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

I don't watch TYT, but this was cool.

@JimB said:

@zaryia said:

@comp_atkins said:

@JimB said:

You use NBC for a reference. They have no credibility.

wow that was hard:

from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/infant_mortality_r

ates/infant_mortality.htm

Yeah but a conservative justice made a legal opinion saying Roe should be over turned.

So facts you bring up are invalid. This isn't about facts, it's about my feely feels.

Can it top 53,000,000. That is how many babies were killed last year.

are you insane? do you even stop to think before posting a number like that?

53M fetuses aborted last year. so had that not occurred, the population of the US would have jumped 16% in a single year.

53M fetuses aborted last year. so 66% of all women in the united states of child-bearing age (14-49) were not only pregnant, but decided to have an abortion. LAST YEAR!

i know 2021 was a pretty fucked up, but yikes!

@goldenelementxl: do you think someone has to be religious to approve of some restrictions on abortion?

@comp_atkins: He's also convinced the national debt is over 200 trillion dollars. His American Thinker sources take advantage of his gullibility by masquerading certain figures as other figures. 10 to 1 he's citing the estimated number of abortions performed since the Roe decision, but an article he read suggested it was a yearly figure. That would be similar to how he got the national debt number, which an article calculated by projecting the current deficit decades into the future and calling the result the national debt.

“Some restrictions” and banning it and equating it to homicide are two very different things. And why are we so focused on the womens side of this issue? They can’t get themselves pregnant… Not to mention, men can get viagra and cialis for little to no cost, while birth control costs $30 a month for insured women… Huh??? And the GOP wants to cut entitlement spending, but this abortion ban is going to result in more demand for welfare and food stamp spending… How is that gonna work?!?!

This entire topic and debate is so ass-backwards, it makes my head hurt.

herp derp.

shoulda thought of that before you went and got pregnant, you skank

Id argue most people do not look fondly on abortion in the 3rd trimester for example.

some restrictions I think are acceptable and I'm not religious.

I'm not naïve enough to call a 7-9 month fetus a clump of cells.

Agree on the welfare and food stamps for kids that have shit parents. I prefer these people kill their offspring as well. So we are in agreement there.

The origins of planned parenthood are pretty dark. A lot more based in race than people realize which is pretty ****ed.

planned parenthood wanted to get rid of the "undesirables". You know the poor and the blacks. That's what Margaret sanger was about anyway. Now its more just the poor.

Oh for sure. I remember Biden used to be against the ruling too. Well, until pretending he wasn't was more advantageous politically.

According to statistics from countries that have more recently had bans on it implemented, like Poland in the 90s, South Korea in the 2000s, the rate of abortions, legal and otherwise plummeted. In South Korea the issue they were having is gender selective abortions. "Baby might be a girl? Kill it and try again" kind of stuff. But Zariya uses cherry picked studies which are really just someone within his echo chamber bleating out an opinion of what they think would happen, when we have other countries that are evidence of what already has. And the results? It has gone down.

The whole idea people are going to resort to coat hangers is silly fear mongering. At best, it just means more people would resort to safer practices to prevent pregnancy in the first place.

I cherry picked no studies or stats. I used no opinions,

Any study I can find on abortion bans and restrictions shows negative result. I could not find any study showing objectively positive results. Most of those links are real world results, not projections.

Most of my sources are recorded data, there is a 55 page data set of real occurrences. Only one link is a projection, and you saying "think would happen" doesn't refute a projection study. You actually have to show what was done incorrectly or provide counter citation.

This is objectively false going by facts. Demonstrably so.

As More States Restrict Abortions, Research Points to Negative Health Outcomes for Women, Families | UC San Francisco (ucsf.edu)

And that's for the US, if you find the global data "incorrect" (it's not). It's so outlandish and wild of a statement that I will need verified counter-citation.

Speaking of South Korea,

Estimates of induced abortion in South Korea: health facilities survey - PubMed (nih.gov)

Conclusions :A significant number of induced abortions occur in both cohorts of married and unmarried women. To prevent serious physical harm to patients,the government should reconsider the practicality of the current statutes that prohibit women from seeking abortions from a qualified provider.

Yeah, every study I can find directly says it is a negative.

Some more info I dug up,

[Feature] Time for reality check on abortion (koreaherald.com)

Looks like people just ended up getting unsafe illegal abortions and said screw the law. An estimated 1million yearly by The Korean College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist. 500k by published reports in health journals. Far higher than "official" data.

Reports state the declines you were talking about are attributed to birth control. Not the ban/restrictions which started 70 years ago. You straight up lied.

Abortion rate in S. Korea sharply down: poll | Yonhap News Agency (yna.co.kr)

Nice try though! 😉

Every study you can find says it's negative? That's because people like you only accept information from sources you've already pre-determined is going to tell you what you want to hear. Look up what "echo chamber" actually means. You've also shown no study that isn't operating on speculation and "maybes." Neither of which have any bearing on a court ruling. You live in an echo chamber, which is why the only argument you're even capable of considering at this point is the melodramatic emotional one you've been fed by those sources which have conveniently left you ignorant the legality of the Roe v Wade.

Just like you're operating on pure opinion and speculation that there's going to be significant bans throughout the country, and even if there were, again, I don't care one way or another. But you have no real world evidence that proves any of the crap you believe it does. And you've had to use skewed data in an attempt to bullshit people with statistics.

As I pointed out earlier "more pregnancies lead to more pregnancy related complications" doesn't actually add much to the argument. It sounds scary, but it's purely statistics. Like more people smoking will lead to more people getting lung cancer. How is that statement applicable to any real world situation? It's not. It's just a bullshit statistic used to dazzle the bottom of the barrel when it comes to pseudo intellectual types who read into those laughable "studies."

You have no legal argument. Your attempts at a statistical one has fallen flat. You have no moral argument, you don't even have an emotional one. You've also used contradicting claims. You're failing on every front.

Roe v Wade is done. No point in arguing it. This is what happens when you're not engaged in your democracy. Fascism always takes hold and you lose rights.

About time. A de facto law passed by the courts, a case based on a malicious lie, with a ruling derived from a constitutional amendment that was written at a time when we already had anti abortion legislation in 18 states that were completely unaffected by said amendment.

If I were a pro abortion advocate, I'd be asking why there isn't actual federal law upholding abortion, rather than clinging to a court case. Democrats have only had cumulative decades of majorities in congress since the ruling to make the fake law a real one.

But I think we all know the truth: Abortion is a hard sell in many parts of America. It would be political suicide for moderate dems, especially with parts of the Midwest and South becoming more of a battleground.

I have been looking for studies that state the opposite. Doing your job for you. Trust me, I usually try to see if I could get out ahead of people to be prepared. Couldn't find any! Help me out!

Show me the ones that DIRECTLY say otherwise. Where are the ones stating there were positive impacts ?

P.S. This notion is false. I am middle ground on some types of gun control AND voter ID since studies were mixed. If studies were mixed on this, I'd be middle ground on this too. But stuff like abortion, covid, and climate change are pretty much entirely one sided scientifically. Not my fault the facts land a certain way!

Lie, that was a different link. The 55 Page Guttmacher study alone proves everything you are saying is wrong and all my claims right are. I'm pretty much paraphrasing them this whole thread. It's NOT the maybe study. It deals with direct data. As does the Tulane study and NIH study.

• Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access (guttmacher.org)
• Study finds higher maternal mortality rates in states with more abortion restrictions | School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine (tulane.edu)

• Estimates of induced abortion in South Korea: health facilities survey - PubMed (nih.gov)

These are not predictions or models. Only one of my links is a predictive model, I'll pull it aside since you keep lying about it for now. You wouldn't dare refute the data within it though.

Literally I do. I gave 8 links with real world evidence ITT.

PROVE the data I have given is skewed. Link the number that you think is wrong, and find citation PROVING the specific number is wrong. Show the numeric is false.

LOL? When?

[Citation Needed]

Yes I do. Abortion bans don't work or barely work, and only cause more negatives. Whether that be worse health outcomes or worse economic outcomes. The benefits, which I have seen no data indicating even exist, do not outweigh the MAJOR cons. Morally, pushing a change with primarily negative impacts on people's health and welfare is wrong.

I'm going to need some counter citation for the first time after 6 pages, or you're just screwing with me.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/roe-v-wade-abortion-supreme-court-justices-security/

CBS News has learned the nine Supreme Court justices have been given extra security since general threats of violence against the justices have increased after a draft majority opinion suggesting the high court would overturn Roe v. Wade was leaked and published by Politico. The justices' home locations have been shared online and they're receiving more targeted personal phone threats.

Feds/police have their work cut out for them with all these increased threats.

@zaryia: abortions cause the deaths of millions of babies.

Spin that.

@zaryia: the outcomes benefit the mother health wise because you are killing the baby before going into labor... It's a trade off *shrug*

The health outcome for the baby sucks major ass under abortion

Abortion restrictions and bans have no notable change in abortion rates. Most (or more in some areas after bans) of those quarter sized clumps of cells that are not conscious would "die" anyway. Now only this time, you're putting mothers at risk too! Reducing our quality of life and healthcare (how Republican of you!)

There's a reason this is a 3rd world thing that negatively impacts maternal mortality.

It does affect the number of body parts Planned Parenthood can sell.

Yawn.

Show you sources that say different? I've showed you links before, several times in the past and ALWAYS get the same canned response.. "Well that's not from a source that *I* listen to so it's not valid." It's what you do in every single thread. Copy and paste a bunch of bullshit, tell people to challenge your bullshit, and when they do you try to invalidate it with a ridiculous appeal to authority argument of some sort.

Secondly, I've already told you I couldn't care less whether abortions are legal or not. But your arguments in favor are absolutely built upon a foundation of bullshit statistics and opinions. In fact, some of those statistics and opinions are even contradictory to other ones you posted. Tell me, if a ban on abortions isn't going to effect the overall rate of people getting them, then how is it miraculously going to result in more complications caused by women carrying a child to term? Either the rate of abortions go down, and more complications from pregnancy occur, or they remain the same, and they don't. Both statements cannot be simultaneously correct, and you've made both.

So, If you're going to talk out of your ass and use bullshit op-eds to back it up, you may want to make sure those opinions do not convey contradictory ideas.

YES! So we can finally have a debate.

You are aware one has not started yet correct? Since only 1 side offered facts thus far.

Link? Pretty much most of the time it's a Covid or Climate thread and you never give a study for your insane claims.

I didn't use any op-eds in my last few pages of link lists.

I posted no bullshit stat or opinion. Most of my links are facts.

The toll on women's health and maternal mortality is explained in the studies,

"The toll of unsafe abortion on women’s health is greatest where abortion is highly legally restricted".

[And a lot more, I can't keep linking pages and pages]

Why does America suck so much as a country?

The Supreme Court should be tossed out if it continues to take people's rights away since it clearly doesn't care about half of the population. The institution hasn't had credibility in a long time, but it's officially hit rock bottom.

Then again, so many Americans are fine with turning the country into a backwards cesspool just based on the amount of psychopathic, theocratic fascists in this thread.

Just remember that "pro-life" supporters stop giving a shit about the unborn, when they're born.

Why would it have an effect on women's mortality? I'm asking you a direct question, not for a copy and paste.

Prochoice people never give a shit about anyone except themselves. If a person kills a pregnant woman the are charge with two counts of murder. Yet when a baby is killed through abortion there is no charge. Think about that. The supreme court is not taking anyone's right from them. If they ruled abortion was illegal then you would have an argument. That is not what is happening here.

Glass house!

Also, right... the "Supreme Court isn't taking away abortion rights" the same way "OJ Simpson didn't murder"... c'mon now!

@lamprey263:

Roe V Wade should be overturned. SCOTUS made law in that decision, which was a huge overreach.

I'd be fine with a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing right to privacy, making Roe V Wade moot (then overturning it). Or, I wouldn't even care if Congress made abortion legal through a law.

My anger of Roe v Wade has nothing to do with abortion, and everything to do with SCOTUS's gross judicial overreach in the name of politics.

There is nothing democratic about Roe v. Wade. It's effective law that no one voted for.

lol Jen Psaki saying the justices having their addresses doxed wasn't political. There are people protesting outside their homes, lady.

In some way, she's correct it's not a partisan issue, it's a legal one. This has nothing to do with the act of and perceived right to abortion and all to do with the people within their respective states having the final say.

American Taliban.

My rights. Covid masks and limitations on movement and assembly are bad!

But control over one's own body and reproduction....by the govt and courts is apparently good!

The hypocrisy is strong.

I understand your argument. But at the same time it is total failure to understand the society you live within.

Pretending that there is or could be a total hard line between the judiciary and the legislative/executive in a western representative democracy is ridiculous. Indeed the whole point of separate branches is to introduce some checks and balances. The path that you perceive as better inevitably leads to unchecked politicians.

I imagine there are likely many other examples of 'judicial overreach' that you are perfectly fine with as the courts 'make law' via interpretation all the time. Everything is in the name of politics in the sense that it is intended to reflect balancing interests to make society work.

Restrictions and bans lead to an enhanced number of unsafe, illegal, or self-inflicted abortions, which have been shown to contribute to maternal mortality.

Women with chronic health conditions who are not able to access abortion care are forced to carry unwanted pregnancy to term even if their health and lives are in danger.

Women forced to remain pregnant are more likely to remain in unhealthy relationships, suffer mental and physical health consequences, live in poverty, and have lower life satisfaction.

Of course that's the short from of 60+ pages of data that you won't read.

Y'all Qaeda.

Except for the previous conservative Supreme Court which wasn't overrun with unqualified, dangerous, fascist, religious radicals.

I can't wait for the GOP to complain about all these single welfare mothers that were forced to give birth, asking for monetary assistance. Between being pro-birth, anti-contraception, and anti-government assistance, it's the trifecta of stupidity. Just imagine our justice system dragging women to court over abortions, miscarriages, and the use of contraception. It'll happen, just you wait and see.

At least now we can freely admit that every republican SC judge since 2000 openly lied about Roe v Wade under oath.

@HoolaHoopMan: "At least now we can freely admit that every republican SC judge since 2000 openly lied about Roe v Wade under oath."

We should not be surprised! There's a reason why parties form, and why you should leverage them when voting.

Usually, SCOTUS does not make law. The ABA's latest "landmark" decision listed is from 1978. Even USCourts.gov does not have a lengthy list.

"If you can't deal with the consequences of having intimate relationships, you shouldnt be having intimate relationships."

Reposting this as no one who defends this new voting from SC has answered it.

Again, your ignorance of the US, it's laws, or what SCOTUS is doing is showing. SCOTUS isn't making anything illegal. It is the correct ruling whether you are for or against it. It's a legislative concern, the job of elected officials, not unelected judges to decide. Anyone who is against the Supreme Court being used to create legislation should be in favor of the ruling.

Secondly, I've said many times I don't care if people want to have them. If woke SJW types want to kill off all their offspring, why would I have a problem with it?

Women forced to remain pregnant are going to suffer? But, if a ban on abortions didn't stop people from having them, which you also claimed, then who is being forced to remain pregnant?

Answer the question, not go straight for whataboutism.

Women who want an abortion are being forced to remain pregnant, but many find other ways to get it. Either traveling, self-inflicted, or unsafe facilities. You're conflating two different types of studies that look at two different things.

1. The Turnaway Study | ANSIRH

2. Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access (guttmacher.org) & Study finds higher maternal mortality rates in states with more abortion restrictions | School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine (tulane.edu)

The Turnaway studies are in the USA, and prior to any major ban and restriction. These abortion turn aways would have happened regardless of the recent bans and Roe overturning.

Neither of these different studies refute or counter each other. In fact, sources often cite both. If you feel there is a data point in each of these that counter each other, cite the specific figure because I have no clue as to what you're talking about.

This is no longer the kid's league,

I've heard this time and time again from their side, which again, whatever. They just have to admit their stance is driven by a sense of moral superiority and and an intent to inflict pain, not one which serves to protect the well being of women or these children. This is ignoring the huge economic implications of denying abortion, which in no way favor their position.

This has got to be one of the densest f*cking things I've ever read....and this is someone who has seen you call the vaccine a placebo that also killed tens of thousands.

Is that your typical response to a called out contradiction? If people are forced to remain pregnant, but, nobody is being stopped from getting an abortion, what level of cognitive dissonance does it take to convince yourself two clearly contradictory ideas are both simultaneously true?

Does not compute, hence, your only response to it are insults and whining.

But your claim earlier was that there would be more complications related to the pregnancy itself. That was one of your blanket statements. The other is that everyone who wanted an abortion would just get one anyway. So if everyone who wanted one got one anyway why would the number of people suffering complications from pregnancy go up?

Did you not post this message with links to those claims? With literally contradicting ideas within the same group of links posted by you?

_____

@zaryiasaid: