ADVERTISEMENT

Politico: Roe to be overturned per draft opinion

I normally use pro-life and pro-choice, but in this case, I'm specifically talking about the activists, and "anti-abortion" is an accurate description. You are clearly not one of them. But, because you are likely to vote for conservative candidates for other reasons, you're likely to often vote for some of them.
OK. I think the activists on the other side can fairly be described as pro-abortion. Those that in New York that celebrated one of the least restrictive abortion laws in the country with high fives and light shows didn't do the pro-choice faction many favors. It's tone deaf. Expanded abortion rights are more properly commemorated in more solemn ways. After all, we're talking about viable lives being terminated in the second and third trimester for reasons other than danger to the lives of the mothers or unhealthy babies.
 
Third time. You claim one side is not compromising. WHAT IS THE COMPROMISE FROM THE PRO CHOICE SIDE?

Yes, the Mississippi law was a game because they knew it would be challenged. The law itself represented a compromise if left alone. And yes, in order to even be able to compromise, Roe had to be overturned. So again, to even be able to compromise, Roe had to go by your own admission.

I am the far right on this topic, there is no compromise with me. However, there are all sorts of Republicans all over this board flagging that they are willing to compromise. 60% of the country (right now) is on board with that Mississippi bill. The pro abortion crowd would rather have nothing than that compromise. And THAT is the reason that abortion is going to get banned in a whole bunch of states this summer.
Roe was the compromise. It allowed for some abortions, and allowed for some restrictions. That was the compromise.

I'm not talking about the x% of Republicans who are happy to compromise. I'm talking about you. The far right on this issue, as you phrase it. Because you and others like you are the ones who are funding this campaign, staffing it, writing these laws, planning this game out. You are the ones who are selecting the necessary GOP candidates to make it all happen. It's not a game of compromise, which you readily admit. In your post, you're basically agreeing with me, and yet still somehow taking issue? How?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TommyCracker
there are 2 kinds of leaks.

one is a leak of information that otherwise wouldn't ever come out.

the other is a leak of information that is going to come out anyway, at a latter date.

the latter is what we have here.

the latter is usually done to control the timing, or the impact, or both, so that when the information does become official, it's impact is lessened by the leak, and the fact the info came out in parts rather than all at once.

in parts is better for those wanting to limit or lessen the impact. (an offshoot of the boiling frog thing).

when it's done to control the timing, it's usually done to increase the time between when the info comes out, and some future event said info might have bearing on.

the greater the time between the release of info and the future event said info may/will/could have bearing on, the better for those wanting to minimize said impact of the info on said future event.

i'm guessing the info was leaked to both minimize the impact of the info itself by getting it out in parts instead of all at once, and to maximize the amount of time between the release of the info and the Nov elections, thus reducing the impact on said elections as well, as much as possible.

the info coming out all at once would have greater impact than it coming out in parts.

the closer to Nov the info came out, the greater the impact on the Nov elections.

on both fronts, impact and timing, the conservatives benefit most from the leak.

therefore, most likely it was leaked by conservatives.
It's great when the least logical most nonsensical poster weighs in on serious issues. Thanks for that . . .
 
OK. I think the activists on the other side can fairly be described as pro-abortion. Those that in New York that celebrated one of the least restrictive abortion laws in the country with high fives and light shows didn't do the pro-choice faction many favors. It's tone deaf. Expanded abortion rights are more properly commemorated in more solemn ways. After all, we're talking about viable lives being terminated in the second and third trimester for reasons other than danger to the lives of the mothers or unhealthy babies.
I disagree. "Pro-abortion rights" or "pro-abortion access" perhaps, but not simply "pro-abortion." The phrase "pro-abortion" implies people actively want abortions to happen, and while those people certainly exist, they are more likely to be fringe depopulation activists (probably environmentalist wackos) than involved in the abortion rights movement.
 
Roe v. Wade was the court invalidating state laws that violated the Constitution. Whether or not you think they got it wrong, that is exactly something SCOTUS is supposed to be doing. If they can't do that, there's no reason to have judicial review at all.
They should have sent those state laws back to the states to fix.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC

We are all about state rights/law, right?

