Republicans Will Try To Ban Abortion Nationwide If Supreme Court Overturns Roe V. Wade, Report Reveals

  
Via:  Gsquared  •  2 months ago  •  104 comments

By:   Alison Durkee (Forbes)

Republicans Will Try To Ban Abortion Nationwide If Supreme Court Overturns Roe V. Wade, Report Reveals
While many states are already taking steps to ban abortion—even before the Supreme Court rules—a federal law would stop those seeking abortions from being able to obtain one by traveling out of state, and overrule legislation in Democratic-led states that enshrines the right to the procedure.

Sponsored by group The Reality Show

The Reality Show


So much for the Republican lie that abortion should be a decision left to the states.

Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Topline


The fight over abortion restrictions could soon go from statehouses to Capitol Hill, as the Washington Postreports Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion rights activists are working to enact a federal abortion ban if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade this summer as expected and the GOP regains control of Congress.

Women rights activists march to the U.S. Capitol during the annual Womens March October 2, 2021 in ... [+] Washington, DC.

Key Facts


Republican senators have met to discuss legislation that would ban abortion nationwide, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) told the Post, and Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) would reportedly likely introduce the bill.

Anti-abortion groups like the Susan B. Anthony List are working to garner support for the legislation, and have met with Republican contenders for the 2024 presidential nomination about such a ban, including former President Donald Trump.

"Most of" the potential candidates support the ban and would make it a "centerpiece" of their campaign, Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser told the Post.

A federal abortion ban could restrict the procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, based on current proposals, with anti-abortion advocates believing a 15-week ban wouldn't go far enough.

While many states are already taking steps to ban abortion—even before the Supreme Court rules—a federal law would stop those seeking abortions from being able to obtain one by traveling out of state, and overrule legislation in Democratic-led states that enshrines the right to the procedure.

Crucial Quote


A coalition of anti-abortion groups led by Students for Life Action wrote to every GOP lawmaker in Congress Monday, calling this a "pivotal moment in which almost anything is possible" when it comes to abortion restrictions. "We ask you to join us in ensuring that the strongest measures possible are employed" to ban abortions, the letter reads.

Chief Critic


"By [Republicans] saying out loud that their goal is to push a nationwide abortion ban, it makes it clear that we have to elect more pro-reproductive health champions on the national level and in the states," Planned Parenthood Action Fund executive director Kelley Robinson told the Post, calling the federal proposal "terrifying."

Big Number


60%. That's the approximate share of Americans who oppose Roe v. Wade being overturned, according to multiple recent polls. Polling has consistently shown a majority of Americans support legal access to abortion, though higher shares are willing to back restrictions on the procedure later into a pregnancy.

What To Watch For


Whether Republicans will get the chance to take action. The Supreme Court is now deliberating in a case on Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban, which will broadly consider whether states can restrict abortion. A ruling is expected by late June, when the court's term wraps up, though issuing decisions could stretch into early July. Justices signaled during oral arguments that they're likely to side with Mississippi, but it still remains unclear whether they'll narrowly uphold the 15-week ban or go further and overturn Roe v. Wade entirely. Republicans' fate will then depend on the midterm elections in November, where the GOP stands a chance to take back the House and Senate.

What We Don't Know


Whether a federal abortion ban could actually be enacted, as even if Republicans gain control of Congress, they still face long odds. An abortion ban would need 60 votes to pass the Senate, which remains unlikely, as the Post notes even some GOP lawmakers could vote against the ban. Even if it passes, any legislation would likely be subject to legal challenges.

Key Background


The potential federal ban comes as Republican-led states have become increasingly emboldened to take action against abortion as the Supreme Court decision looms. States enacted more than 100 abortion restrictions in 2021 alone, according to the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute, with another 33 so far enacted in 2022 as of April 15. Texas imposed the most severe restrictions in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 when its six-week abortion ban took effect in September, which courts have so far allowed to stand. Idaho and Oklahoma have already followed Texas by passing similar bans of their own, in addition to a separate Oklahoma ban that makes performing an abortion a felony. Idaho's measure has been blocked in court, however, as has a law in Kentucky that effectively banned all abortions in the state.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
1  seeder  Gsquared    2 months ago

The Anti-Roe-publican Party will never stop until they have relegated woman to total second class citizenship.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @1    2 months ago

the constitution provides a remedy for domestic terrorists that believe they can legislate away equal rights.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  devangelical @1.1    2 months ago

the constitution provides a remedy for domestic terrorists that believe they can legislate away equal rights.

Not when minorities can block actions of the majorities.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
1.1.2  gooseisback  replied to  devangelical @1.1    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.1    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Gsquared @1    2 months ago
The Anti-Roe-publican Party will never stop until they have relegated woman to total second class citizenship.

Today, Roe v Wade.

Tomorrow, same sex marriage, birth control, women's right to vote, equal rights to minorities.

Republicans have so many rights to remove, and so little time to do it.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
1.2.1  gooseisback  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2    2 months ago
Tomorrow, same sex marriage, birth control, women's right to vote, equal rights to minorities.

Where on earth did you come up with this BS. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  gooseisback @1.2.1    2 months ago
Where on earth did you come up with this BS. 

[deleted

It's Psaki claiming the Dobbs case will allow to segregate straight and gay kids in schools. When pressed for anyone advocating for that she had no response. But it sounds scary. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
1.2.3  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  gooseisback @1.2.1    2 months ago
 same sex marriage, birth control, women's right to vote, equal rights to minorities

If you don't think those issues are on the reactionary party's hit list, you are badly misinformed.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.2    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @1.2.3    2 months ago

They're all next on the chopping block . . . gay marriage, interracial marriage, contraception. . .

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
1.2.6  afrayedknot  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.2    2 months ago

“It's Psaki…”

Agree or disagree, at the very least this administration has the balls to hold a daily briefing. Been a minute…

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  afrayedknot @1.2.6    2 months ago
the very least this administration has the balls to hold a daily briefing

Sure, but what kind of balls does it take to face an adoring crowd and one skeptical questioner? 

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
1.2.8  gooseisback  replied to  Gsquared @1.2.3    2 months ago
you are badly misinformed.

Ditto

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.9  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.7    2 months ago

Hey  what can you say if what you SAY makes good sense, answers the questions,  and deals with the issues? Sometimes, a 'skeptic' is just committed to the act of 'gunning for' the press secretary. Now comes Karine Jean-Pierre, the new WH press secretary, I am pretty sure 'skeptics' plan to 'lighti her up' just to see if she has the fortitude-watch for forthcoming 'fireworks'!

220px-Karine_Jean-Pierre_2021.jpg

Karine Jean-Pierre.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.10  Tessylo  replied to  CB @1.2.9    2 months ago

I wonder how today's gqp and alleged conservatives will smear this openly gay woman?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.11  CB   replied to  CB @1.2.9    2 months ago

Just watch: the narrative on the right with Karine Jean-Pierre, new press secretary, will go along the lines "angry black woman" who can't be talked to because of bravado! The persistent and ridiculous 'rounds' of questions, notwithstanding.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.12  CB   replied to  Tessylo @1.2.10    2 months ago

See @1.2.11. We're on the same wave-length. They will steer clear of 'the gay" -maybe not Tucker Carlson or Laura Ingraham though. The 'angrrrrrrrrrrrrry black woman" narrative is open for business, however. Remember how conservatives hoped to 'damage' President Obama. They set him up with private meeting, frustrated him during the meetings, and whether he took the bait or not, came out and talked about him yelling and railing against them.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.13  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.10    2 months ago

horribly, ... after they get done jerking themselves off over the announcement of her new WH job.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
1.2.14  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @1.2.13    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.15  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.2.14    2 months ago

He always does!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.16  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.2.13    2 months ago

279950436_367889525380273_95480611426513945_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-6&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=yoE75_MFNV8AX-GldrJ&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT-04DBo14PKuMbrg5989XentE-b-oYRFs9YzaM_kXPUDA&oe=627A7F42

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
1.2.17  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.15    2 months ago

Absolutely, very consistently.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
2  gooseisback    2 months ago

That's funny since Alito said just the opposite. Its a States Rights issue, talk to your State Representatives about your concerns. If you live in a Republican State run for office and change the law.  If this is as popular as many of you are saying, should be a piece of cake.  

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
2.1  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  gooseisback @2    2 months ago

Alito is a fraud.  During his confirmation hearing he said:  "Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court... it has been on the books for a long time... It is a precedent that has now been on the books for several decades."

If you live in a Republican State run for office and change the law.  If this is as popular as many of you are saying, should be a piece of cake.  

You're conveniently Ignoring the gerrymandering and severe restrictions on voting being imposed by Republicans so that they can maintain their status as the majority with only minority support.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @2.1    2 months ago

lito is a fraud.

Sotomayor is a fraud too, then. 

Or, let me guess, "hardcore reactionaries" are held to a different standard when testifying about precedent than saintly progressives. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
2.1.2  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.1    2 months ago

No, she's not.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @2.1.2    2 months ago
No, she's not.

Lol.. 

[deleted]

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
2.1.4  gooseisback  replied to  Gsquared @2.1    2 months ago
You're conveniently Ignoring the gerrymandering and severe restrictions on voting being imposed by Republicans so that they can maintain their status as the majority with only minority support.  

What severe restrictions, that there's not a "voting season", a drop box on every corner, never having to prove who you are to vote. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.5  devangelical  replied to  gooseisback @2.1.4    2 months ago
never having to prove who you are to vote. 

I'm a voter from colorado, a secured vote by mail state, and your misinformed claim is complete bullshit

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @2.1.5    2 months ago

Those who do not know what they are talking about....make shit up

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3  Tacos!    2 months ago

What happened to the argument that states should choose? Wouldn’t any such national ban be instantly unconstitutional?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
3.1  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Tacos! @3    2 months ago
What happened to the argument that states should choose?

That was a phony argument from day one.

Wouldn’t any such national ban be instantly unconstitutional?

The constitutionality of any given law is ultimately decided by the Supreme Court.  Now that the Court is stacked with hard-core reactionary activists, you can be certain that they would not find a national ban to be unconstitutional.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
3.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  Tacos! @3    2 months ago

That would require the belief that the anti choice folks were interested in anything other than sending women back to their “proper place”.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
3.3  gooseisback  replied to  Tacos! @3    2 months ago
What happened to the argument that states should choose?

There is no argument, the states should choose.  I don't understand why everyone if having a heart attack. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  gooseisback @3.3    2 months ago

It's bullshit that the states should choose.  There's already 26 states with strict restrictions.  That would be complete chaos IMHO.  

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
3.3.2  gooseisback  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.1    2 months ago
It's bullshit that the states should choose.

You keep telling us there's overwhelming support for abortion why is it a problem. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3.3  CB   replied to  gooseisback @3.3    2 months ago

Goose, because some states are little 'thief-doms' wanting life to mirror their values and not the values of a nation. More precisely, certain states put on a grand show about Americana, national jingoism, et ceteras and then proceed to legislate their specific values in to law, and if not bad enough, they go further to constrain or remove rights and privileges of those paying citizens they don't want to have them through social engineering. You know this, and if you do not you should know it.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3.4  CB   replied to  gooseisback @3.3.2    2 months ago

It is a problem, because a small vocal minority won't not 'buzzing' the throttles of power with their demands for injustices! If a conservative don't want an abortion-don't have one! And let liberals have the diversity they want with their bodies under law!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.3.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  gooseisback @3.3.2    2 months ago
You keep telling us there's overwhelming support for abortion why is it a problem. 

Because government is not demographically representative of the people, and does not accurately represent their opinions.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.3.6  devangelical  replied to  gooseisback @3.3    2 months ago

cool. another civil war over states rights. fortunately this time we know where all the instigators clubhouses are and what day they'll be there.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.7  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @3.3.6    2 months ago

They're such morons.  Rick Perry, when he texted the #45's incited domestic terrorist mob of insurrectionists on 1/6/21 - he signed off with his signature

170515131851-the-point-with-chris-cillizza-logo-large-169.png
Why this former Trump official comes out looking absolutely terrible in the Mark Meadows texts
Analysis by Chris Cillizza , CNN Editor-at-large

