Roe v Wade overturned????? Draft says so

[teachercd]

8 hours ago, TGHusker said:

I don’t go to clinics except back in the 1980’s- 90s.  But even then it wasn’t to insult or condemn or judge anyone it was to express that there was an alternative and a support system if the woman was to make the other choice.   I think I’ve made it clear that I don’t support abortion. But outside of rape and incest and physical health of the mother abortion becomes birth control for a choice  a man and woman made previously.  To me that choice, to use abortion as birth control, devalues all of life - unborn and living and makes life less ‘sacred’.  I’m sure some people will make decisions on where they go to college or where they want to live based on where a state stands on the issue- that too is a choice   All choices have consequences (good and bad)and we have to live with them as I know all too well wt bad choices I’ve made in my life.  Sometimes those “bad” consequences become the catalyst for something very good in your life - like an unexpected child. Ok my reply is too long winded. I’ll comb down from my   

First, stop going to clinics.

Second, are you going to move to an anti-choice state?

[funhusker]

Just now, teachercd said:

First, stop going to clinics.

Second, are you going to move to an anti-choice state?

I think Oklahoma is going to be pretty serious about restricting treatments for women.

[funhusker]

3 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

 

There is a very simple reason why the Court held that States can abolish the right to an abortion but they cannot for the right to keep and bear arms. 

Because the 2nd Amendment is federal and the 14th is state?

 

Thats curious logic.

[teachercd]

5 minutes ago, funhusker said:

I think Oklahoma is going to be pretty serious about restricting treatments for women.

I can predict right now, that anti-choicers will not relocate to anti-choice states.  They will take a good game but they will not walk the walk.

[TGHusker]

32 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I can predict right now, that anti-choicers will not relocate to anti-choice states.  They will take a good game but they will not walk the walk.

I live in a pro life state already. If I lived in a pro choice state I wouldn’t move as (1)my wife and I are in our mid 60s & (2) if I’m prolife and we were of child bearing age why would we feel compelled to move to a prolife state as we’d have the baby regardless of where we lived??

[commando]

[teachercd]

21 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

I live in a pro life state already. If I lived in a pro choice state I wouldn’t move as (1)my wife and I are in our mid 60s & (2) if I’m prolife and we were of child bearing age why would we feel compelled to move to a prolife state as we’d have the baby regardless of where we lived??

So you are not REALLY anti-choice, you are just sort of anti-choice, which means you might come around, I can appreciate that!

[ZRod]

10 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

I never suggested that. Either way, the remedy to that problem is killing the child before birth? How many of these terrible mothers had these children, knowing they’d regret it, because they couldn’t get abortions? Weren’t abortions fairly accessible in every state up until a few days ago?

And now they're not.

[nic]

Interesting oped. Can we be civil enough to legislate solutions at this point or is it to late? 15 weeks with exceptions after that seems about right to me.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/opinions/court-decision-roe-was-very-bad-for-america-snead/index.html

 

“So for nearly 50 years, those on opposite sides of the issue haven’t really had to learn how to talk to one another in a serious way about how to find a path forward for the law and policy of abortion – we simply did what the Supreme Court told us insofar as we could tell what that was.”
 

“…

we must genuinely embrace the notion that both sides have something vital to defend. Concretely, those who call themselves “pro-life” must understand that those who describe themselves as “pro-choice” are desperate to defend women’s bodily autonomy and secure their equal position in the economic and social life of our nation. And conversely, the latter advocates must acknowledge that the former are committed to the intrinsic equal dignity of every human being, born and unborn. 

Once that’s out of the way, we can begin the hard work of trying to find common ground so that we can, together, care rightly for women, children (born and unborn) and families, both before and after they are born.”

[BigRedBuster]

20 minutes ago, nic said:

Interesting oped. Can we be civil enough to legislate solutions at this point or is it to late? 15 weeks with exceptions after that seems about right to me.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/opinions/court-decision-roe-was-very-bad-for-america-snead/index.html

 

“So for nearly 50 years, those on opposite sides of the issue haven’t really had to learn how to talk to one another in a serious way about how to find a path forward for the law and policy of abortion – we simply did what the Supreme Court told us insofar as we could tell what that was.”
 

“…

we must genuinely embrace the notion that both sides have something vital to defend. Concretely, those who call themselves “pro-life” must understand that those who describe themselves as “pro-choice” are desperate to defend women’s bodily autonomy and secure their equal position in the economic and social life of our nation. And conversely, the latter advocates must acknowledge that the former are committed to the intrinsic equal dignity of every human being, born and unborn. 

Once that’s out of the way, we can begin the hard work of trying to find common ground so that we can, together, care rightly for women, children (born and unborn) and families, both before and after they are born.”

I don't like this decision.  But, for right now, it is what it is.  What I don't think many people who are celebrating this understand is the immense amount of work that now needs done.  That's drastically increasing healthcare for women which includes but is not limited to, contraception, prenatal care.  Support for single moms such as financial support, day care, drastically improving the adoption system in the US, mental health....etc.

 

I get the feeling that so many on that side are now sitting back and saying....ahhhh.....the work is done.  Well...no, it's just starting.

[JJ Husker]

14 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I don't like this decision.  But, for right now, it is what it is.  What I don't think many people who are celebrating this understand is the immense amount of work that now needs done.  That's drastically increasing healthcare for women which includes but is not limited to, contraception, prenatal care.  Support for single moms such as financial support, day care, drastically improving the adoption system in the US, mental health....etc.

 

I get the feeling that so many on that side are now sitting back and saying....ahhhh.....the work is done.  Well...no, it's just starting.

The majority of people who got what they wanted with this decision don’t give a rip about accomplishing those things. The states where it is already being banned happen to also be the worst states at providing support for pregnant women.

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

So you are not REALLY anti-choice, you are just sort of anti-choice, which means you might come around, I can appreciate that!

I prefer 100% pro-life.  But with that I care about the women in the equation. 

 

 Below is a copy of a newsletter I received from David French and it kind of mirrors what I said previously - The Dog has caught the Car - now what?  With 50 years of waiting, the decision came too soon. The pro-life side isn't ready for the consequences of their 
'victory'.  I say that for the same reason David notes below- The hard religious right and political right have create a culture not of love but of divisiveness.  These ultra strong measures being taken by states like Texas and my Oklahoma and others do not put us in the place where these states can help the women in a crisis pregnancy. Granted, most individual prolife people I know aren't that hardened, but what message does it send when govts create de-facto nazi or "commie" like states where citizens are encouraged to report anyone in violation of the new law. That is Orwellian to the max - talk about deep state.   French also brings up a good point about many of these same people:  The hard right tells pro-choicers  that it isn't just about your body (My Body, My Right - when it comes to abortion). However, how can these same people on the right claim "My Body, My Right" when it comes to the covid vaccination - French has a graph below that shows how deadly that chant is.  

I think French does a good job of pointing out the constitutional failings of Roe and quotes Ginsburg in that Roe may have gone too far-  which became the the source of its own undoing.  Also, If the justices had stopped with just the 6-3 Mississippi ruling, we'd have less of an uproar today.  But 5 went beyond this and thus we have the current situation.  The following is long but a good read -- I agree with it.   

 

Quote

 

Roe Is Reversed, and the Right Isn’t Ready

A movement animated by rage and fear isn’t ready to embrace life and love.

When I left the full-time practice of law and landed at National Review, my friends and colleagues Jay Nordlinger and Jonah Goldberg both independently gave me exactly the same advice. My job, they said, was to write what I believe to be true. It’s not to please a crowd or build a coalition. 

Their advice was good and true, and in the years since I’ve tried my best to live up that ideal. I’m going to try again today with the full awareness that I’m not sure anyone is going to like what I say, right or left. But here’s what’s on my mind and heart. 

Two days after Roe has been overturned, I’m far more conflicted than I ever imagined I’d be. Writing in The Atlantic on Friday, I described my attitude as joy in my heart tempered by disquiet in my spirit. Since I wrote that piece, that disquiet has only grown, and I think I know why.

I’ve been a pro-life advocate and activist for more than 30 years. I started in college by trying to change my Christian college’s policies to remove any penalty for unwed parenting. Young single moms should not be suspended from school. I then moved on to Harvard Law School where I started a pro-life student group with two dear friends and endured the considerable blowback of that hostile era on campus.

As a lawyer I represented pro-life groups for decades. I helped raise tens of millions of dollars for pro-life legal advocacy (I lost count at about $40 million). Shortly after I returned home from Iraq, I led a litigation group that publicly promised to defend any pro-life student in America for free if they faced a challenge to their constitutional rights, and we kept that promise. 

Through it all, I was guided by two burning convictions—that Roe represented a grave moral and constitutional wrong and that I belonged to a national Christian community that loved its fellow citizens, believed in a holistic ethic of life, and was ready, willing, and able to rise to the challenge of creating a truly pro-life culture. 

I believe only one of those things today.

My feelings about Roe are unchanged. As a constitutional matter, I agree with Justice Alito. Simply put, the Constitution cannot be fairly read to protect a right to abortion. There is quite obviously no enumerated right to abortion, and there is no historic grounds for believing that abortion should be deemed an unenumerated right. As I’ve written before, “The Court’s job is not to determine which rights we should possess but rather which rights we do possess.”

The idea that Roe was a revolutionary and destabilizing decision is not unique to the right. Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself once declared Roe “breathtaking” and warned that “Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped, experience teaches, may prove unstable.” She even wondered if Roe should have been more narrowly decided. Suppose the court decided to strike down only the Texas law at issue and not “displace virtually every state law then in force” Would the country face the same level of controversy? 

Moreover there was always something particularly morally noxious about Roe’s reasoning. The Supreme Court removed abortion questions almost entirely from the democratic process, created one of the most extreme abortion rights regimes in the world, and deprived an entire class of people—unborn children—of any meaningful legal status. It did all those things through the 14th Amendment, one of the Civil War amendments.

The Civil War amendments were intended to correct deep flaws in the original Constitution that permitted states to systematically deprive individuals of their most basic human rights. At long last the Supreme Court could and would begin the process of extending the blessings of liberty to every American.

Well, to everyone but the unborn. For those precious people, the court declared that one of the key Civil War amendments was the instrument of their doom. The ruling wasn’t just constitutionally unsound, it was morally perverse. It utterly contradicted not just the letter of the 14th Amendment, but its animating moral essence as well. 

Now Roe is gone. Good. We should rejoice at its demise. 

But that’s not the end of the story. Not by a long shot. The two sides of the great American divide are now staring at each other and asking, “Now what?” The answer from pro-life America should be clear and resounding—the commitment to life carries with it a commitment to love, to care for the most vulnerable members of society, both mother and child.

But life and love are countercultural on too many parts of the right. In a time of hate and death, too many members of pro-life America are contributing to both phenomena. Is that too much to say? Is that too strong? I don’t think so.

In deep-red America, a wave of performative and punitive legislation is sweeping the land. In the abortion context, bounty-hunting laws in Texas, Idaho, and Oklahoma turn citizens against each other, incentivizing lawsuits even by people who haven’t been harmed by abortion. The pro-life movement, once solidly against prosecuting women who obtain abortions, is now split by an “abolitionist” wing that would not only impose criminal penalties on mothers, it even calls into questions legal protections for the life of the mother when a pregnancy is physically perilous. 

The culture of political engagement centers around animosity. Church and family life is being transformed, congregation by congregation, household by household, by argument and division. The Dobbs ruling has landed in the midst of a sick culture, and the pro-life right is helping make it sick.

Writing in the New York Times, Ross Douthat rightly cautioned that “the vicissitudes of politics and its own compromises have linked the anti-abortion cause to various toxic forces on the right — some libertine and hyperindividualist, others simply hostile to synthesis, conciliation and majoritarian politics.”

That’s true, but it doesn’t go far enough. The vicissitudes of politics haven’t just linked the anti-abortion cause to various toxic forces on the right, they’ve transformed parts of the anti-abortion movement, making many of its members as toxic as their “libertine and hyperindividualist” allies. 

At this point I want to add a huge caveat. At the center of the grassroots pro-life movement are some of the finest people I’ve ever met in my life. Crisis pregnancy centers, for example, are staffed by people who have hearts full of love, and when the radical left firebombs those clinics, they’re firebombing the buildings and institutions that are giving an immense amount of hope to young women in distress. 

But sadly those institutions often operate on shoestring budgets. So many times they lack volunteers. 

In the meantime, the Republican branch of the American church is adopting the political culture of the secular right. With a few notable exceptions, it not only didn’t resist the hatred and fury of the MAGA movement, it was the MAGA movement. And this is the culture that’s going to lead the effort to heal our nation, love the marginalized, and ask young women to face an uncertain future and endure a physical ordeal for the sake of sacrificial love?

This brings me to a vital last point. It is a simple truth that when it comes to moral leadership, actions speak so much louder than words. That’s a truth that’s been instilled in me since my youth. Walk your talk. 

And yet. Consider the last two years. 

We are slowly but surely emerging from a deadly pandemic. It’s not that the disease has disappeared. Far from it. But the combination of mutations, vaccinations, and prior infections is making it far less deadly. Yet at every point in the pandemic, it was pro-life red America that loudly declared its bodily autonomy, disproportionately shunned even the slight inconvenience of a mask before the vaccine, and then disproportionately rejected the vaccine when it miraculously appeared mere months after the pandemic began.

