Roe to be overturned

Discussion in 'Political Polls' started by Piobaire, May 3, 2022.

  1. scratcho

    scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,485
    Likes Received:
    14,733
    Handmaids tale redux.
     
  2. Tishomingo

    Tishomingo Members

    Messages:
    4,985
    Likes Received:
    5,682
    Justice Clarence Thomas said, at a judicial conference last week,“We can’t be an institution that can be bullied into giving you just the outcomes you want.” Those words were ironic in light of how it was that a 50 year precedent came to be reversed. Thomas and the rest of the justices who support Justice Alito's leaked draft opinion think it was because of the "compelling logic" behind Alito's opinion which discovered that Roe v. Wade was " egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences." The irony is that this new discovery was made after Trump, elected with fewer than 2,864,974 votes than Clinton, a 2.1% margin, used the list supplied by the right-wing Federalist Society to nominate three Justices who lied their way through the Senate confirmation process and were confirmed by narrow margins of the Republican-controlled Senate--thereby achieving the goal of a passionate religious minority that was the core of Trump's political base. And Surprise! Surprise! the new appointees aligned with two old ones to "discover" that Roe had been wrongly decided. Seems kind like bullying or worse to me,power masquerading as law, by a minority that didn't like the outcome of a precedent that was narrowed but reaffirmed in its core protection by Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey.

    Yes, the Supreme Court has been more willing than other courts to overturn precedent in constitutional cases, so that some dumb decision isn't forever enshrined in our Constitution. A notable example was the overturning of Plessey v. Ferguson, the 1896 case upholding racially segregated facilities on the basis of "separate but equal". The Court looked at the evidence and concluded that "separate" could never be equal , because of the damage done to racial minorities. The Alitos and Thomases of the day complained that the Court was basing its decision on sociology instead of law, but sociological jurisprudence eventually became the judicial norm. Conservative justices simply read out of the Second Amendment plain language stating that the right to bear arms was contingent on "A well regulated Militia" being necessary to the security of a free State, which previous courts had considered to be controlling. The Court even overturned a case where a supposed basic right was involved: the 1905 precedent in Lochner v/ New York which had established a supposed basic individual right of freedom of contract. That "right", while supposedly belonging to workers, actually allowed big business and the states it controlled to keep workers from organizing labor unions. Alito's opinion would take away a right regarded as "fundamental" for women to control decisions affecting their bodies. He got there by the same wooden "textualist"reasoming that opponents of the federal government used back in the early days of our republic to challenge natonal banks, federal control of interstate commerce, and even the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. Fortunately, better heads prevailed, but that may no longer be the case. In the words of Chief Justice John Marshall, who knew the Founding Fathers peronally, put it :“We must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding . . . a constitution intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.”

    The conservatives on the Court will claim their decision was based on law, not politics. Good luck with that!
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2022
    MeAgain, nudistguyny and scratcho like this.
  3. scratcho

    scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,485
    Likes Received:
    14,733
    True , and the sooner womens right to vote is overturned, the better off we'll be. And we got to get those pesky blacks from marrying our white women. Oh, there's sooooo much to do. This free speech bullshit is getting a little old, don't you think?
     
    MeAgain, Piobaire and Flagme15 like this.
  4. Tishomingo

    Tishomingo Members

    Messages:
    4,985
    Likes Received:
    5,682
    The logical next step is gay marriage and gay rights in general. Those are all based on a constitutional right to privacy that was at the heart of Roe. Retrumplcans say don't worry. The Court hasn't declared those unconstitutional yet. But the same logic it used to overturn Roe would apply there, as well. And we'd face the same anomaly that a person's fundamental rights will vary from one state to another.
     
    MeAgain, scratcho and Tyrsonswood like this.
  5. Spectacles

    Spectacles My life is a tapestry Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    4,155
    Likes Received:
    1,918
  6. Flagme15

    Flagme15 Members

    Messages:
    7,091
    Likes Received:
    9,358
    Modified to tell it like it is.
     
  7. Flagme15

    Flagme15 Members

    Messages:
    7,091
    Likes Received:
    9,358
    I’d like to see him as president if for no other reason most of the old republicans would have heart attacks.
     
    scratcho and Spectacles like this.
  8. Tishomingo

    Tishomingo Members

    Messages:
    4,985
    Likes Received:
    5,682
    I happen to agree with the conclusion. There isn't a word about abortion in the Bible, and the various passages that Right to Lifers trot out to support banning it are mostly taken out of context. But same goes for the above citations. Just in case anybody thinks the posted quote is true, let me try to clear things up. If necessary, I can move this to the Christian "Sancturary", although we do have a post I'm replying to that quotes scripture, and its hard to respond without doing the same.

    Nowhere is it written that God can't take a human life, born or unborn. Most of these passages refer to punishments inflicted by God against those incurring His wrath. I, a non-fundamentalist) Christian, find it horrific that anyone, especially a Deity, would think it okay to punish offenders by killing born or unborn innocents I think the prophets who wrote these passages put these terrifying words in God's mouth to scare wayward Jews. But that's beside the point. It simply isn't valid to infer that since God supposedly threatened this it means its okay for humans to do the same thing.

    Let's take them up one by one. Assuming that H refers to Hosea 9, that passage is talking about punishment of the tribe of Ephraim for idolatry by making the women barren or unable to carry fetuses to term, or even killing the babies at birth. Are we to take his as approval of contraception and infanticide, as well as abortion.? 2Kings 15:16 tells of the bloody attack by the tyrant Menahem on the town of Tipshah,ripping the unborn from women's wombs. No way can this be taken as approval of the atrocity. Numbers 5:1-22 is a test by ordeal for marital infidelity in which the priest administers a potion which will cause her womb to swell and her thigh waste away if she is guilty. Two versions (NIV, NRSV) translate this as cause a miscarriage.Others do not, but see the punishment as disfigurement. Even if miscarriage is the correct translation, seeing this as approval of abortion is a stretch. I think the intended passage from Isaiah was probably 13:18 (the one cited doesn't seem to relate), !3:18 prophesies what will happen to Babylon when it is conquered by its enemies--not direcly ordered by God, but something depicted as a consequence of its wrong doing. Psalm 157:8, a revenge fantasy for retribution against Babylon for its mistreatment of Jews, The passage does not say not say God is happy when this happens, but certainly says the author is. Elliott's commentary remarks: Happily the Bible allows us to see men as they were without taking their rules of feeling and conduct as ours. Thes Old Testament passages show attitudes that it was Jesus' mission to liberate us from. BTW, I'm pro-choice.
     
    scratcho and hotwater like this.
  9. hotwater

    hotwater Senior Member Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    50,601
    Likes Received:
    38,892
    [​IMG]
     
    scratcho likes this.
  10. wyldwynd

    wyldwynd ~*~ Super Moderator

    Messages:
    9,967
    Likes Received:
    1,769
    It is going a step further

    The WHO taking a vote on may 22 to have authority for America’s healthcare decisions such as lockdowns etc
     
  11. Spectacles

    Spectacles My life is a tapestry Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    4,155
    Likes Received:
    1,918
  12. nudistguyny

    nudistguyny Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,320
    Likes Received:
    10,101
  13. newo

    newo Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    11,638
    Likes Received:
    11,944
  14. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,799
    I don't think it's just the Catholic church, the Christian fundamentalists seem to be the ones that are mainly actively promoting political activity aimed at that end.
     
    Tishomingo likes this.
  15. Piobaire

    Piobaire Village Idiot

    Messages:
    4,232
    Likes Received:
    7,478
  16. soulcompromise

    soulcompromise Member HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    22,105
    Likes Received:
    11,610
    [​IMG]
    (expletives*)
    Anatomy of a coat hanger abortion
    Posted byDr. Jen Gunter July 13, 2013 65 Commentson Anatomy of a coat hanger abortion


    The coat hanger isn’t sterile. It isn’t even clean.

    If the woman, or girl, is alone she thrusts it blindly upwards into the vagina. She’s hoping it will get into her uterus and do something. She may or may not know that to get into the uterus the coat hanger has to navigate the small opening in the cervix called the os.

    A coat hanger is technically narrow enough to get through a pregnant cervical os, but the end is sharp not tapered so it can lacerate and perforate. Getting any instrument through the cervix safely also requires visualization and knowledge of the correct amount of force.

    If she’s lucky enough to get the coat hanger through her cervix it could easily sail right through the back or side walls of the uterus. The uterine wall is soft and easily perforated with the wrong instrument or unskilled hands. If the uterus is perforated on one of the sides there is a high risk of lacerating a uterine artery, as that is where they are located. If this happens a woman who is by herself could easily bleed to death before she gets appropriate medical care. These arteries pump a lot of blood.

    The other danger with uterine perforation is the bowel. Puncturing bowel will hurt, but depending on her level of fear it might only be enough to cry out but not to ask for help. However, within the next 3 days the bowel perforation will most certainly kill her unless she gets appropriate medical care. That care will likely involve major surgery to drain abscesses, remove necrotic bowel, and possibly even a colostomy. The uterus will also be infected and may be damaged beyond repair.

    If she was lucky and got that rough end of the coat hanger in and out of her cervix without puncturing something it is unlikely she will induce an abortion immediately. In this scenario the coat hanger is really just a vector for introducing infection. In 2-3 days or so she will cramp, and if fortunate her uterus will contract and she will pass the tissue at home. However, the bacteria from septic abortions often disseminates and each hour the condition remains untreated death takes a step closer. If she gets to the hospital in time and they can empty her uterus without killing her and she doesn’t have a resistant bacteria and she isn’t in septic shock and is otherwise healthy she will survive. That’s a lot of variables.

    The coat hanger might miss the cervix altogether and puncture the top of the vagina. It could also hit the uterine arteries from this angle and likewise still devastate the bowel.

    If the coat hanger is used by someone else, they may or may not get it through the cervix. Same risks of perforation and laceration, because a skilled operator would never use a coat hanger. However, not everyone would know that and some are too desperate to care. The medical sequelae are therefore all essentially the same, with one exception. The type of people who offer coat hanger abortions may also sexually assault their victim, because really, who’s going to report them to the police?

    If you are going to joke about coat hangers and abortion you should know exactly what you are joking about.
     
    scratcho likes this.
  17. soulcompromise

    soulcompromise Member HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    22,105
    Likes Received:
    11,610
  18. newo

    newo Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    11,638
    Likes Received:
    11,944
  19. Piobaire

    Piobaire Village Idiot

    Messages:
    4,232
    Likes Received:
    7,478
    Who's joking?
     
    soulcompromise and Tyrsonswood like this.
  20. Piobaire

    Piobaire Village Idiot

    Messages:
    4,232
    Likes Received:
    7,478
    White evangelicals in the 1970s didn’t initially care about abortion. They organized to defend racial segregation in evangelical institutions — and only seized on banning abortion because it was more palatable than their real goal.

    The Religious Right and the Abortion Myth
     
    Calamity Jane and Tyrsonswood like this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice