Roe v Wade to be overturned

[wildcat09 29258]

31 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I've been searching for a silver lining to all of this.  The one thing I came up with is that many pro-choice advocates and legal scholars never liked Roe, including RBG herself, because they knew that tying legal abortion to the right to privacy was subject to attack. They were right and here we are now. RBG felt, as others did, that a stronger foundation for legal abortion would be based on gender discrimination.  Here is an article that explains it a little further:  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html

My thought was, "Okay, now is the chance to go back and do this the way it should have been done from the beginning. Tie the right to a stronger constitutional basis." Except then I remembered that it doesn't matter how effective the argument, how perfectly the facts of a potential case would line up with constitutional guarantees or anything else other than the makeup of the court.  If there is a majority conservative SCOTUS then there will be no legal right to abortion in this country. Period. And it's going to be years before the balance of the court tips.

Alito dismisses this argument in a single paragraph in his opinion.

[Ojo Rojo 1906]

18 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

i'd like to see what happens if scotus takes the direct route.  is there any case that has been reversed that was itself a reversal?  i can't think of any.  in 25 years, will scotus say "no, no.  we had it right in roe v wade after all."?    

I'm not enough of a con law scholar to know if there has ever been a case reversing a case reversing a case. In my silver lining example, though, the future case reestablishing the right to legal abortion would be based on an entirely different part of the constitution than Roe.  So it wouldn't really be a reversal of a reversal.  It would be a whole new thing.

[Ojo Rojo 1906]

19 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Alito dismisses this argument in a single paragraph in his opinion.

That is dicta and would not be controlling if ever such a case came before the court.  But it doesn't matter.  The only thing that matters is the makeup of the court.

Edited May 5, 2022 by Ojo Rojo

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

5 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

 

https://abovethelaw.com/2022/05/red-states-arent-going-to-be-satisfied-with-overturning-roe-next-up-travel-bans/

[High Plains Drifter 10978]

5 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Everyone should make plans to leave the dystopian nightmare

 

 

 

 

Your turn Texas

 

 

[Chewbacca 7730]

2 hours ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

some fucking ceacescu shit.  people are going to have babies whether they want to or not!

Yeah, that ended well for him.

[GhostOfTomJoad 9308]

 
 
Your turn Texas
 
 

Any menstruating woman is about to be a possible murder suspect.

[High Plains Drifter 10978]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

How long until they ban birth control?

Several of my Trump-loving family had absolutely no idea that Texas had become a minority-majority state and that whites were only around 40% of the state, and two of them bitched that whites weren't having enough babies.

 

I had this conversation with a co-worker some years back

 

Co-worker: So, how's your daughter? How old is she now?

Me: She's good. She turning five this summer.

Co-worker: Are you guys planning on having another?

Me (slightly taken aback and thinking that's none of your fucking business but trying to retain a veneer of civility since I work with this person): No, I think we are one and done.

Co-worker: Oh, that's too bad, people like you and your wife should have more kids. Otherwise the Mexicans are going to take over.

Me: Uh, yeah, I got to go now.

 

 

[Bullneck 18987]

All the right wing crazies from page 1 are going looks stupid when Ginnie is the confirmed leaker.

[Bullneck 18987]

6 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

I expect a lot of well reasoned arguments in the dissent as to why Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey were correctly decided in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the United States.

Did you watch the first 10 seconds of the George Carlin video.  You should.

[Ag with kids 581]

On 5/4/2022 at 4:58 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I have friends that mainly talk about sports and they probably are 99% republicans. When they were recently complaining about the NCAA allowing college players to be paid via NIL, I pointed out to the them that it was the state govt (Abbott) that passed the NIL (for Texas) and not the NCAA. They didn't want to blame the GOP for the NIL and the subject was changed to something else. They didn't want to hear something negative that the GOP did.

I don't care who did it, I think the NIL will affect college football in a negative way that most fans won't like.

[Aqua Buddha 14521]

[brakeman 28253]

Edited May 6, 2022 by brakeman
perjury?

[StassneyHorn 6540]

22 hours ago, Helobious said:

Dave Portnoy coming out as pro-choice today was a shocker. Bizarro world.

No it isnt

[brakeman 28253]

 

TFG's opinion.

Edited May 6, 2022 by brakeman
edit

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

Seth had a good one tonight. (It’s mostly about overturning Roe v. Wade but he gets some good shots in against Gaetz, Graham, and Cruz too.)

 

[Foosters 17734]

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-06/texas-woman-needing-an-abortion-found-love-in-california

Quote

The first sign of Stephanie’s pregnancy was nausea, as it so often is — that particular debilitating queasiness that knocked her off her feet, sometimes all day, days at a time.

It kept Stephanie, who asked me not to use her real name for all the obvious reasons, from working. She runs her own business in Austin, Texas, braiding hair, a skill she learned as a teenager.

“Men, women, children,” she told me with a Lone Star twang. “Yes, ma’am,” she does them all and loves it, loves making her customers feel beautiful.

When Stephanie took a pregnancy test and it came back positive, she was shocked at first, then dismayed. Then things got worse.

Though she hadn’t thought much about it, Texas had just passed its law banning abortions after a heartbeat is found. California, the Golden State of both sunshine and liberty, has of course doubled down on access to reproductive health, also something Stephanie wasn’t yet thinking about.

Stephanie had been dating a man who had been a friend for a few years. They met at a restaurant during a Sunday lunch, and in retrospect, Stephanie wishes she’d kept him “in the friend zone.” As soon as she knew she was pregnant, she also knew he wasn’t someone she wanted to be in a long-term relationship with. He was never going to be the kind of partner she could count on, and she didn’t need more of that.

“Dealing with him, that would have brought a lot of negative problems in my life,” she said.

She has three children, ages 14, 6 and 5. She’s a single mom with all the hard work that comes with it, but “my kids are my main priority,” she says.

The youngest is a “dancing machine” who will start kindergarten soon, a little girl with a big personality. Her 6-year-old is the comedian, a clown, she says, with a helpful side.

Her teenage daughter dreams of being a nurse who works with babies. The young girl thinks being a RN will give her a life of luxury, Stephanie says.

That may not work out quite how the teen thinks, but Stephanie is proud of her drive. “She’s a go-getter, very mature,” she says.

Stephanie, 33, prayed about the pregnancy. She ran through her savings being off work. She thought about the bills a baby would bring, what it would mean for her kids, and for her own future. Then she decided to have an abortion.

“Where I am at in my life, I am on a journey where I am still trying to find myself, trying to be the best mother I can be,” she said. “And I feel like it’s hard enough already and I don’t want to bring another child into this world.”

This is of course none of our business, and requires no justification, no back story to make us understand a choice that is hers alone. But Stephanie shared her story with me both to help explain what it really means for California to be a sanctuary state for abortion, how urgent it is that this state keep the promises its politicians are making, and to let others in need of an abortion know that there is help in these dark and frightening days.

What Planned Parenthood Los Angeles did to help Stephanie, the lengths it went to, surprised me. It made me proud to be in a state that isn’t backing down from this ugly fight, and it made me realize that we are far beyond putting on pink hats and protesting at a statehouse where the governor and legislators already have doubled down on making California a sanctuary for reproductive care.

This is no longer just a culture war between those with political and ideological differences, if it ever was. This is a crisis of identity that will determine the future of this country for decades to come, a dividing line between inclusive democracy and a white Christian nationalism that is seeking, successfully for now, to domino our rights one by one in a vicious fight to keep power for a few at the expense of equality and equity for most. It is racist, sexist, hate-filled and un-American.

I asked Erwin Chemerinsky, one of the nation’s pre-eminent constitutional scholars and a professor at UC Berkeley, where we are headed if the leaked Roe decision becomes law. His assessment was bleak.

“Justice Alito’s opinion, assuming it becomes the final decision, will put many rights in danger,” he said.

