Ever since the Supreme Court draft leak of the repeal of Roe vs Wade, I see that the left is framing it with an argument that this would set a precedent that would allow other civil rights to be repealed. And, although that's all very true and valid, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Right now, the left is so afraid of the issue, for the coming election, that they can't say this is a tragedy for women's rights in its own right. They have to argue about other civil rights losses in the future to try and get more people into their camp. They say Americans vote with our silent majority. And they don't say their opinion until election time. The left fears that the silent majority actually wants Roe vs Wade overturned and strict abortion bans put into place. And, they are probably right.
And it is turning out to be true. For starters, Gov Abbott wants to overturn Plyler v Doe. Mississippi governor wants to ban birth control, other than abstinence I presume, in the near future if Roe v Wade was overturned. Certain GOP conservatives want to make it a national law that abortion is not allowed with some arguing for no exceptions whatsoever. Certain conservatives want to overturn the right of marriage for LGBTQ people. One, at least, has called for the overturning of Loving v Virginia. Do you honestly think the people who are afraid of the abortion issue is the people on the left? Personally, I think it's the people on the right who are the most afraid because they don't want to have any reasonable alternative whatsoever. It is either the all or none approach for them. The Roe v Wade issue has been ongoing for several decades now. It's not the abortion per se, it's the aftermath if that Supreme Court decision, and if the above list is any indication, perhaps they are making legitimate arguments here. Or is the above list just "thumping the chest" so to speak?
Well, Republican politicians have always pushed out anti-abortion bills with the knowledge that the court will strike them down, as has been case precedent for years. Now, perhaps, they want to test to see how far they can legally go before the court strikes those bills down again.
You'll live, snowflakes. Even if Roe v Wade is struck down on the federal level, it will then be left up to the individual states. Even if half of the states ban abortion, that still leaves 25 other states you can go to and kill your unborn child...
yep, the left needs to get out and vote, not just one election, but all the election going forward or Republican will do crazy stuff like this
so what your saying is the right wing snowflakes have stopped nothing, as the poor will just have to cross state lines to get an abortion.... if they can afford it.... the middle class and the rich will be unaffected
And that state's taxpayers can pay for it. I, however, will not be... As a side note, if you are that poor, why are you having children that you can't afford? A little personal responsibility goes a long way...
to the second part... they are having children cause Republicans are forcing them too their body, their choice ...or.... government's choice the right wants big daddy government deciding
Not really, would it. Republicans Will Try To Ban Abortion Nationwide If Supreme Court Overturns Roe V. Wade, Report Reveals
just remember, part of the reason we did not let the government decide women's reproduce parts if not only could they choose not to abort, but also the gov on the flip side could choose to abort and when the right chooses, it's not good for poor people "Bush Criticized for End-of-Life Laws" https://web.archive.org/web/20051219170102/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151448,00.html "But on March 15, a Texas law signed by then-Gov. George W. Bush (search) in 1999 allowed the hospital to go ahead and take Sun off the respirator in defiance of Wanda Hudson's wishes."
Most of the poor live in blue states which is one of the reasons they are still poor closing on five decades after the commencement of the war on poverty. No one ever thought ending Roe would end Abortion. What it did mean was that it would go back to the states where it should stay. Note what we will almost certainly get is what we had before Roe exemptions, for rape incest and the life and health of the mother.
OH YES YOU WILL.. more poor kids on Welfare whether it's because the women can't get abortion or they did and are now in jail ( AN EXPENSE FOR TAXPAYERS) or because more kids have mothers in jail. Why do YOU want women to have kids they can't afford? Yes, and a responsible woman aborts a kids she can't afford. And , if men just stopped having sex then there would be no abortions ( I wanted to get that bit in before you got to the "Women have to give up sex" crap
I think the RW has more to worry about it considering its election year, although IMO they are going to win this year no matter what. The issue is a political tool for both parties, but mostly for RW. No, most poor live in red States, and the poor also have much higher abortion rates, so those States will need to deal with that issue in the coming years.
Nonsense. And, let's remember that a majority of Americans are in the pro-choice camp. Today, we see the right wing handling this with the SILENT TREATMENT, as well they should.
Or could it be that all of this conflict is a necessary part of the process that by the year 2185 will have led to a world where children are regarded as the most valuable commodity in the world???? https://near-death.com/howard-storm-nde/ ....
But that's not the case now, is it? Right now, the court, assuming the judges HAVE voted to overturn Roe v Wade, will allow the Court to pretty much get rid of all privacy issues for the past 50 years. That would also mean a free for all in certain provisions of the Patriot Act in which the Government can AND will spy on you outright, like most totalitarian regimes. Modern conservatives are so giddy about this overturning, that they won't stop at Roe v Wade. Any and all Supreme Court cases that they disagree with the modern conservatives want AND demand those cases to be overturned as well. Look, I think there is a compromise. The main issue is that the original Roe v Wade had different criteria for different stages. It basically allowed any abortion in the first trimester, put some reasonable restrictions in the second trimester, and only allowed for the life of the mother exception in the third trimester. But right now, you have two polar opposites. One side wants to ban abortion no matter what, an ethical dilemma for medical professionals in certain medical situations. And the other side wants on-demand abortion no matter what stage it is. The two most notable situations in which the Supreme Court has overturned its own precedent were the Separate but equal doctrine which the court basically solidified the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment in education, and capital punishment, in which the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment in McGautha v California. Prior to McGautha v California, there was no penalty phase in felony cases. If you were found guilty, then the punishment was up to the judge with very little room in some cases, if at all. It also, at that time, didn't allow a lot of the mental health issues to be heard by the jury because it really wasn't relevant to the facts of the case 99% of the time. Now, we have the guilt and innocent phase and the punishment phase to determine jury trial felony cases. But now, there does not appear to be that case, even in the draft version of the opinion.