You are right. The 48 states outlaw abortion starting at at least 20 weeks, which includes the 25 states that outlaw abortion starting at 24 weeks. I fixed it.
Your link does not support your math.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Your link does not support your math.
48 states have a minimum line in the sand of 20 weeks, and 25 of these 48 states draw the line in the sand at 24 weeks or later. I believe viability is 24 weeks or so?
 
Last edited:
Third time. You claim one side is not compromising. WHAT IS THE COMPROMISE FROM THE PRO CHOICE SIDE?

Yes, the Mississippi law was a game because they knew it would be challenged. The law itself represented a compromise if left alone. And yes, in order to even be able to compromise, Roe had to be overturned. So again, to even be able to compromise, Roe had to go by your own admission.

I am the far right on this topic, there is no compromise with me. However, there are all sorts of Republicans all over this board flagging that they are willing to compromise. 60% of the country (right now) is on board with that Mississippi bill. The pro abortion crowd would rather have nothing than that compromise. And THAT is the reason that abortion is going to get banned in a whole bunch of states this summer.

You can't be this naive. There has been a 50 year movement to overturn Roe.... and the activists on the right have been dogged enough to follow a very, very long term political strategy to get to where we are. I don't have a dog in this fight because a politician's position on abortion has never factored even 1% in my voting. But I'm fully aware that there is a significant voting population that is singularly focused on this issue.... on both sides, to be fair. But the abolitionists have been more consistently focused and organized for decades.
 
I don't have a dog in this fight because a politician's position on abortion has never factored even 1% in my voting.
This is the primary reason I think they have a legit chance to get what they want. I'm like you, abortion has never one factored into a voting decision for me. I've voted for plenty of pro-choice candidates, sure, but I've never voted for one because he was pro-choice. If Biden were staunchly pro-life, and Trump were staunchly pro-choice, I still would have voted for Biden; the math wouldn't have change for me one bit.

Anyway, I suspect there are enough people like me and you to let the activists decide how this war ends up, and it currently looks like the anti-abortion activists are way better at it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TommyCracker
You can't be this naive. There has been a 50 year movement to overturn Roe.... and the activists on the right have been dogged enough to follow a very, very long term political strategy to get to where we are. I don't have a dog in this fight because a politician's position on abortion has never factored even 1% in my voting. But I'm fully aware that there is a significant voting population that is singularly focused on this issue.... on both sides, to be fair. But the abolitionists have been more consistently focused and organized for decades.
You can't be this naive. Of course the people who had their entire position completely ripped out from underneath them with absolutely no ability to have their voice heard were going to be more consistently focused and organized. The other side already had EVERYTHING they wanted. Which for the fourth time begs the question, WHERE IS THE COMPROMISE FROM THE PRO-CHOICE SIDE?

Yes, there are those of us (me for one) who are very interested in a complete or close to complete (my position) ban on abortion. And on the opposite side of that were those who could accept next to no restrictions. They fought partial birth abortion. They fought married women having to let their husband know that she was going to kill his child. They fought the idea that the parent's of minors who wanted an abortion should be notified. They fought limiting to first trimester. Second trimester. Third trimester. Each of those were attempts to "compromise" on abortion. I am in the minority. Most people accept abortion within the first 15 weeks. The response from the pro choice crowd "How dare you say what women can do with their body!!! Roe is sacrosanct!"

"All of these fig leaves were offered because they would lead to overturning Roe." Because their was no compromise allowed. Which is my point. Which is why asking 4 times I still won't be given a compromise offered from the pro-choice side because no such things exist. Which goes back to my original point to Goat, his post laid all this at the feet of the pro-life crowd for not wanting to compromise. I say that even if the compromises were a Trojan Horse, they at least constituted a compromise in theory. He and you cannot offer anything else in return from the opposite end of the spectrum because it does not exist.

So Roe had to go. And go it will and along with it abortion in a large portion of states. Had the left been willing to compromise at any point over the past 50 years, my minority position would have been sidelined.
 
