What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What are the effects of the Roe Overturn today?

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
86,352
Reaction score
28,991
Points
2,290

task0778

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
10,586
Reaction score
9,488
Points
2,265
Location
Texas hill country
Am I good or what?


And so modest.

Hope you don't get hurt patting yourself on the back. :bowdown:

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.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
86,352
Reaction score
28,991
Points
2,290
And so modest.

Hope you don't get hurt patting yourself on the back. :bowdown:

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.

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.
 

Borillar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Messages
9,665
Reaction score
3,153
Points
360
Location
Pacific NW
Just admit it. If you caused an unwanted pregnancy of some fling or casual girlfriend, you would be begging for an abortion.
Maybe they won't think this decision is so great if they find themselves on the child support hook for the next 20 years.
 

task0778

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
10,586
Reaction score
9,488
Points
2,265
Location
Texas hill country
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.

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.
 

Redfish

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
44,122
Reaction score
7,264
Points
1,870
Location
The Big Easy
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?
almost everyone agrees that rape should be a valid reason for abortion. your histrionics are amusing.
 

two_iron

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2019
Messages
23,777
Reaction score
21,431
Points
2,290
Location
Republic of Texas
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.
 
Last edited:

miketx

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
104,828
Reaction score
50,844
Points
2,330
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.

.
Yeah that 7 dollar gas will sure rile those ghouls up!
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
86,352
Reaction score
28,991
Points
2,290
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.

Of course they won't, they never do. I didn't hear of any lawsuits so far because most states didn't make any additional abortion laws as of yet. Some have "trigger" laws which went into effect but I don't know there's been enough time for people to file a suit just yet. But if you come across one, post it for me. I'd love to see what phony grounds they are using.
 

berg80

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
8,209
Reaction score
5,053
Points
970
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.


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.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
86,352
Reaction score
28,991
Points
2,290
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?

You leftists always do this bullshit, give a one in ten million chance scenario. Then you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.
 

berg80

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
8,209
Reaction score
5,053
Points
970
You leftists always do this bullshit, give a one in ten million chance scenario. Then you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.
Do us all a favor and point that gun in the other direction. ;)

 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
86,352
Reaction score
28,991
Points
2,290
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.


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.

But no tears when Benedict Roberts sided with the left on issues like Commie Care.
 

Redfish

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
44,122
Reaction score
7,264
Points
1,870
Location
The Big Easy
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.


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, disingenuous
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
86,352
Reaction score
28,991
Points
2,290
Do us all a favor and point that gun in the other direction. ;)


Yeah, you had to go back over a year to find a story like this. Like I said, a one in ten million chance.
 

two_iron

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2019
Messages
23,777
Reaction score
21,431
Points
2,290
Location
Republic of Texas
"Elections have consequences." - anonymous kenyan faggot, circa 2009
 

Mashmont

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2022
Messages
4,646
Reaction score
2,682
Points
908
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.
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.
And one of the really great by-products is it might well cause some people to start doing the right thing and stop having sex outside marriage.

But I look for a total abortion ban in the next five or ten years once personhood is conferred to the unborn. That's what we're after, and that's where we're headed. Then you won't need a Constitution Amendment. It will be just be plain murder, which of course, is already illegal.
 

Borillar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Messages
9,665
Reaction score
3,153
Points
360
Location
Pacific NW
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.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
86,352
Reaction score
28,991
Points
2,290
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.

It's not common anything. Ask your buddy Berg80. He had to go back over a year to find such a story.
 

Fang

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Messages
7,965
Reaction score
3,919
Points
390
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

The issue is the other side believes abortion to be murder. So an argument can be made the 14th amendment applies to an unborn child. You have to see the other side's argument also. I get both sides which I why I believe the SCTOUS made the right decision. The decision is now a little closer with the people.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$0.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top