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

Do you agree wt the draft majority opinion

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 20.0%

  • No

    Votes: 28 80.0%

  • Not sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    35
i wonder how many times trump said this?

FWRAgsAWAAMH9pp


 
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.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with you. It would have been nice to get this decision originally and we would have been done working toward this compromise 40 years ago. We would be perfectly inline with Europe. Buckle up for another 10 years. I will commit to working toward it as best I can including voting.

 
JJ Husker said:
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.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with you all. If a fathers daughter gets raped and hides it for two months out of shame or something, and it took her a month to realize it. Every father would be onboard.

 
nic said:
Totally agree with you. It would have been nice to get this decision originally and we would have been done working toward this compromise 40 years ago. We would be perfectly inline with Europe. Buckle up for another 10 years. I will commit to working toward it as best I can including voting.
Click to expand...
Pretty much everything I listed could have been done over the last 50 years with the original decision. 

 
nic said:
If a fathers daughter gets raped and hides it for two months out of shame or something, and it took her a month to realize it. Every father would be onboard.
Click to expand...




In that situation the daughter would be a minimum of 12-13 weeks pregnant.

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

Thats curious logic.
Click to expand...
Close.

The right to keep and bear arms is written in the Constitution.  No legal wizardry is required to know it is there.  Therefore the it is a Constitutional right that states cannot regulate out of existence. 

The right to an abortion is not there, it was inferred by ideology.  Therefore the 10th amendment reserves abortion for the states.  The Court simply corrected a ruling from 50 years ago that contradicted the clear meaning of Constitution.

commando said:
Click to expand...
It's a good thing Joseph and Mary were not pro-choice.

 
Notre Dame Joe said:
The right to keep and bear arms is written in the Constitution.
Click to expand...


For no other purpose than the country has a "well-regulated militia."

Because there was no standing army when the Constitution was written, so every available live body had to have a gun and be able to defend the newly-founded nation against foreign invasion.

Some jackwad with an AR is not "well-regulated." In fact, as the right-wingers progress along this fascist path, they're making sure there are fewer and fewer regulations involved in possessing a gun. It is the actual factual opposite of the language in the 2nd Amendment.

People forget the "well-regulated" part because of their authoritarian fetish.

People also forget that the Amendments were written in such a different time that we had to literally bake into the Constitution the fact that citizens could not be forced to house the army in their homes. But that's not an issue anymore because we own this swath of the continent 'from sea to shining sea.' So it's unimaginable to most folks that we should have to have constitutional protection from press-ganged housing.

The 3rd Amendment is no less important than the 2nd Amendment. But it is no less anachronistic to today's world than the 2nd Amendment.

It's probably, after 220-something years, time to update the Constitution to reflect today's real world.

 
Notre Dame Joe said:
Close.

The right to keep and bear arms is written in the Constitution.  No legal wizardry is required to know it is there.  Therefore the it is a Constitutional right that states cannot regulate out of existence. 

The right to an abortion is not there, it was inferred by ideology.  Therefore the 10th amendment reserves abortion for the states.  The Court simply corrected a ruling from 50 years ago that contradicted the clear meaning of Constitution.

It's a good thing Joseph and Mary were not pro-choice.
Click to expand...
The job of SCOTUS is to interpret the law and apply it through the lens of the Constitution.  Their rulings become precedent and frame future rulings.  Friday would be called more of a mistake since they not only threw our Roe v Wade but also every case of state laws that have been ruled unconstitutional.

And also, states have plenty of laws regarding guns.  Hell, even cities have separate laws…

 
Last edited by a moderator:
funhusker said:
The job of SCOTUS is to interpret the law and apply it through the lens of the Constitution.  Their rulings become precedent and frame future rulings.  Friday would be called more of a mistake since they not only threw our Roe v Wade but also every case of state laws that have been ruled unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
I'd like to hear what is different about the NY concealed carry law on Thursday that forced them to can it and why they are able to rule differently with Roe vs Wade in regards to states rights.

 
knapplc said:
It's probably, after 220-something years, time to update the Constitution to reflect today's real world.
Click to expand...


I would definitely like to see an effort made on this. But, with today's hyper-partisanship I don't think any middle ground/common sense updates would be achieved.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top