Supreme Court to Temporarily Hold Abortion Pill Ban Until Friday

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Adoption is an option, except for the fact that there aren't enough people who want to adopt, and too many kids sit in places that are destroying them as human beings.

But yah.

 

[Stann]

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.

There's no baby or murder involved, you've been had by the anti-abortion crowd's propaganda.

 

[Stann]

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

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

That opinion would be true if we lived in a backward repressive society.

 

[Stann]

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.”

Let's hope women everywhere stand up for their right to choose

 

[ThisIsMe]

There are NO special exceptions for anyone in the Constitution.

Ok, so, i generally am someone who believes in the text of the constitution with emphasis on the intent of the writers.

So, cotus says you have the right to peaceably assemble to petition the government for redress of grievances.

So, if you show up at someone’s home and are standing outside shouting at their house for hours, intimidating them and their family, disturbing the neighbors, standing in the street blocking traffic, that is not peaceful.

Despite your freedom to assemble, other people have the right to be free from the effects of your assembly. Also, you have the right to petition the government, which means, you can show up at any government building and assemble there, peacefully, and not interrupt anyone else in their daily activities. But a judge at his house is not “government”, they are a family at home. At home, they are a private citizen and have rights to be free from your assembly, just as anyone else does.

 

[pknopp]

Ok, so, i generally am someone who believes in the text of the constitution with emphasis on the intent of the writers.

Right, except when your politics trump your principles.

So, cotus says you have the right to peaceably assemble to petition the government for redress of grievances.

So, if you show up at someone’s home and are standing outside shouting at their house for hours, intimidating them and their family, disturbing the neighbors, standing in the street blocking traffic, that is not peaceful.

That is protest. Long held acceptable actions of protest.

That is defining the vast majority of protests.

Despite your freedom to assemble, other people have the right to be free from the effects of your assembly. Also, you have the right to petition the government, which means, you can show up at any government building and assemble there, peacefully, and not interrupt anyone else in their daily activities. But a judge at his house is not “government”, they are a family at home. At home, they are a private citizen and have rights to be free from your assembly, just as anyone else does.

The Constitution does NOT state where you can protest.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Right, except when your politics trump your principles.




That is protest. Long held acceptable actions of protest.

That is defining the vast majority of protests.




The Constitution does NOT state where you can protest.

Right, except when your politics trump your principles

No, I’m actually pretty consistent when it comes to the cotus.

That is protest. Long held acceptable actions of protest.

That is defining the vast majority of protests.

Sure, it is a protest, but it’s also disturbing the peace, not peaceful, and also not appropriate. I’ll explain in my next response.

The Constitution does NOT state where you can protest.

Yes and no. It says you have the right to petition the government, that means your petition needs to be directed at the government. Other people have a right to be free from your protest, so that means if you are in any place that is disturbing others, you are now infringing on their rights. This means you cannot protest in a residential neighborhood, you can’t block streets, and you can’t do anything that is going to cause unrest to the general population. What this means is, you pretty much can assemble in an appropriate space, likely in front of or near a government building…in any other place, you will be infringing on other people’s rights.

Cotus also says you must be peaceful, this means shouting, intimidation, and disturbing others is not peaceful, and therefore not appropriate.

So, because other have the right to be free from your protest, it kinda does limit where you can assemble.

I know you want to think you have the right to crowd into a residential area and scream and yell and cause problems for other people…but that’s not the case.

And a judge at home is not “the government. “

 

[pknopp]

Sure, it is a protest, but it’s also disturbing the peace, not peaceful, and also not appropriate. I’ll explain in my next response.

It's NOT your call what is appropriate. Protest is designed to disturb people.

Yes and no. It says you have the right to petition the government, that means your petition needs to be directed at the government.

That's what people kneeling were doing. They were called SOB's.

Other people have a right to be free from your protest, so that means if you are in any place that is disturbing others, you are now infringing on their rights.

I'm done here. You can make up whatever you want.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

That opinion would be true if we lived in a backward repressive society.

Opinions by definition can’t be true, but adhering to that opinion and thus banning weapons that have zero utility whatsoever in self-defense and not lying and calling them “medications” makes for a better and more just civilization, which is progress.

 

[pknopp]

Opinions by definition can’t be true, but adhering to that opinion and thus banning weapons that have zero utility whatsoever in self-defense and not lying and calling them “medications” makes for a better and more just civilization, which is progress.

Opinions are many times true. At the time of them being an opinion they are not proven.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

They will not ban it ,but not for that reason.

The ruling by the Texas judge was fucking stupid.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Just abolish the corrupt as fuck useless FDA already. And / or allow states to pass their own laws banning this bullshit, as the Constitution doesn’t give the feds authority over such things anyway.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It's NOT your call what is appropriate. Protest is designed to disturb people.





That's what people kneeling were doing. They were called SOB's.




I'm done here. You can make up whatever you want.

It's NOT your call what is appropriate

It is if your protest is disturbing me, or someone else. Again, you have the right to petition the government, leave everyone else out of it.

Protest is designed to disturb people.

No, it’s not. Do you really think the purpose of a protest is to make other people uncomfortable? Remember, some people don’t want to be a part of your protest, and don’t want to hear your protest. It’s not your right to force them to listen to you

Again, you don’t have the right to disturb people, you have the right to petition the government.

That's what people kneeling were doing. They were called SOB's.

Who was kneeling? What protest are you referencing?

I'm done here. You can make up whatever you want.

I’m not making anything up. You seem to be under the impression that you have the right to force your protest on the public…that is not correct. You have the right to petition your government, that’s it. Once your “petition” becomes a problem for other people, you are now violating the law, and their personal rights.

 

[pknopp]

It is if your protest is disturbing me, or someone else. Again, you have the right to petition the government, leave everyone else out of it.



No, it’s not. Do you really think the purpose of a protest is to make other people uncomfortable? Remember, some people don’t want to be a part of your protest, and don’t want to hear your protest. It’s not your right to force them to listen to you

Again, you don’t have the right to disturb people, you have the right to petition the government.





Who was kneeling? What protest are you referencing?



I’m not making anything up. You seem to be under the impression that you have the right to force your protest on the public…that is not correct. You have the right to petition your government, that’s it. Once your “petition” becomes a problem for other people, you are now violating the law, and their personal rights.

You are wrong. You have the absolute right to protes even if that makes people uncomfortable.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You are wrong. You have the absolute right to protes even if that makes people uncomfortable.

Nope, that is wrong. Show me where it says you have that right.

Cotus says you have the right to petition the government, it doesn’t say you have the right to impose yourself on other people.

Why do you feel you have the right to make other people uncomfortable?

 

[pknopp]

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.

Supreme Court says abortion pill mifepristone will remain broadly available during legal battle

Court rules the drug is still available.

 

[skews13]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Friday evening that the abortion pill mifepristone would remain widely available for now, delaying the potential for an abrupt end to a drug that is used in more than half of abortions in the United States.

The order halted two rulings that had sought to curb the availability of the mifepristone as an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit moves forward: one from a federal judge in Texas who suspended the drug from the market entirely and another from the appeals court that had imposed significant barriers on the pill, including blocking access by mail.

The one-paragraph order, which was unsigned, is the second time in a year that the Supreme Court has considered a major effort to sharply curtail access to abortion. In overturning Roe v. Wade in June, a conservative majority said that it was leaving the issue of abortion to elected officials.

• Two justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., dissented publicly. Justice Thomas gave no reasons. Justice Alito wrote that he was aware that the court had been criticized for issuing orders through the emergency applications docket, what critics call the “shadow docket.”
• Reaction from abortion-rights groups was swift. “The Supreme Court’s decision is a huge relief, but we’re not out of the woods yet,” said Nancy Northup, head of the Center for Reproductive Rights, adding that the Texas ruling blocking access to mifepristone had “sowed chaos, confusion and panic.”
• The order was in one sense no surprise, as members of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority have generally supported the F.D.A.’s authority to make decisions about drug safety.

Abortion Ruling: Supreme Court Ensures, for Now, Broad Access to Abortion Pill

The order halts a sweeping ruling by a federal judge in Texas as an appeal moves forward in a case that could have profound implications for abortion access and the F.D.A.’s regulatory authority.

www.nytimes.com

Alito and Thomas dissent. Alito talks out of both sides of his face, and the fact Thomas took the time away from his vacation bribes from his right wing billionaire handler, was curious.

 

[basquebromance]

/thread

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

It’s not over by a long shot.

The “abortion is baby killing” MAGA fanatics will not stop until they have ended “satanic” liberal “Demonrat” rule and women’s right to choose … nationally.

The non-religious Trump cultists — who mostly really don’t give a shit about abortion — cannot win without evangelical support. Together they will destroy their movement and the Republican Party rather than give up their MAGA obsessions.

Only a big Democratic Party victory in 2024 can protect abortion rights and teach these misogynistic bumpkins a lesson.

Democratic control of Congress and the White House would still leave our unrepresentative deeply conservative USSC free to make trouble. And the Dems themselves are pathetic in too many ways to go into here. But the nation and the Republican Party will never heal if MAGA demagogery, evangelical “morality” and hypocrisy and Trump’s “Big Lies” are not decisively defeated.

 

[Couchpotato]

Adoption is an option, except for the fact that there aren't enough people who want to adopt, and too many kids sit in places that are destroying them as human beings.

But yah.

Theres no shortage of people looking to adopt newborns. There is in fact an over abundance. There might be a shortage of people willing to adopt older children and taking on all the baggage that typically goes with that, but there are more people who want to adopt babies than there are babies to adopt.