• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Roe v Wade is on deck

Jimmy Higgins said:
I'm not certain how making this into Federal Law protects Roe. SCOTUS can just say there is no right to this (it isn't in the Constitution), and it should be left to the states.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I wonder what else isn't in the constitution.

1651696303024.png
 
blastula said:
A leak doesn't give extra help in any elections when the official one is going to be released in about a month anyway. Except maybe to a conservative hoping to manage expectations or soften the blow from the official decision.
Click to expand...
Bingo.
 
Well, that certainly made Bomb whine like a stuck pig when it's pointed out that his "correction" made it seem as though it was not within the power of the federal government, and not at all the states, to regulate interstate commerce, and so it's entirely within the scope of the constitution, not nebulously but concretely, to pass a law guaranteeing free travel across state lines to secure an abortion, and to be only relegated by the laws and powers of people in one state to action acts done in that one state; and to expressly allow, where substances are not federally illegal, their unimpeded, unrestricted, and undocumented movement through the US Postal System.

At the very least this would protect "abortion tourism" and "private automatic abortion".
 
Last edited:
McConnell lamented the leak "violated the SCOTUS' right to privacy". I doubt he heard the irony in his word choice.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Bomb#20 said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
I'm not certain how making this into Federal Law protects Roe. SCOTUS can just say there is no right to this (it isn't in the Constitution), and it should be left to the states.
Click to expand...
The SCOTUS enforces federal law too, not just the constitution. They have a long history of siding with the feds against the states, usually by agreeing that "interstate commerce" is anything the feds say it is. It's why marijuana is still illegal at the federal level.
Click to expand...
What part of the Alito draft gives you the slightest idea that SCOTUS would rule against the state that challenges a Federally passed law protecting aspects of Roe?
Click to expand...
Haven't read the draft and don't intend to -- I'm fine with waiting until the finalized version comes out. So to answer your question, just going by the bits I've seen quoted in the press, all of it. Have you seen a part that makes you think they wouldn't rule against such a state? Or are you just going by the assumption that they don't actually care about their vision of the law and just choose to be evil because they're evildoers who are motivated by their urge to be evil?

But it's a moot point, since it's about 13 years too late to get a Federally passed law protecting aspects of Roe.
 
Trausti said:
Elixir said:
Rights not specifically constitutionally allocated or denied remain with the people. Supposedly.
Click to expand...
Right. You cannot use the Constitution to deny a right simply because the Constitution did not enumerate it. But that doesn't mean the Constitution grants a right it never mentioned.
Click to expand...
Chemical abortion existed at the time the Constitution was written.
 
Trausti said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Killing babies isn't legal in any state. If you can't tell the difference between a fetus and a baby, that'd just be another thing to toss on the pile of "Stuff Trausti doesn't understand."
Click to expand...
If a child is born premature at 30 weeks and the mother/some crazy fucker kills it, that's murder. But if an abortionist sucks the brains from a 30-week fetus, that's healthcare. Moloch is pleased.
Click to expand...
If they "sucking the brains" from a 30 week fetus the brain wasn't functional in the first place. The reason for such a procedure is the head has grown beyond the pelvic girdle, that's way beyond where it should be at 30 weeks. I forget what the problem is called but a C-section would give you a non-functional baby.
 
Trausti said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Trausti said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Killing babies isn't legal in any state. If you can't tell the difference between a fetus and a baby, that'd just be another thing to toss on the pile of "Stuff Trausti doesn't understand."
Click to expand...
If a child is born premature at 30 weeks and the mother/some crazy fucker kills it, that's murder. But if an abortionist sucks the brains from a 30-week fetus, that's healthcare.
Click to expand...
Abortions performed at 30 weeks on are almost exclusively due to a severe abnormality and/or substantial danger to the mother. It is really the only reason a doctor would perform an abortion that late.

And for you to take such situations as lightly and for political points as you have, in cases where parents that want a child are tragically about to lose the opportunity here to have a child is rather disgusting.
Click to expand...
Huh? Because late-term abortions are not common, it made no sense to challenge the Alabama law.
Click to expand...
15 weeks precludes a lot of fetal-defect abortions.
 
If Alito is too radical for Barrett and Kavanaugh and move toward the center with Roberts, I wonder if this can go undecided with three justices in each camp?
If someone like Ginni Thomas got her hands on it via her irresponsible husband, I could see this being her motivation to try and press Barrett and Kavanaugh.
 
Sen. Collins: Gorsuch, Kavanaugh told me a different story on Roe opinion
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said Tuesday that if a report suggesting that the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade is accurate, she was misled in her conversations with two justices who had told her that the landmark 1973 abortion ruling was settled law.
Click to expand...
Susan Collins is shocked, shocked to discover that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would overturn Roe.
 
Interesting question I was asked. Some people are saying this opinion also opens the way for striking down gay marriage and interracial marriage. If some state does try this, and anti-interracial case gets to SCOTUS, what will Clarance Thomas say?
 
marc said:
Interesting question I was asked. Some people are saying this opinion also opens the way for striking down gay marriage and interracial marriage. If some state does try this, and anti-interracial case gets to SCOTUS, what will Clarance Thomas say?
Click to expand...
"I recuse myself from this case."

Nah, he'll suck the right's dick like he always has. Lying POS should never have been let onto the court in the first place.
 
Death cult.


FR7s9mSXwAAozqv
 
It's interesting insofar as I believe my own mother should have aborted me, as well as my siblings. If she had had two or three abortions, maybe then she could have afforded to be a good mother to the next child, at least.

It is far more a mercy to not let something get so far along than to take it all the way and let it cause so much trauma in such a needless way.
 
Toni said:
Playball40 said:
Trausti said:
blastula said:
Trausti said:
www.neonataltrust.org.nz

Little Miracles Trust - Home

www.neonataltrust.org.nz www.neonataltrust.org.nz
Click to expand...

Another Trausti irrelevancy.
Click to expand...
Not at all. These’s discussion upthread on the moral equivalence of abortion at 30 weeks and murder of a 30 week premie.
Click to expand...
RvW does not allow for abortion at 30 weeks. It will allow induced labor (not an abortion) for the safety of the mother. People forced to induce labor at 30 weeks are DEVASTATED. But that's not something you can comprehend.

RvW already has all the 'limitations' needed.
Click to expand...
This is not quite accurate. Roe says that abortions MAY be prohibited so long as there are exceptions for the life and health of the mother. It does NOT say anything about the method for terminating the pregnancy.

Some late term abortions are performed via c-section if that is deemed safest for the mother. Sometimes labor is induced.

Note: There is no law anywhere that says any doctor or medical provider MUST terminate a pregnancy. Roe v Wade also does not set forth acceptable means of termination.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But my point stands that RvW is not without restriction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom