Roe v Wade is on deck

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Hey, Southern Baptists just went full cuckoo voting that in vitro fertilization should be disallowed.

Southern Baptists formally oppose in vitro fertilization

Delegates in Indianapolis voted for the resolution that also urged the denomination’s members “to advocate for the government to restrain actions inconsistent with the dignity and value of every human being, which necessarily includes frozen embryonic human beings.”

Did they have time to vote on divorce?

 

[zorq]

Hey, Southern Baptists just went full cuckoo voting that in vitro fertilization should be disallowed.

Southern Baptists formally oppose in vitro fertilization

Delegates in Indianapolis voted for the resolution that also urged the denomination’s members “to advocate for the government to restrain actions inconsistent with the dignity and value of every human being, which necessarily includes frozen embryonic human beings.”

Did they have time to vote on divorce?

That would be hilarious. It's long been understood that the more devout or fundamentalist a religious person is (living in a modern democracy), the more likely they are to have a marriage end in divorce.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Poster child: good old Kentucky gal Kim Davis, the warrior for Christian marriage, who defied Jesus at least four times, with 3 divorces and children born outta wedlock.

 

[marc]

Not surprising the divorce rate. When you put your 'gods' commands above your spouse's needs they are kinda getting edged out of the marriage, becoming the person you have on the side. Also can see that starting when 'good christians' have a school dance, and the teens are told to dance at practically arms length to 'leave room for the holy spirit'. Yea, taught to let your religion get between you and the person you are supposedly in love with.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hey, Southern Baptists just went full cuckoo voting that in vitro fertilization should be disallowed.

Southern Baptists formally oppose in vitro fertilization

Delegates in Indianapolis voted for the resolution that also urged the denomination’s members “to advocate for the government to restrain actions inconsistent with the dignity and value of every human being, which necessarily includes frozen embryonic human beings.”

Did they have time to vote on divorce?

Why the need for the word "embryonic"? If they are human beings, why the adjective? Regardless, I was thinking that the far right would have paused all of this until after the election, so as not to scare the electorate.

I suppose the silver lining is every person that told liberals they were being hysterical about birth control, IVF, and abortion were either full of crap or simply just wrong.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Why the need for the word "embryonic"?

Holy fuck, Jimmy! These are people who worship themselves because they think they have magic powers. Nothing they come up with surprises me.

 

[scombrid]

It’s crazy. A friend of ours is a Mexican Catholic. She is prone to rant in person and on social media about gays, trans, and any other not hetero thing as being unnatural and against god. Yet she never married and used a sperm doner for IVF when she was approaching 40 and hadn’t yet found a husband. Oh and she obviously used birth control her entire reproductive life.

I guess my point with that anecdote is that the cognitive dissonance can be pretty severe. I doubt most GOP supporters will blink at whatever level of crazy is proscribed by GOP leadership, SBC, etc…

An anti-abortion Catholic will use birth control and IVF to have a bastard child from an anonymous doner. She won’t turn against the GOP unless they come after her particular personal religious exception.

I know one MAGA that turned and it was only after Texas abortion laws almost killed his daughter in law.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't care about the pro-life faction.

It is the 'we rarely ever vote because it doesn't impact our lives' folk that I care about. That will be the people that vote hard in favor of individual reproductive rights. And all of this reminding them that this is a threat to them is beneficial for November. It is unfortunate they didn't vote earlier to prevent this in the first place. Of course, many of these people were just children when W was around.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

SCOTUS upholds access to Mifepristone. 9-0. Though Alito and Thomas filed concurring opinions, which I assume include roadmaps for how to try again.

Standing was the issue to reject the case.

"Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff's desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue. Nor do the plaintiffs' other standing theories suffice," Kavanaugh wrote. He also added that "federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs' concerns about FDA's actions."

They rejected it on four grounds, so this is again one of those, how did this even make it to the SCOTUS in the first place! The District Judge should get smacked up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

SCOTUS upholds access to Mifepristone. 9-0. Though Alito and Thomas filed concurring opinions, which I assume include roadmaps for how to try again.

Standing was the issue to reject the case.

"Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff's desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue. Nor do the plaintiffs' other standing theories suffice," Kavanaugh wrote. He also added that "federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs' concerns about FDA's actions."

They rejected it on four grounds, so this is again one of those, how did this even make it to the SCOTUS in the first place! The District Judge should get smacked up.

Because the Republican justices realized how dangerous the Dobbs backlash is and it was too soon to implement the rest of the agenda. Got to kill the democracy before you can ram through theocracy.

 

[blastula]

The Supreme Court’s Abortion Pill Ruling Should Satisfy Nobody

On Thursday, the Supreme Court did the bare minimum necessary to operate like an actual court of law.

slate.com

On Thursday, the Supreme Court did the bare minimum necessary to operate like an actual court of law, unanimously throwing out an absurd and dangerous lawsuit against medication abortion. The justices do not deserve extra credit for refusing to embrace this deeply unserious litigation, and they should earn no gold stars for maintaining the legal status quo on abortion pills. They merely acted as minimally responsible adults in a room of sugared-up preschoolers, shutting down the lower courts’ lawless rampage over all known rules of standing in desperate pursuit of an anti-abortion agenda. It is chilling to the bone that activist lawyers and judges were able to wreak as much havoc as they did before SCOTUS put them in timeout. And this bad joke of a case isn’t even over: A lower court has already teed up a do-over that could once again jeopardize access to reproductive care in all 50 states. Don’t call this decision a victory. It is at best a reprieve—an election-year performance of Supreme Court unanimity and sobriety that masks the damage the conservative supermajority has already inflicted, as well as the threats to reproductive freedom that lie ahead.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This ruling was applying rules again. Unlike the other cases. I think while they want to ban the drug, doing it this way potentially destroys the FDA. It was too radical even for them. But not the Federal District judge.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The Supreme Court’s Abortion Pill Ruling Should Satisfy Nobody

On Thursday, the Supreme Court did the bare minimum necessary to operate like an actual court of law.

slate.com

On Thursday, the Supreme Court did the bare minimum necessary to operate like an actual court of law, unanimously throwing out an absurd and dangerous lawsuit against medication abortion. The justices do not deserve extra credit for refusing to embrace this deeply unserious litigation, and they should earn no gold stars for maintaining the legal status quo on abortion pills. They merely acted as minimally responsible adults in a room of sugared-up preschoolers, shutting down the lower courts’ lawless rampage over all known rules of standing in desperate pursuit of an anti-abortion agenda. It is chilling to the bone that activist lawyers and judges were able to wreak as much havoc as they did before SCOTUS put them in timeout. And this bad joke of a case isn’t even over: A lower court has already teed up a do-over that could once again jeopardize access to reproductive care in all 50 states. Don’t call this decision a victory. It is at best a reprieve—an election-year performance of Supreme Court unanimity and sobriety that masks the damage the conservative supermajority has already inflicted, as well as the threats to reproductive freedom that lie ahead.

“I know I did you wrong by cheating on you, baby, but look at these flowers I done brung home. Don’t they make it all better?”

 

[Jarhyn]

SCOTUS upholds access to Mifepristone. 9-0. Though Alito and Thomas filed concurring opinions, which I assume include roadmaps for how to try again.

Standing was the issue to reject the case.

"Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff's desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue. Nor do the plaintiffs' other standing theories suffice," Kavanaugh wrote. He also added that "federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs' concerns about FDA's actions."

They rejected it on four grounds, so this is again one of those, how did this even make it to the SCOTUS in the first place! The District Judge should get smacked up.

Because the Republican justices realized how dangerous the Dobbs backlash is and it was too soon to implement the rest of the agenda. Got to kill the democracy before you can ram through theocracy.

Hence why they shot it down on standing rather than merits.

 

[blastula]

 

[Janice Rael]

I don't care about the pro-life faction.

Why do you want them to win? Caring not about the pro-life HAHA "FACTION" omg, this is the reason WHY.

LOOK, if you claim to want to win an election then also claim to not care about THE opposition, then WHY should anyone listen to you or vote your way or at all?

YOU DO NOT CARE, SIR.

You do not care WHY you lose.

 

[Janice Rael]

Seth Abramson on Substack:
Why a Unanimous Supreme Court Decision Protecting Access to Abortion Medication Mifepristone Means Less Than You Think
A unanimous SCOTUS decision being hailed by major media as a big win for abortion rights advocates is actually something else entirely. This report from an attorney and legal journalist explains why.

Specifically, it’s shocking that the Supreme Court even allowed a case to come before it in which all nine Justices believed the moving party didn’t have standing to bring the case in the first place.

Why? Because standing is the first thing decided in every court case, and it is almost always the easiest thing to determine. Which means—given that the Supreme Court takes a vanishingly small number of cases each year, and most cases that come to it take years to get there—that the Court took up an issue that it knew in advance never should have entered any court in America and did so to the detriment of countless other actually worthwhile cases it could have taken.

Why in the world, then, should the Court choose to have this case be one of the only ones in America it hears this year—when there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of worthy litigants begging for its attention?

One argument, a procedural one, would be that the Court was forced into this position.

Like almost all far-right Trumpist litigants in this era of out-of-control ideologically driven “lawfare”—a phenomenon complained about exclusively by, yet simultaneously almost exclusively caused by, supporters of Donald Trump—the plaintiffs in this case forum-shopped their way to a federal judicial district in north Texas.

TEXAS. (cont'd on Substack) "Lawfare" = Trump's Legal Welfare.

In essence, the Trumpists manufactured a way for a wholly meritless case to jump to the front of the nation’s queue of civil appeals in the hope that doing so would get six (or at least five) Trumpist justices to effectively outlaw most abortions nationwide.

Why treat an obviously illegitimately brought case as legitimate?

The answer lies in the 9-0 decision written by longtime Republican political operative-turned-SCOTUS Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Recognizing, as does everyone in the legal field, that the Trumpists have now created a special pipeline just for themselves that fast-tracks far-right schemes through far-right activist judges in Texas to a far-right Supreme Court, Justice Kavanaugh wrote his opinion aware that the fact that he was writing such an opinion at all meant that the pipeline run by his former GOP-operative colleagues is humming on all cylinders.

He is aware, in other words, that there is really no way, anymore, to stop a meritless (indeed improperly brought) civil case in its tracks if the MAGAs want it heard by the Supreme Court—especially as there will always be at least a four-person grouping at the Court (Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and two of Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts, and Amy Coney Barrett) to vote to take such a case even when it’s patently meritless. {Note: Four Justices must want to hear a case for it to be heard.}

It's deliberate.

It isn’t a coincidence that Trump got three SCOTUS nominees seated in just 48 months in office; that was just as cynically and unethically orchestrated as MAGAs’ “Texas Pipeline” is.

So Kavanaugh knows it’s better for this case to come back with no standing issues and perhaps a year from now. So that’s what he and his peers on the Court orchestrated.

Seth Abramson is a lawyer and author. He said:

SCOTUS ruling unanimously on a very basic standing issue means that something is gravely wrong with the process by which civil cases are moving through our justice system.

Have I ever shut up about the 2007 Hein vs FFRF case? Nah. That's when we lost standing to sue the government for ceremonial deism and faith-based funding funnels.

Their court, their rules, but, SCOTUS has the ultimate Rickroll.

 

[Janice Rael]

Since this is the abortuary thread? *cough*cough*

ABORTION is the issue. Ignoring it is why you and we lose.

Wrong about abortion? The slope slides down like this: abortion-wrong equals wrong about all sex and gender issues, and likely wrong about race and immigration, too. This equals wrong about almost anything at all.

ETA can't legislate parenting, but, the antis are wrong about parents.

People being wrong about the fact of the singularity contribute to the loss of rights and lives.

EVEN "OUR" "SIDE" is 100% wrong about ABORTION and the language they use IN COURT, in LEGISLATION, and in the media. The Democrats deliberately choose to lose. How else can they retain power, without an enemy?

 

[Janice Rael]

*now let me clear my throat! I hope ya don't mind, have mercy, babe, let me clear my throat!*

Legalize comprehensive gynecology again, folks. Take your religions and theology back to church and let doctors do the medical healthcare safely and legally.

I traveled 500 miles for my abortion. My BFF drove over 1000 miles for my abortion.

Quote: Texas exodus: 35,500 Texans traveled out of state for abortions last year
“Nobody does that for any other medical procedure.”
By Rhyma Castillo, Staff writer
June 15, 2024

"After the Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, several states like Texas passed abortion bans, leading many women to travel to other states for the procedure.

According to the study, the number of people who traveled for an abortion more than doubled in 2023 compared to 2019. Last year, 170,000 patients left their state for an abortion. Of those, 35,500 were Texans, compared to 2,400 in 2019. Most traveled across state lines to New Mexico, Oklahoma and Louisiana. But the study showed Texans also traveled to California for the procedure.

“We’re having people travel hundreds or thousands of miles for a procedure that typically takes less than 10 minutes and can be done in a doctor’s office setting,” Amy Hagstrom Miller, the founder of Whole Woman’s Health, told the New York Times for a report this week examining the data. “Nobody does that for any other medical procedure.”"

I did, but, I was 100% convinced that legal abortion (gynecology) would end my literal life. The Charleston WVa clinic was hostile and rude to me, and I couldn't go there. I was also alone. My BFF saved me and helped me get my period going again.

Comprehensive gynecology should be safe and legal and affordable (FREE) and accessible to all, locally. ALL aspects of OB/GYN work must be safe and legal for all doctors, all patients, and all potential gynecology patients.

*THE REASON WHY THE RIGHT TO SAFE LEGAL [abortion] is lost is because the stupid dumbheads in DC are doing it wrong!

STOP saying the A word. It got us to this point. DUH.

START saying "comprehensive gynecology" and "comprehensive ob/gyn medical care."

Words have meaning.

A Black woman taught me that Words Are Weapons.

Black women suffered and died for the medical gynecology that is practiced today.

ALL people who menstruate or who could menstruate deserve comprehensive medical gynecology and ob/gyn healthcare.

The USA has a terrible rate of maternal mortality, especially for Black women. Even Serena almost died from pregnancy.

The words you use now got you to this point. Is your language persuasive? Has it worked yet? Because this is how the existing language works and functions.

IS THIS how you like it? Same ol, same ol? Alllllllrightythen.

USE YOUR WORDS. << that's a thing

-



EXPRESSNEWS.COM
Texas exodus: 35,500 Texans traveled out of state for abortions last year
According to a new study from the Guttmacher Institute, 170,000 patients left their state for an abortion last year.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't care about the pro-life faction.

Why do you want them to win? Caring not about the pro-life HAHA "FACTION" omg, this is the reason WHY.

LOOK, if you claim to want to win an election then also claim to not care about THE opposition, then WHY should anyone listen to you or vote your way or at all?

YOU DO NOT CARE, SIR.

You do not care WHY you lose.

You clipped my post to try and make some absurd "point". I'm uncertain why.