Abortion
POSTED BY: cartoon
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 03:33
VIEWED: 22628
PAGE 26 of 28
Quote:The immoral of the story is that Republican candidates will lie about their position on abortion, but once in office the Republican will declare that "Abortion is Murder" and vote for legislation outlawing all abortion.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Moral of the story:
Republicans are capable of learning from their mistakes and don't continue to double down on them every fucking day like Democrats do.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court recognized the constitutional right to abortion. That November, Laurence H. Tribe wrote the principal defense of the Court’s decision in the Harvard Law Review. Nearly twenty years later, his book Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes (1990) examined the never-ending debate over the subject. For nearly half a century he has pondered that debate’s relationships to gender equality, sexual identity, personal autonomy, notions of privacy and power, the culture wars, religion, and the place of the Court in American life.
Now, in “Deconstructing Dobbs,” from the Review’s Fall Books issue, Tribe analyzes the flawed legal reasoning the Court’s radicals used to strike down the right to abortion and considers the disastrous moral and political implications of the decision for women and for the Court as an institution.
Laurence H. Tribe “Deconstructing Dobbs”
Whether or not one sees the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision as barely concealed theocracy, it fails to provide any coherent legal analysis of why the right to abortion is not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
September 22, 2022 issue https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2022/09/22/deconstructing-dobbs-laure
nce-tribe/
The chaos and cruelty unleashed in late June by the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which wiped out a half-century of constitutional protections for the reproductive rights—and thus the equal citizenship—of women in America, have been well documented. The ruling quickly led to a patchwork quilt of abortion bans differing from state to state and the prospect of new ones throughout the country, transforming what had been hypothetical scenarios into the stuff of nightmares.
They include tragedies like that of the ten-year-old rape victim in Ohio forced to travel across state lines to avoid compelled motherhood. The swarm of lawsuits challenging access to abortion pills by mail. The labyrinth of obstacles confronting those in states where abortion is now banned or heavily restricted who seek safe and legal out-of-state options for terminating pregnancies—for themselves or a patient, friend, or family member—including the knowledge that their travel and medical inquiries might be subject to surveillance and even obstruction or retaliation. The fear of health care professionals and pharmacists that providing treatments to preserve the life of someone undergoing a heartbreaking miscarriage could expose them to criminal prosecution for allegedly terminating a pregnancy. Not to mention the potential crippling of IVF procedures sought by couples who would otherwise remain childless.
As the dissent in the case—written jointly by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—pointedly observed, some states might “criminalize the woman’s conduct too, incarcerating or fining her for daring to seek or obtain an abortion,” and “as Texas has recently shown, a State can turn neighbor against neighbor, enlisting fellow citizens in the effort to root out anyone who tries to get an abortion, or to assist another in doing so.”
Dobbs was in no way the removal of the final brick in a steadily crumbling wall of protections for reproductive autonomy. The course of the law over the half-century separating Dobbs from Roe v. Wade (1973) had witnessed no erosion in the principles of personal liberty and equality that had been embodied in pre-Roe decisions. On the contrary, these principles had been continually extended during those years. Roe had built on decisions like Loving v. Virginia (1967), protecting interracial marriage; Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), affirming the right of married couples to engage in sex without risking procreation; and Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), extending Griswold from married couples to all individuals, married or single. And Roe had in turn furnished the foundation for decisions like Lawrence v. Texas (2003), upholding the right of consenting adults to have sex with partners of any gender, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), affirming the right of peo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:The immoral of the story is that Republican candidates will lie about their position on abortion, but once in office the Republican will declare that "Abortion is Murder" and vote for legislation outlawing all abortion.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Moral of the story:
Republicans are capable of learning from their mistakes and don't continue to double down on them every fucking day like Democrats do.
lol
So now we're going to pretend that both parties don't do this about every issue before every election, are we?
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
In 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court recognized the constitutional right to abortion.
No. That is not what happened.
There is no constitutional right to abortion. There never was. There was never an amendment made to the constitution either.
You've got the votes for the next 2 months. Pass it. What are you waiting for?
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It requires 3/4th of the states to pass a constitutional amendment making abortion a right. Sorry to tell you but 1/3rd of the states already banned abortion in the last two months.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
In 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court recognized the constitutional right to abortion.
No. That is not what happened.
There is no constitutional right to abortion. There never was. There was never an amendment made to the constitution either.
You've got the votes for the next 2 months. Pass it. What are you waiting for?
There are an infinite number of things people do that are not listed as a right in the constitution. If some religious group wanted to ban dancing, for example, a Supreme Court packed with 5 members of the Church of Christ could ban dancing. The Republicans packed the Supreme Court with 5 Catholics who were anti-abortion before they joined the Supreme Court. The 5 were asked during confirmation hearings in the Senate if they would overturn Roe v Wade and the 5 said they would NOT overturn Roe v Wade, but then they did.
