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

Where are you seeing whataboutism? I'm pointing out the fact you have no idea what you are talking about, and if you did, you'd recognize the several answers to that question several people have already gave you. Go back a page or two and read. Few people here actually give a shit one way or another whether abortions are legal or not. That's not even the situation going on at the Supreme Court.

It's pretty amazing, isn't it?

"If women who are legally forced to remain pregnant have to resort to dangerous methods using a coat hanger in order to evade the law, then are they really forced?"

Lol.

He's not contradicting, you're purposely misrepresenting them. There's little need to chase JimB to the bottom of the barrel.

It's mind numbingly stupid.

"We've made doing 'X' illegal, therefore people will result to breaking the law in order to keep doing 'X', so are they really being forced to not do 'X'?"

Replace 'X' with anything now. Amazing indeed.

I have no clue as to what you're talking about.

None of the studies I linked contradict each other. I have 3 types of studies, looking at 3 different things. All three STRONGLY helping make my blanket claim that abortion bans and restrictions are primarily negative.

1. The TurnAway and Colorado study looks at the effects on people who don't get an abortion that wanted one. One is real data with no impact from bans, one is a projection if bans worked. Both cases showed negative results.

2. The Guttmacher and 3 like it look at abortion restriction and ban impacts directly, with the real recorded data of real areas(including US). Spoilers: They mostly don't work, and It's mostly very bad.

3. Then two others looked at the economical impact. More spoilers: It's bad.

NONE was refuted. Not even an attempt. They all help make my general case. Just because they look at different things doesn't make them contradictory lol. Do you have counter-citation perhaps?

You're dancing around the subject. Don't be a coward.

Answer his question: "Where do you guys draw the line for acceptable abortions? Rape? Incest? Should miscarriage be legal? What about ectopic pregnancy?"

They are being forced to remain pregnant by their state or country, but find means around this. That involves traveling out of state/country, illegal underground methods which can be unsafe, or illegal self-abortions which are usually very unsafe. This heavily effects people in poverty more so.

I gave you several studies. It's time you stopped asking questions and read them, and then preferably attempted to refute them with real citation.

Imagine instead of trying to legislate against abortion, politicians would tackle the financial reasons people often have an abortion in the first place.

That would be Number 12 of Eoten's Greatest Hits.

@Maroxad: "Imagine instead of trying to legislate against abortion, politicians would tackle the financial reasons people often have an abortion in the first place."

God I would get behind that so hard. Make diapers free, make delivery free, give a woman six months maternal leave, give men paternal leave, create universal pre-k. There's just so much that we could do that would turn the whole conversation for how to afford children around, but those aren't things that the Republicans tend to care about.

Seems you don't understand it. It was settled law until now.

"Settled law?" Lmfao. Do you have an example of a law that states this? Laws are made by congress.

But your link talked about complications with pregnancy itself, not the risk of illegal abortions. You're moving goal posts.

Again, you're predicating this on an assumption that people arguing against Roe v Wade are against abortions at all.

I moved no goal posts. None of my studies refute the other. You're making stuff up because you have no source to refute my claims with.

I'm offering extremely respected studies, you're giving me your incorrect analysis on them. It's time to move on. Got anything substantive?

You have had multiple days to find something that supports your position on the medical/economical science of abortions. Do you have counter-citation?

His question is predicated on the opposite - that you have a line, and you're able to define it.

Do you have a survey/poll/study showing the small 20-30% of Americans who actually support the overturning of Roe are not against abortions?

Exactly, but it is easy to read between the lines here. It's highly unlikely for someone to consistently argue in overturning Roe v Wade and NOT be against abortions in their current state. His refusal is a ruse, insofar that he can triumph over the repeal while not having to bear the disgusting responsibility that comes with the repeal.

They refuse to acknowledge or take responsability for their actions.

The supreme court is giving the choice to the people in the states. That is not taking away the rights of women. Killing a baby that can live outside of the womb is murder. Mabey laws should be passed to reflect that fact.

States Rights superceding the rights of the individual, where have I heard this before?

The supreme court has not ruled on anything yet. The indication is they will give the power back to the states and the people in those states to make their own laws on abortion. As far as murder my statement was correct. Maybe the laws should reflect when a baby can live outside of the woman and is killed it should be considered murder.

Jesus, this is amazing. The logic just keeps getting more tortured in this thread.

"We're giving people the choice by allowing states to ban that choice. Really guys, repealing this right is all about giving people the choice... to stop other people from being able to make the choice."

What part of saying I don't give a shit either way means I have some line?

States are not superseding any individual rights, there isn't a right you can find, just your imagined ones. That means states are free to legislate as their representatives elected by the citizens of those states decide. You people really love to tout "muh democracy" until it works against you. Then you demand an unelected body force it upon everyone else, citing "individual rights" that don't actually exist on the matter.

If you have a problem with the choice coming down to the citizens because those citizens may not make the choice you want them to, maybe that whole "democracy" thing just isn't for you?

LOL. That's not how democracy works. Judges are appointees, not representatives. This de facto law is likely being rescinded by the same method it was implemented.

digging up a recent? passed law from Mississippi about a abortion or term issue?

i.e still born... but will charge you with homicide.

will update/ post when i find it. it show up in my news feed.

Yes it's been settled law since the original ruling. Great. Then we don't have to agree with the SC ruling on the 2nd amendment.

Maybe I missed it, but did someone say you had to agree with any ruling?

Okay, so how many members of your state legislature have you contacted about making it an amendment?

My stance is that the US democratic systems are broken, and are in need of dire reform. Remind me, how much of the US population supports the right for an abortion now again, how many oppose it?

And yes they are, the right to get an abortion is a right, as determined by Roe v Wade how the 14th protects it. It was an unenumerated right. That said, I do think it would have been wise of Obama to have push for a pro abortion rights amendment when he had a majority.

The choice in this case involves as third party. Congress could solve this problem. Nobody wants to do the hard work which put abortion in the position it is today.

For me, it depends on why a woman is aborting her baby. If she is doing it for health-related reasons or because she cannot afford to raise the child, then okay I understand that. However, most abortions have nothing to do with health or money, rather just some women don’t care about the baby at all. Think of the celebrities who have abortions so they can focus on their music concerts, social lives, movie careers etc. These multi-million dollar celebrities can easily afford to have children, they have no justification to abort.

@lavamelon: You really nailed it, most women who have abortions are millionaires who do it just because they have to go on tour. Pretty sure they can't go anywhere in their private jets now that some redneck state will ban it.

An amendment would have had 0 chance of passing. Not a slim chance - zero.

found the bill

https://legiscan.com/LA/text/HB813/id/2549012

So pro choice?

Another drive by snark by the guy who never talks substance. FYI the SC doesn't agree with Roe and thus want to change it. Same applies to the 2nd. If the court make up changes and the law is adjusted then I don't want to see any whining from the gun brigade.

That's exactly how our republic works.

Gamespot went with the scientifically correct position,

Help The Fight For Reproductive Rights By Donating To Charity - GameSpot

Good thing they disabled comments 🤣

Uhm, you do realize gun rights are actually in the constitution, right?

Uhm, you do realize the Constitution clearly states well regulated militia right?

Getting into legal debates with originalists is just a headache lol. They flip flop to abide by their political ideology:

SUHRIE_THESIS_Body_4.15.18 (calstate.edu)

https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1230&context=uclr

He'll never just admit he likes guns and doesn't like abortions.

Well, I have to make sure my crayons are ready if I have to go into any sort of depth beyond a puddle, nevertheless, I'll take that as a "no" then!

I doubt it speaks of ammunition as well :P

Some more info,

What happens if Roe v Wade is overturned - The Washington Post

Some criticism,

Vax, Mask Skeptics Who Used 'My Body My Choice' Now Support End of Roe (businessinsider.com)

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott invoked that thinking last December when railing against vaccine mandates, telling Fox News' Sean Hannity the issue was about "whether or not somebody is going to have something put into their body that they do not want put into their body," Rolling Stone reported.

Yet in May that year Abbott imposed one of the most restrictive abortion bills in the US, banning abortions after six weeks even in the case of rape or incest.

They have a point. They conservatives always appear to take the objectively incorrect side of a medical issue, even when it contradicts their last view point.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/psaki-disturbs-twitter-her-disgusting-response-leftists-doxxing-supreme-court-justices

Twitter users were shocked when White House Press Secretary Jen Psakidid not explicitly condemn pro-abortion activists planning to target Supreme Court justices’ homes to protest the possible overturning of Roe v Wade.

...

Psaki coolly acknowledged, "We obviously want peoples’ privacy to be respected. We want people to protest peacefully if they want to protest. That is certainly what the president’s view would be."

Doocy pressed her once more, "So he doesn’t care if they’re protesting outside the Supreme Court or outside someone’s private residence?"

"I don’t have an official U.S. government position on where people protest," she said, adding, "We want it, of course, to be peaceful" and Biden "would want people’s privacy to be respected."

I wonder if the White House is okay with protestors harassing SC Justices? Hmm. Will we see another let it burn summer? I'm thinking lots of overtime coming my way this year from unrest, and with that, might have to think about putting that money towards a pool.

@Stevo_the_gamer: I don't see anything wrong with that response. It's just a longer winded version of, "we support peoples' right to protest as long as they follow applicable laws."

Reading some interesting takes the other day and I just realized how much of a mess this could be. Say someone gets an abortion in state X, but resides in state Y. If they return, could they be charged with murder? What about a person that helped them cross state lines or perform said abortion?

What if the anti-choice state decided to charge them with murder out of state....how would law enforcement work then? Do they extradite based on these crimes? What if it was appealed to the supreme court. Then I realized it's basically Dred Scott version 2.0.

Just move to Louisiana and they'll have to cuffing teenagers due to miscarriages and back alley abortions. Gotta have that pool money, amirite!?