You can't be this naive. There has been a 50 year movement to overturn Roe.... and the activists on the right have been dogged enough to follow a very, very long term political strategy to get to where we are. I don't have a dog in this fight because a politician's position on abortion has never factored even 1% in my voting. But I'm fully aware that there is a significant voting population that is singularly focused on this issue.... on both sides, to be fair. But the abolitionists have been more consistently focused and organized for decades.
Abortion seems like a big deal because politicians use it that way. For its part, Democrats must have abortion keep their appeal for the “women’s vote”. Other womens issues are largely resolved. The GOP uses it to keep the evangelicals fired up. But few of us really think abortion is a determining issue.
 
Abortion seems like a big deal because politicians use it that way. For its part, Democrats must have abortion keep their appeal for the “women’s vote”. Other womens issues are largely resolved. The GOP uses it to keep the evangelicals fired up. But few of us really think abortion is a determining issue.

Oh I totally agree. It was a politician's bread, butter and cheese cream. A lot of talk with no need for any action.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TommyCracker
You can't be this naive. Of course the people who had their entire position completely ripped out from underneath them with absolutely no ability to have their voice heard were going to be more consistently focused and organized. The other side already had EVERYTHING they wanted. Which for the fourth time begs the question, WHERE IS THE COMPROMISE FROM THE PRO-CHOICE SIDE?

Yes, there are those of us (me for one) who are very interested in a complete or close to complete (my position) ban on abortion. And on the opposite side of that were those who could accept next to no restrictions. They fought partial birth abortion. They fought married women having to let their husband know that she was going to kill his child. They fought the idea that the parent's of minors who wanted an abortion should be notified. They fought limiting to first trimester. Second trimester. Third trimester. Each of those were attempts to "compromise" on abortion. I am in the minority. Most people accept abortion within the first 15 weeks. The response from the pro choice crowd "How dare you say what women can do with their body!!! Roe is sacrosanct!"

"All of these fig leaves were offered because they would lead to overturning Roe." Because their was no compromise allowed. Which is my point. Which is why asking 4 times I still won't be given a compromise offered from the pro-choice side because no such things exist. Which goes back to my original point to Goat, his post laid all this at the feet of the pro-life crowd for not wanting to compromise. I say that even if the compromises were a Trojan Horse, they at least constituted a compromise in theory. He and you cannot offer anything else in return from the opposite end of the spectrum because it does not exist.

So Roe had to go. And go it will and along with it abortion in a large portion of states. Had the left been willing to compromise at any point over the past 50 years, my minority position would have been sidelined.


Of course they fought it.... that's what activists do. Both sides in this war have been fighting tit- for-tat legal battles for decades..... while the majority of the country doesn't care. Both sides are absolutist and are not interested in any compromise in the middle of a war.

I have no clue what point you have. You really think that if the pro-abortion activists would throw up their arms and say..... ok.....20 weeks... nationwide...... that a damn thing would change in the war? One side will not stop until abortion is fully outlawed. And you damn well know that.
 
Of course they fought it.... that's what activists do. Both sides in this war have been fighting tit- for-tat legal battles for decades..... while the majority of the country doesn't care. Both sides are absolutist and are not interested in any compromise in the middle of a war.

I have no clue what point you have. You really think that if the pro-abortion activists would throw up their arms and say..... ok.....20 weeks... nationwide...... that a damn thing would change in the war? One side will not stop until abortion is fully outlawed. And you know that.
The point is that there would be no compromise offered. So going back to the original post, the Pro-Life crowd was pointed out as being unwilling to compromise and being at fault basically for where we are on this topic. That is not true. I have pointed out several "compromises" that you indicate are tit for tat lawfare between the sides.

I want Roe shitcanned. That is possibly about to happen and Casey along with it. Good riddance. Then we can resolve this issue at the state level. For places that are red, that likely means bye bye abortion. For blue states, they will probably be able to kill their kids to their little heart's content.

The reality of this country at this point in time is that we are so politically far apart that we really need to revisit the idea of federalism. We just have so many fundamental differences with each other right now that we are heading towards divorce or we figure out how to let each of us live the way we want.

We are the couple that hates each others guts but we stick together because it is too comfortable a lifestyle to quit each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Yeah.... and gonna be a real problem for a lot of them. The pressure will be exponentially worse on GOP politicians. Not hiding behind black robes will be a problem.
Nah, it is going to be a problem for all of them. The abortion anytime, anywhere position is not politically popular either and that is what the activists on the left will want.

And honestly, if this goes to the state level, it is not going to have that big an impact anywhere. California still going to California and Indiana will Indiana.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
The point is that there would be no compromise offered. So going back to the original post, the Pro-Life crowd was pointed out as being unwilling to compromise and being at fault basically for where we are on this topic. That is not true. I have pointed out several "compromises" that you indicate are tit for tat lawfare between the sides.

I want Roe shitcanned. That is possibly about to happen and Casey along with it. Good riddance. Then we can resolve this issue at the state level. For places that are red, that likely means bye bye abortion. For blue states, they will probably be able to kill their kids to their little heart's content.

The reality of this country at this point in time is that we are so politically far apart that we really need to revisit the idea of federalism. We just have so many fundamental differences with each other right now that we are heading towards divorce or we figure out how to let each of us live the way we want.

We are the couple that hates each others guts but we stick together because it is too comfortable a lifestyle to quit each other.


Well I agree that this country has grown to be too large to be governed in basically any practical way by DC. We should basically pool our resources for national defense and block grant most everything else back to the states. Let the states compete for business and people.
 
Yeah.... and gonna be a real problem for a lot of them. The pressure will be exponentially worse on GOP politicians. Not hiding behind black robes will be a problem.
George Will said as much about Roe when it is returned to the states.
 
Abortion seems like a big deal because politicians use it that way. For its part, Democrats must have abortion keep their appeal for the “women’s vote”. Other womens issues are largely resolved. The GOP uses it to keep the evangelicals fired up. But few of us really think abortion is a determining issue.
"Democrats must have abortion keep their appeal for the "women's vote?" What are you even talking about? And "other womens (sic) issues are largely resolved?" This women's issue is the Big Issue, and it was settled law for almost 50 years. Dems weren't bitching about Roe. It's the Republicans who have been relentless in trying to undo it since '73. Now that they've apparently succeeded, they'd much rather talk about the leak because they know overturning Roe is not where the public is on this issue.

Finally, I have no idea who you purport to speak for when you say "few of us" think it's a determining issue. In fact, it's an enormously important issue for millions of people and could dramatically impact swing state voting (e.g. Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania) in November.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeke4ahs
The point is that there would be no compromise offered. So going back to the original post, the Pro-Life crowd was pointed out as being unwilling to compromise and being at fault basically for where we are on this topic. That is not true. I have pointed out several "compromises" that you indicate are tit for tat lawfare between the sides.

I want Roe shitcanned. That is possibly about to happen and Casey along with it. Good riddance. Then we can resolve this issue at the state level. For places that are red, that likely means bye bye abortion. For blue states, they will probably be able to kill their kids to their little heart's content.

The reality of this country at this point in time is that we are so politically far apart that we really need to revisit the idea of federalism. We just have so many fundamental differences with each other right now that we are heading towards divorce or we figure out how to let each of us live the way we want.

We are the couple that hates each others guts but we stick together because it is too comfortable a lifestyle to quit each other.
You don't seem to understand at all. It wasn't about assigning fault. I was simply describing the origin and structure of the anti-abortion activist movement, and why compromise was impossible, and in fact, even meaningless for them. You essentially agreed, and admitted to being like that yourself. How you can sit here and effectively explain how right I was, and then get all pissy about it, is beyond me.
 
The point is that there would be no compromise offered. So going back to the original post, the Pro-Life crowd was pointed out as being unwilling to compromise and being at fault basically for where we are on this topic. That is not true. I have pointed out several "compromises" that you indicate are tit for tat lawfare between the sides.

I want Roe shitcanned. That is possibly about to happen and Casey along with it. Good riddance. Then we can resolve this issue at the state level. For places that are red, that likely means bye bye abortion. For blue states, they will probably be able to kill their kids to their little heart's content.

