Page 308 of 490

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:55 pm
by San Lumen
Arlenton wrote:
New haven america wrote:I mean, ~70% of the country supports it, so if was to be banned again we'd be seeing a pretty severe societal meltdown. (Also, I'm pretty sure no abortion service would actually follow the law, see Texas' absolute inability to enforce its own ban and not being able to host the promised Whistleblower site due to relentless trolling and cyberattacks)

It's just that the 30% that don't are very rich, loud, and corrupt.

I do predict that this will lead to violence not seen in decades though.

Repealing Roe V Wade will not ban abortion nationwide. It will allow states themselves to ban it, or not ban it, or put whatever regulations they want on it.

There won't be societal meltdown. Probably plenty of protests, sure.

And the abortion law here in Texas will no longer be necessary with a repeal of Roe. The current law has citizens enforce it by suing those who have abortions, perform abortions, or in any way help someone get an abortion. It was made this way in order to get around Roe. But without Roe, the state government can enforce a ban.


It will likely lead to huge backlash by woman against Republicans. You will see states codify abortion rights into law like what New York has done.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:00 pm
by The Black Forrest
Arlenton wrote:
New haven america wrote:I mean, ~70% of the country supports it, so if was to be banned again we'd be seeing a pretty severe societal meltdown. (Also, I'm pretty sure no abortion service would actually follow the law, see Texas' absolute inability to enforce its own ban and not being able to host the promised Whistleblower site due to relentless trolling and cyberattacks)

It's just that the 30% that don't are very rich, loud, and corrupt.

I do predict that this will lead to violence not seen in decades though.

Repealing Roe V Wade will not ban abortion nationwide. It will allow states themselves to ban it, or not ban it, or put whatever regulations they want on it.

There won't be societal meltdown. Probably plenty of protests, sure.

And the abortion law here in Texas will no longer be necessary with a repeal of Roe. The current law has citizens enforce it by suing those who have abortions, perform abortions, or in any way help someone get an abortion. It was made this way in order to get around Roe. But without Roe, the state government can enforce a ban.


The problem is states won’t be left alone especially if they want to allow abortions. Republicans and their religious allies will start harassing the states.

Texas will not end the practice of citizen rats. They will report people who think “fuck it” I am going to California.

One way to put the states in check? They main argument is about viability through “super’ efforts by rather expensive medical equipment.

If women is forced to carry a questionable pregnancy and ends up having to use the equipment, the state has to pay for it.

If a woman has to carry to term a questionable baby which requires a great deal of support. The state has to pay for it.

The state of course can go after the religious to help pay for these….

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:04 pm
by Spirit of Hope
I do love the argument that if SCOTUS decides to reverse themselves on Roe V Wade that Texas can get ride of its horrible enslaving law and replace it with a regular enslaving law. Like good, we don't have the rule of law destroying monstrosity that is the current law, but we are still violating women's rights like crazy.

The idea that it should be a states rights thing is stupid. States don't get the right to violate peoples lives in the name of religion.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:05 pm
by Arlenton
San Lumen wrote:
Arlenton wrote:Repealing Roe V Wade will not ban abortion nationwide. It will allow states themselves to ban it, or not ban it, or put whatever regulations they want on it.

There won't be societal meltdown. Probably plenty of protests, sure.

And the abortion law here in Texas will no longer be necessary with a repeal of Roe. The current law has citizens enforce it by suing those who have abortions, perform abortions, or in any way help someone get an abortion. It was made this way in order to get around Roe. But without Roe, the state government can enforce a ban.


It will likely lead to huge backlash by woman against Republicans. You will see states codify abortion rights into law like what New York has done.

You are right. I don't expect a blue wave or anything, and I still expect Republicans to take the House but GOP gains could very well be more limited.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:06 pm
by San Lumen
Arlenton wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
It will likely lead to huge backlash by woman against Republicans. You will see states codify abortion rights into law like what New York has done.

You are right. I don't expect a blue wave or anything, and I still expect Republicans to take the House but GOP gains could very well be more limited.


I think its possible Democrats could keep the House if Roe is overturned. The backlash by women would be massive.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:06 pm
by Arlenton
Spirit of Hope wrote:I do love the argument that if SCOTUS decides to reverse themselves on Roe V Wade that Texas can get ride of its horrible enslaving law and replace it with a regular enslaving law. Like good, we don't have the rule of law destroying monstrosity that is the current law, but we are still violating women's rights like crazy.

The idea that it should be a states rights thing is stupid. States don't get the right to violate peoples lives in the name of religion.