Parts of pro-life red America moved from skepticism to outright defiance. “How dare you tell me what to do. This is my decision between me and my doctor.” They trafficked in pseudo-science and bizarre conspiracy theories. The cost was staggering. It was horrifying. Look at this chart, from the Brown School of Public Health:

When I bring this up, people get furious. The conventional wisdom on the right has hardened into adamantium. If you condemn the anti-vaxx movement, then you’re an elitist. You hate anti-vaxxers. How dare you question their decisions? Everyone knows the real cultural tragedy of the pandemic was the way the terrible blue states imposed extended lockdowns and kept schools closed too long.

To criticize the anti-vaxx movement isn’t to hate or look down on its members any more than criticizing the pro-choice movement means hating or looking down on its members. Strong disagreement isn’t hatred, even when you believe the contrary position contains grave moral flaws. 

I also can agree that blue state restrictions went too far, but I cannot get that staggering death toll out of my head. And that’s not a random 319,000 people, it’s 319,000 of our most vulnerable citizens. The elderly. The infirm. People with immune disorders. 

In the face of that wave of death, a wave of death created by a staggering amount of Christian fear, disinformation, and defiance—millions of the same people who created that culture now loudly demand that other people sacrifice for life. 

It’s time for another caveat. When we talk about national movements, we invariably talk about generalities. Huge movements are made up of millions of people, and many of those millions have gone above and beyond the call of duty. They’ve spent their lives sacrificing for others, in ways large and small. They resist the hatred of the times, and even though I might disagree with some of their votes, they put me to shame in their service for others. 

But the sad reality remains: When American culture burned with partisan hatred, all too many institutions of the American church fueled the fire. They fuel the fire to this day. There is a cost to this combat, and that cost is born in our ability to reach out to people outside our tribe and to have people believe us when we say that we care for them, that we want to see them flourish, and that we love their families—both red and blue. 

One more thing …

I’ve got two podcasts to promote today. The Dobbs decision came down on Friday morning, 50 minutes before we normally tape the Good Faith podcast. Curtis and I talked about the end of Roe and hosted the wonderful Rachel Ferguson to talk about her fascinating book, Black Liberation Through the Marketplace, a classical liberal response to racial injustice in America. 

Then, moments later, Sarah and I launched an emergency episode of Advisory Opinions. If you’re interested in the faith aspects of the decision, listen to Good Faith. If you want to know more about the law, listen to Advisory Opinions. Or, better yet, head over to the Dispatch homepage and listen to them both! 

 

 

 

[DevoHusker]

2 hours ago, nic said:

Interesting oped. Can we be civil enough to legislate solutions at this point or is it to late? 15 weeks with exceptions after that seems about right to me.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/opinions/court-decision-roe-was-very-bad-for-america-snead/index.html

 

“So for nearly 50 years, those on opposite sides of the issue haven’t really had to learn how to talk to one another in a serious way about how to find a path forward for the law and policy of abortion – we simply did what the Supreme Court told us insofar as we could tell what that was.”
 

“…

we must genuinely embrace the notion that both sides have something vital to defend. Concretely, those who call themselves “pro-life” must understand that those who describe themselves as “pro-choice” are desperate to defend women’s bodily autonomy and secure their equal position in the economic and social life of our nation. And conversely, the latter advocates must acknowledge that the former are committed to the intrinsic equal dignity of every human being, born and unborn. 

Once that’s out of the way, we can begin the hard work of trying to find common ground so that we can, together, care rightly for women, children (born and unborn) and families, both before and after they are born.”

I feel the same. Elective for 12 weeks or so, then go to  safe/rare for the exceptions involving rape, incest, health. 

Those exceptions were less than 3% in the last data I saw.

[TGHusker]

12 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

I feel the same. Elective for 12 weeks or so, then go to  safe/rare for the exceptions involving rape, incest, health. 

Those exceptions were less than 3% in the last data I saw.

The Mississippi law was 15 weeks but didn't have the rape, incest clause - which is unfortunate.  Perhaps they think those issues would be covered during the first 15 weeks. 

I would think rape and incest would be dealt with pretty quickly in most cases. 

[JJ Husker]

38 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

I feel the same. Elective for 12 weeks or so, then go to  safe/rare for the exceptions involving rape, incest, health. 

Those exceptions were less than 3% in the last data I saw.

That’s where I am at too. In fact I think a vast majority of people are comfortable with that 12 week cutoff. One would think rape and incest would usually be handled by that point but imo those and the mothers health should always be qualifying exceptions. If they want to lock it down and ban abortion after 12 weeks, I’m on board.

 

Heck I could even be talked into 10 weeks. Some of these 6-8 week deals….the person may not even realize they are pregnant yet.