SCOTUS decision leaked.

[bruce]

Been done before in 73 when RvW first was considered. No surprise now. Timing very much favors the liberals given current election cycle. Not hard to figure where to start looking. About impossible to expect any real repercussions, legal or otherwise for the left. Sincerely. bruce.

[Roadkingtrax]

An interesting aspect of this story is that it immediately became a world-wide story. I was looking at an Australian newspaper on-line and it was on the front page and it certainly was front page news here in Canada. It is such a divisive issue that our Prime Minister felt it necessary to reassure Canadians that there would be no change in our abortion laws. In practice in Canada, there are no abortion laws at all since abortion is treated as a medical issue. There used to be laws on abortion but in 1988 our Supreme Court struck them down.

Sometimes the US is simply on the wrong side of the debate. It should be a protected practice, but not everyone sees it that way here.

[togor]

At the end of the day, women in the United States want the choice of whether to continue a pregnancy or not. If government tries to interfere with their rights, it can expect resistance. As Americans, we should demand nothing less of our fellow citizens.

Conservatives arguing that women are cattle in the eyes of the Constitution SHOULD get a severe reaction. It's an absurd and dangerous notion. Doesn't surprise me at all that a Conservative Catholic is writing the opinion. Those people are impervious to reason.

[Allen]

If the abortion ruling is passed women STILL have the rights for abortion. The states that have passed the laws on their own only say abortion is illegal after 15 weeks or so. After that a heartbeat and other signs of life are detected.

I don't know what terms the court has voted on but feel it would somewhat match what Texas, Florida and others have done.

Women still can have abortions, the liberal's can get off of that stuck record of an excuse. The 15 week ruling will only draw a line in the sand to what is abortion vs what is murder. The only thing the government would be controlling is the timeline. Women would still have a say and their rights.

Abortion should never have been used for birth control. Only the extremely irresponsible would see it that way. If a woman is raped, date raped, get's drunk, whatever and feels she could possibly conceive then they can take the "morning after pill" and no one will ever know. Still, they have up to 15 weeks, after which they need to realize they are carrying life.

I think the problem began when pregnancy started being covered by insurance. IT IS NOT AN ILLNESS AND CAN BE PREVENTED. Of course obammycare put everything in high gear where the irresponsible shell out no cost or care of their own.

Whatever is decided, it needs to be uniform in all states otherwise a woman can just go to a liberal state and have an abortion. Nothing would be accomplished by passing abortion laws as long as this continues.

Abortion: for it or against it, at some point of a typical 9 month pregnancy you have to admit it is murder.

[togor]

But Allen,

If at some point it is murder, then at some point it is NOT murder too. It simply follows.

My experience with the anti-choice folks here, primarily Art and Vernon and blackhawknj, is their position calls it murder from the moment of fertilization. That's the law they want to see. Period. No debate. No "points".

They will tell you something called "natural law" holds this to be true, and that on this basis, there is no room for debate. Because if the Constitution is silent on abortion, well guess what .... So is Scripture!!!!!

Vernon would even let an ectopic pregnancy kill everyone before agreeing to abortions. His own church (I know their teaching well) won't even go that far!

It's an incredibly messed-up situation, and why I firmly believe that the current SCOTUS is a grave danger to the country. And mark my words, their appetite for radical rulings will only increase with every case. Those people are flat-out nuts.

[Roadkingtrax]

Pregnancy shouldn't be covered by insurance?

[Vern Humphrey]

Human life is sacred.

The right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights. Without a right to life, all other rights are valueless. What good does freedom of speech do a dead man? How can a corpse exercise the right to trial by jury?

The right to life accrues to each of us as a part of our basic humanity. It is as much a part of us as our minds, our personalities, or our arms and legs. It is given to us by no one. It is ours merely because we are living human beings.

There are those who say that "society" or the government decides when we get the right to life. If that is so, then it is no right at all, but merely a privilege, for if the government can grant the right to life, it can surely withhold it. Once you accept that the government has this power, you must accept, willy-nilly that the government can decree some people -- perhaps Jews, or Blacks or Catholics -- never get the right to life.

If, therefore there is such a thing as a right to life, it must accrue to every living human being. This sets up a simple, three-part test.

? Is the unborn child living? If it were not, we would not be having this debate!

? Is it human? Check the DNA. If it has rabbit or squirrel DNA, then it is not human. But if it has human DNA, it is human.

? But is it a being? Check the DNA again. If it has the mother's DNA, then it is a part of her body. But if it has its own DNA, then it is a being -- a separate and distinct human life.

Very clearly, the unborn has the same right to live as any other living human being. Who denies that, denies the whole concept of human rights.

[Roadkingtrax]

Religious freedom debate is a strawman.

