Supreme Court to Temporarily Hold Abortion Pill Ban Until Friday

[Road Runner]

However what they aren't telling you is birth control won't even have a ban, adoption is the option, and nobody is even forcing a woman to get pregnant in the first place.


Except for rape cases, if she kept her legs closed then she wouldn't have to worry about unwanted pregnancies in the first place.


I still can't believe that people have willing and unprotected sex and then seemed startled by the results. Just because you screwed up doesn't give you the right to murder an innocent baby.

 

[Moonglow]

it's really none of yer business.

 

[Captain Caveman]

However what they aren't telling you is birth control won't even have a ban, adoption is the option, and nobody is even forcing a woman to get pregnant in the first place.


Except for rape cases, if she kept her legs closed then she wouldn't have to worry about unwanted pregnancies in the first place.


I still can't believe that people have willing and unprotected sex and then seemed startled by the results. Just because you screwed up doesn't give you the right to murder an innocent baby.

Why can't people have the brains to make their choice before conceiving? I say people because apparently men can get pregnant these days.

Obviously basic sex education was too complicated for those seeking abortions. Is there a way of dumbing it down further??

 

[rightwinger]

The Supreme Court is getting ready to drop another turd.

They prefer to do it on a Friday so they can sneak out of town

 

[pknopp]

The Supreme Court is getting ready to drop another turd.

They prefer to do it on a Friday so they can sneak out of town

I don't think they are going to rule on banning the drug. People have shown no reluctance to go to their homes directly to protest.

 

[jwoodie]

A two day extension? Big Deal.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Mifepristone is a weapon that can only murder, never defend.

Possession, manufacture, and use should all warrant severe criminal penalty. Period.

 

[multivita-man]

I would be surprised if they uphold the lower court ruling, but it's not because they don't sympathize with it. If they do as I think and strike down that ruling, it's only because they would throw the regulatory system into chaos.

That said, among the 6 conservatives, at least 3 of them are pretty hardcore ideologues, and Gorsuch is a pretty strong opponent of what conservatives would call the administrative state. I could certainly see Alito, Thomas, and Coney Barrett standing with the lower ruling. Gorsuch is a strong possibility. I'm guessing Kavanaugh and Roberts might side with the libs, but with carefully crafted opinions that leave the door open for future cases.

That's what the conservatives have been doing for years: inserting the Trojan Horse language into cases.

 

[pknopp]

I would be surprised if they uphold the lower court ruling, but it's not because they don't sympathize with it. If they do as I think and strike down that ruling, it's only because they would throw the regulatory system into chaos.

I agree. I believe there is no way the left leaning justices rule against the drug and I believe there will be at least 2 other justices believing it is not their place to over rule the FDA.

I am stating NO personal belief, only stating what I believe will happen.

That said, among the 6 conservatives, at least 3 of them are pretty hardcore ideologues, and Gorsuch is a pretty strong opponent of what conservatives would call the administrative state. I could certainly see Alito, Thomas, and Coney Barrett standing with the lower ruling. Gorsuch is a strong possibility. I'm guessing Kavanaugh and Roberts might side with the libs, but with carefully crafted opinions that leave the door open for future cases.

That's what the conservatives have been doing for years: inserting the Trojan Horse language into cases.

I see it as having no backbone. Roberts is really good (bad) at creating rulings that only create more and more lawsuits in the future. Just rule already and be done with it.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

If MAGA Republicans ever win control of both Houses of Congress and the Presidency they will pass a law outlawing all “abortion medication” — now used in more than half the abortions in the U.S. and increasing, as state restrictions and bans increase.

Abortion pills are, of course, only used in early first term abortions. They are usually but not always used in consultation with doctors and following their counsel. “Red State” laws aimed at women’s right to end an unwanted pregnancy are also aimed at preventing the use of the mails or other measures to transport this extremely valuable “abortion medicine” — which happens also to be used after unintentional miscarriages.

Assuming our unrepresentative “Supremes” don’t agree with the ridiculous Texas Federal Judge’s overreach, the present USSC would certainly rule in favor of a Congressional Law to this effect if it were passed. There is plenty of room for it to pass “constitutional muster” under the “Commerce Clause.” Also, let’s face it — it would be warmly welcomed by a majority of this reactionary court, filled with Republicans, religious and Conservative ideologues, and lawyer and political types with little or no life experience outside of courtrooms.

Of course the vote of the nation in 2024 and beyond may slow this move toward national abortion restrictions. A ruling or national law against the “abortion pill” would quite likely be the first big step toward passing an outright national ban on early stage abortion. If MAGA should somehow win big in 2024, the influence of the evangelical right and rabid anti-democratic “Moral Majority” hypocrites would prove irresistible, as the only thing that holds them in check now is the fear of losing votes. In such a case, Republicans will move rapidly from a supposed “states rights” position toward pushing for a NATIONAL ban on “baby killing.”

 

[Augustine_]

However what they aren't telling you is birth control won't even have a ban, adoption is the option, and nobody is even forcing a woman to get pregnant in the first place.


Except for rape cases, if she kept her legs closed then she wouldn't have to worry about unwanted pregnancies in the first place.


I still can't believe that people have willing and unprotected sex and then seemed startled by the results. Just because you screwed up doesn't give you the right to murder an innocent baby.

Republicans trying to model their party after Iran's Ayatollah led government. Keep making the choice clear to average Americans, you fundie incels.

 

[Zincwarrior]

it's really none of yer business.

We may hit the point where the Executive tells SCOTUS to try to enforce it.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Mifepristone is a weapon that can only murder, never defend.

Possession, manufacture, and use should all warrant severe criminal penalty. Period.

The rule will impact ALL FDA adjudications.

 

[Road Runner]

We may hit the point where the Executive tells SCOTUS to try to enforce it.

Good as the only ones who are for abortion have already been born. The unborn doesn't get an option to live and the people who support that idea are fucking disgusting vile creatures.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Good as the only ones who are for abortion have already been born. The unborn doesn't get an option to live and the people who support that idea are fucking disgusting vile creatures.

As i said, abortion is a minor issue.

 

[Road Runner]

As i said, abortion is a minor issue.

With the current way our country is being run I agree with you for once, compared to it anyways as it's still a pretty big issue when you're a baby murder or you're a supporter of it.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I don't think they are going to rule on banning the drug. People have shown no reluctance to go to their homes directly to protest.

And that’s a problem. Allowing people to protest in front of a judges house is illegal and should have been shut down. Now, as you say, a justices decision could be influenced by the possibility of a crowd showing up at their house…which is probably why they wrote the law making that illegal.

 

[pknopp]

And that’s a problem. Allowing people to protest in front of a judges house is illegal and should have been shut down. Now, as you say, a justices decision could be influenced by the possibility of a crowd showing up at their house…which is probably why they wrote the law making that illegal.

Covered many times. Not illegal.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Covered many times. Not illegal.

18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[pknopp]

18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading

www.law.cornell.edu

There are NO special exceptions for anyone in the Constitution.