Mennonite, Hutterite, Baptist, Seventh-day Adventist, Church of Christ, Restorationist, and Holiness movement sects ban dancing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_ban
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:It requires 3/4th of the states to pass a constitutional amendment making abortion a right. Sorry to tell you but 1/3rd of the states already banned abortion in the last two months.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
In 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court recognized the constitutional right to abortion.
No. That is not what happened.
There is no constitutional right to abortion. There never was. There was never an amendment made to the constitution either.
You've got the votes for the next 2 months. Pass it. What are you waiting for?
I didn't say to make it an amendment.
But thank you for agreeing with me that there is no constitutional right to abortion by not arguing that point, thus making the entire article you posted following that statement pure horse shit.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:6ix, you completely misunderstood what you read. I will simplify for you: the constitutional rights are around 30, but there are millions of things people do that are not listed as a right. A dishonest and stubborn Catholic Supreme Court justice, for example, could therefore ban millions of things. That banning is based only on the personal preferences of Catholic justices, who are also intellectually dishonest, and is a political problem that can be solved by removing those justices. Supreme Court justices are not supposed to make decisions based on their religion. And the Senate is supposed to hold the justices to that standard of conduct, but it won't because half the Senators are Republicans.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:It requires 3/4th of the states to pass a constitutional amendment making abortion a right. Sorry to tell you but 1/3rd of the states already banned abortion in the last two months.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
In 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court recognized the constitutional right to abortion.
No. That is not what happened.
There is no constitutional right to abortion. There never was. There was never an amendment made to the constitution either.
You've got the votes for the next 2 months. Pass it. What are you waiting for?
I didn't say to make it an amendment.
But thank you for agreeing with me that there is no constitutional right to abortion by not arguing that point, thus making the entire article you posted following that statement pure horse shit.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When these women lost their pregnancies, each ended up in jail.
More than 50 women have been prosecuted for child neglect or manslaughter in the United States since 1999 because they tested positive for drug use after a miscarriage or stillbirth.
The medical community calls this legal approach harmful and counterproductive. But it’s a strategy many legal experts say is likely to become more common now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, making it easier for states to pass laws that give fetuses and embryos the same rights as children or their mothers.
An analysis of court records and medical examiner data over the last 23 years found at least 20 felony cases in Alabama, 14 in South Carolina and 10 in Oklahoma, as well as nine in other states where prosecutors have embraced some form of “fetal personhood” in bringing criminal charges after miscarriage or stillbirth. Many of the prosecutions resulted in lengthy prison sentences and life-altering consequences for mostly poor women who were struggling with addiction.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/09/01/they-lost-their-pregnanc
ies-then-prosecutors-sent-them-to-prison
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nope.
I'm not going to feel bad for addicts.
Nobody felt bad for me. They don't get special treatment just because our sex parts are different.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A recent development that has made me feel depressed about the prospects for peace between religion and secularism is the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the United States Supreme Court. In doing so, the Supreme Court has overturned a precedent with which a significant majority (often cited to be at least 60%) of Americans agree. Whatever the legal merits of the court’s decision, there is little doubt that the buildup to this deeply regressive decision was driven primarily by a religious belief that considers life to begin at conception. It’s a belief without any basis in science; in fact, as Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan wrote many years, if you factored in science, then Roe v. Wade would seem to have drawn the line at the right point when the fetus develops a nervous system and really distinguishes itself as a human. In fact, one of the tragedies of overturning Roe v. Wade is that the verdict struck a good balance between respecting the wishes of religious moderates and taking rational science into account.
But Evangelical Christians in the United States, of which there has a been dwindling and therefore proportionately bitter and vociferous number in recent years, don’t care about such lowly details as nervous systems (although they do seem to care about heartbeats which ironically aren’t unique to humans). For them, all there is to know about when life begins has been written in a medieval book. Lest there be any doubt that this consequential decision by the court was religiously motivated, it’s worth reading a recent, detailed analysis by Laurence Tribe, a leading constitutional scholar. Lessig convincingly argues that the Catholic justices’ arguments were in fact rooted in the view that life begins at conception, a view on which the constitution is silent but religion has plenty to say.
The grim fact that we who care about things like due process and equality are dealing with here is that a minority of religious extremists continues to foist extremely regressive views on the majority of us who reject those views to different degrees. For a while, it seemed that religiosity was declining in the United States. But now it appears that those of us who found this trend reassuring were too smug; it’s not the numbers of the religious that have mattered but the strength of their convictions, crucially applied over time like water dripping on a stone to wear the system down. And that’s exactly what they have wanted.
https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2022/09/the-root-of-diverse-evil
.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME