Politico: Roe to be overturned per draft opinion
- Thread starter UncleMark
- Start date
Last I checked, my appendix was an unneccessart organ and not another person.
Setting a date for fetal viability, banning abortions to clearly viable fetuses except in situations where the mother's life was in danger, rape, incest, etc. were compromises. Compromises the right rejected.
Last edited:
As would the Republicans, so here we are.
Would you agree, at least, a legislative solution is the only reasonable way forward?
People like you live to craft hip, PC internet insults. Then internet bullying. Then cancel culture.
Then .. much worse.
Until the day train arrives.
Then:
“The Constituition makes no reference to abortion and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.’” “The right to an abortion does not fall within this category.”
Exclusive: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.www.politico.com
The constitutional right at issue in Dobbs only fails the “deeply rooted” in history and tradition test when the Court defines the right narrowly.
This test was wholly invented by the Supreme Court, by the way.
I think he said that back in the 1970's-but not in 2012. I think this is a misquote. He flipped his position but that was not his position in 2012.
Too easy for the Democrats to vote against that without any political fall out. 21 weeks would be a reasonable compromise, I think. However, most Americans would be good with that so congress will be unlikely to even have a chance to vote on something reasonable.
Is the fetus a person? Let's go back to the Terry Schiavo case, did the US commit murder by disconnecting her?
When did Democrats offer any compromise like that. I think never.
No they haven’t. Republicans have put forward late-term abortion bans in the US congress. They wouldn’t have changed anything regarding earlier abortions.
I’m always for legislative solutions, but I think it’s highly unlikely. I think every state and territory will have its own solution. Maybe that’s the way it should be in this case. Not sure.
This is a real opportunity for a moderate Dem to be bold and draw a line at 21, 24, 22, whatever number of weeks and push everyone to explain themselves. While you may not agree, I do think it will be the Dems who lead on this b/c the Republicans have put themselves in a box on this issue over the years. The Dems, less so. They at least have some room for negotiation.
The Ernst stunt is a non starter (as you note). Now, if a Republican posts up on 15 weeks we might have ourselves an honest to God negotiation and, dare I say it, a compromised settlement.
Face it, both sides need to ignore their comms and get something hammered out. Which means, inevitably, nothing will happen.
Do you believe that socioeconomics are specifically linked to heritable characteristics? I don't see how one could think that heritable characteristics have anything to do with producing income in modern times.
Last edited:
That's why the GOP is a laughingstock of a party. It has a huge chance to do something rational and it can't get its morons out of the way.
I definitely do not agree. Democrats have voted every time against any restrictions at all in late-term abortions. That’s a huge box for them and it’s not where Americans are. Again, I’d go with something around 21 weeks and I think a few Republicans (Collins, Murkowski at least, but others not on the Trump train too) would vote for that and I don’t think any Democrats would.
That'll never happen.... almost every GOP member in Congress...save a very few.... has run on a platform of fully outlwawing all abortion. To do what you suggest would inflame the activists and likely end their political career.
While true that the Dems have voted against late term abortion restrictions, I think the playing field just changed.
If, in fact, the SC overturns Roe/Casey the Dems (and the Pubs) are now in wholly new territory (at least new for the last 50 years) with only the knowledge that a judicial decision will not be deciding the issue this time around. Congress is going to have to work for their money. The Dems won't have Roe/Casey to protect their flank. There will need to be a federal statute. There is no other way.
With that in mind, somebody is going to have to take this seriously and stake out ground in the middle.
This actually might be the most important thing to happen to Congress in decades, and they need it to happen. They need to start reeling power back in from the executive and learn how to legislate again.
I actually read the entire draft opinion posted on politico. Alito was specific in his denial that his reasoning should be used for any other "freedom" type case. He also cited the Obergfell opinion repeatedly, among many opinions, and was explicit that cases outside the specific context of abortion were not implicated in Dobbs.
Will that language makes the final version of the opinion? Who knows.
But, weren't Roe and Casey both
based in large part on that same idea of viability, i.e. at what point in a pregnancy does a fetus become viable outside the womb and therefore is the point that the rights of the fetus become paramount over the rights of the mother?
If so, I don't see how the leaked draft leaves room to keep talking about viability when it apparently supports an abortion ban at 15 weeks (almost certainly prior to viability).
Is the text of the leak posted anywhere?
Roe was, Casey was not, but both sucked, according to Alito. The draft is posted on Politico
So, to clarify, are you saying that if it does make it into the final version, other freedom-oriented cases (e.g., Gay Marriage from IUClovers example) could change direction?
LMAO..... birthing body? Good Lord....what total clowns people have turned into.
I'm going to try this at dinner. Bitch. Get your little birthing body over here
A boatload of democrats would vote for that. Be real.
At least a few Republicans would vote for it. There would be zero Democrats to vote for it. History shows that to be the case.
I’m being real. I seriously think zero would vote on a bill that imposes any ban on abortion, even with exceptions, at any point in the pregnancy before birth. It’s in the the record.
Hypocrite. Hates the environment. Killed four plants on that walk
Perhaps not.
I think (from memory) the current Texas law creates liability for people who assist someone to get an abortion, and prior discussion of this law indicates there are legal analysts that think paying for a woman to leave Texas to get an abortion or driving a car to take her there would violate the Texas law.
Someone else in this thread has posted links to a story about a Missouri law that would make it illegal to get an abortion outside Missouri of a fetus conceived in Missouri under conditions that would violate the Missouri abortion statute.
The long arm of God (or at least the long arm of the religious right) knows few limits.
Democrats need to talk like real people and call women women. Silly stuff like this will make them the silly party again.
You really are a good at multitasking. I was bracing for you to start sexting on here.😂
The Constitution does not say Presidents appoint justices with the consent of Mitch McConnell.
McConnell did not permit the Senate to vote on the consent specified by the Constitution.