The reality of this country at this point in time is that we are so politically far apart that we really need to revisit the idea of federalism. We just have so many fundamental differences with each other right now that we are heading towards divorce or we figure out how to let each of us live the way we want.

We are the couple that hates each others guts but we stick together because it is too comfortable a lifestyle to quit each other.
I hope you also have the same passion when you criticize parents who deny medical treatment for their born children on "religious" grounds.

Since abortion opponents claim a 15-week-old fetus has full rights as a human being even against their parents' wishes, I'm sure they'll readily agree a six-year-old child has the full right to be vaccinated or receive other medical treatment even against the internet-fueled anti-medical biases of their parents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: outside shooter
"Democrats must have abortion keep their appeal for the "women's vote?" What are you even talking about? And "other womens (sic) issues are largely resolved?" This women's issue is the Big Issue, and it was settled law for almost 50 years. Dems weren't bitching about Roe. It's the Republicans who have been relentless in trying to undo it since '73. Now that they've apparently succeeded, they'd much rather talk about the leak because they know overturning Roe is not where the public is on this issue.

Finally, I have no idea who you purport to speak for when you say "few of us" think it's a determining issue. In fact, it's an enormously important issue for millions of people and could dramatically impact swing state voting (e.g. Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania) in November.

Legislators will have to quit cosplaying as Legislators and actually have to vote on real abortion policy for their states.

It's an important voting issue for millions of people..... but you skip over the point that it is fairly equally divided on the sides of the issue. The reality is that all of the voting public has already self-sorted into the two parties, and it's baked into the cake.
 
I've been doing research on Zeke's real name. I've got it narrowed down to;

Brandi, Heather, Channing, Briana, Amber, Sabrina, Melody, Dakota, Sierra, Vandi, Crystal, Samantha, Autumn, Ruby, Taylor, Tara, Tammy, Laura, Shelly and Shantelle? Courtney, Misty, Jenny, Christa, Mindy, Noel, Shelby, Trina, Reba, Cassandra, Nicki, Kelsy, Shauna, Jolene, Earlie, Claudia, Savannah, Cassie, Dolly, Kendra, Callie, Chloe, Devon,

OR something that ends with Lynn.
Someone mentioned that I must hate men. I think it’s much more likely that a few of you guys can’t stand a woman that has the opposite opinion of yours. As Cray said, I should post on a cooking website . And leave decisions about women’s bodies up to the menfolk, right?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC and Crayfish57
Someone mentioned that I must hate men. I think it’s much more likely that a few of you guys can’t stand a woman that has the opposite opinion of yours. As Cray said, I should post on a cooking website . And leave decisions about women’s bodies up to the menfolk, right?
Hyperbole; exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
 
The point is that there would be no compromise offered. So going back to the original post, the Pro-Life crowd was pointed out as being unwilling to compromise and being at fault basically for where we are on this topic. That is not true. I have pointed out several "compromises" that you indicate are tit for tat lawfare between the sides.

I want Roe shitcanned. That is possibly about to happen and Casey along with it. Good riddance. Then we can resolve this issue at the state level. For places that are red, that likely means bye bye abortion. For blue states, they will probably be able to kill their kids to their little heart's content.

The reality of this country at this point in time is that we are so politically far apart that we really need to revisit the idea of federalism. We just have so many fundamental differences with each other right now that we are heading towards divorce or we figure out how to let each of us live the way we want.

We are the couple that hates each others guts but we stick together because it is too comfortable a lifestyle to quit each other.
If Roe v. Wade is "shitcanned," don't complain when SCOTUS gets a liberal majority down the road and reinstates it: 2 can play that game. This is why playing politics in SCOTUS doesn't work: you don't always win in politics, and the war never ends. The only possible solution was to give both sides half of what they want and let the crazies on each side try to move the needle from 50 to 48 or 52 forever: this is better than throwing out and reinstating Roe every 20-30 years.

