Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1226423)

As far as inconsequential goes the cost of a vaginal delivery in America as of 11/21 was $5-$11K. Who foots the bill for that, to say nothing of raising a child, when women are forced to give birth & the places most likely to force them to do so don’t fund medical & related services?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1226424)

In the US there have been 41 bombings of abortion clinics, and another 173 arsons.
11 total people have been murdered in 7 separate attacks on abortion clinics. There have also been 17 attempted murders.
To my knowledge, there are zero cases of pro-choice bombings or murders.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1226434)

Many don’t know this.

In 2018, the Government of Ireland put a Woman’s right to abortion up for the National vote. The Catholic Church fought it for years. As a compromise the Government put forward the vote BUT only Irish citizens who were in Ireland on the day of the vote could participate in the election. Sucks right? Well at the time, many of the younger Irish folks were working in Canada, Australia, the European continent and the US. So what happened? Well they got really pissed off that they couldn’t vote at the Irish Embassy.
They planned and coordinated and 1,000s of Irish citizens especially the young, flew back to Ireland from points all over the world just to vote. The referendum passed overwhelmingly and a woman’s right to an abortion was enshrined in law.

Young Americans will do the same here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1226464)

Well, that would be the proper way to legalize abortion. The voting will of the majority in the states. State by state. Not by federal fiat or even a federal election since abortion does not fall within any federal enumerated power--notwithstanding the erroneous Roe v. Wade.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1226463)

The states have the legal power to penalize murder. All 50 states have laws against murder and attempted murder. Murders by pro-life advocates are not exempt from prosecution and punishment. What more do you want?

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1226459)

Altio's draft opinion is policy masquerading as constitutional law. At critical points in the argument, Alito abandons legal analysis for pure policy preference. At other points, his argument relies on weak evidence.

This is opinion masquerading as fact.

The most obvious resort to policy over constitutional analysis in Alito's opinion is where he tries to assure that overturning Roe will not impact other privacy rights, like interracial marriage.
Alito says abortion is different than other privacy rights because there is a fetal life involved. But that isn't a constitutional basis for distinguishing those other rights.

It is not based on history & tradition or the nature of constitutional rights.

If the "fetus" is considered a human being, then it would be a constitutional basis.

Many rights have negative consequences on third parties, including most obviously the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

How so? The right to keep and bear arms is not a right to murder.

The unwritten right to contraception can be said to have a similar third-party impact as abortion.

Contraception prevents their being a third party.

All the other privacy rights are clearly in jeopardy, despite Alito's assurance. Contraception, interracial marriage, sexual intimacy -- none of those rights could withstand Alito's history and tradition test that looks only to the law existing before the 14th amendment.

Alito's opinion maintains the constitutional separation of power between federal and local governments. It more consistently maintains the integrity of the Constitution. And it doesn't outlaw abortion, or sexual intimacy, or interracial marriage, or contraception.

All rights are in jeopardy when left to the whim of Progressive interpretation. You, or who you're parroting, sound like a Progressive and would tolerate any SCOTUS decision that allowed whatever you prefer. Those things you listed are less "in jeopardy" by Alito's constitutional opinion than by a Progressive basis for constitutional interpretation regarding any of them when under the scrutiny of Progressive jurors who see the constitution as an ever changing, living and breathing, legal prescription whose main purpose is to uphold the power of the central government's desire to improve the lives of the people depending on what the experts of the day decide is currently considered "good."

Alito also departs from standard constitutional practice by disregarding decades of precedent (over an above Roe) on due process. Obergefell, Lawrence, Harlan in Poe, early incorporation cases -- all said history is a guide but not the only basis for finding of a right.
Yet Alito says that a strictly historical understanding of liberty is the settled way of doing due process analysis. In fact, that approach was explicitly rejected in Obergefell and other cases.
Alito's argument about how the common law treated abortion is also remarkably weak. Nearly all the evidence that he cites shows that *pre-quickening* (about 16 weeks), abortion was not criminalized.
Alito cites one source for saying that person who unlawfully kills a fetus before quickening by giving the woman an elixir would be guilty of murder if the woman dies. Note what is missing: The historical source did NOT say that the delivery of an elixir that kills the fetus would be guilty of murder. No law that Alito cites says that.
Alito offers no history to support pre-quickening illegality, other than a seemingly offhand use of the word "unlawfully" by one source -- who wasn't even discussing abortion by choice.

Progressives like to have it both ways. Precedent (that they approve of) is sacrosanct and must not be overturned (until they deem it as musty remnants of old dead white men). But, on the other hand, the Constitution must constantly change to somehow suit the time.

Perhaps a good decision could be written overturning Roe & Casey, one based on strictly constitutional reasoning rather than hidden policy choices. But Alito hasn't written it. His analysis gives history and tradition a bad name.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1226470)

yep that's about right

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1226470)

yep that's about right

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1226472)

why was it stolen? where is it written that a republican senate must confirm the nominee of a democratic president?

ever heard of robert bork?

the american people freely chose to give senate control to republicans. America wanted a republican senate.

and look up “The Biden rule”.

that’s literally, exactly what McCinnell
did. He enacted The Biden Rule.

Why was it ok for biden to say the senate should block SCOTUS nominees late in the term of a potus in the other party? if that was ok, why was what McConnell
did, wrong?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1226475)

Bork had a full Senate hearing and was voted down. You’re seriously in wdmso territory,

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1226476)

That’s pretty much what he was saying. Bad reading comprehension is some serious wdmso territory

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1226475)

Bork had a full Senate hearing and was voted down. You’re seriously in wdmso territory,

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1226479)

can any of the lefties here, please tell us where the constitution says that we the people, through our elected officials in the states, cannot regulate abortion as we wish? some will wish to restrict it, some will wish to provide it at will.

democracy will dictate this, if the draft holds. The left is appalled at the thought of democracy. It horrifies them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1226487)

Jim like I’ve said if red states cared about democracy they would hold a referendum vote on abortion but they won’t their states are super gerrymander , they only care about the base voter Aka primary voter .

And are afraid it would pass .. but be sure they would disregarded it ,


McConnell Explains How He’ll Steal Another Supreme Court Pick From Another Democratic President
The Republican signals that if his party retakes the Senate, he’ll block Biden’s high court nominees in 2024—and very probably in 2023.

Yep rule of law , court precedent
All forsaken for power vis the minority
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1226487)

Yep rule of law , court precedent
All forsaken for power vis the minority
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1226490)

Question doses anyone honestly think that if Roe is struck down and becomes a State rights issue as suggested by those on the Right ..

That those states or the anti Abortion activists are going to stop ? And go home . They will be after a National ban next

Rubio targets 'woke executives' covering travel for employees to get abortions

Sen. Marco Rubio's new bill wouldn't let employers deduct travel expenses that pay for abortion or trans care for minors

I guess this is how Republicans
respect the privacy and freedoms of companies and their employees Freedom for me not for thee because I disagree

Little Marco is appealing to you guessed the rabid MAGA base not the avg American… just like the SC
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1226490)

Little Marco is appealing to you guessed the rabid MAGA base not the avg American… just like the SC
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1226475)

Bork had a full Senate hearing and was voted down. You’re seriously in wdmso territory,

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1226495)

wdmso, another question…

you’re upset the court overturned precedent. Well the court has done that before, my favorite example is Plessy V Ferguson which legalized segregation, that was overturned 50 years later.

If you’re ok with that being overturned, that means you’re ok with bad rulings being overturned.

You can’t say “i support the idea of overturning precedent, but only when i like the outcome.”

Either the idea of overturning precedent is ok, or it’s not. it’s not “ok, but only when it moves us to the left. “. which is obviously your position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1226498)

Since Detbuch is convinced that a fetus is a human being at conception

If the "fetus" is considered a human being, then it would be a constitutional basis.

If a fetus is a person at 6 weeks pregnant, is that when the child support starts?

As you can see, since you quoted it, I said "human being," not "person." Not sure how you missed that. Probably your usual twisting, lying business.

Is that also when you can't deport the mother because she's carrying a U.S. citizen?

I believe the criteria is that the baby must be "born" in the U.S.

Can I insure a 6 week fetus, and collect for a miscarriage?

Well, first you can identify as a woman, then claim you are pregnant, then work it out with and insurance agency.

Maybe the radical clerics that issued the Fatwa against abortion will clarify it.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1226499)

Here's your reminder that John Cornyn compared Plessy vs. Ferguson to same-sex marriage during Jackson's confirmation vote during the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's pretty clear that's going to be the next thing in the crosshairs.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1226495)

wdmso, another question…

you’re upset the court overturned precedent. Well the court has done that before, my favorite example is Plessy V Ferguson which legalized segregation, that was overturned 50 years later.

If you’re ok with that being overturned, that means you’re ok with bad rulings being overturned.

You can’t say “i support the idea of overturning precedent, but only when i like the outcome.”

Either the idea of overturning precedent is ok, or it’s not. it’s not “ok, but only when it moves us to the left. “. which is obviously your position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1226504)

Did you know when it was overturned white Christians pulled their kids from public school to white only Christian ones ..

Jim like every thing , it’s not the reversal it’s the logic for the reversal

Segregation was discrimination using the current courts logic it should not have been turned over because segregation was a Traditional value in America

yet the logic suddenly changed with 3 holy rollers on the bench.. from what it was 2 years prior to their appointments coincidence? Nope

most rational people see this for what it clearly is . An emotional religious ruling not a legal one..

And if you think a National ban isn’t next .. your not paying attention


Just out Senate Republicans are working with antiabortion activists already to put together a bill banning abortion if they win control of the chamber in November’s midterm elections.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device