Roe Vs Wade appears to be ripe for overturning

[JGalt]

Roe vs. Wade was decided by "unelected activist judges" in the first place. It deserves to be given a second look.

How about Citizens United and the recent decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual right possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia? Be careful we may be opening Pandora's Box and these things have a way of coming back to bite you. Just ask Harry Reid about his 'nuclear option'.

The Heller ruling? Last I heard, Harry Reid wasn't a Supreme Court Justice. You'll need to wait until the SC balance of power shifts left again, maybe in 30 years or so.

 

[JLW]

You do realize that nearly all modern privacy law stems from Roe v. Wade. Overturn Roe and you may very well find many of privacy protections taken away. But Conservatives were never big believers in privacy anyway. As long as they received there tax cuts, everything else is fair game.

Actually, there is a whole line of cases that predated Roe v. Wade.
The Right to Privacy - CT Judicial Branch Law Library Services

Yes..I referenced one of those cases in another post. It was Roe, I believe, that made the right to privacy a fundamental right. That was the major difference.

 

[Lysistrata]

Erroneous precedents in previous Supreme Court rulings are in no way sacred or set in stone. They are subject to the U.S. Constitution as it was written, originally understood, and intended. If former Supreme Court rulings are unconstitutional, then precedent must be overturned.

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred: Justices call for abandonment of 'mistaken' decisions

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

Even the author of the majority opinion in Roe, Harry Blackmun, admitted the ruling was on shaky ground. He warned that if the "personhood" of the unborn were to be established, their right to life would then be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment..."

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred - WND

This is how you make freedom dissolve into tyranny. Soon the U.S. will allow religious cults to shove their "religion" straight up the genitals of Americans who are not members of these cults and have no interest in being so. No more freedom to choose your own religion. The politicians' choice will be forced upon you. Nazism seems to be rearing its ugly head again.

This doesn't have jack shit to do with religion.

You tardz need a new playbook.

Don't lie. This has every to do with religion and Americans' right to choose it freely. There are lots of Americans who have not chosen your religion and that of certain politicians, including most of the ones who have had an abortion. If you want to tell people in your chosen sect not to have an abortion, you may do so. But it ends there. You are trying to force your sect on everybody else. some of you even got laws passed that force people seeking abortions to go to one of your indoctrination centers.

 

[Lysistrata]

You do realize that nearly all modern privacy law stems from Roe v. Wade. Overturn Roe and you may very well find many of privacy protections taken away. But Conservatives were never big believers in privacy anyway. As long as they received there tax cuts, everything else is fair game.

Actually, there is a whole line of cases that predated Roe v. Wade.
The Right to Privacy - CT Judicial Branch Law Library Services

Yes..I referenced one of those cases in another post. It was Roe, I believe, that made the right to privacy a fundamental right. That was the major difference.

Thank you for pointing that out. I was stuck on everything that happened since Griswald in the area of privacy.
I'll never understand why so many people would oppose having a right to privacy that protects them from government overreach.

 

[Indeependent]

Erroneous precedents in previous Supreme Court rulings are in no way sacred or set in stone. They are subject to the U.S. Constitution as it was written, originally understood, and intended. If former Supreme Court rulings are unconstitutional, then precedent must be overturned.

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred: Justices call for abandonment of 'mistaken' decisions

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

Even the author of the majority opinion in Roe, Harry Blackmun, admitted the ruling was on shaky ground. He warned that if the "personhood" of the unborn were to be established, their right to life would then be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment..."

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred - WND

Row...
As a Jew, this topic is not black and white.
You want an abortion?
Pay for it.
There are lots of wealthy Liberals who will pay for it; or so they say.

 

[JLW]

You do realize that nearly all modern privacy law stems from Roe v. Wade. Overturn Roe and you may very well find many of privacy protections taken away. But Conservatives were never big believers in privacy anyway. As long as they received there tax cuts, everything else is fair game.

How does all modern privacy law stem from Roe v. Wade? The fourteenth Amendment already provides for that.

It was Roe, building on Griswald, that found a right to privacy under a Penumbra of rights under the constitution. Taking into consideration all the amendments of the constitution, the Court found that a right to privacy was a "fundamental right". A "fundamental right" is one where any law that impinges on such a right requires strict scrutiny of judicial review. There is no right to privacy enshrined in the constitution, it may be inferred, such as from the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments, for example, but there is nothing explicit in the constitution.

