When a right is conferred by the SCOTUS it should be redundant for Congress to legislate. What has happened is that the Court has now become a political vehicle for the extreme right. It no longer respects its own previous decisions according to established precedent. The call for Congress to legislate is because the Court is no longer an interpreter of the law but another political opponent.
The Supreme Court cannot "confer" rights or take them away. If it wanted to illegitimately "take away" the right to abortion it would have ruled that abortions are forbidden. Show us where it said that.
It has taken it away as a right conferred by its own previous decision, as according to its application of the privacy provisions in the Constitution. That right no longer exists. It is now in the hands of the States, many of whom have legislated against abortion. The UN and other democratic nations, and of course many American women, would not deplore the outcome of this decision if it was not denying women what had previously been a right.
So does this thread exist just so people can practice their debate skills? Do people really get a thrill out of 'winning' such a debate or 'owning' someone in a debate?
Alan
It depends whether you see it as a vehicle for meaningful discussion or for the expression of an ideology and even misogyny. Many other democratic nations would see the decision as the latter. They have deplored what the Court has done.
So does this thread exist just so people can practice their debate skills? Do people really get a thrill out of 'winning' such a debate or 'owning' someone in a debate?
The Supreme Court cannot "confer" rights or take them away. If it wanted to illegitimately "take away" the right to abortion it would have ruled that abortions are forbidden. Show us where it said that.
It has taken it away as a right conferred by its own previous decision, as according to its application of the privacy provisions in the Constitution. That right no longer exists. It is now in the hands of the States, many of whom have legislated against abortion. The UN and other democratic nations, and of course many American women, would not deplore the outcome of this decision if it was not denying women what had previously been a right.
But the right to get an abortion still exists in the US, in some states way past the point any of these UN countries allow abortion to occur…so maybe they should stop with the faux moral outrage.
The application of a “right to privacy” in 1973 by the scotus is the reason why the Roe decision didn’t hold up. It’s why RBG was always uneasy about the footing of Roe.
If abortion is so popular among voters, it should have been an easy process to codify the decision. Obama had a super majority for 4 months of his presidency, yet didn’t get Congress to address abortion. They could have easily included it in the affordable care act (“we have to pass it to see what’s in it” Pelosi dropped the ball).
As discussed previously, Biden’s solicitor general argued before SCOTUS that there could be no middle ground in this decision. Either uphold roe or strike it down. Abortion is now left up to the democratic process, that people swear is dying, of the states.
It has taken it away as a right conferred by its own previous decision, as according to its application of the privacy provisions in the Constitution. That right no longer exists. It is now in the hands of the States, many of whom have legislated against abortion. The UN and other democratic nations, and of course many American women, would not deplore the outcome of this decision if it was not denying women what had previously been a right.
But the right to get an abortion still exists in the US, in some states way past the point any of these UN countries allow abortion to occur…so maybe they should stop with the faux moral outrage.
The application of a “right to privacy” in 1973 by the scotus is the reason why the Roe decision didn’t hold up. It’s why RBG was always uneasy about the footing of Roe.
If abortion is so popular among voters, it should have been an easy process to codify the decision. Obama had a super majority for 4 months of his presidency, yet didn’t get Congress to address abortion. They could have easily included it in the affordable care act (“we have to pass it to see what’s in it” Pelosi dropped the ball).
As discussed previously, Biden’s solicitor general argued before SCOTUS that there could be no middle ground in this decision. Either uphold roe or strike it down. Abortion is now left up to the democratic process, that people swear is dying, of the states.
The people most affected will be impoverished women in deep red states. They won’t be able to travel for an abortion. They may even be criminalized for getting an abortion in another state. These women had their right taken away. That’s not really debatable. You think that not much will change, but everything will change in states like Texas.
But the right to get an abortion still exists in the US, in some states way past the point any of these UN countries allow abortion to occur…so maybe they should stop with the faux moral outrage.
The application of a “right to privacy” in 1973 by the scotus is the reason why the Roe decision didn’t hold up. It’s why RBG was always uneasy about the footing of Roe.
If abortion is so popular among voters, it should have been an easy process to codify the decision. Obama had a super majority for 4 months of his presidency, yet didn’t get Congress to address abortion. They could have easily included it in the affordable care act (“we have to pass it to see what’s in it” Pelosi dropped the ball).
As discussed previously, Biden’s solicitor general argued before SCOTUS that there could be no middle ground in this decision. Either uphold roe or strike it down. Abortion is now left up to the democratic process, that people swear is dying, of the states.
The people most affected will be impoverished women in deep red states. They won’t be able to travel for an abortion. They may even be criminalized for getting an abortion in another state. These women had their right taken away. That’s not really debatable. You think that not much will change, but everything will change in states like Texas.
I don’t think that will happen or kavanaugh wouldn’t have mentioned the right for interstate travel in his concurrence.
Again, the burden of traveling for an abortion has existed since abortion clinics were a thing. Abortion clinics were rare in many states, 6 states only had one clinic.