“The right to custody of one’s children, the right to keep the family together, the right of parents to control the upbringing of their children, the right to purchase and use contraceptives, the right of consenting adults to engage in same-sex sexual activity, the right of competent adults to refuse medical treatment,” all those will be vulnerable, he warned.

He predicts that if Roe is overruled, states will “adopt laws prohibiting contraceptives that act after conception, like the IUD, the morning after pill, some birth control pills. They will outlaw IVF where embryos are not implanted. They will prohibit women from leaving a state for an abortion and more.”

Stephanie knows exactly what that oppression feels like.

After the positive test, she went to a Texas clinic. She was only about six weeks pregnant, but they found a heartbeat and that was that. Suddenly the Texas law was about her, and her future narrowed down to panic and fear.

“Before I went through this situation, I really didn’t care,” she said of the Texas law. “But then when it affected me, it was like, ‘Oh, s—.’ ”

She said the clinic basically kicked her out. She was crying, and she went back inside to ask if they knew anyone who could help her. The answer was a hard no. Luckily, a friend persuaded her to call Planned Parenthood in Texas that day, and that clinic got her in touch with the Los Angeles office. She said she was thinking there was no way she could get to California, but her friend told her to make the call anyway, a last-ditch hope.

“Immediately they were so helpful,” Stephanie said. “They were concerned. They made me feel good in that moment. Everybody down here just turns up their nose.”

The coordinator who handled her call got to work, Stephanie said. Planned Parenthood booked her flights between Texas and L.A. — 1,242 miles each way — and paid for them. They arranged transportation and a hotel — and paid for those, too. They even gave her money to pay for incidentals such as food.

But it was the way they made her feel that she remembers most, “like it wasn’t an embarrassment or a shame,” she said.

She was at the lowest point in her life and she found “love from strangers,” she said.

She flew in on a Monday and had the procedure on a Tuesday, then headed home to her kids the next day. No complications, no drama.

“I didn’t expect all this,” she said. And that’s why she’s willing to talk about it. She thinks the Texas law is “trash” but California welcomes those in need.

“I want people to know that in this life you cannot judge anyone,” she said. “I also want people to know there is help and support out there. Don’t feel alone, don’t feel embarrassed, do what’s best for you.”

She — a smart, resourceful adult — barely figured out how to get access to the reproductive care she needed. She thinks about a 14-year-old girl too scared to tell her mom she’s knocked up, or a mom who just can’t figure out where to go for help when that daughter does come to her.

It doesn’t have to be rape or incest. We don’t need the horror stories or worst-case scenarios. Thousands of women, girls and transgender people find out they are pregnant every day, with thousands of back stories that are none of our business.

But the fact that they no longer have choices in states such as Texas and Oklahoma — or even know where to go for help — should be everyone’s business.

Sue Dunlap, the head of Planned Parenthood L.A., told me they see about 100 people a month from out of the state for reproductive care. Across California, clinics are gearing up to help many more than that, possibly several hundred per week at the bigger facilities.

The state Legislature is working to increase access to reproductive care by allowing more types of medical professionals to handle abortions, and by creating state funds that would help cover costs. Organizations like Planned Parenthood are collecting money and marshaling resources.

Dunlap didn’t want to call it an underground railroad for reproductive care, maybe for all the harsh history that term holds, but I’ll call it that. That’s how far backward the current moment is, and how steeped in past racism it is — because a lack of access to abortion hits Black and brown people the most, and hurts those who are poor and marginalized with greater brutality.

If you do nothing else, I hope you will share Stephanie’s story far and wide, so that others in need of reproductive care know the help here is real.

Even Stephanie still can’t quite believe what California did for her, and her family.

“I didn’t expect all this,” she said.

None of us did, but here we are. And while fighting to help individuals such as Stephanie is critical, we have to be real about how much is at stake. California might prefer to focus on its own needs, but as a leader of civil rights, it is being thrust into a national role of protecting the vulnerable — whoever they may be.