Updated 5:13 PM ET, Mon April 25, 2022

(CNN) Plenty of people -- members of Congress, former top White House aides -- come out looking bad in the more than  2,000 texts sent and received by Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows  between Election Day 2020 and January 20, 2021, obtained by CNN.
No one -- and I mean NO ONE -- looks worse than Rick Perry, however.
You remember Perry -- the former Texas governor who served as the secretary of energy in former President Donald Trump's White House.
What you may not remember is that   CNN reported this about Perry back in December 2021 :
"Members of the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol believe that former Texas Governor and Trump Energy Secretary Rick Perry was the author of a text message sent to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows the day after the 2020 election pushing an 'AGRESSIVE (sic) STRATEGY' for three state legislatures to ignore the will of their voters and deliver their states' electors to Donald Trump, three sources familiar with the House Committee investigation tell CNN."

At the time, Perry's team flatly denied that he was the sender of those texts to Meadows. Here's the specific denial: "A spokesman for Perry told CNN that the former Energy Secretary denies being the author of the text." No explanation was offered for why the number used in the text was associated with Perry.

"Previously disclosed text messages showed that former Trump administration Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., each texted Meadows on November 4 and 5 with ideas for overturning the election.
"On November 7, hours before the election was called, Perry texted Meadows again: 'We have the data driven program that can clearly show where the fraud was committed. This is the silver bullet.'
"While Perry has previously denied CNN reporting about his text messages to Meadows,   CNN has confirmed it's his cell phone and he signed this text, 'Rick Perry,' including his number ."
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.8  Tessylo  replied to  gooseisback @3.3.2    2 months ago

I haven't been telling you anything.  What's the point?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.3.9  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @3.3.3    2 months ago
they go further to constrain or remove rights and privileges of those paying citizens they don't want to have them through social engineering.  You know this, and if you do not you should know it.

I should know it but I don't understand what you are trying to say, Social engineering?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.3.10  Tacos!  replied to  gooseisback @3.3    2 months ago
There is no argument, the states should choose.  I don't understand why everyone if having a heart attack.

I’m not. I’m pointing out the obvious contradiction of simultaneously saying that it’s a state’s rights matter while also calling for a national law.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3.11  CB   replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.9    2 months ago

social engineering

Definition of social engineering

1
  management of human beings in accordance with their place and function in society : applied social science

There you go! Hope it helps you understand.
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4  Sean Treacy    2 months ago

Even if such a ban were Constitutional ( I doubt it would be)  , as of now  it would require 60 Senators, the House and the President to agree to it.

Of course, Democrats are obsessed with getting ride of  the filibuster to make it easier to pass such a ban.   

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    2 months ago
Of course, Democrats are obsessed with getting ride of  the filibuster to make it easier to pass such a ban.   

Oh please do explain that ridiculous comment. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @4.1    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
4.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    2 months ago

So obsessed they haven’t done it?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.2    2 months ago

o obsessed they haven’t done

96% of them tried to.  A Senator was censored for refusing to do so. Or has that been forgotten already?  

And dumb as they are, will probably try again and then be surprised when Republicans use it against them a few years down the road. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
5  seeder  Gsquared    2 months ago
Even if such a ban were Constitutional ( I doubt it would be)

What is or is not constitutional will, for the time being, be decided by the reactionaries on the Supreme Court with the sole intent of advancing a partisan agenda and without regard to precedent or the actual language of the Constitution.  It's unimaginable that they would declare it unconstitutional.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1  arkpdx  replied to  Gsquared @5    2 months ago

Where in the Constitution does it say there is a right to get an abortion? Please be specific and cute the relevant passage. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
5.1.1  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  arkpdx @5.1    2 months ago

Your conception of constitutional law is deficient.

Where in the Constitution does it say there is a right to vote or the right to marry and have children?  Where in the Constitution does it mention freedom of association, federalism, separation of power, check and balances?  Where in the Constitution does it recognize the Marines or the Air Force?  Answer:  Nowhere.  They are not in the Constitution.

Abortion and the other rights I listed are referred to as "non-enumerated rights", i.e., they are not mentioned in the Constitution.  However, in the Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution, the Ninth Amendment states:  “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

As the link below demonstrates, the question of "Where in the Constitution does it say there is a right to get an abortion?", is merely a "gotcha question" employed by conservatives to pretend that their unsupported "textualism" argument holds water.  It doesn't.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.1    2 months ago

It's so refreshing to read a cogent, well-articulated and fact based argument. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
5.1.3  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Dulay @5.1.2    2 months ago

Thanks, Dulay.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.1    2 months ago

  However, in the Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution, the Ninth Amendment states:  “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Lol....Not   a single justice has ever held that the right to an abortion is an unenumerated right  located the Ninth Amendment.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
5.1.5  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.4    2 months ago

Justice Blackmun's opinion suggests otherwise.

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy."  Roe, 410 U.S. at 153

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
5.1.6  Thrawn 31  replied to  arkpdx @5.1    2 months ago

[deleted] very few of our rights are actually spelled out in the constitution. If you wanna go by what the costitution literally lays out then we don’t have very many rights at all. Most of our rights derive from interpretations of the US Constitution, not ours literal wording.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
5.1.7  evilgenius  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5.1.6    2 months ago
If you wanna go by what the costitution literally lays out then...

Only people active in the National Guard would have guns as the 2nd clearly spells out arms only for a well maintained militia. Textualism by populists is as much a joke/red herring as saving babies by banning abortion is.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.5    2 months ago
is right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is b

I thought you were a lawyer? That's dicta pointing out what the Trial Court held.   You really don't understand that? 

I'm not even a lawyer and know that Roe holds  the right resides in the 14th Amendment and that was confirmed in Casey.  It's the most basic information that can be found just about anywhere. 

IF you really need help understanding that, I'll be happy to provide it, but I suspect you know that your claim is bullshit and just threw out chum to feed the ignorant. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
5.1.9  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.8    2 months ago

It's dicta, which is not part of the precedential holding of the Supreme Court.  However, you asserted that the Ninth Amendment has never been the basis for a ruling regarding abortion, which is not true.  My comment merely pointed out that Blackmun acknowledged it had.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.9    2 months ago
owever, you asserted that the Ninth Amendment has never been the basis for a ruling regarding abortion, which is not true

I said "Not   a single justice has ever held that the right to an abortion is an unenumerated right  located the Ninth Amendment."  

I was referring to the Supreme Court.  District Court judges in Texas are not justices.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.11  CB   replied to  Gsquared @5.1.1    2 months ago

They know this. They live it out daily. They pretend to not understand what the constitution says about insurrection?  Who? What? We don't see 'no' insurrection? When is it supposed to have happened?

These conservatives are insincere and are 'jokes' but for the power they wield in the states.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
5.1.12  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.1    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.13  CB   replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @5.1.12    2 months ago

Your 'reply' does not take away from Gsquared reply to Arkpdx. He responded to words, ideas, and implications in and derived from the Constitution

Basically, Ginsburg is bemoaning the support from the states (which was happening gradually) being 'dissolved' by Roe vs Wade (1973) affirmative opinion.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
5.1.14  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @5.1.13    2 months ago
Ginsburg i

The way I read it, she suggested a ruling would have been longer lasting if it had been based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, gender equality rather than the right to privacy.  She saw Roe as giving opponents a target to aim at.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
5.1.15  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @5.1.12    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
5.1.16  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.14    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
5.1.17  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @5.1.16    2 months ago

I think that Alito quoted his close friend, RBG, twice in his draft opinion.  

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
5.1.18  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @5.1.15    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
5.1.19  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.17    2 months ago

deleted

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6  Kavika     2 months ago

It is interesting to see what Alito said in his appearance before Congress in 2005 during his confirmation hearing, it was quite different than his latest view.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
6.1  evilgenius  replied to  Kavika @6    2 months ago

Were I in Congress I'd be calling for immediate hearings with these individual justices in front of the Senate and possible impeachment for lying to Congress.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilgenius @6.1    2 months ago
n Congress I'd be calling for immediate hearings with these individual justices in front of the Senate and possible impeachment for lying to Congre

Lol.  Sotomayor quaking in her boots.

Don't look at what she said about Heller or you'll have to call for her impeachment, if you think Alito lied and can be impeached for his testimony.  

If you actually look at what Alito and others have testified to, you'd realize it's a lie to claim they promised to uphold Roe. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
6.1.2  evilgenius  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.1    2 months ago
Don't look at what she said about Heller or you'll have to call

Go play your partisan reindeer games elsewhere. I don't give a good damned bit WHO lied - if they get pulled in front of the Senate committee and it's found then GOOD FUCKING BYE! The whole system needs an enema.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilgenius @6.1.2    2 months ago
Go play your partisan reindeer games elsewhere.

Lol. I'm not the one playing "partisan games." You are the one calling for conservatives, and only conservatives, to face impeachment over a standard that would necessitate  liberal justices being impeached as well. .

But by all means, show me where any justice you want to impeach promised the Senate to uphold Roe.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
6.1.4  evilgenius  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.3    2 months ago
You are the one calling for conservatives, and only conservatives, to face impeachment...

Nope. Now go troll elsewhere.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilgenius @6.1.4    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7  Trout Giggles    2 months ago

I wonder how many of these anti-choice republicans have an aborted skeleton in their closets?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @7    2 months ago

"I wonder how many of these anti-choice republicans have an aborted skeleton in their closets?"

Probably EVERY.  SINGLE.  ONE.  OF.  THEM.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @7.1    2 months ago

anonymous needs to hack planned parenthood and release the names of any/all conservatives that have utilized their services.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
7.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  devangelical @7.1.1    2 months ago
anonymous needs to hack planned parenthood and release the names of any/all conservatives that have utilized their services.

Conservatives would see that as a huge violation of privacy because it could hurt Republicans, but when Democrat servers are hacked by an enemy foreign government and released during a Presidential campaign it's welcomed by conservatives with open arms. So if Democrats are hacked and their personal embarrassing histories are leaked that's a great thing and conservatives only want to focus on the embarrassing personal histories, but if Republicans are hacked and their personal embarrassing histories are leaked they only want to focus on the leakers as evil criminals. Conservative hypocrisy truly knows no bounds.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1.2    2 months ago

political irony is completely lost on the furry knuckle demographic...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @7.1.3    2 months ago
"the furry knuckle demographic"

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
8  Perrie Halpern R.A.    2 months ago

So much for states' rights. Funny how that becomes unimportant while they turn women into second class citizens.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
8.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
8.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
8.2  Snuffy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8    2 months ago
So much for states' rights. Funny how that becomes unimportant while they turn women into second class citizens.

I don't understand  your comment.  Can you elaborate on how returning the question of abortion to the states is not following / believing in states rights?  I don't see this action as  SCOTUS turning women into second class citizens, I see it as the SCOTUS correcting an action that both sides have called judicial over-reach and returning the question to the elected officials of the states so that the states can determine the action.  That to me is truly democracy in action.  If the elected officials in the state do not follow the wishes of the citizens that is correctable at the next election, so democracy.

Granted I do not like the idea of returning to the 60's on this issue.  I would much rather that Congress stop playing the coward and end their partisan games and find a solution to this issue and codify the issue nationally.  Politics is the art of compromise so why can't they find something that allows both sides to gain.  It does seem to me that Congress would rather leave the issue unsolved so that they can continue to use it as a cudgel for their partisan bullshit.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
8.2.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Snuffy @8.2    2 months ago
I don't understand  your comment.  Can you elaborate on how returning the question of abortion to the states is not following / believing in states rights? 

The article is about more than overturning Roe v Wade. That is returning it to states' rights. The article is also about bills that are going to be introduced to outlaw abortion nationwide. Right here:

Republican senators have met to discuss legislation that would ban abortion nationwide, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) told thePost, and Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) would reportedly likely introduce the bill.

Anti-abortion groups like the Susan B. Anthony List are working to garner support for the legislation, and have met with Republican contenders for the 2024 presidential nomination about such a ban, including former President Donald Trump.

"Most of" the potential candidates support the ban and would make it a "centerpiece" of their campaign, Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser told thePost.

A federal abortion ban could restrict the procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, based on current proposals, with anti-abortion advocates believing a 15-week ban wouldn't go far enough.