Their right wasnt taken away, they can still get an abortion if they so choose. Saying that now they have to travel to get one doesn’t change that fact as many women were already traveling great distances for abortion prior to Dobbs.
The people most affected will be impoverished women in deep red states. They won’t be able to travel for an abortion. They may even be criminalized for getting an abortion in another state. These women had their right taken away. That’s not really debatable. You think that not much will change, but everything will change in states like Texas.
Compared to the physical and mental burden of pregnancy and the perceived cost of raising a child, a bus ticket to an adjacent state seems affordable to anyone that can afford a roof over their heads. Federal aid programs or nonprofits can ease the burden if needed. What fraction of women are you imagining won’t get an abortion only because of the travel cost?
There are no known attempts to prosecute interstate travel, says your favorite news source nytimes, on the contrary red states like South Dakota, as another sidebar here pointed out, explicitly have said they won’t go after the woman.
Jesus F--- Christ, are there ANY women still on these boards or did the right wing incels drive them all away? This thread is full of little more than privileged, entitled little white boys arguing about how losing a critical right in this country really isn't such a big deal. What an absolute hoard of monstrous turds. Apathetic idiots much?
This world would be so much better without so many white douche bros, the kind who congregate in this circle jerk of a forum. I never thought anything could make me hate running and runners, but time spent with you douche bags makes me wonder.
Again, the burden of traveling for an abortion has existed since abortion clinics were a thing. Abortion clinics were rare in many states, 6 states only had one clinic.
Their right wasnt taken away, they can still get an abortion if they so choose. Saying that now they have to travel to get one doesn’t change that fact as many women were already traveling great distances for abortion prior to Dobbs.
You are the Incel King of Lies on these boards. You seem able to nimbly transpose your Heritage Action talking points so very quickly here. BTW, Heritage is already pushing legislative action for a federal ban, so F-CK YOU with your iterative talking point lies about this now being a matter for the states. You right wing jerk offs won't be happy until this is something akin the Handmaid's Tale.
The people most affected will be impoverished women in deep red states. They won’t be able to travel for an abortion. They may even be criminalized for getting an abortion in another state. These women had their right taken away. That’s not really debatable. You think that not much will change, but everything will change in states like Texas.
Compared to the physical and mental burden of pregnancy and the perceived cost of raising a child, a bus ticket to an adjacent state seems affordable to anyone that can afford a roof over their heads. Federal aid programs or nonprofits can ease the burden if needed. What fraction of women are you imagining won’t get an abortion only because of the travel cost?
There are no known attempts to prosecute interstate travel, says your favorite news source nytimes, on the contrary red states like South Dakota, as another sidebar here pointed out, explicitly have said they won’t go after the woman.
Compared to the physical and mental burden of pregnancy and the perceived cost of raising a child, a bus ticket to an adjacent state seems affordable to anyone that can afford a roof over their heads. Federal aid programs or nonprofits can ease the burden if needed. What fraction of women are you imagining won’t get an abortion only because of the travel cost?
There are no known attempts to prosecute interstate travel, says your favorite news source nytimes, on the contrary red states like South Dakota, as another sidebar here pointed out, explicitly have said they won’t go after the woman.
A sizable percentage, given that economic burden is the top reason why a woman wants to end a pregnancy.
All the clinics on the New Mexico side of the border from Texas are overwhelmed with Texans at this point.
Not everyone has the means to take off work and travel 800 miles whenever they want.
Ok, so we don’t know the percentage then of abortive women who could travel the previous distance but can not travel the new distance.
If she has a job, she almost certainly can take some sick days off on (hopefully) rare occasions as per most state laws. Not everyone has the luxury to take off for a vacation far away is what you are perhaps thinking of.
A sizable percentage, given that economic burden is the top reason why a woman wants to end a pregnancy.
All the clinics on the New Mexico side of the border from Texas are overwhelmed with Texans at this point.
Not everyone has the means to take off work and travel 800 miles whenever they want.
Ok, so we don’t know the percentage then of abortive women who could travel the previous distance but can not travel the new distance.
If she has a job, she almost certainly can take some sick days off on (hopefully) rare occasions as per most state laws. Not everyone has the luxury to take off for a vacation far away is what you are perhaps thinking of.
In any case, I’m glad we can all agree that the *only* practical impact of this supposedly historic ruling is to increase travel distance a couple times in their lifetime for an unknown fraction of women in conservative states. Sounds more like a travel tax than a wresting away of a constitutional right as decried.
Ok, so we don’t know the percentage then of abortive women who could travel the previous distance but can not travel the new distance.
If she has a job, she almost certainly can take some sick days off on (hopefully) rare occasions as per most state laws. Not everyone has the luxury to take off for a vacation far away is what you are perhaps thinking of.
In any case, I’m glad we can all agree that the *only* practical impact of this supposedly historic ruling is to increase travel distance a couple times in their lifetime for an unknown fraction of women in conservative states. Sounds more like a travel tax than a wresting away of a constitutional right as decried.
You would have likely said the same about the slaves "underground railway". It was just a "travel tax" so they could enjoy a right denied them in their plantations. You would have been at home in the '60's. The 1860's.
Jesus F--- Christ, are there ANY women still on these boards or did the right wing incels drive them all away? This thread is full of little more than privileged, entitled little white boys arguing about how losing a critical right in this country really isn't such a big deal. What an absolute hoard of monstrous turds. Apathetic idiots much?
This world would be so much better without so many white douche bros, the kind who congregate in this circle jerk of a forum. I never thought anything could make me hate running and runners, but time spent with you douche bags makes me wonder.
Abortion is one of those issues where a certain kind of male feels he has the right to tell women what their rights should be. The stench of male supremacy and misogyny on these boards is overwhelming.
A sizable percentage, given that economic burden is the top reason why a woman wants to end a pregnancy.
All the clinics on the New Mexico side of the border from Texas are overwhelmed with Texans at this point.
Not everyone has the means to take off work and travel 800 miles whenever they want.
Ok, so we don’t know the percentage then of abortive women who could travel the previous distance but can not travel the new distance.
If she has a job, she almost certainly can take some sick days off on (hopefully) rare occasions as per most state laws. Not everyone has the luxury to take off for a vacation far away is what you are perhaps thinking of.
So, it is fair enough that the SCOTUS has not (yet) completely eliminated access to abortion in the US - because some states still permit it - but that seeking those services is made as difficult as possible for women who don't have the good fortune to live in those states where abortion services are still provided is merely an inconvenience they must endure. Thus, the right for women to have control over their reproductive systems is entirely a matter of where they live - thanks to the SCOTUS. The notion of equality under the law is clearly alien to that Court, because under this decision not all women are entitled to the same rights. But why should women complain - in "the land of the free" they are lucky they are given any rights at all.
Again, the burden of traveling for an abortion has existed since abortion clinics were a thing. Abortion clinics were rare in many states, 6 states only had one clinic.
Their right wasnt taken away, they can still get an abortion if they so choose. Saying that now they have to travel to get one doesn’t change that fact as many women were already traveling great distances for abortion prior to Dobbs.
You are the Incel King of Lies on these boards. You seem able to nimbly transpose your Heritage Action talking points so very quickly here. BTW, Heritage is already pushing legislative action for a federal ban, so F-CK YOU with your iterative talking point lies about this now being a matter for the states. You right wing jerk offs won't be happy until this is something akin the Handmaid's Tale.
Where did I lie? 1. The need to travel for an abortion did exist prior to Dobb’s. Sometimes the woman had to travel great distances. This isn’t a new issue. It wasn’t uncommon for women to travel to a different state to get an abortion under Roe.
2. Women still have the right to get an abortion after Dobb’s. Women were traveling to other states for abortions under Roe, they still can now.
3. This is a matter for the states to decide. You can check the SCOTUS opinion on Dobb’s for why this is the case.
Again, where is the lie? There isn’t one. You just don’t like the ruling and the facts. When you resort to name calling, it usually shows that you don’t a valid talking point.
If I were going to be mad at anyone, it would be at Democratic leadership for allowing this to happen. The federalist society has been telling everyone for 40 years that there main aim was to overturn Roe. I guess for 40 years democrats were naive or incompetent or both.
Rights are given to us from God. The constitution protects us from the Government taking those away.
That is not entirely accurate, Sider. For example, god did not grant a right to make graven images, a right to take His name in vain, or a right to worship other gods than Him. All of those rights have been permanently and specifically restricted by god. See Deuteronomy 5:6–21.
The U.S. Constitution gave back those rights to Americans. See, e.g., First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech . . . ."). You can legally do all that now. Graven images, polytheism, all that stuff is legal circa 1790.
It's far worse than the current state of play. All of the talk of states' laws misses the growing storm, brought to you courtesy of Heritage Foundation and fellow authoritarian travelers, in which federal legislation will be pursued banning abortion entirely in the US.
Next comes emergency contraception, and then all contraception. Fetal personhood language is already at play in the states and within the Supreme Court (may they rot in hell) ruling. When the Supremes uphold said 'personhood' right in a future case pitting a red state against the fire wall of blue states, blue state abortion and reproductive rights will also be gone. The American Taliban will not stop until all women have been stripped of all reproductive rights.
This Supreme Court (may they rot in hell) will not rule with any underlying consistent doctrine but instead will serve as a political tool to enforce right wing wants. They already, in this term, displayed widely varying rationales in their decisions in what can only be seen as Results Based Jurisprudence. Just fit the rationale to the needs of the outcome we have predetermined, that's the new way. They're going to press hard in these first couple of years, knowing that the country will act against them at some point. Whatever they can 'lock in' before one of them retires, or dies, or the court is expanded, or jurisdiction pruned by Congress, they're going for it.
One of the big lies of the right is the idea that they promote small government. They actually love big government if they can control all the levers and it serves their power interests, but truly hate majority rule. These rulings are about nothing more than naked right wing power, power over women and power for oligarchs to do whatever the f-ck they want with no intervention (in this case from EPA).
Just remember, when it comes to the Supremes and the right wing, they HATE you.