It pains me to end a reproductive rights column with a quote from someone without a uterus. But credit where credit is due.

“Pay attention, America, " Gov. Gavin Newsom said this week, speaking outside Planned Parenthood Los Angeles. “They’re coming after you next.”

 

[bolverk 29403]

18 minutes ago, Foosters said:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-06/texas-woman-needing-an-abortion-found-love-in-california

 

Over the past few days, I've seen a couple of mentions of the Turnaway Study documenting the socioeconomic consequences to being denied an abortion. The findings are stark.

https://www.ansirh.org/research/ongoing/turnaway-study

[jimmyjazz 45560]

Quote

"They will prohibit women from leaving a state for an abortion and more.”

What is the legal basis for this concern?  I get it, the R cabal will try to limit as many rights of women and minorities as possible, but what possible argument is there for restricting interstate travel, regardless of reason?

I don't smoke, but I assume it's 100% legal for me to travel to a state like Colorado and smoke up while I'm there.  Under what law could a state prohibit a woman from travelling to California and getting an abortion?

[Horn Dog 9674]

2 hours ago, Foosters said:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-06/texas-woman-needing-an-abortion-found-love-in-california

Quote

Her teenage daughter dreams of being a nurse who works with babies. The young girl thinks being a RN will give her a life of luxury, Stephanie says.

 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11668]

12 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What is the legal basis for this concern?  I get it, the R cabal will try to limit as many rights of women and minorities as possible, but what possible argument is there for restricting interstate travel, regardless of reason?

I don't smoke, but I assume it's 100% legal for me to travel to a state like Colorado and smoke up while I'm there.  Under what law could a state prohibit a woman from travelling to California and getting an abortion?

When I read is that you could do a similar statute like the privateer thing that Texas did That was just blessed by the Supreme Court where an individual could sue for $10,000 if they went somewhere for an abortion.

[MoJames 8241]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What is the legal basis for this concern?  I get it, the R cabal will try to limit as many rights of women and minorities as possible, but what possible argument is there for restricting interstate travel, regardless of reason?

I don't smoke, but I assume it's 100% legal for me to travel to a state like Colorado and smoke up while I'm there.  Under what law could a state prohibit a woman from travelling to California and getting an abortion?

You could absolutely come smoke legally in Colorado. I think this is part of the over reaction portion of the equation that assumes Oklahoma has any ability to enforce a law on a sovereign nation. It isn't happening.

As well, I see a business opportunity to put a Pot/Abortion duo location akin to the Taco Bell/KFC approach and put it right in Campo, CO next to Clarence's Truck Stop.

[Dnaguy 11777]

20 hours ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

https://abovethelaw.com/2022/05/red-states-arent-going-to-be-satisfied-with-overturning-roe-next-up-travel-bans/

 

This.

 

Trafficking laws will be modified so as to make it illegal to help or facilitate the transportation of a person who's intent to terminate a pregnancy.

Just as human trafficking or drug trafficking is illegal.

They'll call them anti-human trafficking's or some other BS.

 

Individual states like Texas will pass these when the # of woman leaving the state to go to California, New York, Colorado, etc is revealed over the coming years.

 

I guess that's all if Repubs in the national government don't do it first or just do an outright national ban. 

 

 

[wildcat09 29258]

40 minutes ago, MoJames said:

You could absolutely come smoke legally in Colorado. I think this is part of the over reaction portion of the equation that assumes Oklahoma has any ability to enforce a law on a sovereign nation. It isn't happening.

As well, I see a business opportunity to put a Pot/Abortion duo location akin to the Taco Bell/KFC approach and put it right in Campo, CO next to Clarence's Truck Stop.

This is why it's not an overreaction.

 

[jimmyjazz 45560]

I'm honestly flummoxed at all these "free to sue" proposals.  I mean, in my non-lawyer world, I would think the plaintiff would have had to suffer some grievance to win a lawsuit.  This bizarre legal lynch mob mentality seems incredibly wrong.

I know, I know.

[Foosters 17734]

22 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This is why it's not an overreaction.

 

How does the plaintiff overcome the jurisdictional issues in suing a doctor in California for treating a patient in California?

[wildcat09 29258]

Just now, Foosters said:

How does the plaintiff overcome the jurisdictional issues in suing a doctor in California for treating a patient in California?

Because Alito will eventually wave his "abortion is different" magic wand and say it's fine.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Yeah fuck off with the “overreacting” stuff.

Y’all said the same thing when we said the 2016 election would be the end of Roe.

[27-25 2040]

50 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm honestly flummoxed at all these "free to sue" proposals.  I mean, in my non-lawyer world, I would think the plaintiff would have had to suffer some grievance to win a lawsuit.  This bizarre legal lynch mob mentality seems incredibly wrong.

I know, I know.

Funny how the crowd that made the most noise about tort reform and over zealous litigation turns out to be fine with proposals to open the floodgates to lawsuits that seem to involve one party with no legal standing (at least as far as I used to understand the term).

And I have a question about that.  Let's say Citizen A is sued by Citizen B under those circumstances and let's assume Citizen A wins.  Is there any protection from Citizen C stepping up and bringing their own suit?  Can a citizen mob drown the plaintiff in suits until they are bankrupt?

[wildcat09 29258]

4 minutes ago, 27-25 said:

Funny how the crowd that made the most noise about tort reform and over zealous litigation turns out to be fine with proposals to open the floodgates to lawsuits that seem to involve one party with no legal standing (at least as far as I used to understand the term).

And I have a question about that.  Let's say Citizen A is sued by Citizen B under those circumstances and let's assume Citizen A wins.  Is there any protection from Citizen C stepping up and bringing their own suit?  Can a citizen mob drown the plaintiff in suits until they are bankrupt?

SB8 has language prohibiting subsequent suits if someone has already been sued and forced to pay by someone else.

[MoJames 8241]

I'd like to see how the state of Missouri gets through HIPPA to enforce such laws.

For example, the Brady Act requires someone to be adjudicated as Mentally Ill.

Look, I'm Pro-Choice. I just have a hard time seeing a scenario where people are not able to get a safe abortion in states that wish to allow it. I could be wrong, but I hope I'm not.

[lemonlime 5503]

34 minutes ago, MoJames said:

I'd like to see how the state of Missouri gets through HIPPA to enforce such laws.

For example, the Brady Act requires someone to be adjudicated as Mentally Ill.

Look, I'm Pro-Choice. I just have a hard time seeing a scenario where people are not able to get a safe abortion in states that wish to allow it. I could be wrong, but I hope I'm not.

There's a law enforcement exception to HIPAA.  And law is Calvin ball anyway now.  

I suspect providers in states where abortion will remain legal will do everything in their power to protect people coming from TX or LA or wherever.  But that's a shaky basis to rely upon for those women's lives.  And that only protects women wealthy enough to travel out of state for a procedure that they probably will need to pay for out of pocket.

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

14 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

There's a law enforcement exception to HIPAA.  And law is Calvin ball anyway now.  

I suspect providers in states where abortion will remain legal will do everything in their power to protect people coming from TX or LA or wherever.  But that's a shaky basis to rely upon for those women's lives.  And that only protects women wealthy enough to travel out of state for a procedure that they probably will need to pay for out of pocket.

And I’d assume it wouldn’t be safe to return to their home States where they might be able to cast a vote against the Republican establishment or speak out against them. Just a guess. 

[wildcat09 29258]

55 minutes ago, MoJames said:

I'd like to see how the state of Missouri gets through HIPPA to enforce such laws.

For example, the Brady Act requires someone to be adjudicated as Mentally Ill.

Look, I'm Pro-Choice. I just have a hard time seeing a scenario where people are not able to get a safe abortion in states that wish to allow it. I could be wrong, but I hope I'm not.

Some will be able to. Many won't.

[MoJames 8241]

20 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

There's a law enforcement exception to HIPAA.  And law is Calvin ball anyway now.  

I suspect providers in states where abortion will remain legal will do everything in their power to protect people coming from TX or LA or wherever.  But that's a shaky basis to rely upon for those women's lives.  And that only protects women wealthy enough to travel out of state for a procedure that they probably will need to pay for out of pocket.

True. Wonder how often it is used by one state to request medical records from another state with varying laws on the crime in question.

 

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Some will be able to. Many won't.

Yup. Certainly one of the worst parts of this. It will be interesting to see how much this augments population movement over the next 10-20 years.

[Aqua Buddha 14521]

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

I disagree with the title, as I think America has been 'torn apart' for some time.

That said, I do think we're very close to a legal Civil War of sorts.  

Quote

 

The Death of Roe Is Going to Tear America Apart

By Michelle Goldberg

Opinion Columnist

In his draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, Justice Samuel Alito blamed that 1973 abortion decision for sparking “a national controversy that has embittered our political culture for a half century.” He quoted Justice Antonin Scalia: “Roe fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics in general, and has obscured with its smoke the selection of justices to this court in particular, ever since.”

As a matter of history, the idea that Roe ignited America’s culture wars is, at best, a distortion. The 7-2 decision was not nearly as politically divisive when it was decided as it is today. Catholics opposed it, but many conservative evangelicals did not; the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution calling for legal abortion in some circumstances in 1971, and then reaffirmed it in 1974. As the Dartmouth historian Randall Balmer has argued, evangelical leaders didn’t seize on Roe until the contemporary religious right began to coalesce at the end of the 1970s, largely in response to the I.R.S. stripping segregated Christian schools of their tax exemptions.

But even if Roe had let loose the forces ripping this country apart, its end still wouldn’t bring détente. Instead, the demise of Roe will exacerbate America’s antagonisms, creating more furious legal rifts between states than we’ve seen in modern times.

“If you think it’s polarized now, you haven’t seen anything yet,” said Mary Ziegler, a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and author of the forthcoming book “Dollars for Life: The Anti-Abortion Movement and the Fall of the Republican Establishment.”

Very soon, if the Supreme Court really discards Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision partly upholding it, we will have two wildly different abortion regimes in this country. About half of states are expected to mostly prohibit abortion; according to the Guttmacher Institute, in 11 states there won’t even be exemptions for rape and incest. A bill moving through the Louisiana Legislature would allow prosecutors to charge those having abortions with homicide.

Blue states, meanwhile, are setting themselves as abortion sanctuaries. Oregon lawmakers recently passed a bill to create a $15 million fund to help cover abortion costs, including for those traveling to the state for the procedure. Something similar is in the works in California. Abortion clinics in Illinois, bordered by several states where abortion is likely to be made illegal, are preparing for a huge influx of patients.

The right won’t be content to watch liberal states try to undermine abortion bans. As the draft of a forthcoming article in The Columbia Law Review puts it, “overturning Roe and Casey will create a novel world of complicated, interjurisdictional legal conflicts over abortion. Instead of creating stability and certainty, it will lead to profound confusion because advocates on all sides of the abortion controversy will not stop at state borders in their efforts to apply their policies as broadly as possible.”

Already, a Missouri lawmaker introduced a measure that would let private citizens sue anyone who helps a Missouri resident get an out-of-state abortion. More such proposals will probably follow. Under a Texas law passed last year, people in other states sending abortion pills through the mail to Texas residents could be extradited to face felony charges, though the authorities in liberal states are unlikely to cooperate.

In anticipation of such legislation, Connecticut just passed a law meant to shield doctors and patients. Among other things, it ensures that no one can be extradited to another state for performing or obtaining an abortion that’s legal in Connecticut, and ensures that people sued under a law like the one proposed in Missouri could countersue to recover their costs.

Experts don’t know how these kinds of interstate battles are going to play out because there’s so little precedent for them. If you’re searching for close parallels, said Ziegler, “you’re looking at fugitive slave cases, because there are not many times in history when states are trying to tell other states what to do in this way.” The point is not that abortion bans are comparable to slavery in a moral sense, but that they create potentially irreconcilable legal frameworks.