Sounds a lot like Israel and Palestine, huh?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeke4ahs
Shouldn't be the court that does that. It should be the legislatures. This is why the courts shouldn't essentially put new laws into effect with their opinions.
Obviously Jimbo incorrectly used laws instead of SC decisions. Roe v. Wade had nothing to do with legislating laws. It was about correctly interpreting the 14th amendment.
 
No.

I haven’t read Alito’s draft. I have never been a penumbra fan. Except for the BOR and the post civil war amendments, the constitution does not “protect” rights. Instead, it limits government authority. Contraceptive devices are not the same thing as a fetus.
Thanks for the reply. Neither the pill nor an IUD prevent fertilization so an argument exists that both are abortion. That is the Catholic Church position.
 
The point is that there would be no compromise offered. So going back to the original post, the Pro-Life crowd was pointed out as being unwilling to compromise and being at fault basically for where we are on this topic. That is not true. I have pointed out several "compromises" that you indicate are tit for tat lawfare between the sides.

I want Roe shitcanned. That is possibly about to happen and Casey along with it. Good riddance. Then we can resolve this issue at the state level. For places that are red, that likely means bye bye abortion. For blue states, they will probably be able to kill their kids to their little heart's content.

The reality of this country at this point in time is that we are so politically far apart that we really need to revisit the idea of federalism. We just have so many fundamental differences with each other right now that we are heading towards divorce or we figure out how to let each of us live the way we want.

We are the couple that hates each others guts but we stick together because it is too comfortable a lifestyle to quit each other.
Judging not only from the leaked opinion but also from the oral arguments, most of the justices think the Constitution does not impose limits on state regulation of abortion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Yep, I was skimming the numbers and got it wrong, but 1 percent of the number isn't insignificant to the terminated lives. The real point is that few of those are being done to save the live or health of the mother or because the baby is unhealthy. Also since the number is relatively small, why do the Democrats always vote against banning those abortions?
It might be important then, to understand why people are waiting so long to have abortions.

Why do people have abortions later in pregnancy?​

Non-Medical Reasons: Individuals seek abortions later in pregnancy for a number of reasons. As part of the Turnaway study out of the University of California San Francisco, from 2008-2010 over 440 women were asked about why they experienced delays in obtaining abortion care, if any (Figure 2). Almost half of individuals who obtained an abortion after 20 weeks did not suspect they were pregnant until later in pregnancy, and other barriers to care included lack of information about where to access an abortion, transportation difficulties, lack of insurance coverage and inability to pay for the procedure. This is unsurprising, given abortions can be cost-prohibitive for many; in a study from 2011-2012, the median cost of a surgical abortion at 10 weeks was $495, jumping to $1,350 at 20 weeks (range $750-$5,000) excluding the cost of travel and lost wages. Yet the Federal Reserve Board found 40% of U.S. adults do not have enough in savings to pay for a $400 emergency expense, meaning many individuals may need to delay having an abortion until they can raise the necessary funds.


Figure 2: Many Factors Contribute to Delays in Obtaining Abortion Care
Additionally, of all the abortion-providing facilities in the U.S., only 34% offer abortions at 20 weeks and just 16% at 24 weeks, meaning individuals may need to travel a significant distance to find an available, trained provider. Abortions at this stage also typically require two days to complete with inpatient care, as opposed to outpatient or at-home management that is possible earlier in pregnancy.1 In the years since these data were collected, dozens of abortion restrictions have been enacted across the county, including mandated waiting periods; it is therefore possible that individuals seeking abortion today may face even more delays in care than these data reflect.

------

I don't disagree with your take on abortion and where it should be. I think 21-23 weeks is a reasonable number with exceptions related to health of mother and baby.

The reasons for late term (after 21 weeks, which represent 1% of all abortions) seem to be based on some factors outside the mother's control. I would expect very few find out they are pregnant at 10 weeks and then wait for weeks to get it done.

This study verifies that point:

Abstract Objective: We studied the steps in the process of obtaining abortions and women’s reported delays in order to help understand difficulties in accessing abortion services.

Methods: In 2004, a structured survey was completed by 1209 abortion patients at 11 large providers, and in-depth interviews were conducted with 38 women at four sites.

