US Supreme Court overturns abortion precedent

Discussion in 'World Events' started by James R, Jun 27, 2022.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Worth noting here for posterity another milestone for America slipping back into the Dark Ages.

    The US Supreme Court decided a couple of days ago to overturn a 50-year old precedent, Roe v Wade, which established the constitutional right of a woman to obtain an abortion and which prevented states from outlawing abortion or from punishing women who chose to have an abortion.

    It is estimated that about half of America's 50 states will now move to ban abortion, thus endangering the lives of many women. Some states already had "trigger laws" which came into effect as soon as the Supreme Court handed down its decision, immediately making abortion illegal in those states.

    In overturning this precedent, it looks like the Supreme Court has also overturned the important legal principle of stare decisis in the United States. In principle, this means that no previous Supreme Court decision can be considered safe from activist partisan judges on that Court.

    To be fair, this was a 5-4 majority decision of the Court. Were it not for the machinations of people like Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump, this probably wouldn't have happened. It might have been expected when the Court was stacked with "conservative" judges by the Trump administration, and the appointment of a liberal judge was blocked hypocritically by the McConnell-led Senate (only to ignore its own precedent in appointing Amy Coney Barrett). It should also be noted that in their confirmation hearings, both Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh undertook that they would not overturn Roe v Wade. But here we are.

    The big losers from this unfortunate decision are not the Democratic Party or its supporters. This is not, fundamentally, a partisan talking point. American women, whether they vote Democrat or Republican, will suffer equally as a result of this.

    Make no mistake. This is all about exerting control over women and their bodies. Whether driven by twisted political ideology, misogyny, religion or some combination of those, this marks a sad day for American women.

    One wonders whether America, which used to be a light on the hill in terms of human rights, will continue its backwards slide, or whether better angels will prevail in the longer term. Let's hope it's the latter. In the meantime, every decent person should be protesting this outrageous removal of women's right to choose what happens to their own bodies.
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    That depends on who will continue to make excuses for supremacism.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    The Roe V Wade decision was,itself, unconstitutional.
    It was legislating from the bench.
    Legislating ain't the job of the supreme court.
    We elect legislators to legislate.
    And, now, they have an opportunity to do what they are paid for, and work within the constitutions framework.

    This is an election year.
    The politicking should be interesting.
    (wild guess) Billions of dollars will be spent in ad campaigns.

    Amendment IX

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member


    It is the job of the US Supreme Court to decide on the constutionality of laws.

    A woman (Norma McCorvey) wanted to get an abortion in Texas. She was denied. She sued. The case made it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said that law was unconstitutional. That's it. They did not write a single piece of legislation or pass a single law.
  8. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    That's not what "legislating from the bench" means.
  9. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Roe v Wade wasn't unconstitutional. you literally provided the evidence why amendment 9. jesus fuck the level of ignorance. Do you really hate the idea of women counting as people so much you have to peddle such obvious bullshit?
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    A... ergo article 10
    B... cursing is the sign of a lazy mind

    I love women
    I can't think of anything that I'd rather have sex with
  11. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    If they can just overturn a previous decision, you have to wonder what they'll overturn next. Votes for women? Abolition of slavery?
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  12. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Those are in the constitution's amendments.
    Abortion "rights" is not

    You are comparing apples with orangutans
  13. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    There were already many "abortion deserts" that necessitated travel for those of us afflicted with the curse of the undead unborn. In 2019, six states had one clinic each, and there were several others with only 2 to 4 clinics apiece.

    The anti-Establishment could have continued incrementally raiding the holy relics storehouse like that, with the Leftangelical Clergy only superficially casting their rage at the pesky devils. IOW, it required the Sacred Scepter itself to be taken before the clerics got their satellite laity ardently roused enough to raise the pitchforks in earnest.

    Undulations of local DAs in red states are vowing not to prosecute abortion providers. So for a while it may be a lax affair -- akin to the latter part of the 19th-century, when doctors kept conducting abortions despite being the primary shakers and movers who were getting it banned from state to state. (They wanted to put the midwives, homeopaths, and other folk practitioners out of business -- or at the very least make them appear disreputable compared to academic physicians.)

    It wasn't until magistrates finally started cracking down on the stealthy, "law-breaking" medical professionals themselves in the 20th-century that doctors switched their motivated reasoning to supporting the opposite propaganda again (or more to the point, they had sufficiently accomplished their original, real agenda by then).

    Whether a component of intentional strategy or not, the SCOTUS maneuver also serves the purpose of making the red states seem so troglodytic to progressives and Leftangelicals that the latter won't desire to keep migrating there. As the West coast and other elite hang-out locations collapse from drought, water shortages, wildfires and all-around climate change scourges. (Along with their fleeing the skyrocketing cost-of-living burdens in tax-heavy and business penalized blue states overall.) Denizens of the "crimson provinces" were arguably growing more alarmed by that exodus of people who could vote than they were [supposedly] of the usual "unskilled" refugees.
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2022
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Body autonomy should be and laws which curtail body autonomy should not be enacted

    I did read somewhere a remark after the overturn was out "the court is following the science"

    I don't think so. Before the next bout there should be a complete review of PREGNANCY and what laws apply to the fetus and which to the mother not just the new laws regarding PREGNANCY

    Example can a fetus hold a position on a board of a company? Since a fetus is considered a human (as opposed to a potential human)

    Perhaps OK fetus is on a company board and has a appointed proxy. Fetus born and years roll by

    One day proxy gets called to the office. "This decision you made here I disagree with and I am going to sue you for the millions you lost"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    If so, then a lot of other "rights" that Americans take for granted could just as easily be taken away by a court refusing to abide by its own established precedents.

    The Supreme Court has a history of interpreting "process" clauses in the Constitution to imply rights with wider application. The right to an abortion is just one example, but there are many many others that Americans have come to take for granted. Few realise how much this decision puts those established rights on an unstable foundation.
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    The failure to recognise that women are people rather than objects is part of what led to this unfortunate decision. It does not surprise me that you support it, given the attitudes you have expressed on this forum in the past.
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    .I think the court should contribute 20% of their income to the future support of all those unwanted children and medical bills for the mothers and then discuss how equitable all this is.
  18. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Don't you understand sex is not love?
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I think he's struggling to distinguish between loving women for their usefulness to him and loving them for their own sake. It's not a good sign when a person regards other human beings' value solely in terms of their utility for advancing his own schemes. There's a word for this type of person: sociopath.
    sideshowbob likes this.
  20. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    here's an oldie
  21. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    LOVE is
    caring for the comfort and safety of the beloved, and acting accordingly.
    if sex is involved
    that is just frosting on the cake
    at my age
    I've lost the taste for sweets.
  22. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    The way they torture the 2nd Amendment, for example, they should be able to find a similar out for abortion rights.
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  23. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Not to worry
    The second amendment has been tortured by many political entities for a very long time.
    The phrase
    "Shall not be infringed"
    Was too difficult for the limited intellects of politicians to comprehend?

Share This Page