Fertilization is when egg meets sperm. After that point contraception violates TX law. Contraception that prevents sperm reaching egg means no fertilization. No fertilization no law triggered
Dusting off Loving vs Virginia
- Thread starter 82hoosier
- Start date
C'mon Marvin. You KNOW the "guarantee" you demand is unreasonable. Of course anything is "possible." Hell, condoms don't "always" "prevent" "fertilization.' You want to defend an argument that Texas is going to outlaw condoms? THEY WILL! I READ IT ON THE INTERWEBS! DOBBS ALLOWS IT! THEY ARE CRAZY TRUMPERS! BUY UP THE SPONGES!
But sure - let me offer my prediction of how the worst possible case scenarios being offered for cases that don't exist yet aren't going to succeed, but could, because there is no proof that Martians don't exist yet either:
First, existing Supreme Court cases - which Alito says Dobbs does not affect - protect the right to contraception - even through the application of substantive due process under the US Constitution. Thus, even after Dobbs, a woman still has a federal Constitutional right to try and prevent her own pregnancy. A federal right that states cannot breach.The post-Dobbs scope of this right to "contraception" has not even BEGUN to be explored, but the only CLEAR legal principle is that DOBBS DOES NOT WEAKEN IT ONE IOTA.
While I have not done the research, I'd suggest that existing cases - which used SDP to discuss contraception - already address a minor's right to use "the pill" and "the morning after pill" and other contraceptives - which also may not always prevent "fertilization" but prevent the continuation of the life-creating process. Have you read all those cases to make sure your feared Texas law will survive?
Me neither.
Moreover, nothing in Dobbs says "life begins at fertilization". Nothing in Dobbs says "states can prevent all contraception efforts after fertilization." All it says is "abortion - ending human life - is different than the things like marriage, etc." It doesn't even TRY to establish when protectible life begins. In fact, one of its criticisms of Roe was Roe's attempt to use "viability" as a legal standard. He might as well have said "leave medicine to doctors."
Does it say that when and how to ban abortion is for state political processes? Yes.
Does it say a state can prevent a woman from trying to prevent an abortion by using what medical folks all agree are contraception methods? No.
Another realm question - could Texas decide to prevent chemotherapy for cancer because its sometimes kills humans? Do we worry SCOTUS would approve of THAT supplantation of all medical science under Dobbs? I don't. But that is the equivalent of what we are now seeing/hearing/reading from The Hystericals - WHO REFUSE TO EVEN READ THE DAMN OPINION.
Is that a "guarantee"? Of course not. Aliens might land and outlaw human sex. It's "possible."
Lack of placental implantation matters too. How many spontaneous abortions, er, miscarriages, occur because the body just says no? And yet, here we are arguing about whether a state will "investigate" them! "The cry went forth - imprison the pregnant until birth! ITS HAPPENING!!!"
Right now, the extremists are babbling at each other.
Soon, the great silent majority will surely speak, and send them to their rooms.
Extremism has begotten extremism - on both ends.
One guy want to force a woman to carry an encephalitic fetus to term so he can feel more moral than his political opponents, and has lost the ability to see his own cruelty. Another demands multiple free abortions on demand by some slut who services the local football team for crack money, as if they are on the righteous side of the Lord. Neither off them worries about the normal world. Sheesh.
Of course I know what Thomas said. Unlike you, I actually read legal opinions.
YOU are the one too dumb to know that what he said does not matter a single legal damn. A CONCURRING OPINION IS NOT LAW.
Your argument is as stupid as if you argued that what the dissent said is enforceable.
You are propaganda addict. Your views are worthless.
Like I said you’re a condescending a$$. As I’ve explained multiple times ( do YOU need help with comprehension, because it sure seems like it) I know that Thomas’ opinion is not law. I also know that, as posted above, other states are going after birth control. And more will. And as I’ve also mentioned, I’d be willing to bet I’ve read a good bit more about the future of reproductive rights than you have. You can’t even comprehend the simplest concept because you’re too busy lecturing. Speaking of worthless.
