Leaked Supreme Court opinion shows conservative majority set to overturn Roe v Wade

I'm not trolling. What does any of that have to do with the courts acting as they should?

That definition is used because it's part of the abortion debate. Pro means FOR and life means life. If one is truly FOR LIFE they do NOT support a death penalty. But play your semantics game. It's cognitive dissonance to support the death penalty and claim to be pro life. Get help.

The above sentence is completley subjective. Legal experts have said otherwise on that legal opinion on Roe. Here is the answer to your question,

Many states have already, are currently, and/or are going to enact tougher abortion restrictions (some near bans) due to this legal opinion and eventual ruling. Even the prediction of this decision.

These tougher restrictions and bans result in negative outcomes. As all studies on this show, unless anyone can find one that doesn't say this.

It's not. They don't create law.

Apart from several experts, multiple conservative justices disagrees with you when it comes to precedent, including the ones you currently support.

But I'm just telling you the scientific ramifications of this legal opinion. Facts do not care about your feelings.

They. Don't. Create. Law.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-legislative-branch/

What branch create laws?Congress, as one of the three coequal branches of government, is ascribed significant powers by the Constitution. All legislative power in the government is vested in Congress, meaning that it is the only part of the government that can make new laws or change existing laws.

I mean if you don't believe our government as a source....

I'm. Telling. You. The. Impact. Of. This. Decision.

The Judiciary absolutely can reinterpret laws, changing them.

You're going to have to tell Beer Dude this,

PolitiFact | Yes, the Trump justices said Roe v. Wade was a precedent in confirmation hearings

Anyway, I'm just going by the science here. Abortion restrictions and bans are objectively a negative.

Sure, the white house can correct how the government has been run since the beginning to a single person trying to be controversial.

Kavanaugh, in 2018, said Roe "is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992."

Kid is acting like this isn't a legal opinion that many legal experts, including SCOTUS Justices, disagree with.

Although he's just trying to swindle his way out of picking and choosing science earlier.

What is this argument about? Courts do change laws with their "interpretations'.

I never said there weren't dangers to banning it or restricting it. You've also ignored the dangers to a fetus/unborn baby when every successful abortion murders it.

That seems to be left out everytime.

I'm hoping for a country wide ban.

Abortion bans and restrictions either don't work or barely work, and mostly just lead to worse health outcomes. And even economic outcomes.

Unless you consider making us more 3rd world working.

You don't know if a country wide ban would work or not since there hasn't been one. Can we at least agree on that?

Can you read?

But continue arguing though.

Wait, didn't you say it should be up to the states?

Yup, I hope every state bans it.

It's not a dumb question at all to ask. Enshrining that anything post fertilization is a human, with endowed rights expressed via the constitution, brings out a myriad of problems and scenarios that they're unwilling to acknowledge or don't have the capacity to understand.

Of course I can read. So don't sit here and pretend that comment was anything but a poor faith strawman. You're trying to make the claim that if aborting a child is murder because they have a right to live than mothers are all guilty of false imprisonment, and that's a ridiculous, failed, hail-Mary attempt of a strawman. Let's not pretend that was any attempt at a good faith argument.

Good grief, it was even worse than LJS's attempt to compare the unborn to serial killers. If those are the arguments you people come up with, it's a lost cause to continue trying to argue in favor of it.

That won't happen.

You're reading comprehension sucks. I questioned your stance on right to life when it's inconsistently applied. I made no other analogy.

Everyone is cattle for the Democrats. Look at the people they have destroyed for political power. That is what this is about.

And who would that be? Also your party is destroying democracy for political power. Are you okay with that Jim?

The black community for one. It started with the Great Society program and education opportunities for them.

Great Society that Nixon revamped or undid you mean? He was Republican.

The abortions can take place in those instances long before the fetus develops. Most people are ok with abortion before the fetus develops, but pro-life activists want abortion up until birth and some like the former Democrat of Virginia after thew baby is born. That is where there objections come into play.

Unfortunately. Are you pro-life or pro-choice btw? you seem to lean towards pro-life. This isn't a gotcha or dig at you. Genuinely curious.

Personally pro-life. But I can't make moral decisions for other people. I don't wish to see more women harmed/dead because of botched abortions either. And I'm not sure I agree with some states wanting to make all abortions illegal. Sometimes they are necessary for women's health. I will say late term abortions most definitely should not occur.

And then we have negative support for social programs which more children will need. I don't think you can have it both ways. You have to support the children not just watch them born.

Well I don't think spontaneous abortions are on the plate.

I never said the mothers were guilty of false imprisonment. Just that you are guilty of imprisoning someone who is innocent by doing so. This unborn baby who has done nothing wrong.

No, you're not imprisoning a person by being pregnant with them. You do understand they're sort of trapped in there, right? That they can't just roll up their umbilical cord and take an evening stroll? Jesus fucking Christ dude, where do you come up with this crap?

Also, in related news, Democrats attempt to "codify Roe v Wade" which wasn't actually the case, as they went well beyond the scope of Roe v Wade to try to force abortion up till birth in all states, has failed with bipartisan support against it. So, it doesn't look like anything of substance is going to come out of Congress on the matter. Why is that? Some of the people who voted against this, would have voted for it if it was merely an effort to codify Roe.

Did they intentionally go to the extreme on the scope of it so that it will fail, they can pretend they tried going into the next election, while being able to maintain this as a wedge issue going forward? It seems like they'll make you promises, tell you they'll do something, claim they try, and intentionally torpedo their own effects so they can make the same promises next election? They have congress, they have the presidency, and they intentionally shot the effort in the foot.

@eoten: I saw that. So stupid. If they actually cared they need to compromise on some things. Congress has had decades to work on getting an actual federal law for abortion if they wanted. I don't believe that was a real attempt. Absolute theater.

The funny part is, they had to votes to just straight up codify Roe v Wade, even Manchin would have went along with that, and that should would be on it's way to Biden's desk. But they torpedoed it, and that's why the people who wanted congress to codify Roe v Wade, won't be getting it. And have I not been saying for almost as long as I've been an active member here that both sides consistently do that same thing?

They had enough votes to codify Roe, and democrats have made sure it won't happen.

@eoten: So now this person doesn’t have the same rights as any other innocent person.

What makes you think it's some kind of imprisonment?

This is a poor faith argument doesn't matter where you actually stand on this issue. Even if you stated in theory that a developing child has the same rights as a fully developed child the reliance of the developing child on the mothers body necessarily curtails the developing child's freedom, and even a fully developed child is reliant on some care giver, mother or not. Let's not base legislation on relative autonomy.

Pretty sure it's a satirical take, or perhaps the Chewbacca Defense at work. Lol

@Stevo_the_gamer: I hope so, because that logic leads to a very dark place.

Yeah, I have no idea where he was trying to go with that. To believe that nonsense he would also have to believe a 5 year old can choose to move out and live on his own. Like wtf? And how does one determine some kind of false imprisonment in this case? Again, like wtf? It has to be straight up trolling, but good god if it doesn't make him look ridiculous.

I could believe the "just trolling" aspect of it, if we haven't also recently heard statements almost as ridiculous as that from LJS and TJ, who I am fairly certain actually believe the crap they stated.

BS! It doesn't matter what was put into the bill. There was no way in hell it was getting any Republican votes and everyone knew it. Maybe you two are gullible enough to believe that horse manure, but no one with any common sense would. You two are just circle jerking.

I wonder how long before women's right to vote becomes debatable too.

But I do get how some people are of the opinion that it should be up for states to legislate it, that's not really an abortion issue, rather a federal Vs state government thing.

Although I think it makes sense things like slavery, abortion or right to vote to be guaranteed at the highest levels to ensure basic human dignity to all.

Having some far right extremists arguing that terminating an embryo equates to murder is just irrational, emotionality driven fundamentalism. More so when we have some pieces of shit saying abortion is great because it kills liberals. It just shows what it really is - owning the libz- and these people won't stop. Now this, before trying to overthrow a democratically elected government (which is absolutely insane how it is tolerated), unbalancing the courts in a way that will disrupt the democratic balance for a very long time. Again, this won't stop, and the kind of people that have been welcoming this movement won't stop either. Don't want to call it fascists? Great, just choose a new world.

Even if someone has issues with abortion. Even if someone who has no intention of ever doing one thinks the government (local or federal) should legislate over women's bodies, there's absolutely no excuse to not demand, along with those restrictive policies, easiness of access to contraceptives and sexual education.

Yet we do not mind logic/lack of it leading to dark outcomes in many other areas. Why is this so different?

Edit: Given US history, interracial marriage isn't safe anymore, neither is gay marriage.

Why isn't it safe?

Because of this if Politico is to be trusted

The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions