Texas Abortion law stands

[Stann]

Hi, Stann. Please forgive my ignorance, though I was unaware men are far worse about taking pills.

Could you please cite a reliable study so I can become better educated?

TIA...

Peace.

I was going with my gut feeling and I stayed said that so I looked it up and I was wrong men are better at taking their medicines according to this source : https://blog.flavorex.com>blog

 

[AveryJarhman]

When are people going to start taking responsibility for their actions? Whose fault is it if two people have unprotected sex and the result is a pregnancy? Who is responsible? If you don't want to be a mother, then Goddammit don't have unprotected sex!

If a teen girl or woman is forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term, how well does that work out for children? So they're better off dead? Never born? There are ways to prevent conception; whose fault is it if the female doesn't want a pregnancy but does nothing to prevent conception the next day? Here's a thought: why doesn't the Left fight for free contraceptives and morning after pills? Answer: no money in it, the Dems get huge donations from PP and political points to play against the GOP.

Why aren't citizens, particularly men, demanding medical science develop a reliable male oral contraceptive. Why don't they just wear a GD condom?

In my opinion, when men have the ultimate decision for creating life, we will experience a much happier, more peaceful planet populated by fewer emotionally troubled, drama craving citizens. In my opinion when both men and women take full responsibility for their actions, we will experience a much happier, more peaceful planet populated by fewer emotionally troubled, drama craving citizens.

Too many people want the easy and irresponsible road; let's fuck and if I get pregnant we'll just kill the unborn child. No worries, no problem. Easy peasy, and PP will get money from the gov't to pay for it.

Hi, Task. When a teenage girl or woman decides she is not prepared to become a mother and chooses to safely terminate an unwanted pregnancy, how does her decision impact your life, as well as American Society at Large?

I look forward to reading your thoughtful, intelligent reply.

Peace.

 

[AveryJarhman]

I was going with my gut feeling and I stayed said that so I looked it up and I was wrong men are better at taking their medicines according to this source : https://blog.flavorex.com>blog

Thank you.

 

[Stann]

In yet more late-night happenings, most of the conservative contingent of the Supreme Court let the Texas abortion ban stand just before midnight Wednesday.

The law went into effect early Wednesday morning, which has now left the second largest state in the country with virtually no access to legal abortions. The law bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, before many people even know that they’re pregnant.
.
.
The Texas law was crafted purposefully to make lawsuits difficult, as the law will be carried out by individual vigilantes and not state officials — therefore leaving no clear person to sue, at least before an individual has brought a suit against anyone “aiding or abetting” a post-six week abortion. The conservatives clung to that as rationale for denying the injunction.

Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberal justices all wrote individual dissents.

“The court’s order is stunning,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote scathingly. “Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.”

SCOTUS Breaks Silence, Dashes Hopes As Conservatives Let Texas Abortion Ban Stand | Talking Points Memo

In yet more late-night happenings, most of the conservative contingent of the Supreme Court let the Texas abortion ban stand just before midnight Wednesday. The law went into effect early Wednesday…

talkingpointsmemo.com

First of all, I do not believe abortion is a constitutional right. Roe v Wade is widely seen as a decision by a liberal SCOTUS that stretches the right to privacy quite a bit. One day maybe this court will face that issue head on, is abortion a constitutional right or isn't it? The other thing is, should this be a federal decision or should it be up to the states to determine their own rules. I think I need to study the thinking about federalism a little more, IMHO the federal gov't shouldn't be making laws that the state and local gov'ts can and should decide for themselves.

This law is far too draconian to even consider it being legal. Maybe it could have passed in the 1950's, but not into today's world.

 

[Stann]

Hi, Task. When a teenage girl or woman decides she is not prepared to become a mother and chooses to safely terminate an unwanted pregnancy, how does her decision impact your life, as well as American Society at Large?

I look forward to reading your thoughtful, intelligent reply.

Peace.

There can be no honest reply in trying to defend this piece of shit legislation.

 

[task0778]

Hi, Task. When a teenage girl or woman decides she is not prepared to become a mother and chooses to safely terminate an unwanted pregnancy, how does her decision impact your life, as well as American Society at Large?

I look forward to reading your thoughtful, intelligent reply.

Peace.

Thanks for the question. Obviously, her decision does not impact my life at all, I'm going to go about my life the same way whether she gets an abortion or not. BUT - the impact on our society at large is a little different. Are we going to be a people that cares nothing about anyone else? Do we not want to defend the helpless and help those less fortunate, especially those who have cannot defend themselves? Who then should speak up for and defend the right to life itself for the unborn? Other than location, what's the real difference between a baby 5 minutes before it is born and 5 minutes after? Does that act alone confer human rights? If not, then when? Should we as a society allow a life to end for convenience sake? It's called murder at any point after birth, why isn't it murder before then?

 

[Coyote]

Thanks for the question. Obviously, her decision does not impact my life at all, I'm going to go about my life the same way whether she gets an abortion or not. BUT - the impact on our society at large is a little different. Are we going to be a people that cares nothing about anyone else? Do we not want to defend the helpless and help those less fortunate, especially those who have cannot defend themselves? Who then should speak up for and defend the right to life itself for the unborn? Other than location, what's the real difference between a baby 5 minutes before it is born and 5 minutes after? Does that act alone confer human rights? If not, then when? Should we as a society allow a life to end for convenience sake? It's called murder at any point after birth, why isn't it murder before then?

That is one of the best answers I've heard.

 

[skews13]

In yet more late-night happenings, most of the conservative contingent of the Supreme Court let the Texas abortion ban stand just before midnight Wednesday.

The law went into effect early Wednesday morning, which has now left the second largest state in the country with virtually no access to legal abortions. The law bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, before many people even know that they’re pregnant.
.
.
The Texas law was crafted purposefully to make lawsuits difficult, as the law will be carried out by individual vigilantes and not state officials — therefore leaving no clear person to sue, at least before an individual has brought a suit against anyone “aiding or abetting” a post-six week abortion. The conservatives clung to that as rationale for denying the injunction.

Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberal justices all wrote individual dissents.

“The court’s order is stunning,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote scathingly. “Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.”

SCOTUS Breaks Silence, Dashes Hopes As Conservatives Let Texas Abortion Ban Stand | Talking Points Memo

In yet more late-night happenings, most of the conservative contingent of the Supreme Court let the Texas abortion ban stand just before midnight Wednesday. The law went into effect early Wednesday…

talkingpointsmemo.com

First of all, I do not believe abortion is a constitutional right. Roe v Wade is widely seen as a decision by a liberal SCOTUS that stretches the right to privacy quite a bit. One day maybe this court will face that issue head on, is abortion a constitutional right or isn't it? The other thing is, should this be a federal decision or should it be up to the states to determine their own rules. I think I need to study the thinking about federalism a little more, IMHO the federal gov't shouldn't be making laws that the state and local gov'ts can and should decide for themselves.

Not only does it not stand, but will be struck down by the courts in the state it was enacted.

Congress is getting ready to take it out of the courts hands, by codifying Roe into law. The wet dream of religious fascists making criminals out of American women, and doctors will die with a whine, and a wimper.

 

[Stann]

Thanks for the question. Obviously, her decision does not impact my life at all, I'm going to go about my life the same way whether she gets an abortion or not. BUT - the impact on our society at large is a little different. Are we going to be a people that cares nothing about anyone else? Do we not want to defend the helpless and help those less fortunate, especially those who have cannot defend themselves? Who then should speak up for and defend the right to life itself for the unborn? Other than location, what's the real difference between a baby 5 minutes before it is born and 5 minutes after? Does that act alone confer human rights? If not, then when? Should we as a society allow a life to end for convenience sake? It's called murder at any point after birth, why isn't it murder before then?

Because it is only a potential human life, nothing is certain about its future.

 

[AveryJarhman]

Are we going to be a people that cares nothing about anyone else? Do we not want to defend the helpless and help those less fortunate, especially those who have cannot defend themselves?

Hi, Task. Are you unaware that for decades countless Americans demonstrated they care little about less fortunate citizens when ignoring our nation's potential life scarring Child Care Public Health CRISIS medical doctors, child brain development scientists and victims of child abuse are loudly beefing about?

Task, am I a cold-hearted bastard for preferring abortion over witnessing living, breathing children being traumatized by SELFISH, incompetent, irresponsible, apathetic maternal child caregivers, as well as our nation's overcrowded, failing foster care system?

