I say this gets struck down by the lower courts and the SCOTUS leaves it right there.

For Conservatives this is NOT the way to try and change a bad ruling. It could never topple Roe, but changes can happen incrementally with the right cases. The Roe decision has up until now been a blessing for the GOP. The Pro Life movement finding a home and a voice within the party. Let's not do anything to foul it up. This is neither the right time nor the right case to fight this battle.

Anytime unconstitutional laws are passed is always a good time to fight it. Alabama's law will probably be struck down in the federal courts, as it should be.

Agreed, as I said in Post #1.

However, the day is coming when that bastard decision will be changed incrementally and if the rights of the unborn ever get any traction Roe itself will die!

All of this should wait until after the election.

Not likely to happen. Roe has only been reaffirmed and expanded on in subsequent abortion cases. Reversing Roe would only set a very dangerous precedent. And the unborn do not have rights, nor should they!

'All of this should wait until after the election.'

Like healthcare?

Obviously Roe is not about to be overturned even if the SCOTUS actually took the Missouri case (they wont touch the Alabama one). But you must realize that restictions are going to creep in?


the unborn do not have rights

Take it from a successful gambler:  DON"T BET ON THAT!

Like healthcare?

Healthcare will be a democratic issue in this election, just as immigration policy will be a Republican issue, but you won't be getting a redo of the culture war. Too bad.

I thought the turd was going to have the bestest, bigliest health care plan for all - after the election.

John McCain defeated it!

He defeated the turd who wanted to do away with the Affordable Care Act!!!!!!!

McCain had one weakness. Vanity!  He could never get over when Trump said I like the war hero's that don't get caught!   Do you remember that?  Well, what people forget is that McCain started all that by calling Trump supporters "crazies". Trump responded the way he did in defense of his supporters. 

It's too bad that McCain repeatedly defeated key Republican legislation simply to spite Trump.

McCain was a war hero, but he was seriously flawed.

Donald Rump is an impotent turd chickenshit coward.

CHICKENHAWK

Draft-Dodger Trump Said Sleeping Around Was My ‘Personal Vietnam’

In a 1997 Howard Stern interview, the future presidential candidate likened sleeping with multiple women to service in the war he repeatedly avoided.

Tim Mak

02.16.16   4:10 PM ET

There are already individual state restrictions on abortion. But states cannot restrict abortion before viability, despite certain states attempts to do so. And there is no way to grant rights to the unborn without infringing on the woman's established rights. Some states even attempted to do so through so called "fetal personhood" laws. Not surprisingly and fortunately, they never passed.

Explain why you believe it is "unconstitutional"

Any laws about abortion should be left to the states and the vote of the people.

You've made Trump the topic.  I guess I allowed it, huh?

That's why that poster is instantly put on ignore.

Gordy, It's right there in the first sentence of the Constitution:

"We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Some can interpret our posterity to mean our unborn children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

You've made Trump the topic.  I guess I allowed it, huh?

Some people can't help it if that's all they got.

Isn't it amazing how the TDS sufferers turn a topic about abortion to one about President Trump being a draft dodger?

You've made Trump the topic. I guess I allowed it, huh?

TDS means that you can turn any topic under the sun into yet another "Hate Trump"-fest!

It is an unique ability of those suffering the worst from TDS.

Research continues on a cure.

[deleted]

It's unconstitutional because the SCOTUS has ruled that abortion is legal and cannot be prohibited nor cause an undue burden on the woman. And laws are not put to public vote. They ate passed by legislators and subject to judicial review.

So because the SCOTUS says so, it's right, the Court never gets it wrong.

Have you ever heard of "Dred Scott v. Sanford?"

[DELETED]   WTF does any of your long rant have to do with abortion laws?

Is this off-topic ranting simply something that TDS sufferers can not control?

Sorry, I'm not getting it. You say he's impotent, yet "sleeping around".

You do believe in the concept of contradiction?   You can't be and at the same time not be!  Right?

That may be your own interpretation. But the SCOTUS does not interpret it that way. The idea that it also applies to those not yet born or even existing is conjecture athe best. The Constitution applies to those already born.

The idea that it also applies to those not yet born or even existing is conjecture athe best.

An idea that is coming. A legal space for the state interest in, and responsibility for, the unborn. It will happen gradually, but I can see it coming. 

