Roe v Wade is on deck

[Jimmy Higgins]

The abortion pill. This will be an interesting aside... except if the State has the "best interests" in a "woman's health", SCOTUS will probably vote 5-4 to allow bans on the abortion pill as well. Then we move to the daily use pill. Rinse, wash, repeat. Probably draw the line on condoms.

Why stop there? They're after the right to privacy--that would take out everything based on it.

Because condoms don't impact the internal body and the state has no viable interest in regulating it, unless they try a make an argument that they are regulating unsafe behavior, which would be extraordinarily dangerous of them... and I'm moving to Canada.

It is hard to tell just how hard they attack the right to privacy. Recriminalizing gay sex, I don't see it. I think that'd be a bridge too far for even this court. But gay marriage? It seems too radical, but this court and how Alito is butchering the Constitution and precedence, maybe not too radical for them. What makes things hard to read is that their reversal of Roe v Wade is chopping away at a lot of different things and without much reason but what they read on Focus on Family's website.

 

[Elixir]

condoms don't impact the internal body and the state has no viable interest in regulating it, unless they try a make an argument that they are regulating unsafe behavior, which would be extraordinarily dangerous of them...

Who cares about dangerous? It’s 14 times more dangerous to carry a fetus to term than to abort it.
The important thing is that condoms might reduce production of little uneducated Xtian lemmings to carry on the fascism.

 

[Gospel]

In any regard, the democrats better not make the argument about this into



But rather what the ruling may mean for anything not explicitly mentioned in the constitution. I think that's a real danger due to the thoughtful thoughtlessness on display in the draft.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In any regard, the democrats better not make the argument about this into

View attachment 38445

But rather what the ruling may mean for anything not explicitly mentioned in the constitution.

Yes, the last thing we want women to think is that we give a fuck how this impacts their lives. The Republicans are saying if a woman* gets pregnant, they have a choice to make... endure a dangerous illegal abortion or have a baby.

* age of woman and cause of pregnancy are not relevant

 

[Gospel]

In any regard, the democrats better not make the argument about this into

View attachment 38445

But rather what the ruling may mean for anything not explicitly mentioned in the constitution.

Yes, the last thing we want women to think is that we give a fuck how this impacts their lives. The Republicans are saying if a woman* gets pregnant, they have a choice to make... endure a dangerous illegal abortion or have a baby.

* age of woman and cause of pregnancy are not relevant

I think they already know bruh.

 

[Bomb#20]

Well, that certainly made Bomb whine like a stuck pig when it's pointed out that his "correction" <rest of drivel snipped>

Who were you quoting when you put "correction" in quotes? Why are you so desperate for me to be wrong that you attack me even when I'm agreeing with you? I wasn't correcting you; I was expanding on your point.

Maybe read through the whole interaction a few times and see how it comes off, then? You buried a lot of seeming ire behind what you pose as the snidest swipe I've ever seen seen at "regulating interstate commerce", which your frame places as vague (that it can mean "anything").

And the fog finally lifts. Your irrational meltdown wasn't actually about the post it was a reply to but about an earlier post. You might want to reconsider your, er, literary style.

No, that earlier post was not a snide swipe at "regulating interstate commerce". You keep composing expressions yourself and putting quotation marks around them, and then attacking another poster for having said them in your imagination. My earlier post was a perfectly correct explanation to Jimmy answering his question about how making this into Federal Law protects Roe.

(It certainly contained a snide swipe at the 1942 Wickard v Filburn decision that the interstate commerce clause authorized the feds to fine a farmer for growing wheat on his own land and feeding it to his own farm animals. That was clearly not the concept of interstate commerce the states were agreeing to when they ratified the Constitution. But that our rulers have often been cheating in no way changes the reality that when federal law conflicts with state law the SCOTUS can usually be relied on to favor the feds. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land".)

 

[Elixir]

SCOTUS can usually be relied on to favor the feds.

That should have been phrased in the past tense. The current court doesn’t even honor its own precedents. It would be foolish to expect them not to strike down any attempt to codify RvW.

 

[Bomb#20]

In any regard, the democrats better not make the argument about this into

View attachment 38445

But rather what the ruling may mean for anything not explicitly mentioned in the constitution.

Yes, the last thing we want women to think is that we give a...

That ship has sailed. You think women never noticed all the times the democrats played the "That sure is a nice Roe v Wade you've got there. It would be a shame if anything happened to it." game? If the democrats gave a hoot how this affects women's lives they'd have enacted Roe v Wade into federal law back in 2009 when they had a filibuster-proof majority. What they care about is reelection. Gospel had it exactly right.

 

[Gospel]

The current court doesn’t even honor its own precedents.