The Problem — Foster America

www.foster-america.org

Learn why Cali Surgeon General & pediatrician Dr. Nadine Burke Harris, MD, MPH, FAAP, believes a NATIONAL MOVEMENT is required to educate citizens about our Nation's Child Care Public Health CRISIS:


#PreventChildNeglect

EndHate2021

 

[task0778]

Hi, Task. Are you unaware that for decades countless Americans demonstrated they care little about less fortunate citizens when ignoring our nation's potential life scarring Child Care Public Health CRISIS medical doctors, child brain development scientists and victims of child abuse are loudly beefing about?

Task, am I a cold-hearted bastard for preferring abortion over witnessing living, breathing children being traumatized by SELFISH, incompetent, irresponsible, apathetic maternal child caregivers, as well as our nation's overcrowded, failing foster care system?

Nah, you're not a cold-hearted bastard for preferring abortion, supporters of legal abortion have long argued that abortion is necessary in order to bring an end to child abuse. In the days immediately prior to the Roe v. Wade decision which legalized abortion, abortion advocates began making this claim and have continued to this day. In reality, legal abortion did nothing to end child abuse, and in fact, violence against children has only dramatically risen since the 1970s. They said the impact of the abortion revolution may usher in an era when every child will be wanted, loved, and properly cared for; when the incidence of infanticides and battered children should be sharply reduced. They said that a policy that makes contraception and abortion freely available will greatly reduce the number of unwanted children, and thereby curb the tragic rise of child abuse in our country. And legal abortion will decrease the number of unwanted children, battered children, child abuse cases, and possibly subsequent delinquency, drug addiction, and a host of social ills believed to be associated with neglectful parenthood.

It does seem logical, but they were wrong: since 1973, the number of cases of child abuse and neglect has risen from 167,000 cases annually to 700,000. In 2015, according to the National Children’s Alliance, Child Protective Services worked with about 3.4 million children suffering from alleged abuse. And according to the National Committee for the Prevention of Child Abuse, over 1,000 children are being killed by abusive adults annually. In 2001, the Washington Post reported that the “rate of killing for infants before their first birth[day] rose from 7.2/100,000 to 8.7/100,000 between 1983-1991. It continued to rise thereafter, reaching 9.1/100,000 in 2000.” Additionally, death by homicide was the only leading cause of death in children to rise during this time period.

The question we have to ask is this: Is it ethical to inflict homicide as a solution to abuse? Wouldn’t homicide, we can then ask, be just another form of abuse? Wouldn’t homicide be communicating to child abusers, ‘You’re right, life is disposable and you can treat it however you want?’ Wouldn’t that be feeding into the abuser, rather than helping the abused? IOW, abortion is not the answer. Maybe we should be focused on reducing the number of abusers instead.

 

[Stann]

Nah, you're not a cold-hearted bastard for preferring abortion, supporters of legal abortion have long argued that abortion is necessary in order to bring an end to child abuse. In the days immediately prior to the Roe v. Wade decision which legalized abortion, abortion advocates began making this claim and have continued to this day. In reality, legal abortion did nothing to end child abuse, and in fact, violence against children has only dramatically risen since the 1970s. They said the impact of the abortion revolution may usher in an era when every child will be wanted, loved, and properly cared for; when the incidence of infanticides and battered children should be sharply reduced. They said that a policy that makes contraception and abortion freely available will greatly reduce the number of unwanted children, and thereby curb the tragic rise of child abuse in our country. And legal abortion will decrease the number of unwanted children, battered children, child abuse cases, and possibly subsequent delinquency, drug addiction, and a host of social ills believed to be associated with neglectful parenthood.

It does seem logical, but they were wrong: since 1973, the number of cases of child abuse and neglect has risen from 167,000 cases annually to 700,000. In 2015, according to the National Children’s Alliance, Child Protective Services worked with about 3.4 million children suffering from alleged abuse. And according to the National Committee for the Prevention of Child Abuse, over 1,000 children are being killed by abusive adults annually. In 2001, the Washington Post reported that the “rate of killing for infants before their first birth[day] rose from 7.2/100,000 to 8.7/100,000 between 1983-1991. It continued to rise thereafter, reaching 9.1/100,000 in 2000.” Additionally, death by homicide was the only leading cause of death in children to rise during this time period.

