Abortion—Roe v Wade

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
Heard this on ABC radio.

A draft ruling overturning Roe v Wade by a conservative SCOTUS judge was released.

Would make safe, legal, medically supervised abortion impossible to find in conservative states (e.g. backward places like Texas, Florida, Alabama etc.)

If successful issues like gay marriage will be revisited.


The US is a third world nation in many ways.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
..

U.S. Supreme Court Set to
Overturn the Roe v. Wade Abortion Rights Decision



The 6-3 Conservative US Supreme Court

Source: REUTERS
WASHINGTON, May 2 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court looks set to vote to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide, according to a leaked initial draft majority opinion published by Politico on Monday.

The unprecedented leak from the conservative-majority Supreme Court sent shock waves through the United States, not least because the court prides itself on keeping its internal deliberations secret and leaks are extremely uncommon.

Reuters was not able to confirm the authenticity of the draft. The Supreme Court and the White House declined to comment.

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the draft opinion which is dated Feb. 10, according to Politico, which posted a copy online.

Based on Alito's opinion, the court would find that the Roe v. Wade decision that allowed abortions performed before a fetus would be viable outside the womb - between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy - was wrongly decided because the U.S. Constitution makes no specific mention of abortion rights.

"Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion," Alito said, according to the leaked document.

The news broke a little more than six months before the mid-term elections that will determine if Democrats hold their razor-thin majorities in the U.S. Congress for the next two years of President Joe Biden's term in office.

Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in U.S. politics and has been for nearly a half century.

Republican Senator Tom Cotton said: "...Roe was egregiously wrong from the beginning & I pray the Court follows the Constitution & allows the states to once again protect unborn life."

Four of the other Republican-appointed justices – Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett - voted with Alito in the conference held among the justices, the report added.

After an initial vote among the justices following an oral argument, one is assigned the majority opinion and writes a draft. It is then circulated among the justices.

At times, in between the initial vote and the ruling being released, the vote alignment can change. A ruling is only final when it is published by the court.

The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, heard oral arguments in December on Mississippi's bid to revive its ban on abortion starting at 15 weeks of pregnancy, a law blocked by lower courts.

It appeared based on December's oral argument that a majority was inclined to uphold Mississippi's abortion ban and that there could be five votes to overturn Roe.......
I believe that the Court may still leave some of the original Roe v Wade decision stand, but as I stated in more than one earlier post, I still hope & believe that the Court will return the abortion issue back to the States, as it was pre-Roe v. Wade of 1973, at the very least, giving each individual State the right & power to set all abortion rules according to the will of their individual State's own voters.....& out of the grasp of the Federal Government, bar a successful Constitutional Amendment, agreed to by a majority of American Voters in 38 of the 50 United States....75% of all the States, stating anything otherwise.
 
Last edited:

johnsmith

Administrator
Staff member
This whole political appointment of judges is ridiculous. Judges should be neutral in their interpretation of the laws and not vote based on their political beliefs.
 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
Fancy sending a sensitive matter like abortion to the venal “peanut politicians” in the states. Imagine Joe BjelkePeterson in 20 backward states.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
This whole political appointment of judges is ridiculous. Judges should be neutral in their interpretation of the laws and not vote based on their political beliefs.
Fancy sending a sensitive matter like abortion to the venal “peanut politicians” in the states. Imagine Joe BjelkePeterson in 20 backward states.

Well, then living in the United States of America isn't in your near future......

200+ years of nominating justices, & confirming them in Congress to the Supreme Court is a political process, & has worked just fine for us Americans over that time, & it will remain the same for another 200+ years to come. They've served America well over all those years......Only one (1)Justice was ever impeached.......Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805. The House of Representatives passed Articles of Impeachment against him, however he was fully acquitted by the Senate.
 
Last edited:

greggerypeccary

Active member
The US is about to be set back 50 years.

I honestly feel sorry for the good people who live there - and there are many.

Their country is on a steady decline.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
not in distant future either. Why the hell would anyone want to live there?
The United States of America is meant solely for uniquely special people striving for the freedom to express their deepest dreams & desires, of which you could never make the cut, so you will never find out how very special America really is, as I & many, many, millions of Americans have already experienced....Stay here in Australia.....you're not ready to step up to America's excellence........sorry fella....you'd be way over your head.
 
Last edited:

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
It is in absolute and relative (to China) decline. WTF abortion is even an issue in the states let alone SCOTUS god alone may know.

Tackle some REAL fucking problems—poverty, health system, social welfare, infrastructure etc!
 

SethBullock

Captain Bullock
Staff member
This is a copy/paste of a reply I gave to a poster on the Yank site on this topic …


I agree with you that this is not about “when life begins.”

In my opinion, this is a technical decision about what the Constitution says (or doesn’t say). My position is neither in favor of or in opposition to abortion. That debate doesn’t enter into it for me.

From a technical standpoint, the Court is correct IMO. The “right” to an abortion is not in the Constitution, nor is there an absolute right to privacy in the Constitution. Our Founders anticipated that there would be issues that are not resolved by the words in the Constitution, which is why they put in the 10th Amendment.

This decision, if it happens, will put the ball back where it belongs - in the Branch that writes our laws, in Congress and state legislatures. It will force timid, cowardly legislators to actually make laws, vote on them, and be accountable to the voters. This is as it should be. The Legislative Branch is supposed to make our laws, not the SC.


So, in my opinion, this decision, rather than being a political decision or a decision based upon the morality of individual Justices, is a technically correct decision.

This whole political appointment of judges is ridiculous. Judges should be neutral in their interpretation of the laws and not vote based on their political beliefs.
I agree with you 100%. What I think we’re seeing here is a decision that reflects the “originalist” orientation of two Trump appointees, Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. An originalist is the opposite of an “activist”. The difference between the two can be summed up by saying that an originalist makes decisions based upon a strict reading of the Constitution. An activist believes that the Constitution is a “living document” that we may add to or ignore as the culture changes.

Of course, we can add to or delete anything in the Constitution. We can do that by amending the Constitution, and there is a process for that.

So I fall on the originalist side. I want the 3 separate but equal branches of our government to do their jobs, and I don’t want any branch of government doing the job that some other branch should be doing. And if this does turn out to be the decision of the SC, the Court will be pushing the abortion question back to where it belongs - to the Branch that makes our laws. This decision is in effect a repudiation of the notion that the SC may act as “the ultimate legislator”, a role that was never intended to be filled by the SC.

So while pro-choice supporters are upset about this decision, I see it as a win. But the win for me is not a pro-life win, but instead, a win for the Constitution and for the rule of law.

This decision does not outlaw abortion. Already, pro-choice activists are talking about passing new laws to make abortion legal nationwide. And from my originalist point of view, this is perfectly okay. This is where those battles should be fought.

Seth
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
The United States of America is meant solely for uniquely special people striving for the freedom to express their deepest dreams & desires, of which you could never make the cut, so you will never find out how very special America really is, as I & many, many, millions of Americans have already experienced....Stay here in Australia.....you're not ready to step up to America's excellence........sorry fella....you'd be way over your head.
Australians are not "..ready to step up to America's excellence."???

A country that is the most indebted country on the planet(almost $30T).

A country whose economy depends on the dollar staying the world's reserve currency.
A country where over 110K people kill themselves or others with lethal phallic symbols.
A country with no universal healthcare program. Like other developed countries(Oz).
A country where Native Americans were robbed, Blacks lynched, Chinese refused US entry, and the Japanese interned.
A country where 38M people still live below the poverty line.
A country that thinks, its States should control a woman's reproductive functions.
A country where greed is rewarded, and individual worth is based only on personal wealth or power.
A country where 100M believe in a 10K yo earth, and that a woman was created from the rib of a man(who somehow had a name).
A country where the minimum wage is $7.25p/h(Aus. $20.33p/h).
A country where most workers would sell their dignity and integrity for the biggest tip(tips unnecessary here).
A country where reality imitates art, and art becomes reality.

You're right! It does take a special kind of person to choose to become an American. But simply being born in America doesn't make you special at all. But hey! Your food and petrol are cheaper.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Originalists are simply lazy, narrowminded, and devoid of even one original thought in their body. They can easily be replaced by a simple computer. They believe, that if it isn't written, or clearly expressed in the Constitution, that TECHNICALLY, it doesn't exist. That's it!! Therefore, there is no need for Justices to interpret the spirit, the meaning, the purpose, or even the intent of the framers(as all other past Justices have done). This is the route that these republican cowards have taken as an excuse to satisfy their masters.

If this leaked draft is true, then these REPUBLICAN CRONY JUSTICES have found the easy way out to serve and stay true to their masters beliefs. They have completely ignored the liberty aspects of privacy, and the majority of past decisions all supporting personal privacy as a right. They simply said, that there is no express right to privacy, no express right to an abortion, that is written in the Constitution. Therefore, this is not an enumerated power of the government. Therefore, it must be under the purview of the state governments. Simple!

Does any rational thinking person on the planet think that Abortion rights, or individual privacy rights, would somehow be written as part of the original constitution? OF COURSE NOT!! It was written over 240 years ago!! The Constitution is meant to be an evolving, mutable, adapting, and dynamic document. The Justices are suppose to interpret the Constitution as it would apply IN THE PRESENT. It was never meant to be a static or fixed document. These party crony Justices have kept this document static, and are bringing modern America back the days of Federalism. Where the states have all the general powers, and the government have only the enumerated powers.

Since the Constitution does not specifically express any right to privacy or liberty, pandora's box has now been opened by this cowardly mob. A slippery slope has now been created. Since privacy is no longer under "liberty", or "freedom", everything including the separation of of church and state, gay marriage rights, due process rights, abortion rights, anti-segregation rights, voting rights, immigration rights, the right to travel, the electoral college, and the right of expression(NOT A GUARANTEED RIGHT!), will now be open to the purview of state governments. Children can be forced to pray in schools, or learn creationism in the science classroom. People can be legally and openly discriminated against in some states. Gays could be forced to have behavioral-modification therapy in some states(like Hawaii did in the past). Republicanism wins. And Anarchy may be the last step in some states.

I guess I shouldn't really be surprised at this possible outcome. Why would I expect a mature and rational result, from a nation that spends 100's of Billions of dollars watching fantasy and superhero movies. A nation that elects an obvious criminal sociopaths, and an obvious person with chronic dementia as their president. A nation that believes in a flat earth, and worships a vindictive, insecure, sadistic, selfish, spiteful, all-knowing, and all-powerful sky daddy!!


There are states already lined up to outlaw abortions for ANY REASON! In Alabama, pregnancy was criminalized. A woman was charged with manslaughter for having a miscarriage. She was shot by her boyfriend.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction...ates-arizona/blog/when-miscarriage-is-a-crime.

There are laws waiting to stop pregnant women from traveling to other states for an abortion. There are laws waiting to criminalize the sell and distribution of all abortion-inducing drugs. Laws are already on the books to ban contraception. Is this the American freedom that you are so proud of???
 

johnsmith

Administrator
Staff member
The difference between the two can be summed up by saying that an originalist makes decisions based upon a strict reading of the Constitution. An activist believes that the Constitution is a “living document” that we may add to or ignore as the culture changes.

I think that any judge should in interpreting the 230 year old document, recognise that society is vastly different from what it was and it is unlikely that the originalsits may have foreseen just how society has changed. Therefore they should take that into account when interpreting. Even the originalists can only guess as to the original intent and usually that guess is based on their own political biases.
 

SethBullock

Captain Bullock
Staff member
I think that any judge should in interpreting the 230 year old document, recognise that society is vastly different from what it was and it is unlikely that the originalsits may have foreseen just how society has changed. Therefore they should take that into account when interpreting. Even the originalists can only guess as to the original intent and usually that guess is based on their own political biases.
Actually, there was a ton of writing done by the Founders, explaining their intent. It’s all available for anyone who wants to research it.

When we discuss the pros and cons of originalist vs activist judges, I think there is a tendency to equate “originalist” with “conservative” and “activist” with “liberal”. But I would point out to my liberal friends that you should be careful what you wish for. For if we don’t feel bound by the words of the Constitution, if we may simply disregard its words because they’re old, if we decide that popular opinion - or the position taken by the political party in power - outweighs the words in the Constitution, then we are no longer being governed under the rule of law. I think that is a slippery slope, and I would ask my liberal friends to imagine that Trump had appointed 5 or 6 new judges instead of only 3, and they were all “activist” judges who did not believe that the Constitution was relevant anymore. My point is that the words of the Constitution apply to all of us. Those words protect all of us. And if liberals don’t think we need to follow its words when we don’t want to, they could easily get burned. I personally think it’s dangerous for all of us.

If we want the Constitution to say something that’s different, then let’s amend it.

But we open Pandora’s box if we decide to ignore it.
 

SethBullock

Captain Bullock
Staff member
I assume Australia has an equivalent Court to our Supreme Court. And if your federal government or one of your provincial governments passes a law that may be in contravention to Australia’s Constitution (or whatever you call it), I assume you have a highest court that decides, right?
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
I think that any judge should in interpreting the 230 year old document, recognise that society is vastly different from what it was and it is unlikely that the originalsits may have foreseen just how society has changed. Therefore they should take that into account when interpreting. Even the originalists can only guess as to the original intent and usually that guess is based on their own political biases.
Actually, there was a ton of writing done by the Founders, explaining their intent. It’s all available for anyone who wants to research it.

When we discuss the pros and cons of originalist vs activist judges, I think there is a tendency to equate “originalist” with “conservative” and “activist” with “liberal”. But I would point out to my liberal friends that you should be careful what you wish for. For if we don’t feel bound by the words of the Constitution, if we may simply disregard its words because they’re old, if we decide that popular opinion - or the position taken by the political party in power - outweighs the words in the Constitution, then we are no longer being governed under the rule of law. I think that is a slippery slope, and I would ask my liberal friends to imagine that Trump had appointed 5 or 6 new judges instead of only 3, and they were all “activist” judges who did not believe that the Constitution was relevant anymore. My point is that the words of the Constitution apply to all of us. Those words protect all of us. And if liberals don’t think we need to follow its words when we don’t want to, they could easily get burned. I personally think it’s dangerous for all of us.
If we want the Constitution to say something that’s different, then let’s amend it.

But we open Pandora’s box if we decide to ignore it.

SPOT ON!!! @ Seth


If the American People wish to change what the US Constitution says, then they have the Right & ability to amend the US Constitution by the process outlined just for that specific purpose within our Founding Document itself.....Article V of the US Constitution.

Our Founding Fathers knew from the very start that the Constitution they were giving the People was not 'perfect', & there would come times when the Country would need changes or additions to it's Supreme Law, so they had the foresight to provide a process for the People to do just that.....to change the People's Sacred Document.....Their United States Constitution.

If the People truly do want Abortion, then they could follow the process, & make it so.....make it a Right of the People by amending the Constitution to say just that.....& if agreed to by the requisite numbers in Congress (2/3rds of both the House & Senate), & 75% of the US States (38 of the 50), it will become the Law of the Land without need of defining.


 
Last edited:

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
Yes, that is the High Court—Supreme Courts are the highest court in each state.

There used to be an appeal to the House of Lords but Whitlam abolished that in about 1972.
 

johnsmith

Administrator
Staff member
For if we don’t feel bound by the words of the Constitution, if we may simply disregard its words because they’re old, if we decide that popular opinion - or the position taken by the political party in power - outweighs the words in the Constitution, then we are no longer being governed under the rule of law.
I'm not asking for anyone to disregard the words, I'm saying that the words may not necessarily apply in these modern times, and we have to be willing to adopt our laws to suit our current times or we risk becoming hamstrung. All laws change to suit the times but for some reason the constitution seems to be exempt.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Actually, there was a ton of writing done by the Founders, explaining their intent. It’s all available for anyone who wants to research it.

When we discuss the pros and cons of originalist vs activist judges, I think there is a tendency to equate “originalist” with “conservative” and “activist” with “liberal”. But I would point out to my liberal friends that you should be careful what you wish for. For if we don’t feel bound by the words of the Constitution, if we may simply disregard its words because they’re old, if we decide that popular opinion - or the position taken by the political party in power - outweighs the words in the Constitution, then we are no longer being governed under the rule of law. I think that is a slippery slope, and I would ask my liberal friends to imagine that Trump had appointed 5 or 6 new judges instead of only 3, and they were all “activist” judges who did not believe that the Constitution was relevant anymore. My point is that the words of the Constitution apply to all of us. Those words protect all of us. And if liberals don’t think we need to follow its words when we don’t want to, they could easily get burned. I personally think it’s dangerous for all of us.

If we want the Constitution to say something that’s different, then let’s amend it.

But we open Pandora’s box if we decide to ignore it.
I suppose if you just keep stacking your premises with all these faulty "if" assumptions, you could support any conclusion you want. A nation that follows no laws or statutes is just fear-mongering(anarchy), and just ain't gonna happen. Is that what this is really about? We either accept this cop-out decision, or we descend into a lawless nation? The SC doesn't make laws, it makes rulings. I thought this was about the SC Justices refusing to INTERPRET the Constitution as it would apply to the abortion rights of women. Not simply ruling that since abortion rights are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, the 10th Amendment applies!

These SC Justices are now telling all women that if they are pregnant, they don't have a constitutional right to privacy or choice. That the state government has the power to force women to give birth, and to raise children they don't want. That the state government has the general power(by default) over any modern-day issue, that is not expressly/directly mentioned in an over 240 yo document. Why do we need Justices, if this will now be the basis of all their future rulings?? Any mindless computer could be programed to do this! What exactly did it take these Justices months to deliberate on? Didn't they already know that abortion rights were not mentioned in the Constitution? The separation of church and state is also not mentioned. Same with voting rights, Gay rights, etc.


"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America....".

The intent, purpose, and meaning of the framers seem pretty clear to me. So, tell me, how will just "passing the buck", and ignoring the majority opinion of Americans, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure individual liberty to ourselves?? This is intellectual laziness at best, and a social sell-out at worst.

Our human rights are universal and inalienable from the moment we're born. These rights are also indivisible, interrelated and interdependent. That is, the deprivation of one person's right can adversely affect the rights of others. But these basic human rights can only be guaranteed or protected, if they are protected by statute(law). Therefore, if abortions rights are not guaranteed or protected by law, then no woman has a protected right to an abortion. And, being allowed an abortion in some states and not in others, will only promote DISORDER in a more perfect union.

I just don't get it Seth. This seems like a no-brainer to me. This is entirely a woman's issue. If a woman want to have an abortion, how does her decision affect me or you? If a woman doesn't want to have an abortion, then she doesn't have one. Any girl born in the US(if abortion becomes illegal), will now be born with a life-ending disadvantage of becoming pregnant. It's not like either you or me will offer to raise the child as an alternative.

If men were legally forced to use contraception before sex, or be held legally/financially responsible for the conception, then there would no longer be an abortion issue! But in a male dominated society, that ain't gonna happen.
 
Top