When did it? To my knowledge there have been cases where the court overturned previous rulings. It's something they are allowed to do. The problem with this draft is.... It's rubbish.

 

[Jarhyn]

SCOTUS can usually be relied on to favor the feds.

That should have been phrased in the past tense. The current court doesn’t even honor its own precedents. It would be foolish to expect them not to strike down any attempt to codify RvW.

Not to mention the fact that, as again I have pointed out, there is nothing thin about the application of the interstate commerce clause for the sake of protecting clear interstate commerce.

Bomb acts as if this is a thin farce of a law, except that there is a clear, unambigious straight line to insterstate commerce in terms of abortion across state lines: the federal government has the power to legislate that people have the right to leave their state for whatever reason and enter a neighboring one. They have the power by that clause to legislate that those citizens of these united states have a right to whatever things are legal to do in that state. They have a right to declare that, regardless of what they did, given that it was legal where they did it, they are under no jeopardy upon return to their home state.

This is not an abuse of someone doing something on their own land, this is a strong, clear case with no ambiguity to waffle on over precedent.

It is textbook regulation of interstate commerce, and ironclad.

 

[Trausti]

the federal government has the power to legislate that people have the right to leave their state for whatever reason and enter a neighboring one. They have the power by that clause to legislate that those citizens of these united states have a right to whatever things are legal to do in that state. They have a right to declare that, regardless of what they did, given that it was legal where they did it, they are under no jeopardy upon return to their home state.

All of this is already the case. People go to Nevada for gambling and some for whoring. Some go to Washington to smoke pot.

 

[Jarhyn]

the federal government has the power to legislate that people have the right to leave their state for whatever reason and enter a neighboring one. They have the power by that clause to legislate that those citizens of these united states have a right to whatever things are legal to do in that state. They have a right to declare that, regardless of what they did, given that it was legal where they did it, they are under no jeopardy upon return to their home state.

All of this is already the case. People go to Nevada for gambling and some for whoring.

It is not the case; Texas law gives leverage of tort against those who help others secure an abortion. Federal law may prohibit this if done over acts across state lines.

 

[Gospel]

the federal government has the power to legislate that people have the right to leave their state for whatever reason and enter a neighboring one. They have the power by that clause to legislate that those citizens of these united states have a right to whatever things are legal to do in that state. They have a right to declare that, regardless of what they did, given that it was legal where they did it, they are under no jeopardy upon return to their home state.

All of this is already the case. People go to Nevada for gambling and some for whoring. Some go to Washington to smoke pot.

Wait whoa what? Prostitution is legal in Nevada? How in the great greek grape growers didn't I know this?

Edit: NO need to derail. I just googled it.

 

[Bomb#20]

A state has a "right" to restrict the rights of individuals as they see fit, so whether it is weed or boogers or showing up at the polls, the state rules supreme.

Isn't that exactly the case in the United States? The states have the power to make some things illegal, unless the Constitution forbids the states from making it illegal.

No, that isn't the case in the United States. The states have no power to regulate anything federal law appropriates to itself, unless they can prove the federal law is unconstitutional -- and it's up to federal judges to decide what's unconstitutional. For example, in the Bostock case, Gorsuch held that whether you can discriminate against gay and trans people is determined by federal law, even though the Constitution says squat about them. He was enforcing a vanilla federal law, not the Constitution. And it's not as though Gorsuch is particularly a fan of gay and trans rights.

 

[Trausti]

Texas law gives leverage of tort against those who help others secure an abortion.

So the actors are doing the act within the state of Texas?

 

[Jarhyn]

Texas law gives leverage of tort against those who help others secure an abortion.

So the actors are doing the act within the state of Texas?

And the goober gobbity noob wak to you as well!

 

[Trausti]

Texas law gives leverage of tort against those who help others secure an abortion.

So the actors are doing the act within the state of Texas?

And the goober gobbity noob wak to you as well!

No state has jurisdiction over acts or events that happen in other states. E.g., if you get in a car wreck in CA, you can’t sue in NV state court.

 

[Jarhyn]

As it is, the act of abortion made legally actionable in the law can be restricted, by federal law, to only apply to abortions secured in the state of texas, and to secure the right of interstate travel for the purposes of engaging in ANY legal activity in that state.

At that point, the law has it's teeth pulled, by a valid interstate commerce concern.

 

[Trausti]

As it is, the act of abortion made legally actionable in the law can be restricted, by federal law, to only apply to abortions secured in the state of texas, and to secure the right of interstate travel for the purposes of engaging in ANY legal activity in that state.

Again, the right to interstate travel is already there.

 

[Bomb#20]

Bomb acts as if this is a thin farce of a law

I do nothing of the sort. You put words in my mouth, and I called you on it, and yet here you are trying to cram them back in. You should be ashamed of yourself.