The question we have to ask is this: Is it ethical to inflict homicide as a solution to abuse? Wouldn’t homicide, we can then ask, be just another form of abuse? Wouldn’t homicide be communicating to child abusers, ‘You’re right, life is disposable and you can treat it however you want?’ Wouldn’t that be feeding into the abuser, rather than helping the abused? IOW, abortion is not the answer. Maybe we should be focused on reducing the number of abusers instead.

You cannot speak for everyone, abortion is the right choice for some people. There regardless of how you " feel " about the situation, it's simply not your decision unless it is about you.

 

[AveryJarhman]

Maybe we should be focused on reducing the number of abusers instead

Yes! According to California Surgeon General Dr. Nadine Burke Harris, MD, as well as many of her science embracing colleagues, American society needs to begin a "National Movement" bringing Awareness to our nation's Epidemic of Child Neglect, Maltreatment and Abuse.

Preventing Incarceration; Follow The Science >>>
Addressing ADULTS @ Ironwood State Prison, Dr. Robert K. Ross, MD, speaks about a potential life scarring EPIDEMIC of Childhood Trauma:


Child Brain SCIENTIST MD, PhD Educates Oprah:


Task, I'd also like to mention the term homicide pertains to a "person killing another person".

According to USA laws a fetus is not a "person," therefore terminating a pregnancy is not homicide.

Task, I'm not referring to you, though frankly I find it despicable when folks choose to engage in nasty, hateful name calling for the purpose of shaming a woman into not terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

I also like to suggest a population of matriarchal focused citizens choosing to practice single, fatherless parenting are primarily responsible for the rise of child neglect, abuse, maltreatment and abandonment over the past 50 years.

Peace.

 

[task0778]

Yes! According to California Surgeon General Dr. Nadine Burke Harris, MD, as well as many of her science embracing colleagues, American society needs to begin a "National Movement" bringing Awareness to our nation's Epidemic of Child Neglect, Maltreatment and Abuse.

Task, I'd also like to mention the term homicide pertains to a "person killing another person".

According to USA laws a fetus is not a "person," therefore terminating a pregnancy is not homicide.

Task, I'm not referring to you, though frankly I find it despicable when folks choose to engage in nasty, hateful name calling for the purpose of shaming a woman into not terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

I also like to suggest a population of matriarchal focused citizens choosing to practice single, fatherless parenting are primarily responsible for the rise of child neglect, abuse, maltreatment and abandonment over the past 50 years.

The debate over fetal rights is not new to the legislative arena. Every session, pro-life and pro-choice advocates garner support for policies around this issue. The debate concerning “fetal homicide” hinges on the issue of fetuses killed by violent acts against pregnant women. Pro-life advocates typically support legislation that defines the fetus as a person under fetal homicide laws, or otherwise confers rights or protections upon the fetus or unborn child. Common references to such laws include the Fetal Protection Act, the Preborn Victims of Violence Act and the Unborn Victim of Violence Act. Those supporting these laws say that both the lives of the pregnant woman and the fetus should be explicitly protected. They assert that fetal homicide laws justly criminalize these cases and address both unborn children and their mothers.

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

Policy Research

NCSL’s experts are here to answer your questions and give you unbiased, comprehensive information as soon as you need it on issues facing state legislatures. We answer more than 20,000 requests for information a year.

www.ncsl.org

Does it not seem incongruent to label the killing of a fetus as a murder but not if it's an abortion? A life is ended, does it really matter who did it or why? For some people that answer is YES, for others NO. And for others the answer is IT DEPENDS; how developed is the fetus, is he/or she a viable baby, and of course in Texas it's whether or not the fetus has a heartbeat. I don't think the argument is going to be settled for a very long time. Eventually, maybe technology will find a way to totally prevent a woman from getting pregnant until she goes to a clinic somewhere and becomes "unfixed". Sorry, couldn't think of a better word.


I find it despicable when folks choose to engage in nasty, hateful name calling for the purpose of shaming a woman into not terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

Couldn't agree more, but there are also people who will shame a woman into having an abortion that she may not want to do. Nasty, hateful name-calling for the purpose of shaming somebody is an awful thing to do to anybody for any reason IMHO.

Almost 36 percent of the clients we saw last year in one Human Coalition women’s care clinic reported that someone — typically a partner or a parent — was pressuring them to abort. That’s more than one in three. Those numbers are hardly negligible or “mythical,” as the abortion lobby claims.

Hidden Abuse of Women: Coerced Abortions | National Review

Coerced abortions are not a myth. And they cannot be remedied as long as abortion remains legal and socially acceptable.

www.nationalreview.com

I also like to suggest a population of matriarchal focused citizens choosing to practice single, fatherless parenting are primarily responsible for the rise of child neglect, abuse, maltreatment and abandonment over the past 50 years.

I could be wrong about this, but I recall reading sometime back that under the Johnson Administration they created benefits for mothers with children that paid more if there was no father in the home. IOW, we kinda incentivized single, fatherless parenting.

 

[AveryJarhman]

The debate over fetal rights is not new to the legislative arena. Every session, pro-life and pro-choice advocates garner support for policies around this issue. The debate concerning “fetal homicide” hinges on the issue of fetuses killed by violent acts against pregnant women. Pro-life advocates typically support legislation that defines the fetus as a person under fetal homicide laws, or otherwise confers rights or protections upon the fetus or unborn child. Common references to such laws include the Fetal Protection Act, the Preborn Victims of Violence Act and the Unborn Victim of Violence Act. Those supporting these laws say that both the lives of the pregnant woman and the fetus should be explicitly protected. They assert that fetal homicide laws justly criminalize these cases and address both unborn children and their mothers.

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

Policy Research

NCSL’s experts are here to answer your questions and give you unbiased, comprehensive information as soon as you need it on issues facing state legislatures. We answer more than 20,000 requests for information a year.

www.ncsl.org

Does it not seem incongruent to label the killing of a fetus as a murder but not if it's an abortion? A life is ended, does it really matter who did it or why? For some people that answer is YES, for others NO. And for others the answer is IT DEPENDS; how developed is the fetus, is he/or she a viable baby, and of course in Texas it's whether or not the fetus has a heartbeat. I don't think the argument is going to be settled for a very long time. Eventually, maybe technology will find a way to totally prevent a woman from getting pregnant until she goes to a clinic somewhere and becomes "unfixed". Sorry, couldn't think of a better word.


I find it despicable when folks choose to engage in nasty, hateful name calling for the purpose of shaming a woman into not terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

Couldn't agree more, but there are also people who will shame a woman into having an abortion that she may not want to do. Nasty, hateful name-calling for the purpose of shaming somebody is an awful thing to do to anybody for any reason IMHO.

Almost 36 percent of the clients we saw last year in one Human Coalition women’s care clinic reported that someone — typically a partner or a parent — was pressuring them to abort. That’s more than one in three. Those numbers are hardly negligible or “mythical,” as the abortion lobby claims.

Hidden Abuse of Women: Coerced Abortions | National Review

Coerced abortions are not a myth. And they cannot be remedied as long as abortion remains legal and socially acceptable.

www.nationalreview.com

I also like to suggest a population of matriarchal focused citizens choosing to practice single, fatherless parenting are primarily responsible for the rise of child neglect, abuse, maltreatment and abandonment over the past 50 years.

I could be wrong about this, but I recall reading sometime back that under the Johnson Administration they created benefits for mothers with children that paid more if there was no father in the home. IOW, we kinda incentivized single, fatherless parenting.

Hi, Task. Thank you for taking the time to reply.

My friend, with all due respect, when you or anyone shares their belief that a woman making the personal choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy has absolutely zero impact on their life or the life of anyone else, I see no need for further discussion.

Peace.

 

[Stann]

In yet more late-night happenings, most of the conservative contingent of the Supreme Court let the Texas abortion ban stand just before midnight Wednesday.

The law went into effect early Wednesday morning, which has now left the second largest state in the country with virtually no access to legal abortions. The law bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, before many people even know that they’re pregnant.
.
.
The Texas law was crafted purposefully to make lawsuits difficult, as the law will be carried out by individual vigilantes and not state officials — therefore leaving no clear person to sue, at least before an individual has brought a suit against anyone “aiding or abetting” a post-six week abortion. The conservatives clung to that as rationale for denying the injunction.

Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberal justices all wrote individual dissents.

“The court’s order is stunning,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote scathingly. “Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.”

SCOTUS Breaks Silence, Dashes Hopes As Conservatives Let Texas Abortion Ban Stand | Talking Points Memo

In yet more late-night happenings, most of the conservative contingent of the Supreme Court let the Texas abortion ban stand just before midnight Wednesday. The law went into effect early Wednesday…

talkingpointsmemo.com

First of all, I do not believe abortion is a constitutional right. Roe v Wade is widely seen as a decision by a liberal SCOTUS that stretches the right to privacy quite a bit. One day maybe this court will face that issue head on, is abortion a constitutional right or isn't it? The other thing is, should this be a federal decision or should it be up to the states to determine their own rules. I think I need to study the thinking about federalism a little more, IMHO the federal gov't shouldn't be making laws that the state and local gov'ts can and should decide for themselves.

Update 2023, the great state of Texas declares bankruptcy today after paying out the 1,300 multimillion-dollar lawsuit over there abortion law. There's no other way that this is going to go. Pregnancies due to rape, incest, denying medically needed abortions to married women in order to save their lives, a list of lawsuits waiting to happen is incredible. The loss of life will be very regrettable, if only for the fact it was all preventable. Is idiotic law was passed by a bunch of idiots. Laws cannot be based on emotions, they have to be based on facts.

 

[Stann]

In yet more late-night happenings, most of the conservative contingent of the Supreme Court let the Texas abortion ban stand just before midnight Wednesday.

The law went into effect early Wednesday morning, which has now left the second largest state in the country with virtually no access to legal abortions. The law bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, before many people even know that they’re pregnant.
.
.
The Texas law was crafted purposefully to make lawsuits difficult, as the law will be carried out by individual vigilantes and not state officials — therefore leaving no clear person to sue, at least before an individual has brought a suit against anyone “aiding or abetting” a post-six week abortion. The conservatives clung to that as rationale for denying the injunction.

Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberal justices all wrote individual dissents.

“The court’s order is stunning,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote scathingly. “Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.”

SCOTUS Breaks Silence, Dashes Hopes As Conservatives Let Texas Abortion Ban Stand | Talking Points Memo

In yet more late-night happenings, most of the conservative contingent of the Supreme Court let the Texas abortion ban stand just before midnight Wednesday. The law went into effect early Wednesday…

talkingpointsmemo.com

First of all, I do not believe abortion is a constitutional right. Roe v Wade is widely seen as a decision by a liberal SCOTUS that stretches the right to privacy quite a bit. One day maybe this court will face that issue head on, is abortion a constitutional right or isn't it? The other thing is, should this be a federal decision or should it be up to the states to determine their own rules. I think I need to study the thinking about federalism a little more, IMHO the federal gov't shouldn't be making laws that the state and local gov'ts can and should decide for themselves.

The federal government only steps in when laws are seriously wrong. This one is so wrong it isn't funny. At 6 weeks the human embryo is 0.13 inch long, and weighs 0.04 ounce. The reason the heart begins working it's because the tissues have finally become differentiated. At this point the fetus looks more like a salamander or a tadpole complete with tail. It has no arms or legs, has pads forming where the arms will be. And this is what we're fighting over, something that is not viable on its own at all. We're going to deny the most basic rights of human autonomy to people that are already here because they are carrying a " potential " human being, that's all it is I'll protential lots of things go wrong at this point it's definitely not a given. Criminalizing women is not going to do anything to help the situation. I can't believe we're going through this s*** again. It's absolutely ridiculous.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Abortion is still legal. Just watch the calendar with a bit more care.

 

[Stann]

Abortion is still legal. Just watch the calendar with a bit more care.

I repeat most women do not know they're pregnant six weeks into it. This law is a joke. A bad joke on everyone.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I repeat most women do not know they're pregnant six weeks into it. This law is a joke. A bad joke on everyone.

Women need to make it their business to know. There are home pregnancy tests that can tell in 48 hours. There's Plan B sold over the counter. Stop making excuses. Women are not helpless. They know what a calendar is.