So the so called right to privacy is inferred.

I agree.

However, it is insane to conclude that a woman's right to her privacy trumps her child's right to their life.

I am a firm supporter of women's rights. I just believe a woman's rights should begin when her life does and not just when we as a society can not stomach or justify the denial of her rights as a child anymore.

I really don't have any qualms about strict abortion laws. I think outlawing abortions all together just drives it underground. We would just go back to the days of coathangers for the poor and safe abortions for the rich who can send their kids or mistresses overseas or to another state. Having said that though I believe abortions should not be used as a form of birth control. As I said strict abortion laws are fine with me.

 

[JGalt]

You do realize that nearly all modern privacy law stems from Roe v. Wade. Overturn Roe and you may very well find many of privacy protections taken away. But Conservatives were never big believers in privacy anyway. As long as they received there tax cuts, everything else is fair game.

Actually, there is a whole line of cases that predated Roe v. Wade.
The Right to Privacy - CT Judicial Branch Law Library Services

Yes..I referenced one of those cases in another post. It was Roe, I believe, that made the right to privacy a fundamental right. That was the major difference.

Thank you for pointing that out. I was stuck on everything that happened since Griswald in the area of privacy.
I'll never understand why so many people would oppose having a right to privacy that protects them from government overreach.

So you don't consider taxpayer-funding going to organizations such a Planned Parenthood "government overreach"?

When government money is reaching into a woman's womb and snuffing out the life of an unborn child who has a heartbeat, that is the ultimate in "government overreach."

 

[Lysistrata]

Erroneous precedents in previous Supreme Court rulings are in no way sacred or set in stone. They are subject to the U.S. Constitution as it was written, originally understood, and intended. If former Supreme Court rulings are unconstitutional, then precedent must be overturned.

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred: Justices call for abandonment of 'mistaken' decisions

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

Even the author of the majority opinion in Roe, Harry Blackmun, admitted the ruling was on shaky ground. He warned that if the "personhood" of the unborn were to be established, their right to life would then be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment..."

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred - WND

Row...
As a Jew, this topic is not black and white.
You want an abortion?
Pay for it.
There are lots of wealthy Liberals who will pay for it; or so they say.

Who says that people don't pay for their abortions? Ever heard of the Hyde Amendment? BTW: why should we give money the the "religious" nutjobs? Can't they pay for what they want themselves? This devoss at the education department has her hand in the till to fund her indoctrination centers. The taxpayers gave millions to a bitch at HHS who made her mint hawking "abstinence education." What is to be done about this?

 

[Flash]

The right of a child to live supersedes the right of a mother to kill a child for the sake of simple convenience.

R v W needs to be corrected by the courts so that children are not slaughtered.

 

[JLW]

You do realize that nearly all modern privacy law stems from Roe v. Wade. Overturn Roe and you may very well find many of privacy protections taken away. But Conservatives were never big believers in privacy anyway. As long as they received there tax cuts, everything else is fair game.

Actually, there is a whole line of cases that predated Roe v. Wade.
The Right to Privacy - CT Judicial Branch Law Library Services

Yes..I referenced one of those cases in another post. It was Roe, I believe, that made the right to privacy a fundamental right. That was the major difference.

Thank you for pointing that out. I was stuck on everything that happened since Griswald in the area of privacy.
I'll never understand why so many people would oppose having a right to privacy that protects them from government overreach.

This is one of those situations where you better be careful what you wish for. Overturn Roe, chances are the Roberts court, or any conservative court for that matter, will not find a fundamental right to privacy under the Constitution again.

 

[Lysistrata]

You do realize that nearly all modern privacy law stems from Roe v. Wade. Overturn Roe and you may very well find many of privacy protections taken away. But Conservatives were never big believers in privacy anyway. As long as they received there tax cuts, everything else is fair game.

Actually, there is a whole line of cases that predated Roe v. Wade.
The Right to Privacy - CT Judicial Branch Law Library Services

Yes..I referenced one of those cases in another post. It was Roe, I believe, that made the right to privacy a fundamental right. That was the major difference.

Thank you for pointing that out. I was stuck on everything that happened since Griswald in the area of privacy.
I'll never understand why so many people would oppose having a right to privacy that protects them from government overreach.

So you don't consider taxpayer-funding going to organizations such a Planned Parenthood "government overreach"?

When government money is reaching into a woman's womb and snuffing out the life of an unborn child who has a heartbeat, that is the ultimate in "government overreach."

Since PP helps both women who want to take a pregnancy to term and those who do not want to do so, as well as people who want to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy and those who might have an STD or cancer, its funding canot be considered to be "government overreach" because they are not view-point specific and follow the wishes of the patient. The rest of your comment is the usual exaggerated drama.

 

[Flash]

More of the "grab her by the pussy" crap again?

No.

This is not about Biden or the criminal investigation against him.

You would think that Biden would be against abortion. That cuts down on the number of children he has available to sniff and fondle.

 

[OnePercenter]

More of the "grab her by the pussy" crap again?

No.

This is not about Biden or the criminal investigation against him.

You post lie after lie. Abortion is between a woman, her Doctor, and her God. Any RATIONAL PERSON knows that.

 

[Indeependent]

Erroneous precedents in previous Supreme Court rulings are in no way sacred or set in stone. They are subject to the U.S. Constitution as it was written, originally understood, and intended. If former Supreme Court rulings are unconstitutional, then precedent must be overturned.

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred: Justices call for abandonment of 'mistaken' decisions

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

Even the author of the majority opinion in Roe, Harry Blackmun, admitted the ruling was on shaky ground. He warned that if the "personhood" of the unborn were to be established, their right to life would then be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment..."

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred - WND

Row...
As a Jew, this topic is not black and white.
You want an abortion?
Pay for it.
There are lots of wealthy Liberals who will pay for it; or so they say.

Who says that people don't pay for their abortions? Ever heard of the Hyde Amendment? BTW: why should we give money the the "religious" nutjobs? Can't they pay for what they want themselves? This devoss at the education department has her hand in the till to fund her indoctrination centers. The taxpayers gave millions to a bitch at HHS who made her mint hawking "abstinence education." What is to be done about this?

I don’t want religion to be involved with this issue.
Please tell CBS, NBC and all the other media outlets to stop giving the impression that 99% of abortions are paid by the taxpayer.
I don’t know anyone who has had one so I admit I can only comment on what the crazies on both sides of the aisle are telling me.

 

[Lysistrata]

Erroneous precedents in previous Supreme Court rulings are in no way sacred or set in stone. They are subject to the U.S. Constitution as it was written, originally understood, and intended. If former Supreme Court rulings are unconstitutional, then precedent must be overturned.

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred: Justices call for abandonment of 'mistaken' decisions

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

Even the author of the majority opinion in Roe, Harry Blackmun, admitted the ruling was on shaky ground. He warned that if the "personhood" of the unborn were to be established, their right to life would then be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment..."

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred - WND

Row...
As a Jew, this topic is not black and white.
You want an abortion?
Pay for it.
There are lots of wealthy Liberals who will pay for it; or so they say.

Who says that people don't pay for their abortions? Ever heard of the Hyde Amendment? BTW: why should we give money the the "religious" nutjobs? Can't they pay for what they want themselves? This devoss at the education department has her hand in the till to fund her indoctrination centers. The taxpayers gave millions to a bitch at HHS who made her mint hawking "abstinence education." What is to be done about this?

I don’t want religion to be involved with this issue.
Please tell CBS, NBC and all the other media outlets to stop giving the impression that 99% of abortions are paid by the taxpayer.
I don’t know anyone who has had one so I admit I can only comment on what the crazies on both sides of the aisle are telling me.

Unfortunately, I think, as you probably know, that religion is already inextricably tied up in this. I live where I can be in the heart of DC in a brief metro ride, when the trains are running. I've seen these anti-choice demonstrations. They are religious events, and then the present government goes and does exactly what these demonstrators want, to the exclusion of considering anyone else's views and maintaining the separation of religion and state. Government at every level should maintain religious neutrality to be fair to everybody and respect everyone's constitutional rights.