I never said the SCOTUS gets every ruling right. But abortion cases have been brought before the court before and not once has Roe ever been significantly challenged. 

But abortion cases have been brought before the court before and not once has Roe ever been significantly challenged. 

You are right. As a matter of fact it has been strengthened by precedent. That being said, I wonder if you would agree with me that the abortion debate was never settled by the Roe decision and is now hotter than ever?

We are going to see some of these cases from State legislatures taken by the SCOTUS, not the extreme ones like Alabama, but the more moderate cases. There is a national debate going on.

Not likely. The state will have to argue why it has interest and why the woman's rights and interest should be subverted. Such an issue has gone to the Court before.

Blackmun did leave one thing open (in a rare moment of humility), didn't he?   He admitted that he didn't know when life began. Something to think about?

As far as cases coming, what if the Missouri case comes before the Court. Suppose the only issue argued is limiting abortion to the first 8 weeks?

I'd say Roe more or less settled the issue. The problem is that some people could not accept it and continue to argue it or attempt to circumvent it.

When life begins is irrelevant.  That's more of a subjective, religious, or philosophical discussion and has not been the focus of legal debates surrounding abortion. Limiting abortion 8 weeks (or sooner) is absurd and places an undue burden on the woman, which established precedent has already deemed as a reason for permissible abortions later during gestation.

When life begins is irrelevant.

I couldn't disagree more. Then you are saying a woman's right to make a decision takes precedent over a human life. I'm sorry - that's murder, pure and simple.


Limiting abortion 8 weeks (or sooner) is absurd and places an undue burden on the woman, which established precedent has already deemed as a reason for permissible abortions later during gestation.

Why not? The original first trimester guideline was completely arbitrary, was it not?

Healthcare will be a democratic issue in this election, just as immigration policy will be a Republican issue, but you won't be getting a redo of the culture war. Too bad.

Wait WHAT? Trump said "The Republican Party will become “The Party of Healthcare!”

BTW, aren't healthcare and immigration policy part of our culture? 

You are free to disagree, but  you would be wrong. The woman's rights takes precedent over an embryo/fetus, which is not even born nor considered a person with rights. And abortion is not considered murder. 

As I said, limiting abortions places an undue burden on woman. I'd guess the first trimester limit was a way of finding "middle ground" between pro choicers and pro lifers. 

No Vic brought the subject up of Mr. McCain down voting Rump trying to abolish the ACA and the following:

'McCain had one weakness. Vanity!  He could never get over when Trump said I like the war hero's that don't get caught!   Do you remember that?  Well, what people forget is that McCain started all that by calling Trump supporters "crazies". Trump responded the way he did in defense of his supporters. 

It's too bad that McCain repeatedly defeated key Republican legislation simply to spite Trump.

McCain was a war hero, but he was seriously flawed."

You're saying Mr. McCain couldn't get over what Rump said?  I don't think Mr. McCain thought much about it.  It wasn't spite - it was the right thing to do. 

Also you're saying Mr. McCain was vain?  

That is why I brought up the subject of Rump and his 'own personal vietnam' and this

It wasn’t the only time the Republican frontrunner for president would liken his personal life to wartime service: Trump has  claimed  that his military-themed boarding school education was essentially equivalent to having being trained in the military.

When Trump had his chance to join the military and fight in Vietnam, he did not take it. Instead, the rich kid got multiple student deferments from the draft and a medical deferment. Meanwhile, men like John McCain were being tortured as prisoners of war, but Trump has said that is dishonorable. ’

“He’s not a war hero,” Trump said of McCain last year. “He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured, OK?

John McCain defeated it!

Now there's a giant whopper of a lie.

"I thought the turd was going to have the bestest, bigliest health care plan for all - after the election."

What John McCain blocked was a repeal of the ACA. He did not in any way block a Republican health care plan, because there is no Republican health care plan. They are so stupid they don't have a plan, they simply feed their base the ignorant red meat of "Down with Obamacare!" without even bothering to consider what will actually replace it. I guess no one should expect much from a bunch of indoctrinated morons.

Agreed, as I said in Post #1.However, the day is coming when that bastard decision will be changed incrementally and if the rights of the unborn ever get any traction Roe itself will die!All of this should wait until after the election.

1.)Why is it that you are obsessed with Roe v. Wade when you will never get pregnant?