In Texas, abortion laws inhibit care for miscarriages
Medical professionals face tough quandaries when treating patients who have a miscarriage, a scenario that could soon play out around the country if abortion restrictions tighten.
www.npr.org
Screw you - you said I didn't even know what Thomas wrote - ("Good God do you honestly NOT know what Thomas said?" - your words, not mine)
I comprehended just fine. I defended myself just fine. I am not surprised you don't like it.
Incels and Vcels like like Monkey tend to be rude to females. Your very presence makes him feel less then adequate.
I said that because you were completely ignoring the fact that one Justice made it very clear he would be interested in going after contraception rights. I’m sorry that many women find that alarming. That’s ALL I said before you started going off and acting like a fool.
I was questioning exactly the same that Marvin did. As are many others and that’s the response I got from him. SMH
Like I said ... dude needs to get some but it makes him feel all icky . The sheep are probably getting nervous though ..
No you weren’t. Marvin was polite. You used insults.
My first post to you was identical to my post to others - “read the opinion.”
Your first post to me - “Stop being disingenuous.”
I have read synopsis of it and skimmed. I am not stupid enough to be a lawyer so me reading it means crap. If I hand you the plans to a nuclear power plant are you going to read them and state they will or will not create a working, safe, nuclear power plant?
One big difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe there is a right to privacy.
Conservative legal heroes such as Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas hate this. Each has explicitly argued that the right to privacy is not a constitutional right because the Founders did not did not explicitly say there’s one. In 2007, Justice Thomas wrote that there is “no general right to privacy” or relevant liberty in the U.S. Constitution. Justice Scalia, in the same Lawrence v. Texas case, spoke disparagingly of the “so-called ‘right to privacy.’”
What do you mean there’s no right to privacy in America?
As abortion once again makes headlines, there is silence about the constitutional right to privacy.
www.google.com
Dobbs itself is of not my complaint, Thomas is BEGGING people to pass these other laws. Maybe he loves the idea of losing 8-1 several times, somehow being the short end of 8-1 strokes his ego. But it seems likely he believes he will win some or most. And because Scalia refused to accept a right to privacy, it is fair to wonder about Alito et al until they say so. Have any of them written a decision affirming a right to privacy.
This country existed over 200 years without gay marriage. That was a standard Alito used on abortion. It is not specifically in the Constitution. If there is no right to privacy, there starts to become slim ground.
All these people knew they were going to overturn Wade, all stood before Congress and said precedent was critically important to create a misleading impression they would not overturn Roe. I am not blaming them, it is just the stupid game we force them to play. Any of them could have said, "yes precedent is important but I will certainly ignore it if the law is wrong". How many said that?
So yes, the people who 8ntentionally mislead (not lie, just leave an impression it would be very hard to overturn) might well create that same impression here? If they said as Thomas did that all these laws were doomed, you don't think that might push Manchin into 'ok, let us pack"? Or that it could lead to problems 8n the 2022 election?
We will know when cases are heard. Those justices might be 100% sincere. Bit if there is no right to privacy, I am not going to trust them until I see decisions.
On addendum
Alito disented on Obergefell. Are we to assume stare decisis alone will cause him to change?
Last edited:
Here is some of Alito's dissent in Obergefell:
Doesn't that sound very close to parts of his Hobbs decision? Doesn't that make his claim Hobbs is unique and cannot be applied elsewhere a bit hollow since he has applied it elsewhere?
"If the issue of same-sex marriage had been left ot the people of the States, it is likely that some States would recognize same-sex marriage and others would not. It is also possible that some States would tie recognition to protection for conscience rights. The majority today makes that impossible. By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas."
Doesn't that sound very close to parts of his Hobbs decision? Doesn't that make his claim Hobbs is unique and cannot be applied elsewhere a bit hollow since he has applied it elsewhere?
Your first post to me… the first time we interacted in this thread, was to stop spreading disinformation. When I said I thought they’d try to go after IUD and day after pill.
Correct. TMFT was talking about the Supreme Court, and you spread misinformation by claiming they would go after the IUD and the day after pill - despite the language of the actual opinion reaffirming the Constitutional protections of contraception.
i don't get what they were convicted of in the first place.
if the marriage wasn't legal in Va, why wouldn't they just no longer be legally married when in Va.
Similar threads