It is up to the SCOTUS to decide that.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:07 pm
by Arlenton
San Lumen wrote:
Arlenton wrote:You are right. I don't expect a blue wave or anything, and I still expect Republicans to take the House but GOP gains could very well be more limited.


I think its possible Democrats could keep the House if Roe is overturned. The backlash by women would be massive.

I doubt it will be to that extent. Dems are in a severely vulnerable position in the House. We'll have to wait and see later next year.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:08 pm
by Spirit of Hope
Arlenton wrote:
Spirit of Hope wrote:I do love the argument that if SCOTUS decides to reverse themselves on Roe V Wade that Texas can get ride of its horrible enslaving law and replace it with a regular enslaving law. Like good, we don't have the rule of law destroying monstrosity that is the current law, but we are still violating women's rights like crazy.

The idea that it should be a states rights thing is stupid. States don't get the right to violate peoples lives in the name of religion.

It is up to the SCOTUS to decide that.



SCOTUS did decide it. A couple of decades ago. And they have re affirmed it several times.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:08 pm
by San Lumen
Arlenton wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
I think its possible Democrats could keep the House if Roe is overturned. The backlash by women would be massive.

I doubt it will be to that extent. Dems are in a severely vulnerable position in the House. We'll have to wait and see later next year.


Only time will tell. We've not had Supreme Court decision so widely out of step with public opinion in modern times.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:09 pm
by Arlenton
Spirit of Hope wrote:
Arlenton wrote:It is up to the SCOTUS to decide that.



SCOTUS did decide it. A couple of decades ago. And they have re affirmed it several times.

Looks like they are deciding it again.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:10 pm
by Spirit of Hope
Arlenton wrote:
Spirit of Hope wrote:

SCOTUS did decide it. A couple of decades ago. And they have re affirmed it several times.

Looks like they are deciding it again.


Looks like they are throwing out the law book so that they can appease their own religious beliefs and satisfy their political masters who put them in position.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:12 pm
by Arlenton
Spirit of Hope wrote:
Arlenton wrote:Looks like they are deciding it again.


Looks like they are throwing out the law book so that they can appease their own religious beliefs and satisfy their political masters who put them in position.


Did the law book not exist prior to 1973?

The SCOTUS has overruled itself plenty of times throughout history.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:13 pm
by The Black Forrest
Arlenton wrote:
Spirit of Hope wrote:

SCOTUS did decide it. A couple of decades ago. And they have re affirmed it several times.

Looks like they are deciding it again.


Indeed. When you put three automatic yes votes; why not go after it?

I mean Barret for example. Why bring up body autonomy and vaccines?

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:17 pm
by Spirit of Hope
Arlenton wrote:
Spirit of Hope wrote:
Looks like they are throwing out the law book so that they can appease their own religious beliefs and satisfy their political masters who put them in position.


Did the law book not exist prior to 1973?

The SCOTUS has overruled itself plenty of times throughout history.


Very rarely on such a major issue. About the only time I can think of off the top of my head is separate but equal, but well part of the reason for reversing that was the evidence that separate wasn't being done equally and inherently couldn't be equal.

Please if you have evidence of a major reversal from SCOTUS that fundamentally changes a major right for over half the population please show me.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:20 pm
by Arlenton
The Black Forrest wrote:
Arlenton wrote:Looks like they are deciding it again.


Indeed. When you put three automatic yes votes; why not go after it?

I mean Barret for example. Why bring up body autonomy and vaccines?

Is it confirmed yet that the three Trump appointees are yes on a full repeal? From what I have been reading Kavanaugh seems to be likely yes, and Thomas and Alito are a given. So that's three. Gorsuch and Barrett I haven't been able to tell, and I've been seeing various sources claiming one is a yes and the other is a maybe interchangeably. Five votes in favor of full repeal do seem likely, but based off of their statements and questions during the case is it confirmed?

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:23 pm
by San Lumen
Arlenton wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:
Indeed. When you put three automatic yes votes; why not go after it?

I mean Barret for example. Why bring up body autonomy and vaccines?

Is it confirmed yet that the three Trump appointees are yes on a full repeal? From what I have been reading Kavanaugh seems to be likely yes, and Thomas and Alito are a given. So that's three. Gorsuch and Barrett I haven't been able to tell, and I've been seeing various sources claiming one is a yes and the other is a maybe interchangeably. Five votes in favor of full repeal do seem likely, but based off of their statements and questions during the case is it confirmed?


Barrett is a likely yes from what iv'e heard.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:28 pm
by Arlenton
Spirit of Hope wrote:
Arlenton wrote:
Did the law book not exist prior to 1973?

The SCOTUS has overruled itself plenty of times throughout history.


Very rarely on such a major issue. About the only time I can think of off the top of my head is separate but equal, but well part of the reason for reversing that was the evidence that separate wasn't being done equally and inherently couldn't be equal.

Please if you have evidence of a major reversal from SCOTUS that fundamentally changes a major right for over half the population please show me.

Caetano v. Massachusetts of 2016 overruled a 1939 ruling, United States v. Miller, that said certain firearms, in this case I think it was some form of shotgun, aren't protected under the 2nd Amendment. Caetano v. Massachusetts extended the 2nd Amendment to "all forms of bearable arms", overruling the 1939 ruling on an issue that changed a major right for the entire population.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:30 pm
by Arlenton
San Lumen wrote:
Arlenton wrote:Is it confirmed yet that the three Trump appointees are yes on a full repeal? From what I have been reading Kavanaugh seems to be likely yes, and Thomas and Alito are a given. So that's three. Gorsuch and Barrett I haven't been able to tell, and I've been seeing various sources claiming one is a yes and the other is a maybe interchangeably. Five votes in favor of full repeal do seem likely, but based off of their statements and questions during the case is it confirmed?


Barrett is a likely yes from what iv'e heard.

If that is the case, it comes down to Gorsuch. Apparently he was "pretty quiet" during the arguments. I don't know what that means exactly.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:09 pm
by Fauzjhia
wait. USA women are really going to lose access to abortions ? We are really going back to 1900s ?

I can't believe this ?
Conservatives should know these laws never worked, abortion were just dangerous and illegal, but they still existed.

and where is the freedom they claim to defend ?

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:10 pm
by Great Algerstonia
Abortion is bad because the thread title is stupid

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:40 pm
by Big Bad Blue
Fox News poll: 65% support Roe

Going past the top lines, the Fox News poll indicated that for the first time, over half of Republicans (53%) joined majorities of Democrats (77%) and Independents (64%) in saying Roe should remain the law of the land.

Seven in 10 White Catholics (72%) and nearly half of White evangelical Christians (49%) also thought the decision should stand.


Ask yourselves how the nation has gotten to the point where a right supported by essentially majorities among every demographic group is in mortal danger. Then vote blue, no matter who.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:42 pm
by Totalitarian Missouri
Big Bad Blue wrote:Fox News poll: 65% support Roe

Going past the top lines, the Fox News poll indicated that for the first time, over half of Republicans (53%) joined majorities of Democrats (77%) and Independents (64%) in saying Roe should remain the law of the land.

Seven in 10 White Catholics (72%) and nearly half of White evangelical Christians (49%) also thought the decision should stand.


Ask yourselves how the nation has gotten to the point where a right supported by essentially majorities among every demographic group is in mortal danger. Then vote blue, no matter who.

Lol no.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:49 pm
by Senkaku
Big Bad Blue wrote:Then vote blue, no matter who.

Oh thank god, I was worried trying to halt the collapse of any semblance of substantive democracy would be like, hard & complicated & involve bold original thinking that rejects the failed approaches of the past few decades, but this sounds much more straightforward!

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:00 pm
by San Lumen
Big Bad Blue wrote:Fox News poll: 65% support Roe

Going past the top lines, the Fox News poll indicated that for the first time, over half of Republicans (53%) joined majorities of Democrats (77%) and Independents (64%) in saying Roe should remain the law of the land.

Seven in 10 White Catholics (72%) and nearly half of White evangelical Christians (49%) also thought the decision should stand.


Ask yourselves how the nation has gotten to the point where a right supported by essentially majorities among every demographic group is in mortal danger. Then vote blue, no matter who.


This is proof the backlash from overturning Roe would be huge. I already vote blue no matter who. I have not voted for a single Republican since 2012.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:05 pm
by Arlenton
Fauzjhia wrote:wait. USA women are really going to lose access to abortions ? We are really going back to 1900s ?

I can't believe this ?
Conservatives should know these laws never worked, abortion were just dangerous and illegal, but they still existed.

and where is the freedom they claim to defend ?

Back to 1973, where the legality of abortion is up to each state to decide, yes. Assuming Roe is repealed.

Laws banning abortion work just fine in stopping legal abortions. Prohibition never really works, but that is no reason for anti-abortion people to not want to ban it. Considering they see it as akin to murder, which is illegal, yet still happens.

They don't see what is in their view the murder of a baby as a freedom.