Unexpected Results of Overturning Rowe V Wade

[Missouri_Mike]

When discussing the overturning of Rowe V Wade, all discussions focused on abortion. However there are going to be some unexpected results other allowing states to control abortion.

Reading the draft opinion, the underpinnings for the decision is no constitutional basis for Rowe therefore it is a state not a federal issue. The draft went into details explaining why there was no implied right to abortion and thus the 4th and 16th amendment were not applicable. With this majority opinion it becomes clear that there is more going on than just giving states control over abortion.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, this ruling undermines a number of other federal rulings for example the states right to forbid interracial marriage as well as gay marriages. It also weakens the case for federal laws managing healthcare such as HIPPA and Obamacare, federal aid to education, etc. It is a huge victory for state rights with the potential to totally upend the America we know.

Another result of the ruling is political. Will support for antiabortion in the Republican party be as strong after Rowe is overturned as before? I think not. Support for antiabortion in the Republican Party comes from the religious right and the anti-big government crowd who strongly favor states rights. When Rowe is law of the land, these two groups were united in the desire abolish federal protection for abortion. With state control of abortion there is going to be less enthusiasm for antiabortion within the party. Over the last 20 years, 30% of the party has become a member on a non-Christian religion or none at all. The second reason I think that support is going to drop is that the big national battle is over. Although there will be fighting in most states, in some states it will just be a non-issue.

Before the court draft came out, I was reading articles about republicans getting full control of government in 2024 and passing anti-abortion legislation that would make abortion illegal in the US. It seems that the court deciding that abortion is a state issue has shot that down removing any hope of a united country on this issue.

Jesus, what a wall of text. Are you seriously saying letting abortions go to the states and somehow gay marriage may suffer the same fate? So what of it does? It’s not a marriage, it’s two mental cases fucking each other in the ass.

I think you’re more concerned you couldn’t even pass gay marriage in California of all places. That vote failed big time.

Your biggest problem with state rights is… even the one you live in won’t put up with your stupid shit.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

When discussing the overturning of Rowe V Wade, all discussions focused on abortion. However there are going to be some unexpected results other allowing states to control abortion.

Reading the draft opinion, the underpinnings for the decision is no constitutional basis for Rowe therefore it is a state not a federal issue. The draft went into details explaining why there was no implied right to abortion and thus the 4th and 16th amendment were not applicable. With this majority opinion it becomes clear that there is more going on than just giving states control over abortion.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, this ruling undermines a number of other federal rulings for example the states right to forbid interracial marriage as well as gay marriages. It also weakens the case for federal laws managing healthcare such as HIPPA and Obamacare, federal aid to education, etc. It is a huge victory for state rights with the potential to totally upend the America we know.

Another result of the ruling is political. Will support for antiabortion in the Republican party be as strong after Rowe is overturned as before? I think not. Support for antiabortion in the Republican Party comes from the religious right and the anti-big government crowd who strongly favor states rights. When Rowe is law of the land, these two groups were united in the desire abolish federal protection for abortion. With state control of abortion there is going to be less enthusiasm for antiabortion within the party. Over the last 20 years, 30% of the party has become a member on a non-Christian religion or none at all. The second reason I think that support is going to drop is that the big national battle is over. Although there will be fighting in most states, in some states it will just be a non-issue.

Before the court draft came out, I was reading articles about republicans getting full control of government in 2024 and passing anti-abortion legislation that would make abortion illegal in the US. It seems that the court deciding that abortion is a state issue has shot that down removing any hope of a united country on this issue.

Zzzzzzz

 

[miketx]

In other words the stage has been set for this country to become Russia. That seems to be what the Red Square Republicans want

Ah, the butchering queer has spoke!

 

[Flopper]

I think what many people have forgotten is when the state legislatures meet to decide on the rights of women their state, about 50% of that state is women and on average the legislatures are 75% men. I suspect in these red states we are going have a surprising number women voicing their opinion and they are not all going to be democrats. 38% of women republicans are far less enthusiastic about losing their right to an abortion than their male counterpart. That's why I think we are going see a lot of exceptions in the laws. The idea that republican women see themselves as barefoot, in kitchen, and pregnant is nonsense.

 

[Flopper]

Jesus, what a wall of text. Are you seriously saying letting abortions go to the states and somehow gay marriage may suffer the same fate? So what of it does? It’s not a marriage, it’s two mental cases fucking each other in the ass.

I think you’re more concerned you couldn’t even pass gay marriage in California of all places. That vote failed big time.