2.)Why do you believe that your religious or social beliefs get to make decisions about the lives of others? Women are not asking for your approval when they choose to have an abortion

3.) Why is it that you believe that your beliefs overrule what is best for her? Why is a fetus that cannot survive outside of her body more important than an adult human female?

4.)Is your opinion an admission that in your beliefs that woman is still second-class citizen that you have the innate right to govern via your own emotions?

I have to wonder if your partner had an abortion against your wishes and this is your chance to make sure that never happens again by repealing Roe v. Wade. 

What John McCain blocked was a repeal of the ACA. He did not in any way block a Republican health care plan, because there is no Republican health care plan. They are so stupid they don't have a plan, they simply feed their base the ignorant red meat of "Down with Obamacare!" without even bothering to consider what will actually replace it. I guess no one should expect much from a bunch of indoctrinated morons.

There was nothing to replace it and there never will be.

1.)Why is it that you are obsessed with Roe v. Wade when you will never get pregnant?

Because I believe in the Constitution. Only the Congress can make law.

2.)Why do you believe that your religious or social beliefs get to make decisions about the lives of others? Women are not asking for your approval when they choose to have an abortion

I am not making a moral argument. You are. I'm more interested in the Constitution. 

3.) Why is it that you believe that your beliefs overrule what is best for her? Why is a fetus that cannot survive outside of her body more important than an adult human female?

Do you know when life begins? Justice Blackmun admitted that he did not (in his notes). The moral argument lies there. The legal argument lies with the wrongly made decision. If the US congress had decided to make a law providing for what that Court did, I would feel a lot better about it.

4.)Is your opinion an admission that in your beliefs that woman is still second-class citizen that you have the innate right to govern via your own emotions?

Whether I was pro-choice or pro-abortion, I would still be against the Court taking on what they have no place taking on. How did you feel about the Court deciding Bush v Gore?
Please give me an honest opinion

I have to wonder if your partner had an abortion against your wishes and this is your chance to make sure that never happens again by repealing Roe v. Wade. 

If my partner had an abortion against my wishes, it would truly be an unexpected jolt. First I would never be with such a woman and to answer your hypothetical, if it did actually happen, I'd probably be in jail today.

Because I believe in the Constitution. Only the Congress can make law.

You still have a problem with understanding the US Constitution because all three branches have the power to make law in their own manner. They would not be able to function as an effective check and balance to the other two if they did not. This is a basic concept of US history and civics. How does the judicial branch function if it cannot strike down unconstitutional laws?  

Judicial Branch

• Checks on the Legislature
  • Judicial review
  • Seats are held on good behavior
  • Compensation cannot be diminished
• Checks on the Executive
  • Judicial review
  • Chief Justice sits as President of the Senate during presidential impeachment

You need to read and understand the legal precedent established in Marbury v. Madison. How can you possibly claim to understand the US Constitution if you do not understand very basic concepts of it? 

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws, statutes, and some government actions that contravene the U.S. Constitution.

You still have a problem with understanding the US Constitution because all three branches have the power to make law in their own manner.

No they don't.

Here is today's lesson:

Article 1

SECTION 1

There is another law just passed by Missouri banning abortions after 8 weeks, more worthy. I'm still not ready to give the dems a valid culture war argument during an important election cycle.  So far all the democrats have had is a radical fantasy agenda and their hate for Trump. Why give them a real argument?

Too late, Vic.  They couldn't help themselves.  Armor up.  The GOP War On Women continues.  And we intend to fight it.

Doesn't matter Democrats still can't beat Trump...even the Pussy Pink Hat brigade will not defeat him.  

Democrats don't have a winning candidate.  If the Clinton machine can't beat him....who can?

They have been waiting for this moment. It has been their plan all along. To get a conservative majority in the courts. My state admitted it and said they had a bill waiting and ready to go when the time is right.

Now some are back peddling and saying this AL bill will not be the one to go before the SC.

Pat Robertson said this one is too restrictive and he is afraid it would fail in the courts. He laid out their plans and said the main plan was to just chip away at R v W until it was mute.

The thing about all of this is the faux outrage, I bet with most of these people it has not had a single impact on their lives. These same people have no problem executing people or sending people off to war.

I don't understand the backward thinking of some. They claim to be pro life yet yesterday was Peace officers Memorial Day and when I checked in for a quick look, not one peep about this.

Another March coming up?

To get a conservative majority in the courts.