 

[evenflow1969]

Erroneous precedents in previous Supreme Court rulings are in no way sacred or set in stone. They are subject to the U.S. Constitution as it was written, originally understood, and intended. If former Supreme Court rulings are unconstitutional, then precedent must be overturned.

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred: Justices call for abandonment of 'mistaken' decisions

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

Even the author of the majority opinion in Roe, Harry Blackmun, admitted the ruling was on shaky ground. He warned that if the "personhood" of the unborn were to be established, their right to life would then be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment..."

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred - WND

Sorry J wish you were right but it will not be overturned.If ya have not figured out the game yet, that is an issue they use to divide the masses and keep us under control. Bad news right? The good news is same thing on gun control. Our guns are safer than people trhink.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Religious Reich Wearing Clown Shoes Cannot Understand Logic "

* Roe V Wade Is 100% Constitutionally Consistent *

Geez , i just got finish cleaning the clocks of the anti-choice buffoons and here we go again .

My disgusts for the left on this issue is due to their pathetic stupidity for not listening to my admonition and for not raising the following content during the kava naught hearing , rather than proffering their own insufficient lexicon and public narrative .

Backmun wrote the majority opinion for Roe V. Wade , explain the meaning of his statement , "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." .

 

[Chuz Life]

You are full of shit

More of the "grab her by the pussy" crap again?

No.

This is not about Biden or the criminal investigation against him.

You post lie after lie. Abortion is between a woman, her Doctor, and her God. Any RATIONAL PERSON knows that.

You poop your pants ( a lot )and you have a really low credit score AND you have a history of animal abuse. This is mistakenly obvious in your posts. Any rational person would have no reason to conclude otherwise.

See?

I can make unsubstantiated baseless allegations too.

 

[Chuz Life]

"Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." .

Easy Fucktard.

"Backmun"(sic - his name was Blackmun) was WRONG and he was being completely illogical, himself. His actions and his opinions were completely contrary to the fucking Constitution.

The Constitution clearly establishes that "All Persons" have a right to their life and "All Persons" have a right to the "Equal Protections of our Laws."

It is therefore COMPLETELY LOGICAL that the State (Government) MUST establish the point at which a "person's" life begins, regardless of when or what that point may be. Before, during or after "live birth."

FUCKING LOGICALLY

How else can the "State" even fucking KNOW what its interests ARE, with regards to the "EQUAL PROTECTIONS" of "All the PERSONS" within it's fucking Jurisdiction?

You obviously THINK you are smarter / more logical than you really fucking are. . . and I am only a fool for allowing for you to waste my time explaining this shit too you. Especially, seeing as how LOGICALLY obvious it should have been for you.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Mocking A Clown Flailing Around Pretending A Tantrum Is Going To Over Ride Logic "

* Typical Christian Hypocrite *

Easy Fucktard.

I know Blackmun's name you pathetic troll and have been quoting it for 20 years since finding the citation having actually read the roe v wade decision .

You are pathetically grasping at any straw to pretend you are somehow dominant or superior on this issue , which is as pathetic and indicative of your mental state as that mentally deranged signature gif you sport .



* Continuation Of Education For The Poorly Educated And Behaviourally Retarded Cracked Pot *

"Backmun"(sic - his name was Blackmun) was WRONG and he was being completely illogical, himself. His actions and his opinions were completely contrary to the fucking Constitution.
The Constitution clearly establishes that "All Persons" have a right to their life and "All Persons" have a right to the "Equal Protections of our Laws."
It is therefore COMPLETELY LOGICAL that the State (Government) MUST establish the point at which a "person's" life begins, regardless of when or what that point may be. Before, during or after "live birth."
FUCKING LOGICALLY
How else can the "State" even fucking KNOW what its interests ARE, with regards to the "EQUAL PROTECTIONS" of "All the PERSONS" within it's fucking Jurisdiction?
You obviously THINK you are smarter / more logical than you really fucking are. . . and I am only a fool for allowing for you to waste my time explaining this shit too you. Especially, seeing as how LOGICALLY obvious it should have been for you.

The LOGIC is that a state is comprised of and concerned with the wrights of citizens and citizenship begins at birth , such that for equal protection one must be born , else any other would be receiving wrights greater than those provided for a citizen .

A per son is male and countable by census , hence born .