Vern's argument assumes life begins at conception. That's not a legal construct that is defined. He also denies the life of the parent, who is the only one that's should have the right over her body. Why are others even invited to participate in the legal practice of abortion?

[togor]

Religious freedom debate is a strawman.

Vern's argument assumes life begins at conception. That's not a legal construct that is defined. He also denies the life of the parent, who is the only one that's should have the right over her body. Why are others even invited to participate in the legal practice of abortion?

God or nature clearly disagrees with Vernon's assertion of where human life begins, given a spontaneous miscarriage rate of ballpark 15%.

And you're right, he's denying that the parent even exists as a legal construct. If that isn't radical, I don't know what is.

Given that it's Alito writing the opinion, it is years in the making, and the final draft will match the early draft. Like Putin, the mindset is that if you hit resistance just keep pushing.

But I predict the test of "it's explicitly in the Constitution so it's not a right" is going to come back and bite a lot of anti-abortion supporters in the ass. Especially when the next vaccine mandate comes along. Was I the only one who noticed the "my body my choice" memes? Well last time I checked SCOTUS doesn't give the individual a right to refuse vaccination. So they'll be getting the damn shot whether they want it or not.

Bloody-mindedness in the extreme.

[togor]

The reason the decision lasted so long is that earlier generations of jurists couldn't articulate a reason why it wasn't a good ruling. Why pregnancy wasn't a medical condition and why a woman didn't have a privacy right to sort things out with her doctor.

But, in a mark of societal and Conservative decay, a panel of jurists has finally been assembled who are taking the position of: F*ck it, we want this, and we don't care if we write bad law to get it. We have the power and we will use it. Not since the 1850's really have we seen this attitude reach an operating majority on the court. Even the excesses of Warren court, if you want to call them that, had sturdy legal reasoning behind them.

[RED]

The question is when does a fertilized egg become a human being. The consensus is that when the embryo becomes a fetus (8-10 weeks) it is a unborn baby. Does the mother have the unlimited right to kill her unborn baby? BTW, It takes 2 to tango, so where are the daddies rights?

The truth is Alito is correct the whole thing should be up to the people to decide through their legislatures. There is no Constitutional basis to legalize murder

[blackhawknj]

The pro-abortion crowd has refused to accept the idea that if bringing a child into the world is solely up to the mother then she has sole responsibility. And no right to choose for men, or the rest of us who get stuck with the bill.

[Roadkingtrax]

The question is when does a fertilized egg become a human being. The consensus is that when the embryo becomes a fetus (8-10 weeks) it is a unborn baby. Does the mother have the unlimited right to kill her unborn baby? BTW, It takes 2 to tango, so where are the daddies rights?

The truth is Alito is correct the whole thing should be up to the people to decide through their legislatures. There is no Constitutional basis to legalize murder

It's not defined. You are defining it in your terms. Women are not men's property like the olden days.

[togor]

The pro-abortion crowd has refused to accept the idea that if bringing a child into the world is solely up to the mother then she has sole responsibility. And no right to choose for men, or the rest of us who get stuck with the bill.

If you are going to ban all abortions, and correct me if I am wrong when I say this is where you would like things to go, with no exceptions of any kind--again correct me if I am wrong--then as a taxpayer you will be on the hook for the live births that are unwanted.

Even worse, imagine a Federal mandate that all pregnancies that do not result in live births are subject to investigation, and if need be, prosecution of the host. And all of those unwanted live births. Will there be Federal funding for the "orphanages" or an unfunded Federal mandate? Hah you tell me.

In that perverse reading of the law, the woman has no rights under the Constitution, until after the pregnancy is terminated. Then presumably guilt-until-proven innocent once again applies.

Mine is not a pro-abortion position. It is a recognition that there are competing rights at issue here. It is the anti-abortion extremist view that will make things far far worse. And no mistake this is an extremist court.

- - - Updated - - -

The question is when does a fertilized egg become a human being. The consensus is that when the embryo becomes a fetus (8-10 weeks) it is a unborn baby. Does the mother have the unlimited right to kill her unborn baby? BTW, It takes 2 to tango, so where are the daddies rights?

The truth is Alito is correct the whole thing should be up to the people to decide through their legislatures. There is no Constitutional basis to legalize murder

There is no general Federal statute against murder. Mostly it is a state crime, except where the Federal Government has a specific compelling interest. But as for one human life prevailing over another, case law is loaded with examples.

And....pay attention! The anti-abortionists are already talking about a Federal ban!

So it isn't even about abortion, or states' rights. It's about a religious view of societal control.

The old guys are so locked into their propaganda that they don't see it. The rights they value are important, but the other rights, pfui!

[Vern Humphrey]

Where in the Constitution do you find the "right" to an abortion? Quote the words.