Conservatives, of course, have a plan for reconciling clashing abortion laws — a federal abortion ban. Speaking to NBC News this week, Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota said he was concerned about women traveling across state lines to get abortions. “I don’t find a lot of solace in that just because it didn’t happen in my state,” he said. “So yeah, I think you could expect that pro-life activists would push for federal protections.” According to The Washington Post, Joni Ernst, a Republican senator from Iowa, plans to introduce a bill to ban abortion after six weeks.

It won’t pass as long as Democrats are in control, but at some point, there will almost certainly be a Republican president and a Republican Congress. It’s easy to imagine conservative activists demanding that their leaders jettison the filibuster in order to push through a national abortion ban. It’s hard to imagine the Republican senators who’ve defended the filibuster putting procedural principle above one of their base’s most cherished goals.

But long before we get there, the death of Roe will intensify our national animus, turning red states and blue into mutually hostile legal territories. You think we hate each other now? Just wait until the new round of lawsuits start.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/06/opinion/roe-abortion-culture-war.html

Edited May 6, 2022 by MC Fresh Breath

[fattyflattie 4636]

30 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

“No longer”

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

zing!

[Deej 76568]

2 hours ago, 27-25 said:

Funny how the crowd that made the most noise about tort reform and over zealous litigation turns out to be fine with proposals to open the floodgates to lawsuits that seem to involve one party with no legal standing (at least as far as I used to understand the term).

The same crowd who bitched about the government overreaching and wanting everyone to wear masks?

"It's my freedom and my choice!!!"

That crowd?

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

A book I don’t need to read because I know exactly what it’s going to say.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

Quote

As a matter of history, the idea that Roe ignited America’s culture wars is, at best, a distortion. The 7-2 decision was not nearly as politically divisive when it was decided as it is today. Catholics opposed it, but many conservative evangelicals did not; the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution calling for legal abortion in some circumstances in 1971, and then reaffirmed it in 1974. As the Dartmouth historian Randall Balmer has argued, evangelical leaders didn’t seize on Roe until the contemporary religious right began to coalesce at the end of the 1970s, largely in response to the I.R.S. stripping segregated Christian schools of their tax exemptions.

I've made this point a half dozen times on surly over the years.  It's true.  Jackasses like @Johnny Sack just refuse to acknowledge it, and continue to pass along tired falsehood that "50 years ago, most Americans were against abortion". 

In fact, the exact opposite is true.

Learn something, Sack.  For once in your pathetic silver-spoon-fed life.

[Satchel 6908]

17 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I've made this point a half dozen times on surly over the years.  It's true.  Jackasses like @Johnny Sack just refuse to acknowledge it, and continue to pass along tired falsehood that "50 years ago, most Americans were against abortion". 

In fact, the exact opposite is true.

Learn something, Sack.  For once in your pathetic silver-spoon-fed life.

Even the late Baptist Pope, W.A. Criswell, supported a woman’s right to choose.

[speed817 19115]

 

[jimmyjazz 45560]

Yeah, I don't know why these guys can't just stick to sports.  Like Antonio Brown getting all up in that Board of Education -- come on, dude, clean your own house first.

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

SB8 has language prohibiting subsequent suits if someone has already been sued and forced to pay by someone else.

So nothing to stop them being sued over and over if they don’t get fined?  I’m sure their lawyers will all be working pro bono, right?

[Chewbacca 7730]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Learn something, Sack.  For once in your pathetic silver-spoon-fed life.

Narrator:  He won't.

[Sawbonz 27436]

3 hours ago, lemonlime said:

There's a law enforcement exception to HIPAA.  And law is Calvin ball anyway now. 

These laws are civil not criminal. I’m not sure how a third party whose only interest is a bullshit state civil statute can gain access to privileged medical information  

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11668]

1 hour ago, speed817 said:

 

[Aqua Buddha 14521]