Supreme Court Watch

[MJ2004]

Twitter for the past 24 hours.. I just can't. Back under my shell I go.

[ti-amie]

It seems that the RW expected there to be riots in the streets by supporters of a woman's right to choose and guess what? Not of that happened. I saw several tweets yesterday exhorting people to not take the bait and to make sure all demonstrations were peaceful. That was why there was such a heavy police presence at the SC building yesterday. I'm not a big AOC fan but when she's right she's right.

[ti-amie]

[JazzNU]

There is a legal podcast I listen to that emphasizes that the right wing radicals on the court do not use settled law as a reference point the way it was done in the past. This is why Thomas is now talking about going after contraception and gay marriage.

That's not really why though. Sure they are ignoring precedence and will continue to when it suits them, but they will also use it when it suits them just the same.

Contraception has always been heavily tied to abortion in a legal context, that's just a fact. When Roe became law, it largely superseded the previous ruling in Griswold that gave the right to contraception. Griswold is a fundamental rights/due process/14th Amendment case and that was cited as part of the decision that legalized gay marriage. Just need to follow the breadcrumbs on this.

It's about what is on their agenda and what isn't. They'll go after what they want and avoid what they don't. By the bigoted twisted Christian logic being used, interracial marriage should be on the table for being overturned as well, also a 14th Amendment case (called Loving v. Virginia). But it isn't because as much as he wants it to be otherwise, Clarence remains a black man and he's got a crazy white wife he wants to stay married to, so he's not touching that, because that one is personal and would actually affect him.

FYI, stem cell research and IVF are potentially in jeopardy.

Also, the session's not over. They still might strike down or narrow another long settled law (that actually originated from my high school) involving a ban on school prayer. Fun times.

[ponchi101]

...

FYI, stem cell research and IVF are potentially in jeopardy.

Also, the session's not over. They still might strike down or narrow another long settled law (that actually originated from my high school) involving a ban on school prayer. Fun times.

Why would stem cell research be banned? It was banned by Bush II when they were harvested from embryonic tissue, but the modern process simply reverts regular cells back into stem-cells. There is no "conception" or embryos involved.

The rest of what you say: yes, fun times indeed. The USA becomes less and less appealing with great frequency.

[JazzNU]

Why would stem cell research be banned? It was banned by Bush II when they were harvested from embryonic tissue, but the modern process simply reverts regular cells back into stem-cells. There is no "conception" or embryos involved.

The rest of what you say: yes, fun times indeed. The USA becomes less and less appealing with great frequency.

Because some have already targeted it as a next step alongside contraception and IVF. Not sure the actual current scientific process matters to the crazies at this point. Some have just said stem cell research and others say more specifically embryonic stem cell research. But I have long since stopped looking for sound logic in their thinking so I have no idea if their why makes sense, but I haven't seen their argument laid out, just that it's been mentioned as a next step.

[Deuce]

I have no religious or political affiliation. All of my ideas, perspectives, beliefs, values, etc. are entirely my own, and are not merely adopted from some group or other...

I believe that abortion should be allowed in situations like rape, incest, some cases of teenage pregnancy, etc...
But I don’t think that anyone should use abortion as a form of birth control.
There are enough efficient methods of birth control available that refusing to use one, and instead figuring that one can just get an abortion if they become pregnant, is irresponsible and wrong in my view.

In the end, I am pro-education and pro-choice - but the choice should be made before conception whenever possible, not after. That's where the education comes in.

All the education in the world won't matter when they take contraception away too, which they are now considering. This isn't about saving unborn lives, being educated or responsible, it's about repressing women. (LGBTQ's are on the menu too)

They're not going to remove the right to contraception.

And, again, as long as contraception is available, abortion should not be used as a form of birth control.

[mmmm8]

I have no religious or political affiliation. All of my ideas, perspectives, beliefs, values, etc. are entirely my own, and are not merely adopted from some group or other...

I believe that abortion should be allowed in situations like rape, incest, some cases of teenage pregnancy, etc...
But I don’t think that anyone should use abortion as a form of birth control.
There are enough efficient methods of birth control available that refusing to use one, and instead figuring that one can just get an abortion if they become pregnant, is irresponsible and wrong in my view.

In the end, I am pro-education and pro-choice - but the choice should be made before conception whenever possible, not after. That's where the education comes in.

All the education in the world won't matter when they take contraception away too, which they are now considering. This isn't about saving unborn lives, being educated or responsible, it's about repressing women. (LGBTQ's are on the menu too)

They're not going to remove the right to contraception.

And, again, as long as contraception is available, abortion should not be used as a form of birth control.

It's not.

[JazzNU]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, I know people are angry. But I'm seeing a ton of women, especially young women, who are seriously angry at Democrats for not codifying abortion between Roe passing and now. They're saying it online, they're saying it on the news in interviews, they're saying it on the signs they are holding up at rallies. They say it in a manner like it's a done deal that it would've passed and would've passed the filibuster and then overcome a veto.

I'm unclear if this is from anger and realization will come to them sometime soon or if they are truly under the impression there was a time when the Pro-Life lobby wasn't strong enough to defeat it. They keep saying there's been ample opportunity in the last 50 years to codify it and I'd like them to name the specific years that it would've passed the filibuster to get to a vote and the presidential veto. At no point in the 70s and the 80s was there anywhere near that kind of pro-choice support in Congress. Was there one year in the late 90s or early or late 2000s where it could've passed? I'm not saying it didn't exist, I'm saying I want a specific year. Because you tell me the late 90s and I call BS on the same time period of a Congress that passed DOMA. You tell me when ACA passed and I'm questioning that too. Is the argument that there were Republicans that would've voted to end the filibuster at that point? Because pro-life Democrats do exist and there was a key one during that time period that voted past the filibuster for ACA who was a dyed in the wool pro-lifer that I don't see them getting support from to get passed the filibuster. So, what years are we talking about that we're talking about here? I have yet to see any specificity to such claims.

Because to me these people saying all this sound naive and uninformed about pro-choice support in Congress over the last 50 years. It makes me think, for instance, that people are forgetting or don't know all of the famous pastors of the 70s, 80s, and 90s that had very large followings in-person and on television and the effect that had on the populace as a whole. The Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwells of the world. The religious charlatans were everywhere and they were preaching pro-life constantly.

[Deuce]

All the education in the world won't matter when they take contraception away too, which they are now considering. This isn't about saving unborn lives, being educated or responsible, it's about repressing women. (LGBTQ's are on the menu too)

They're not going to remove the right to contraception.

And, again, as long as contraception is available, abortion should not be used as a form of birth control.

It's not.

It certainly is by some.

[Cuckoo4Coco]

I am just a kid and I don't really fully understand all the ins and outs of the judicial system in my country and all that stuff. I do know one thing that I see from all of this stuff though that has been going on lately and not just this one incident and that is my country because of all of this stuff is becoming more and more divided and these groups of people just continue to fight over and over again on these things and 99.9% of the time the outcomes seem to make things even worse. I hope things change soon because I am only 16 years old and I haven't even had a chance to vote, but by the time I am able to things are going to be a complete mess.

[ponchi101]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, I know people are angry. But I'm seeing a ton of women, especially young women, who are seriously angry at Democrats for not codifying abortion between Roe passing and now. They're saying it online, they're saying it on the news in interviews, they're saying it on the signs they are holding up at rallies. They say it in a manner like it's a done deal that it would've passed and would've passed the filibuster and then overcome a veto.

I'm unclear if this is from anger and realization will come to them sometime soon or if they are truly under the impression there was a time when the Pro-Life lobby wasn't strong enough to defeat it. They keep saying there's been ample opportunity in the last 50 years to codify it and I'd like them to name the specific years that it would've passed the filibuster to get to a vote and the presidential veto. At no point in the 70s and the 80s was there anywhere near that kind of pro-choice support in Congress. Was there one year in the late 90s or early or late 2000s where it could've passed? I'm not saying it didn't exist, I'm saying I want a specific year. Because you tell me the late 90s and I call BS on the same time period of a Congress that passed DOMA. You tell me when ACA passed and I'm questioning that too. Is the argument that there were Republicans that would've voted to end the filibuster at that point? Because pro-life Democrats do exist and there was a key one during that time period that voted past the filibuster for ACA who was a dyed in the wool pro-lifer that I don't see them getting support from to get passed the filibuster. So, what years are we talking about that we're talking about here? I have yet to see any specificity to such claims.

Because to me these people saying all this sound naive and uninformed about pro-choice support in Congress over the last 50 years. It makes me think, for instance, that people are forgetting or don't know all of the famous pastors of the 70s, 80s, and 90s that had very large followings in-person and on television and the effect that had on the populace as a whole. The Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwells of the world. The religious charlatans were everywhere and they were preaching pro-life constantly.

You are more informed than I am, so:
If Congress/Senate were to codify abortion and pass it, couldn't this be challenged by opponents, claiming such new laws to be unconstitutional, and wouldn't that once again go to the SCOTUS, for these same people to strike down such laws?
Serious question.

[dave g]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, I know people are angry. But I'm seeing a ton of women, especially young women, who are seriously angry at Democrats for not codifying abortion between Roe passing and now. They're saying it online, they're saying it on the news in interviews, they're saying it on the signs they are holding up at rallies. They say it in a manner like it's a done deal that it would've passed and would've passed the filibuster and then overcome a veto.

I'm unclear if this is from anger and realization will come to them sometime soon or if they are truly under the impression there was a time when the Pro-Life lobby wasn't strong enough to defeat it. They keep saying there's been ample opportunity in the last 50 years to codify it and I'd like them to name the specific years that it would've passed the filibuster to get to a vote and the presidential veto. At no point in the 70s and the 80s was there anywhere near that kind of pro-choice support in Congress. Was there one year in the late 90s or early or late 2000s where it could've passed? I'm not saying it didn't exist, I'm saying I want a specific year. Because you tell me the late 90s and I call BS on the same time period of a Congress that passed DOMA. You tell me when ACA passed and I'm questioning that too. Is the argument that there were Republicans that would've voted to end the filibuster at that point? Because pro-life Democrats do exist and there was a key one during that time period that voted past the filibuster for ACA who was a dyed in the wool pro-lifer that I don't see them getting support from to get passed the filibuster. So, what years are we talking about that we're talking about here? I have yet to see any specificity to such claims.

Because to me these people saying all this sound naive and uninformed about pro-choice support in Congress over the last 50 years. It makes me think, for instance, that people are forgetting or don't know all of the famous pastors of the 70s, 80s, and 90s that had very large followings in-person and on television and the effect that had on the populace as a whole. The Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwells of the world. The religious charlatans were everywhere and they were preaching pro-life constantly.

That, and truly codifying abortion rights would require a constitutional amendment to be able to prevent the Supreme Court from reversing it. Good Luck!

[Owendonovan]

They're not going to remove the right to contraception.

And, again, as long as contraception is available, abortion should not be used as a form of birth control.

It's not.

It certainly is by some.

And that's their choice, or was.

[Deuce]

It's not.

It certainly is by some.

And that's their choice, or was.

And I say that it's a highly irresponsible choice.
There are many types of contraceptive out there, very available to most people. Therefore, any adult who - through laziness or indifference or spite - refuses to obtain and use contraceptives which are available to her, and instead simply figures (chooses) that she will just abort if she becomes pregnant after voluntarily having unprotected sex, is an extremely irresponsible person in my book - as is the man with whom she has the unprotected sex.
Voluntarily refusing to make the choice about conception until only AFTER conception is about as irresponsible as it gets.

Again - education is the key. Everyone would be better served if such people were educated about birth control, and encouraged to use contraception to prevent conception, rather than view abortion as a form of birth control.