I guess now I can sit back and say "It's the law of the land!"

Too late, Vic.  They couldn't help themselves.  Armor up.  The GOP War On Women continues.  And we intend to fight it.

I recently renewed my membership to the ACLU. I urge others to join me. 

Please join the ACLU because freedom cannot defend itself.

Join NARAL.

If law can be overturned, buckle up. The new law can be overturned, then that can be overturned and just continue back and forth.

If we are going to overturn law, get rid of citizens united. First on my list.

This is how the issue should be decided, democratically.

Instead, unelected  justices discovered as if by magic a right to abortion in the 14th Amendment that suddenly appeared 100 years after it was passed and decided to impose their morals on the country at large. If people want to live in a state that protects the right of the unborn, it's their right to. 

The Constitution is silent on the issue. Anyone who claims otherwise is pushing their moral agenda upon you under the guise of law. 

Laws are passed throught representative legislature, not through popular vote. And individual rights are not and should never be put to popular vote either. While the Constitution does not mention abortion, it's the job of the courts to interpret the constitution when dealing with the constitutionality of laws. And laws prohibiting abortions were deemed unconstitutional. Therefore, that made abortion legal by default.

In the case of Roe the Court provided abortion advocates what the legislature had denied!

In the case of Roe the Court provided abortion advocates what the legislature had denied!

No, the defense successfully argued the existing law banning abortion to be too restrictive under the Constitution's implied right to privacy. 

Blackmun never explained how that right emerged from the 14th Amendment. He simply mentioned a "concept of personal liberty" and that was that!

The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As has already been been explained to you it expanded on the Griswold v. Connecticut ruling and the Stanley v. Georgia ruling. It was again used in the 2003 ruling for Lawrence v. Texas.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That's "due process" protections. Can you show us the right to privacy that Justice Blackmun couldn't?

As has already been been explained to you it expanded on the Griswold v. Connecticut ruling and the Stanley v. Georgia ruling. It was again used in the 2003 ruling for Lawrence v. Texas.

Ya, those are some of the cases the Roe justices used to back their 7-2 ruling. I really don't need to regurgitate their explanation. I want to see the right of privacy. It's really very simple.

Can you show us the right to privacy that Justice Blackmun couldn't?

They can't, it isn't there.  

The ruling on RvW makes no sense.  They basically did a word salad to fabricate a right.

They basically did a word salad

And waived a magic wand!

Can you show us the right to privacy that Justice Blackmun couldn't?

When you can show me where the 2nd amendment says handguns, rifles & semi-automatic weapons.

When you can show me where the 2nd amendment says handguns, rifles & semi-automatic weapons.

The 2nd Amendment explicitly provides for a right to bear arms!

A right of privacy isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution!

Here is what the "Right to Privacy" is per the Constitution.

The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the  9th Amendment . The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the  Griswold  and  Eisenstadt  cases), interracial marriage (the  Loving  case), and abortion (the well-known  Roe v Wade  case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the  3rd , the  4th 's search and seizure limits, and the  5th 's self-incrimination limit.

You'll notice that the 14th and its Due Process is not covered here.

Well, that's a different explanation, yet still predicated with "The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy"

Do you think the SCOTUS should have taken on either of the two abortion cases in 1973?

Only by proxy. The Court struck down laws prohibiting abortion. Therefore, abortion automatically became legal as a result.

Agree

erent explanation, yet still predicated with "The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy"

It also makes clear the Court can't even claim a consistent textual basis for it. It jumps around. 

In the case of Roe the Court provided abortion advocates what the legislature had denied!

Legislators denied interracial marriage too Vic. Do you advocate for incremental rulings to undermine the Loving opinion? 

The 2nd Amendment explicitly provides for a right to bear arms!

Though is says NOTHING about the right to BUY or OWN arms. 

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches.....

The word privacy is not used, but that sure does mean privacy.  That also works for gun rights as well

That's "due process" protections. Can you show us the right to privacy that Justice Blackmun couldn't?

Justice Blackmun does spell it out. You just don't agree - 

...however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465

Are you going to try and link the two things as some try?

Or types of arms

You just don't agree

That's right, I don't agree that he did lay it out well, nor did Ginsburg and many others on both the right and left!

Are you going to try and link the two things as some try?

I already did Vic. Both opinions overruled unconstitutional state legislative restrictions. 