So that is why I said:

So much for states' rights. Funny how that becomes unimportant while they turn women into second class citizens.
 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
8.3  gooseisback  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8    2 months ago
So much for states' rights. Funny how that becomes unimportant while they turn women into second class citizens

Your comment makes no sense. The decision is now a state issue and they have the right to deal with it through the people the state elects.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.3.1  devangelical  replied to  gooseisback @8.3    2 months ago

gee, I wonder which states will be bringing back other forms of slavery?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.3.2  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @8.3.1    2 months ago
"gee, I wonder which states will be bringing back other forms of slavery"

My thoughts exactly.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
8.3.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  gooseisback @8.3    2 months ago
Your comment makes no sense. The decision is now a state issue and they have the right to deal with it through the people the state elects.  

Please read this comment: 8.2.1  

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
9  Veronica    2 months ago

Ahhhh, back to the "good" old days where white men were superior (in their own minds), women were passed like a torch from her father to her husband, women stayed home and made a home and babies, gays were in the closet (if they had to exist at all), families went to church every Sunday (or they were deemed bad),  boys taught all sorts of thing in school, girls focused on home ec & finding a suitable spouse, higher education only for the wealthy & VOILA - uneducated masses that can be manipulated into believing Jesus was a white guy with blond hair & blue eyes.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
9.1  Hallux  replied to  Veronica @9    2 months ago

And if hubby's eye turned to another gal, he had you committed to some hovel for the insane.

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
9.1.1  Veronica  replied to  Hallux @9.1    2 months ago

Yep....or left you with the kids with no way to support yourself.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
9.1.2  Hallux  replied to  Veronica @9.1.1    2 months ago

Once you married, if it started with a 'p', purse, property, pussy ... it was his.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.2  CB   replied to  Veronica @9    2 months ago

And any and all of us would be FOOLS to let conservatives get away with doing it again. We are out from under the thumb and control of those FOOLS and we better fight to stay out from under them-no matter what it takes. These conservatives are OUT OF THEY EVER-LOVING minds.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
10  Buzz of the Orient    2 months ago
"Republicans Will Try To Ban Abortion Nationwide If Supreme Court Overturns Roe V. Wade, Report Reveals"

Of course they will.  The more they can populate America with brain-damaged, sub-human and/or intellectually challenged voters resulting from insemination by rapists, deranged, diseased and/or incestuous fathers the more Republican votes will be cast.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
10.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @10    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
11  Buzz of the Orient    2 months ago

If I were in a position to do so I would invite the Republican lawmakers and the conservative SCOTUS justices to spend a day caring for the monster babies that are cared for in the top floor ward of Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children.  They don't have to worry about getting attached to them, they'll die very quickly anyway.  When I was Chief Barker (president) of Variety Club of Ontario, an organizaton that provides support for physically, mentally and socially disadvantaged children we supported that hospital and I was given a tour of the ward, and had to run to the washroom immediately afterwards. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12  CB     2 months ago

So women of the U.S., take a peek below at how much weight you liberally carry with republicans and conservatives: Not damn much whatsoever on this issue of body autonomy .

S-P-E-L-L   I-T   O-U-T.

Let's take a 'long' look at how dirty ' dogs ' can be:

McConnell says stricter abortion rules ‘possible’ if Roe is overturned

Sen. Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate, said national abortion legislation is “possible” if the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade​.

“If the leaked opinion became the final opinion, legislative bodies — not only at the state level but at the federal level — certainly could legislate in that area,” ​the Kentucky Republican told USA Today​.

“And if this were the final decision, that was the point that it should be resolved one way or another in the legislative process. So yeah, it’s possible,” ​McConnell said. 

“With regard to the abortion issue, I think it’s pretty clear where Senate Republicans stand. And if and when the court makes a final decision, I expect everybody will be more definitive,” he said. “But I don’t think it’s much of a secret where senator Republicans stand on that issue.”

mcconnell-getty-01.jpg?w=300

Compare that perspective on women to the republican response to twice-impeached Donald J. Trump:

Most Senate Republicans back measure saying Trump impeachment trial is unconstitutional

Women, your privacy is the UNCONSTITUTIONAL thing which needs McConnell's "republicans" attention; these "republicans" PASSED on removing the insurrectionist -in-chief!

Any questions?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
13  CB     2 months ago

Happy Mother's Day to all our mothers!

 
 

Who is online

Thrawn 31


40 visitors