typically cases that the Court considers sufficiently important to require their review; a common example is the occasion when two or more of the federal courts of appeals have ruled differently on the same question of federal law.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-judicial-branch/

Are you arguing that most of the conservative catholic justices are prochoice because most catholics are?

No, I’m questioning why HD doesn’t extend the same logic to the Justices on the basis that they too are Catholic. The only rationale I can think of which would explain HDs inconsistency is that he knows there’s more than just one single factor involved than the one which seems the most obvious conclusion. What those factors are, is really anyone’s guess, let alone whether or not those factors also influence the Judges decisions.

Why would the republicans nominate pro choice justices when they have explicitly called out their objective to repeal Roe since before George W was in power.

They wouldn’t, any more than it wouldn’t seem reasonable for Democrats to nominate Justices which they weren’t certain would be likely to provide them with outcomes they would hope for. Just now, out of my own curiosity since your question prompted a question of my own, I looked up how many nominees have been unsuccessful. Turns out there’s been a few -

There have been 37 unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States. Of these, 11 nominees were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, 11 were withdrawn by the president, and 15 lapsed at the end of a session of Congress. Six of these unsuccessful nominees were subsequently nominated and confirmed to seats on the Court. Additionally, although confirmed, seven nominees declined office and one died before assuming office.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Similarly, only recently, the current POTUS promised to nominate a black woman, and she might well align with Biden’s political views, difficult to know what way she’ll go as she claims to have no judicial philosophy, but also claims to be an originalist “sees value in originalism” and is a non-denominational Protestant. Sounds like a live one 😁

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketanji_Brown_Jackson

I guess its a happy coincidence that those justices nomimated by pro life politicians voted the way those politicians wanted them to vote. Sounds like they were neutral and unbiased.

I don’t think they’re unbiased. I’m questioning the backwards rationalisation being used to explain their decisions as though individuals are actually that simple, when there’s plenty of evidence that people can’t be so easily pigeon-holed and labelled according to simplistic views of identity politics typology.

Ah so you admit the supreme court is now biased

I don’t think that’s fair - you originally referred to the Justices as being biased, and I admitted that I don’t think they’re unbiased, I’m just not sure they’re biased in the way HD is arguing they’re biased.

In the same way, I don’t think the SCOTUS is biased in a way which would support your beliefs either; evidence would suggest it’s trending in the opposite direction -

https://stanforddaily.com/2021/05/24/analyzing-ideological-bias-on-the-supreme-court/

As if these justices would have been appointed in the first place if their views were representative of the views of US Catholics as a a whole, never mind the US population as a whole.

A hilariously delusional conceit.

I would be cynical of kavanaugh and Gorsuch who stated roe vs wade was a precedent in their confirmation hearings and wouldnt be overturned. I dont know enough about the history of the supreme court but i havent seen it mentioned in any media articles about the judgement saying that there is a similar case in history of the SC with justices being chosen based on their personal view of a judgement and then going on to reverse a previous judgement. I dont think it is cynical when justices are reversing precedents that as a coincidence align with their not just personal but religious views.

It's past $214K now

Matt Gaetz tried to troll a 19 year old abortion rights protester on Twitter and got repeatedly ratio'd for it. Gaetz had originally told a reported to "be offended" that he believes abortion rights protesters are not attractive enough to have sex or to be raped or impregnated. This prompted Ms. Julianna to speak out on Twitter, where Geatz responded personally by trolling her profile photo etc.