Now that you've posted your deflection, how about answering my question. 

I already did Vic. Both opinions overruled unconstitutional state legislative restrictions. 

Actually, you haven't. You don't see the difference in the Court's authority, the principles or even the after effect. Unlike the Loving case, which involved Civil Rights issues, the nation, even the deep south accepted the Loving case ruling. After Roe which had to link to the Constitution, the nation was bitterly divided and remains so to this very day!

So how about admitting they were not alike?

Actually, you haven't.

Yet you haven't refuted this FACT: 

Both opinions overruled unconstitutional state legislative restrictions.

Which was in direct reply to your comment. 

You don't see the difference in the Court's authority,

There is NO difference in the Court's authority to overturn unconstitutional state legislative restrictions. 

the principles

What principles are those Vic? Please be specific. 

Oh BTW, Loving was cited in Roe. 

or even the after effect.

Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. 

Unlike the Loving case, which involved Civil Rights issues, the nation, even the deep south accepted the Loving case ruling.

So is it your posit that personal autonomy is NOT a Civil Rights issue? 

BTFW, many states on the south, especially Alabama, didn't accept the Loving ruling. Isn't it ironic? Don't you think? 

After Roe which had to link to the Constitution, the nation was bitterly divided and remains so to this very day!

There is still a percentage that oppose interracial marriage Vic. In fact, the percentage is not that different than the percentage that think that abortion should be illegal. 

So how about admitting they were not alike?

How about making a cogent argument that they aren't. 

If people want to live in a state that protects the right of the unborn, it's their right to. 

I agree 100%. I am Pro choice, if you want to kill your unborn child that should be up to the mother.

Now I also believe it is a states right to ban abortion if that is what the people want. but I'm one of them less fed kinda guys, probably why I would never vote for the socialist Democrat.

if you want to kill your unborn child

Makes me doubt you are pro-choice.  Just my take on it.

Makes me doubt you are pro-choice.  Just my take on it.

Let me guess you must be one of them that like to sugar coat it and call it a zygot or whatever the fuck makes you feel good.

Do you ask your pregnant friend if they know the sex of their fetus?

There is no such thing as an "unborn child".  No sugar coating about it.

Do couples say their first child is big brother or sister or do they say they are GOING to be a big brother or sister?  Do they say that they have a baby while the woman is pregnant or do they say they are EXPECTING a baby?  Goes both ways - & by the way I do not ask pregnant women the sex of their fetuses.  

by the way I do not ask pregnant women the sex of their fetuses.  

Yeah right. [Removed, discuss the seeded topic!]

You think all women are baby gaga & go nuts over pregnant women - sorry to inform you there are those of us out here that went through our pregnancies without trying to be center of attention - didn't continually rub our bellies as if we were special - and some of us do not care to fawn all over other pregnant women.  

Don't care if you believe it or if you like it.  There are plenty of us out there.  

Do couples say their first child is big brother or sister or do they say they are GOING to be a big brother or sister? 

May I enter in on this?

I happen to like the idea of those expectant mothers who paste an ultrasound picture on the refrigerator for the prospective older child to see. We need to instill that image in the minds of young children. Thus some day we win the war! 

'Thus some day we win the war!' 

What war?

The war against women and their body autonomy?

The war against a decision the SCOTUS had no right to make

Don't care if you..

if you like it..

Makes me doubt you..

Sorry I try not to converse with people who always use "you's". In my expierence they are just trolls and not worth the time.

Have a good day.

Busted.  Don't like that you were found out - kind of hard to have a discussion with someone without using YOU.  But it's ok - I understand - now you can hide behind your "pro-choice" stance - which any true pro-choice person will not believe.

That is your prerogative.  Put it on your fridge - BUT stop trying to make EVERY woman do that.  NOT A BABY.

kind of hard to have a discussion with someone without using YOU.

Bahahahaha What a freaking joke. Seeing YOU know nothing about me YOU shouldn't be telling me what I think or what I believe. I understand that for some that concept would be lost to them.

Have a good day. 

Right back at you.  Bahahahaha What a freaking joke. Seeing YOU know nothing about me YOU shouldn't be telling me what I think or what I believe. I understand that for some that concept would be lost to them.

BUT stop trying to make EVERY woman do that.

Lol, how did I do that?

Seeing YOU know nothing about me YOU shouldn't be telling me what I think or what I believe.