Your biggest problem with state rights is… even the one you live in won’t put up with your stupid shit.

What I'm saying is the Supreme Court shot down the basis for Rowe V Wade which is the basis for a number of court ruling such as the rulings that overturned the bans on gay marriage and interracial marriage.

 

[eagle1462010]

What I'm saying is the Supreme Court shot down the basis for Rowe V Wade which is the basis for a number of court ruling such as the rulings that overturned the bans on gay marriage and interracial marriage.

That is why it takes so long to get to final print..........I think that is the long delay. Verdict is probably already in and now they are studying all that it effects.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A lie does not become truth, no matter how many times it is repeated.

A human being is a human being, at every stage of his life.

Including adult and pregnant.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

.I think that is the long delay.

Yes, it's tough to pull the rug out from so many constitutionally protected rights at once, without admitting it exicplicitly. That kind of weasel language takes time to contrive.

 

[whitehall]

Abortion would be determined by state to state law and the voters. Why do lefties have a problem with that?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Abortion would be determined by state to state law and the voters. Why do lefties have a problem with that?

They don't. What a stupid post. The problem is the banning of abortion.

 

[Flopper]

That is why it takes so long to get to final print..........I think that is the long delay. Verdict is probably already in and now they are studying all that it effects.

I don't think the court is very concerned with the effect of their rulings. There greatest concern is the majority and minority opinion. Making sure the basis for their position is legally sound is a primary consideration because these documents will be studied and debated in every law school in the country.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't think the court is very concerned with the effect of their rulings.

Which can be said about this court as a whole in this case, because the majority of the court indeed does not care and only cares about implementing their personal views into the code of law, in order to add another punch to their personal tickets to the forever Jesus festival in the sky. This cannot be disputed. It is why they were selected. The president and senate majority leader repeatedly and explicitly said that is what they would do, and they did it. The appointed judges each lied about it in their confirmations, knowing the game they were playing and how to play it. Anyone with any knowledge of the matter knew they were lying at the time, and the nominees knew any educated and informed person would know they were lying at the time. The also knew this did not matter, as their fate was already decided, and that providing this political cover to their patrons (in the form of blatant dishonesty in their confirmations hearings) was a necessary recompense for their lifetime appointments and the ability to implement their personal beliefs into the code of law.

I.E., the Jihad Rule. Immoral and unethical acts are fine, when done for will of God.

The minority dissenting opinion on this most certainly will mention the effects of the ruling not only in terms of direct effects on people's lives, but in terms of how the rug will be pulled out from other rulings on unenumerated rights.

 

[Flopper]

Which can be said about this court as a whole in this case, because the majority of the court indeed does not care and only cares about implementing their personal views into the code of law, in order to add another punch to their personal tickets to the forever Jesus festival in the sky. This cannot be disputed. It is why they were selected. The president and senate majority leader repeatedly and explicitly said that is what they would do, and they did it. The appointed judges each lied about it in their confirmations, knowing the game they were playing and how to play it. Anyone with any knowledge of the matter knew they were lying at the time, and the nominees knew any educated and informed person would know they were lying at the time. The also knew this did not matter, as their fate was already decided, and that providing this political cover to their patrons (in the form of blatant dishonesty in their confirmations hearings) was a necessary recompense for their lifetime appointments and the ability to implement their personal beliefs into the code of law.

I.E., the Jihad Rule. Immoral and unethical acts are fine, when done for will of God.

The minority dissenting opinion on this most certainly will mention the effects of the ruling not only in terms of direct effects on people's lives, but in terms of how the rug will be pulled out from other rulings on unenumerated rights.

In issues such as abortion and marriage, the court supporting states rights would be a victory for Republicans at this time. However, there are a number of progressive state issues that republicans appose such as legalization of marijuana, pay equality, changes in state primaries, more liberal abortion laws in blue states, etc. that this court would likely uphold. Also republican proposals for a federal law making abortion illegal in the US would fail since the court has ruled abortion is a state issue.

I think every judge on this Supreme Court and past courts makes decisions based on their individual views. This court unlike most prior court believes in a much more conservative interpretation of the constitution. That is, they are reluctant to accept implied powers of the federal government and more likely to base any states right issues on enumerated powers.

 

[rightnow909]

it is not Rowe

it is Roe

copied to read later

 

[rightnow909]

The pro abortion types are going straight to hell so in the end they will get what's coming to them. In the mean time we'll put a stop to their slaughter of the innocent.

I'm w/ you

no one seems to believe in Hell anymore... But those who claim to have visited the place... and there are a few... can't say whether they are being truthful or not but anyhow... those who claim to have been there (one a canonized saint) say that most are in Hell because they didn't believe in Hell

Fatima affirms this, I believe

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Also republican proposals for a federal law making abortion illegal in the US would fail since the court has ruled abortion is a state issue.

Going to have to disagree, there. The ruling will be that abortion up to 24 weeks is not a constitutionally protected, unenumerated right. That ruling in no way prevents a federal law banning all abortions, and it even makes the pathway to passing and keeping such a law much easier, given that the one obstacle to it has been removed.

To see an example: the SCOTUS gun ruling of 1939 made it clear that "ownership of any and all weapons by anybody" is NOT, in fact, a constitutionally protected right. That ruling then allowed laws like the Federal Assault Weapons Ban to exist.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

think every judge on this Supreme Court and past courts makes decisions based on their individual views

Agreed, but I see a very important difference between those personal reasons being based on logic and evidence, as opposed to being based on personal adherence to Iron Age mythology that arises from the self-interest of living forever.

And I also see an important difference between having a personal belief that "abortion is wrong" and insisting that others be able to decide that others cannot get abortions, arbitrarily and ad hoc. ESPECIALLY when that belief is based in religious belief. And make no mistake, that is precisely what is happening here. You take the religious objection to abortion based on the beliefs in a soul, in a personal god, and in an afterlife out of the equation, and there would be no political power whatsoever to the anti-choice movement. That's a simple fact that we cannot ignore. Because they won't let us ignore it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And I also see an important difference between having a personal belief that "abortion is wrong" and insisting that others be able to decide that others cannot get abortions, arbitrarily and ad hoc.

What meaning can there be in holding a value that asserts that a behavior is wrong, on the basis that it unjustly harms another human being, if you are willing to allow that other human being to be unjustly harmed, in the name of some abstract concept of moral relativism.

Abortion is nothing less than the unjustifiable cold-blooded killing of an innocent and defenseless human being. That is a hard, undeniable fact. Whatever lies you try to tell, whatever lies you try to convince yourself to believe, in order to deny the humanity of the victim of this savage act, or what is being done to that victim; cannot change the clear, underlying truth, that what is happening in an abortion is that an innocent and defenseless human being is being killed, in the complete absence of any of the extreme circumstances under which the taking of a human life is ever otherwise considered acceptable.

There is no virtue in allowing such a murder to take place, on the basis of affording the murderer the right to make her own choice.

ESPECIALLY when that belief is based in religious belief. And make no mistake, that is precisely what is happening here. You take the religious objection to abortion based on the beliefs in a soul, in a personal god, and in an afterlife out of the equation, and there would be no political power whatsoever to the anti-choice movement. That's a simple fact that we cannot ignore. Because they won't let us ignore it.

That's bullshit, of course. Complete bullshit.

If opposition to abortion is a religious belief, then so is opposition to every other form of murder as well.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What meaning can there be in holding a value that asserts that a behavior is wrong, on the basis that it unjustly harms another human being, if you are willing to allow that other human being to be unjustly harmed, in the name of some abstract concept of moral relativism.

I am not doing your little dance with you. sorry. Your belief that the mother destroying her 12 week old embryo is the moral equivalent destroying her 10 year old child arises from your religious belief. Spare me the dog and pony show and retrofitted, dubious arguments. They exist and are designed to waste time, to mislead, and to obfuscate the actual reasons behind your stance.

You are entitled to that belief. I wouldn't try to talk you out of it. If it makes you happy, I am happy for you.

Just mind your fucking business. Is that so hard?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If opposition to abortion is a religious belief, then so is opposition to every other form of murder as well.

You can lie to yourself out loud all day. You only embarrass yourself.

Take the religious objectors out of the equation, and there would be no anti-abortion choice movement with any political power whatsoever in this country.

Does this embarrass you? Why the recoil and reflexive tantrum at the appearance of such an obvious, simple fact? One that, I would think, you might actually be proud of...? I have more than once seen you argue that people without religious belief have no or poor morality that is just "made up out of thin air". Wouldn't this simple fact I stated be a boon to YOUR (idiotic) arguments about religion and morality?

We both know why you recoil: Because you actually aren't all that proud of it, because you know "'cuz i think mah god says so" is not a good argument for law and policy, in the year 2021.

Thus the dog and pony show.