Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I think what will happen is there will be less unwanted pregnancies. As it becomes less convenient, more will practice birth control or otherwise not have sex at all until they do get some protection.
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/gray/WRBKNSXCBFFLPCPWJL3OFUFR3Y.jpg)
www.cleveland19.com
Am I good or what?
Vasectomies: Urologist says consultations are up 900% after Roe v. Wade decision
With the overturn of Roe v. Wade, interest in vasectomies has increased dramatically.
And so modest.
Hope you don't get hurt patting yourself on the back.
I believe the number of pregnancies has been dropping for awhile now, so maybe we won't have the avalanche of dead women that some have predicted. And I would not be surprised if the mail order business for the chemical abortion pills is probably going to substantially grow relatively quickly.
And we'll see lawsuits against abortion bans, since the Dobbs decision didn't say anything about that as far as I now.
Maybe they won't think this decision is so great if they find themselves on the child support hook for the next 20 years.Just admit it. If you caused an unwanted pregnancy of some fling or casual girlfriend, you would be begging for an abortion.
Lawsuits over what? You can't sue a state for making laws that don't violate the Constitution.
Yes, the number of unwanted pregnancies has been dropping. But did you notice how states (before this decision) were making it harder and harder to get an abortion as the years went on?
I think a lot of people are irresponsible because there is no reason not to be. Now there may be a reason in many states.
almost everyone agrees that rape should be a valid reason for abortion. your histrionics are amusing.So if your 13 year old daughter gets gang raped and impregnated, are you going to send the "fat diseased slut" on the next plane to a blue state abortion clinic or make her carry the rapist's spawn to term?
I don't have one of those.... and I don't give a fuck what happens to yours. Sounds like you need to take a little better care of her though if that kind of shit is an option.So if your 13 year old daughter gets gang raped and impregnated, are you going to send the "fat diseased slut" on the next plane to a blue state abortion clinic or make her carry the rapist's spawn to term?
Yeah that 7 dollar gas will sure rile those ghouls up!1. In many states, there will be no change.
2. In some states, ladies will travel to a neighboring state for an abortion. (The trip will be completely paid for by various corporations.)
a. Eventually those states will "liberalize " their abortion laws.
.
All I know is, there are already a bunch of lawsuits in a number of states fighting abortion bans, maybe challenging an abortion ban based on state laws or the state Constitution. The Left is not going to go quietly on this issue.
So if your 13 year old daughter gets gang raped and impregnated, are you going to send the "fat diseased slut" on the next plane to a blue state abortion clinic or make her carry the rapist's spawn to term?
Do us all a favor and point that gun in the other direction.You leftists always do this bullshit, give a one in ten million chance scenario. Then you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.
The court has recently entered a new era of partisan division. If you look at close cases — 5 to 4 or 5 to 3 — going back to the 1950s to illustrate this division, you will see that the percentage of votes cast in the liberal direction by justices who were appointed by Democratic presidents has skyrocketed. And the same trajectory applies on the other side: The percentage of votes cast in the conservative direction by justices who were appointed by Republican presidents has also shot up.
The trend is extreme — and alarming. In the 1950s and 1960s, the ideological biases of Republican appointees and Democratic appointees were relatively modest. The gap between them has steadily grown, but even as late as the early 1990s, it was possible for justices to vote in ideologically unpredictable ways. In the closely divided cases in the 1991 term, for example, the single Democratic appointee on the court, Byron White, voted more conservatively than all but two of the Republican appointees, Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist. This was a time when many Republican appointees — like Sandra Day O’Connor, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens and David Souter — frequently cast liberal votes.
In the past 10 years, however, justices have hardly ever voted against the ideology of the president who appointed them. Only Justice Kennedy, named to the court by Ronald Reagan, did so with any regularity. That is why with his replacement on the court an ideologically committed Republican justice, it will become impossible to regard the court as anything but a partisan institution.
Opinion | If the Supreme Court Is Nakedly Political, Can It Be Just? (Published 2018)
Rigidly divided by both ideology and party, the court risks losing public legitimacy.www.nytimes.com
The court's loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the public is for good reason. It isn't just the perception it has become a political organization, it's the reality that it has.
funny, if the majority was liberal you would be praising the court, disingenuousThe court has recently entered a new era of partisan division. If you look at close cases — 5 to 4 or 5 to 3 — going back to the 1950s to illustrate this division, you will see that the percentage of votes cast in the liberal direction by justices who were appointed by Democratic presidents has skyrocketed. And the same trajectory applies on the other side: The percentage of votes cast in the conservative direction by justices who were appointed by Republican presidents has also shot up.
The trend is extreme — and alarming. In the 1950s and 1960s, the ideological biases of Republican appointees and Democratic appointees were relatively modest. The gap between them has steadily grown, but even as late as the early 1990s, it was possible for justices to vote in ideologically unpredictable ways. In the closely divided cases in the 1991 term, for example, the single Democratic appointee on the court, Byron White, voted more conservatively than all but two of the Republican appointees, Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist. This was a time when many Republican appointees — like Sandra Day O’Connor, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens and David Souter — frequently cast liberal votes.
In the past 10 years, however, justices have hardly ever voted against the ideology of the president who appointed them. Only Justice Kennedy, named to the court by Ronald Reagan, did so with any regularity. That is why with his replacement on the court an ideologically committed Republican justice, it will become impossible to regard the court as anything but a partisan institution.
Opinion | If the Supreme Court Is Nakedly Political, Can It Be Just? (Published 2018)
Rigidly divided by both ideology and party, the court risks losing public legitimacy.
The court's loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the public is for good reason. It isn't just the perception it has become a political organization, it's the reality that it has.
Do us all a favor and point that gun in the other direction.
A 13-year-old who was raped by her grandfather traveled hours across Texas to get an abortion. She wouldn't have been able to under the state's new 6-week ban.
Texas recently passed a six-week abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest. One provider told Insider about two patients who'd needed care.news.yahoo.com
The greatest effect is that it removes societal approval for abortion. It puts doubt into people's minds. People will wonder why abortion is illegal in their state. There must be something evil about it. We have finally shattered the cycle of 100% government acceptance any time and place.The effects are mostly symbolic. Women who want to get an abortion in states that ban it will simply have to drive to state that doesn’t.
Oh, you mean a rare thing constantly presented as a common occurrence? Like so called “partial birth abortion”? Like women getting abortions for kicks? Then you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.You leftists always do this bullshit, give a one in ten million chance scenario. Then you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.
Oh, you mean a rare thing constantly presented as a common occurrence? Like so called “partial birth abortion”? Like women getting abortions for kicks? Then you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.
that creates an undue burden & goes directly against the 14th amendment.
Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
14th Amendment