With the new avatar I forgot it was you. Thanks for reminding me.

true pro-choice person

Now there is something to contemplate!

No sugar coating. It's a zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus. Those are the correct scientific terms.

The SCOTUS ruled on the constitutionality of a law. That is their function. So yes, their decision was well within their purview. 

their decision was well within their purview. 

Only if you cast aside deference to other branches of government and respect for legislatures, which is what the Court did in 1973 when it recognized a new right

I happen to like the idea of those expectant mothers who paste an ultrasound picture on the refrigerator for the prospective older child to see. We need to instill that image in the minds of young children. Thus some day we win the war! 

And it will be a very interesting discussion with their four or five year old if the mother miscarries.

I find it very telling that some view their desire to force their faith and personal opinions on others as a 'war' they must win. No one is forcing any of them to get an abortion, and contraceptive use and sex education has been reducing abortion rates for decades. The only places they don't seem to be dropping are the bible belt States where they attempt to teach abstinence only, make sex a taboo subject and believe if they ever break their celibacy vows before marriage it was "the devil" that made them do it. And they are told they just need to pray harder instead of getting educated and using contraceptives to avoid STD's an unwanted pregnancies.

The image we need to instill in our children's minds is that sex is healthy and normal, there is no evidence they will go to hell for having sex before marriage, and using contraceptives properly can protect them from 98.9% of the actual risks. If you want to have the other "sex is a sin" conversation, that's your choice, but not educating them on contraceptives is like handing them a loaded weapon, telling them not to pull the trigger but never showing them where the trigger or safety are.

The only places they don't seem to be dropping are the bible belt

They are not the highest states to begin with either.

The top five per capita are in the northeast....imagine that.  And Tennessee, Texas are at the bottom.

cbsnews

They are not the highest states to begin with either.

I apologize for not being more clear. While rates of abortion are higher in other States, they have been steadily dropping, but the rate of teen pregnancy in the bible belt and their rate of abortion has remained fairly constant and in some cases have increased.

"teen births are at their lowest level in more than 60 years (10 percent lower than 2009, 43 percent below their peak in 1970). But the geographic variation is substantial."

"Teenage births remain high in more religious states. The correlation between teenage birthrates and the percentage of adults who say they are “very religious” is considerable (.69). The 2009 study posited that attitudes toward contraception play a significant role, noting that "religious communities in the U.S. are more successful in discouraging the use of contraception among their teenagers than they are in discouraging sexual intercourse itself."

citylab

"A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that the national abortion rate declined 26 percent between 2006 and 2015, hitting the lowest level that the government has on record."

vox

"With data aggregated at the state level, conservative religious beliefs strongly predict U.S. teen birth rates, in a relationship that does not appear to be the result of confounding by income or abortion rates. One possible explanation for this relationship is that teens in more religious communities may be less likely to use contraception."

datadrivenviewpoints

1/3 of pregnancies, almost double the national rate, are aborted in New York. Who knew that was the bible belt? 

 I guess the State of New York must teach abstinence only and blame the devil. New Jersey too.  

New York is the abortion capital of the US, to be so proud.

The court recognized the right to autonomy already existed. The ruling only affirmed that. Recognizing and/or expanding individual rights is a good thing.

Other government branches were irrelevant to the case. State legislature already passed the antiabortion bill, the governor (executive) signed it, and it became law. Now the judicial reviewed the law when it was challenged, up to and including the SCOTUS through die process. The other branches already played their parts.

Other government branches were irrelevant to the case.

That attitude is why the Court has become the focus of cynical debate ever since

This is how the issue should be decided, democratically.

Our rights are not up for a vote by the majority in an act of tyranny of the majority. This idea is why we have the Bill of Rights to guarantee that all have equal rights and not just the majority who would have rights if they were decided democratically.

 Those federal judges are unelected for life for a critical reason. That is so that they do not have to base their decision on their ability to be popularly elected and can instead make the legally correct decision instead of what is popular with the electorate. Didn't anyone pay attention in your high history or school civics requirement because this concept is why the 3rd leg of the constitutional check and balances exists?

Article III of the Constitution states that these judicial officers are appointed for a life term.

The right to privacy from government intervention is inherent in personal freedom.  We could not have freedom if we didn't have the right to privacy.

If people want abortions, they should go to states that allow them.