Results: The median time from the last menstrual period to suspecting pregnancy was 33 days; the median time from suspecting pregnancy to confirming the pregnancy was 4 days; the median time from confirming the pregnancy to deciding to have an abortion was 0 day; the median time from deciding to have an abortion to first attempting to obtain abortion services was 2 days; and the median time from first attempting to obtain abortion services to obtaining the abortion was 7 days. Minors took a week longer to suspect pregnancy than adults did. Fifty-eight percent of women reported that they would have liked to have had the abortion earlier. The most common reasons for delay were that it took a long time to make arrangements (59%), to decide (39%) and to find out about the pregnancy (36%). Poor women were about twice as likely to be delayed by difficulties in making arrangements.

Conclusions: Financial limitations and lack of knowledge about pregnancy may make it more difficult for some women to obtain early abortion


This is a complex issue with dozens of extenuating factors that require careful thought and deliberation. Unfortunately the state of the US at the moment doesn't allow for this because compromise is weakness and weakness must be weeded out.

Also, compared to the rest of the western world, the US has the highest abortion rate by far, the reason why might merit more studying, but people on both sides might not like what they find, because the solutions will be uncomfortable for them.

 
Last edited:
Someone mentioned that I must hate men. I think it’s much more likely that a few of you guys can’t stand a woman that has the opposite opinion of yours. As Cray said, I should post on a cooking website . And leave decisions about women’s bodies up to the menfolk, right?
Some men may think that way, it would be silly to think there aren't. Anyone that I have noticed (at least that I recall) pushing back on you specifically hasn't done it because you are a woman, it's been because of your message. You do seem to be coming from an extreme left and that really is a conversation killer for a very many.
I've stated I could find a compromise, I don't recall you offering that. Also to so so so many, this isn't about a women's body. Of course that is one piece of this puzzle.

I don't know, can you cook?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Per the news the case was argued in December so this would be when they write their opinions.
Yeah I f'd that up. I thought the Mississippi case was coming up in June vs the ruling.

I obviously haven't been paying much attention to it.

I always believed it's inevitable after the confirmation of ACB.
 
Obviously Jimbo incorrectly used laws instead of SC decisions. Roe v. Wade had nothing to do with legislating laws. It was about correctly interpreting the 14th amendment.
Or incorrectly interpreting it in support of the outcome they wanted. That could also be what they’re doing now. I’m not a constitutional scholar and I’ll need to go read some of what they have to say about this when I get a little time.
 
You don't seem to understand at all. It wasn't about assigning fault. I was simply describing the origin and structure of the anti-abortion activist movement, and why compromise was impossible, and in fact, even meaningless for them. You essentially agreed, and admitted to being like that yourself. How you can sit here and effectively explain how right I was, and then get all pissy about it, is beyond me.
I just caught up here and I’m super confused by Crazy here. He’s complaining about his absolutist position. He’s assuming the other side won’t compromise when he freely admits his side has no interest in compromise.

let’s be clear, the far right pro lifers will not be satisfied if abortion is legal in their neighboring state. They will go after abolishment in every single state. That has always been the objective.
 
Never should have been shared. That person should be tarred and feathered.
I hope you and the others who say they are disgusted and outraged by the leak stay true to your word.

The three prominent theories are:

1. A lowly clerk. The likelihood of this is very low. Clerks tend to be law students doing grunt work very early in their careers. This would be a career ender.

2. A liberal justice. Motive is to get it out, cause a ruckass and put public pressure on the court to think twice about it.

3. A conservative justice. Motive is the document names all of the justices who are in agreement. It's speculated that Robert's might be a soft vote and is looking for another soft vote to flip back. By putting it out now with names attached, it will force those that flipped to have to explain why they flipped to the public which they don't want to do. By leaking it early it more solidifies the vote.

Add on, plus it maybe takes away some conflict of interest attention from the Jan 6th committee with a certain wife (that was me making a joke).

So yeah, tarred and feathered.

I'm going to personally laugh my ass off if it was scenario 3.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT