Roe overturned

[braalian]

Nobody’s seriously talking about outlawing contraception, come on.

 

[Unkotare]

I wish I had your optimism.

You see how many errors and lies the OP of this thread offers, and beleives [sic] to be true?

There are far too many like this.

The extreme far left will ALWAYS vote for any name with a D after it. Anyone an inch further from the farthest left ledge sees what is going on now with the democrat party. We only need to nominate a candidate with any degree of cross-ideological appeal to sweep the board.

 

[bendog]

No. Absolutely not.

From Thomas' concurrence:

"The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue."

Dobbs v. Women's Health, pp. 118-119

MSN

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

From your link:

If a man was not married to the mother of the child, he has no obligation to pay support for the child, and has no legal right to custody or visitation with the child, unless he is legally named the father of the child, through an order of filiation or an acknowledgment of paternity.

I think the flaw there is that this is holding out the option for men should they want to have visitation of their offspring as the "carrot" to the stick of paying child support.

But that's looking at it like the men care at all. Some do. Some don't. What has to happen is that the minute a man's DNA shows up in another person's DNA they are on the hook for paternity payments no matter what. Period. End of Sentence.

ONLY WHEN MEN are taken to task for unwanted pregnancies will we have a rational family planning policy in the US.

 

[Mac1958]

If they don’t.

Dems have themselves to blame

Yep, bingo.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Nobody’s seriously talking about outlawing contraception, come on.

Right now it's mostly going to be aimed at religious exemptions for coverage on healthcare plans, but there are some who believe that it could go further.

 

[TemplarKormac]

MSN

SCOTUS not congress, not states. Which speaks to your misreading his opinion.

They cannot reconsider anything unless states though well-meaning or not, pass laws that put these rights at issue. He did not speak to how states or congress should behave.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Nobody’s seriously talking about outlawing contraception, come on.

5 years ago I would have said the same thing about overturning RvW.

 

[braalian]

I think the flaw there is that this is holding out the option for men should they want to have visitation of their offspring as the "carrot" to the stick of paying child support.

But that's looking at it like the men care at all. Some do. Some don't. What has to happen is that the minute a man's DNA shows up in another person's DNA they are on the hook for paternity payments no matter what. Period. End of Sentence.

ONLY WHEN MEN are taken to task for unwanted pregnancies will we have a rational family planning policy in the US.

How are they *not* taken to task for unwanted pregnancies? What more do you want?

 

[marvin martian]

How stupid are you?

Unaffected BY pregnancy. We all know men contribute to (but bear little responsibility FOR) pregnancy

Speak for yourself, homophobe. I took full responsibility for both pregnancies I created, and raised both children to adulthood.

 

[Delldude]

It "looks" like i am exactly right

It isn't what they said, was it?

So, by your views, overturning Jim Crow was wrong also?

 

[braalian]

I can’t imagine who would even *want* to outlaw birth control? Why? What would that even entail? Outlawing the pill and condoms?

 

[Delldude]

Disney already said today that would pay for any of their employees to go to another state to get an abortion.

How fucking ridiculous is that? A company that was created to entertain children is now going to help women kill their children.

Interstates will soon have signs, 'Legal abortions exit 10'.

 

[Missourian]

1000 posts in this thread...wow.

 

[BlackSand]

Does that mean that USMB will be auctioning off IM2 ?

.

Will we be required to pay a Freedom Bond and Slave Dues if we just want to set him free after purchase in the auction?

.​

 

[TemplarKormac]

1000 posts in this thread...wow.

A 50-year precedent was overturned, correctly I might add. We are talking history here. We are living the history as we speak. No wonder.

 

[rightwinger]

Which one concerns intentionally killing another human being?


.

Nice try

SCOTUS didn’t rule that…did they?

 

[bendog]

.

Article 14 is the embodiment of equal protection under law and is based in efforts to combat discrimination on the basis of gender and religion.
It was used for legal precedence and not constitutional concerns ... I didn't say the 14th Amendment.

They went as far as trying to nail down every angle one could approach an argument from.
It was important because they were making a distinction between a Defined Right, and a Liberty in a Nation of Ordered Liberty.

.​

Don't cut and paste to respond to me.

I was referring to various posters here who contend if it ain't literally spelled out in the BoR, it dont exist. An attempt at levity.

But more problematically, the opinion leaves open as to just what right of liberty remains. Altio suggests that something has to be tied to the fabric of society so that without it, we couldn't function. Perhaps that's age and gender dicrimination, but he also says women dont get more than rational relationship scrutiny in finding discrimination. That's frankly frightening. And Clarence is urging review of contraception.

 

[Kosh]

No rights have been lost!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I can’t imagine who would even *want* to outlaw birth control? Why? What would that even entail? Outlawing the pill and condoms?

It was not all that long ago it was outlawed in some states. It was not till the last 60s SCOTUS ruled it was unconstitutional to do so.