Make no mistake, these laws collectively over time will place common sense restrictions upon abortion, which is as it should be.

Abortion up to and even after delivery is evil and wrong.

[delete]

That's the lie the turd in chief is spreading.  

People should be able to take their guns if they move to another state and a women should not have to leave her right of choice behind 

s are passed throught representative legislature, not through popular vote. 

Yes, that is how our process typically works. 

And individual rights are not and should never be put to popular vote either

Indivual rights, whatever that means,  are constantly restricted by the law.  

it's the job of the courts to interpret the constitution when dealing with the constitutionality of law

It's not the job of the Court to rewrite the Constitution to impose their moral beliefs, which is what the Roe court did.  If the right to abortion can be discovered after 100 years "hiding" in the Constitution, than the Constitution itself is a meaningless document.  

 And laws prohibiting abortions were deemed unconstitutional.

Until they aren't. When the Court corrects its error, the issue will be decided on a state by state basis, in conformity with the actual text of the Consititon. 

So women's rights are subject to states laws, they don't hold the full federal rights of men?   Women get controlled by a bunch of old MEN if they control the shithole states that pass these laws against women.  Usually the dumbest and poorest states that have the worst maternal death rates and no health coverage before, during or after pregnancy.  Somehow female bodies have this separate part (uterus) that doesn't involve the rest of them, that men feel they have the right to control.   Every policy put out by same men makes contraception harder and more expensive (close your legs is so much cheaper, and then they bitch about Alyssa Milano advocating for a sex strike - seems at odds with their slut shaming).  And aren't these the same men who are petrified of sharia law?   Christian sharia is no problem though. 

Remember a year or so ago when some of the same folk here on NT laughed at women for calling out the gop 'war on women'?   Yeah, well I do.  If republicans want to go into the election with the GOP WAR ON WOMEN front and center, Bring. It. On. 

no health coverage before, during or after pregnancy.

Just a tad hyperbolic, eh?

NO health coverage? Really?

LMFAO!

NO health coverage? Really?

Yes, really.   Think pregnancy and childbirth are just 9 months of bliss? 

enewscourier

Alabama's low access ranking may be one reason why it ranked equally low in outcomes. Again in 44th place, Alabama performed better than state neighbors Tennessee (48th place) and Mississippi (51st or worst), but Alabama proved to have the highest infant mortality rate and was the fifth-highest of all states in its rate of heart disease.

WalletHub included these factors in its assessment of outcomes, as well as life expectancy, cancer rate, diabetes rate, how often patients visited doctors and more.

"Mortality rates, indicators of effective prenatal care, monitoring and reporting the percentage of the population with health insurance, readmission rates for hospitals, infection rates in intensive care units, the percentage of patients with chronic conditions receiving appropriate followup care and recommended screenings and so many others are all extremely important" in evaluating state healthcare systems, Mora said.

americashealthrankings

Who is affected?

There are substantial and persistent disparities in maternal deaths by race and ethnicity. For African-American women, the rate of maternal mortality has been three to four times that of white women for over a century.[5] American Indian/Alaska Native women are also disproportionately affected with a maternal mortality rate nearly twice that of white women in 2007-2009.

According to our analysis of 2011-2015 maternal mortality data accessed through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s WONDER online database:

• There were 47.2 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births up to 42 days postpartum among non-Hispanic black women, 2.6 times the maternal death rate of white women (18.1 deaths per 100,000 live births), and 4 times higher than the rate among Asian/Pacific Islander women (11.6 deaths per 100,000 live births) and Hispanic women (12.2 deaths per 100,000 live births).

Women at greater risk of maternal mortality include:

• Women aged 40 or older:   31.9 percent of maternal deaths from 2013-2014 occurred in women aged 40 years or older [6]
• Women who have obesity [7]
• Uninsured women: women who lack health insurance are three to four times more likely to die of pregnancy-related complications than their insured counterparts [8]
• Women who have given birth to five or more children

al

"One of those friends told me tearfully two weeks ago that as of January 2017, their insurance would be $2,200 a month with a $7,000 deductible," said Anderson. "They have been paying $1,600 each month this year and cannot pay another $600 monthly."

She said another friend also could no longer afford health insurance because the monthly cost surpassed her mortgage payment. "Self-employed middle-class people like this voted for Trump."

Alabama women pointed out that while those costs may not seem high to the Californians, they represent a big chunk of Alabamians' incomes.

"When you consider in Alabama most mortgages are less than $1,500/month for middle-class families, you see how outrageous paying over $2,000/month for insurance is," said Leah Dicus, a nurse anesthetist from Huntsville, Alabama.

Employer-based health insurance plans are more expensive in Alabama.  The average cost  for an employee in 2015 - in premiums and deductibles - represented 11.2 percent of the median household income in Alabama, versus 9.9 percent in California, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Costs since then have continued to rise.

California women shared how their friends' healthcare situations had improved after the ACA took effect.

al

bizjournals

Silly to blame the state for people who refuse to take advantage of programs available to them.

There are plenty of health clinics, hospitals, and doctors there.

Who the hell is Wallet Hub?

Alabama denied Obamacare?  I thought Obamacare was going to solve all these problems...or did it just exacerbate it with higher premiums and deductibles?

One of those friends told me tearfully two weeks ago that as of January 2017, their insurance would be $2,200 a month with a $7,000 deductible," said Anderson.

There are plenty of health clinics, hospitals, and doctors there.

Only 29 of Alabama's 67 counties have hospitals that that offer obstetrical care. 

Sounds like you should open a hospital or 38.

Or better still, old men and the women who enable them should just stay the hell out of women's business.  

Silly to blame the state for people who refuse to take advantage of programs available to them. There are plenty of health clinics, hospitals, and doctors there.

Those are irrelevant if you cannot pay for them.

Looks like you could be more informed before commenting. 

So women's rights are subject to states laws, they don't hold the full federal rights of men? 

State laws cannot conflict with federal law. Do you know why states are passing these laws?

Women get controlled by a bunch of old MEN if they control the shithole states that pass these laws against women. 

"shithole states" - that sounds sooooo familiar?

Usually the dumbest and poorest states that have the worst maternal death rates and no health coverage before, during or after pregnancy.  

dumbest and poorest states?  I think I'll pass on living there.

Somehow female bodies have this separate part (uterus) that doesn't involve the rest of them

Oh but it does. And what if that separate part holds human life? We let a woman decide it's fate?

 Every policy put out by same men makes contraception harder and more expensive (close your legs is so much cheaper, and then they bitch about Alyssa Milano advocating for a sex strike - seems at odds with their slut shaming). 

I think we can all survive Milano's strike

Remember a year or so ago when some of the same folk here on NT laughed at women for calling out the gop 'war on women'?  

That was a great slogan. Orwell would have said "there it is!"

If republicans want to go into the election with the  GOP WAR ON WOMEN  front and center, Bring. It. On. 

We'll see you in 2020!

Strap 'em on then, Vic. 
I used shithole for a reason, wasn't an accident.  And I'm sure you know all about slogans.  Perfected by the gop,  and if that's what it takes to get through to Americans, so be it.  See how it feels being on the other side of it.  The last election brought out a lot of pissed off women that pushed the pendulum left.  Enjoy more of the same.   Not enough mansplaining in the world to dupe women on this issue.  War on Women it is.

Strap 'em on then, Vic.

I'm packin' right now, LOL

I used shithole for a reason, wasn't an accident.

I see.

And I'm sure you know all about slogans. 

Yup, Iv'e watched the left since the late 60's

See how it feels being on the other side of it.

It's where I want to be. I've always been against the same people!

The last election brought out a lot of pissed off women that pushed the pendulum left. 

The same assholes that voted for Obama

Enjoy more of the same.  

Another Win?   I'm not tired of winning, bring it on!

eventually continued overpopulation will force the issue, opposing abortion moves that date closer 

I believe anyone who can't afford to pay to raise their own "choices" should abort.

Not fair to saddle society with your "choices" because one refuses to accept responsibility and pony up!

A lot of our tax money already pays for things for other peoples kids,  is it fair to keep adding to that total?

birthcontrol and abortion are cost effective tax reducers, pay a little or pay a lot 

A lot of our tax money already pays for things for other peoples kids,

That is certainly true, which is why people who choose to have kids should also choose to pay for them.

birthcontrol and abortion are cost effective tax reducers, pay a little or pay a lot

They are cost effective. I think what we may disagree on is who should pay.

I say the people having sex and getting pregnant or impregnating others should pay for their own BC and abortions. Seems logical--If I wanted to drink, I wouldn't expect others to pay for it.