The Phony Issue of Abortion

[DGS49]

When distilled to their essence, the Democrats sell the abortion issue as fear of a Conservative Supreme Court "taking away your right of abortion," and Republicans sell it as a future Conservative Supreme Court "stopping the evil carnage of abortion."

Both are self-serving, pandering bullshit. Let's look at the possibilities.

We all like to speak of the "Nuclear Option," so let's address that first. The Nuclear Option for a Conservative Court would be to say, more or less, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, and any related "rights" are therefore void. As for abortion, Roe v. Wade was a horrible, incorrect decision that is entirely overruled. As for the right itself, (a) the only thing mentioned in the Constitution is the Right to Life, which we affirm; (b) the question of when life begins is a theological one which we have neither the knowledge nor the right to rule on; and (c) since we don't know when life begin we must assume it begins with conception. Therefore, abortion is the taking of a life, and must be dealt with as such, by both the Federal and State governments.

This will not ever happen. It won't happen because a Conservative Court disdains "legislating from the bench," and that's what it would be. That sort of decision MUST (according to Conservative thought) be made by the Peoples' representatives in the legislatures. The Nuclear Option will not happen and it is not to be feared.

It is possible that some future Conservative Court would rule that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided (every legal scholar agrees), and must be voided. This is a near-Nuclear decision and is theoretically possible, but such a decision would not uniformly make abortion illegal in the United States. It would merely throw the question back to State law, or, ultimately to Congress (if any consensus could be had). So an "overturning" of Roe v. Wade would merely make getting an abortion in a few states very inconvenient. And wouldn't "Planned Parenthood" and its supporters step in an "help" the unfortunates in those states to go out-of-state to get fixed?

And consider that Leftists alway say that there is a national consensus on the abortion "right," so isn't it fair to ask them to prove it? But I digress.

A third possibility - the most likely one - is the possibility that a Conservative Court would REINFORCE the basic finding in RvW. They would do this because most Justices give due respect to precedent (even when a case was wrongly decided, as with RvW), ESPECIALLY when that precedent has been relied on by the General Public for a number of years. RvW has presumably been the law of the land for almost 40 years - 2 generations, culturally speaking.

Reinforcing RvW would mean, in effect, that a first trimester abortion is a "right" that cannot be limited by the States; a second trimester abortion can be regulated by the states (to be defined); and once the baby is arguably viable - third trimester - then it becomes a "person" for Constitutional purposes, and it cannot be aborted. So the worst that anyone has to fear from a Conservative Court is the loss of the "right" to abort a viable baby. And is that an outrage?

But note well: in no case will Abortion be outlawed by the Supreme Court. It simply cannot and will not happen. A Conservative majority on the USSC would NEVER write a new Amendment into the Constitution, which is what it would take to outlaw abortion. And even if they tried to do that, it would start a bipartisan uprising sufficient to push a Constitutional Amendment in response.

 

[Taz]

When distilled to their essence, the Democrats sell the abortion issue as fear of a Conservative Supreme Court "taking away your right of abortion," and Republicans sell it as a future Conservative Supreme Court "stopping the evil carnage of abortion."

Both are self-serving, pandering bullshit. Let's look at the possibilities.

We all like to speak of the "Nuclear Option," so let's address that first. The Nuclear Option for a Conservative Court would be to say, more or less, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, and any related "rights" are therefore void. As for abortion, Roe v. Wade was a horrible, incorrect decision that is entirely overruled. As for the right itself, (a) the only thing mentioned in the Constitution is the Right to Life, which we affirm; (b) the question of when life begins is a theological one which we have neither the knowledge nor the right to rule on; and (c) since we don't know when life begin we must assume it begins with conception. Therefore, abortion is the taking of a life, and must be dealt with as such, by both the Federal and State governments.

This will not ever happen. It won't happen because a Conservative Court disdains "legislating from the bench," and that's what it would be. That sort of decision MUST (according to Conservative thought) be made by the Peoples' representatives in the legislatures. The Nuclear Option will not happen and it is not to be feared.

It is possible that some future Conservative Court would rule that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided (every legal scholar agrees), and must be voided. This is a near-Nuclear decision and is theoretically possible, but such a decision would not uniformly make abortion illegal in the United States. It would merely throw the question back to State law, or, ultimately to Congress (if any consensus could be had). So an "overturning" of Roe v. Wade would merely make getting an abortion in a few states very inconvenient. And wouldn't "Planned Parenthood" and its supporters step in an "help" the unfortunates in those states to go out-of-state to get fixed?

And consider that Leftists alway say that there is a national consensus on the abortion "right," so isn't it fair to ask them to prove it? But I digress.

A third possibility - the most likely one - is the possibility that a Conservative Court would REINFORCE the basic finding in RvW. They would do this because most Justices give due respect to precedent (even when a case was wrongly decided, as with RvW), ESPECIALLY when that precedent has been relied on by the General Public for a number of years. RvW has presumably been the law of the land for almost 40 years - 2 generations, culturally speaking.

Reinforcing RvW would mean, in effect, that a first trimester abortion is a "right" that cannot be limited by the States; a second trimester abortion can be regulated by the states (to be defined); and once the baby is arguably viable - third trimester - then it becomes a "person" for Constitutional purposes, and it cannot be aborted. So the worst that anyone has to fear from a Conservative Court is the loss of the "right" to abort a viable baby. And is that an outrage?

But note well: in no case will Abortion be outlawed by the Supreme Court. It simply cannot and will not happen. A Conservative majority on the USSC would NEVER write a new Amendment into the Constitution, which is what it would take to outlaw abortion. And even if they tried to do that, it would start a bipartisan uprising sufficient to push a Constitutional Amendment in response.

"since we don't know when life begin we must assume it begins with conception." Um... no. If we don't know, then it can't default to your preferred outcome, because you're basing that on nothing.

 

[Taz]

When distilled to their essence, the Democrats sell the abortion issue as fear of a Conservative Supreme Court "taking away your right of abortion," and Republicans sell it as a future Conservative Supreme Court "stopping the evil carnage of abortion."

Both are self-serving, pandering bullshit. Let's look at the possibilities.

We all like to speak of the "Nuclear Option," so let's address that first. The Nuclear Option for a Conservative Court would be to say, more or less, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, and any related "rights" are therefore void. As for abortion, Roe v. Wade was a horrible, incorrect decision that is entirely overruled. As for the right itself, (a) the only thing mentioned in the Constitution is the Right to Life, which we affirm; (b) the question of when life begins is a theological one which we have neither the knowledge nor the right to rule on; and (c) since we don't know when life begin we must assume it begins with conception. Therefore, abortion is the taking of a life, and must be dealt with as such, by both the Federal and State governments.

This will not ever happen. It won't happen because a Conservative Court disdains "legislating from the bench," and that's what it would be. That sort of decision MUST (according to Conservative thought) be made by the Peoples' representatives in the legislatures. The Nuclear Option will not happen and it is not to be feared.

It is possible that some future Conservative Court would rule that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided (every legal scholar agrees), and must be voided. This is a near-Nuclear decision and is theoretically possible, but such a decision would not uniformly make abortion illegal in the United States. It would merely throw the question back to State law, or, ultimately to Congress (if any consensus could be had). So an "overturning" of Roe v. Wade would merely make getting an abortion in a few states very inconvenient. And wouldn't "Planned Parenthood" and its supporters step in an "help" the unfortunates in those states to go out-of-state to get fixed?

And consider that Leftists alway say that there is a national consensus on the abortion "right," so isn't it fair to ask them to prove it? But I digress.

A third possibility - the most likely one - is the possibility that a Conservative Court would REINFORCE the basic finding in RvW. They would do this because most Justices give due respect to precedent (even when a case was wrongly decided, as with RvW), ESPECIALLY when that precedent has been relied on by the General Public for a number of years. RvW has presumably been the law of the land for almost 40 years - 2 generations, culturally speaking.

Reinforcing RvW would mean, in effect, that a first trimester abortion is a "right" that cannot be limited by the States; a second trimester abortion can be regulated by the states (to be defined); and once the baby is arguably viable - third trimester - then it becomes a "person" for Constitutional purposes, and it cannot be aborted. So the worst that anyone has to fear from a Conservative Court is the loss of the "right" to abort a viable baby. And is that an outrage?

But note well: in no case will Abortion be outlawed by the Supreme Court. It simply cannot and will not happen. A Conservative majority on the USSC would NEVER write a new Amendment into the Constitution, which is what it would take to outlaw abortion. And even if they tried to do that, it would start a bipartisan uprising sufficient to push a Constitutional Amendment in response.

"So the worst that anyone has to fear from a Conservative Court is the loss of the "right" to abort a viable baby". And is that an outrage?" so if you find out that your fetus has a severe problem that will have the baby live a short life in pain, you can't do anything about it? Well, rich people will always do what they want, it's just the poor that can't.

 

[esalla]

When distilled to their essence, the Democrats sell the abortion issue as fear of a Conservative Supreme Court "taking away your right of abortion," and Republicans sell it as a future Conservative Supreme Court "stopping the evil carnage of abortion."

Both are self-serving, pandering bullshit. Let's look at the possibilities.

We all like to speak of the "Nuclear Option," so let's address that first. The Nuclear Option for a Conservative Court would be to say, more or less, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, and any related "rights" are therefore void. As for abortion, Roe v. Wade was a horrible, incorrect decision that is entirely overruled. As for the right itself, (a) the only thing mentioned in the Constitution is the Right to Life, which we affirm; (b) the question of when life begins is a theological one which we have neither the knowledge nor the right to rule on; and (c) since we don't know when life begin we must assume it begins with conception. Therefore, abortion is the taking of a life, and must be dealt with as such, by both the Federal and State governments.

This will not ever happen. It won't happen because a Conservative Court disdains "legislating from the bench," and that's what it would be. That sort of decision MUST (according to Conservative thought) be made by the Peoples' representatives in the legislatures. The Nuclear Option will not happen and it is not to be feared.

It is possible that some future Conservative Court would rule that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided (every legal scholar agrees), and must be voided. This is a near-Nuclear decision and is theoretically possible, but such a decision would not uniformly make abortion illegal in the United States. It would merely throw the question back to State law, or, ultimately to Congress (if any consensus could be had). So an "overturning" of Roe v. Wade would merely make getting an abortion in a few states very inconvenient. And wouldn't "Planned Parenthood" and its supporters step in an "help" the unfortunates in those states to go out-of-state to get fixed?

And consider that Leftists alway say that there is a national consensus on the abortion "right," so isn't it fair to ask them to prove it? But I digress.

A third possibility - the most likely one - is the possibility that a Conservative Court would REINFORCE the basic finding in RvW. They would do this because most Justices give due respect to precedent (even when a case was wrongly decided, as with RvW), ESPECIALLY when that precedent has been relied on by the General Public for a number of years. RvW has presumably been the law of the land for almost 40 years - 2 generations, culturally speaking.

Reinforcing RvW would mean, in effect, that a first trimester abortion is a "right" that cannot be limited by the States; a second trimester abortion can be regulated by the states (to be defined); and once the baby is arguably viable - third trimester - then it becomes a "person" for Constitutional purposes, and it cannot be aborted. So the worst that anyone has to fear from a Conservative Court is the loss of the "right" to abort a viable baby. And is that an outrage?

But note well: in no case will Abortion be outlawed by the Supreme Court. It simply cannot and will not happen. A Conservative majority on the USSC would NEVER write a new Amendment into the Constitution, which is what it would take to outlaw abortion. And even if they tried to do that, it would start a bipartisan uprising sufficient to push a Constitutional Amendment in response.

I can not for all my thinking understand why any conservative would want to stop democrats from killing themselves

 

[Taz]

"It is possible that some future Conservative Court would rule that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided (every legal scholar agrees), and must be voided." Then we'll no longer live in a free society. Big Brother will be running our country's uteruses.

 

[Taz]

When distilled to their essence, the Democrats sell the abortion issue as fear of a Conservative Supreme Court "taking away your right of abortion," and Republicans sell it as a future Conservative Supreme Court "stopping the evil carnage of abortion."

Both are self-serving, pandering bullshit. Let's look at the possibilities.

We all like to speak of the "Nuclear Option," so let's address that first. The Nuclear Option for a Conservative Court would be to say, more or less, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, and any related "rights" are therefore void. As for abortion, Roe v. Wade was a horrible, incorrect decision that is entirely overruled. As for the right itself, (a) the only thing mentioned in the Constitution is the Right to Life, which we affirm; (b) the question of when life begins is a theological one which we have neither the knowledge nor the right to rule on; and (c) since we don't know when life begin we must assume it begins with conception. Therefore, abortion is the taking of a life, and must be dealt with as such, by both the Federal and State governments.

This will not ever happen. It won't happen because a Conservative Court disdains "legislating from the bench," and that's what it would be. That sort of decision MUST (according to Conservative thought) be made by the Peoples' representatives in the legislatures. The Nuclear Option will not happen and it is not to be feared.

It is possible that some future Conservative Court would rule that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided (every legal scholar agrees), and must be voided. This is a near-Nuclear decision and is theoretically possible, but such a decision would not uniformly make abortion illegal in the United States. It would merely throw the question back to State law, or, ultimately to Congress (if any consensus could be had). So an "overturning" of Roe v. Wade would merely make getting an abortion in a few states very inconvenient. And wouldn't "Planned Parenthood" and its supporters step in an "help" the unfortunates in those states to go out-of-state to get fixed?

And consider that Leftists alway say that there is a national consensus on the abortion "right," so isn't it fair to ask them to prove it? But I digress.

A third possibility - the most likely one - is the possibility that a Conservative Court would REINFORCE the basic finding in RvW. They would do this because most Justices give due respect to precedent (even when a case was wrongly decided, as with RvW), ESPECIALLY when that precedent has been relied on by the General Public for a number of years. RvW has presumably been the law of the land for almost 40 years - 2 generations, culturally speaking.

Reinforcing RvW would mean, in effect, that a first trimester abortion is a "right" that cannot be limited by the States; a second trimester abortion can be regulated by the states (to be defined); and once the baby is arguably viable - third trimester - then it becomes a "person" for Constitutional purposes, and it cannot be aborted. So the worst that anyone has to fear from a Conservative Court is the loss of the "right" to abort a viable baby. And is that an outrage?

But note well: in no case will Abortion be outlawed by the Supreme Court. It simply cannot and will not happen. A Conservative majority on the USSC would NEVER write a new Amendment into the Constitution, which is what it would take to outlaw abortion. And even if they tried to do that, it would start a bipartisan uprising sufficient to push a Constitutional Amendment in response.

I can not for all my thinking understand why any conservative would want to stop democrats from killing themselves

Ya, conservatives use guns to kill each other.

 

[occupied]

No law, no institution, no constitution is so strong that it will protect us from tyranny when politicians think they are on a mission from God.

 

[esalla]

When distilled to their essence, the Democrats sell the abortion issue as fear of a Conservative Supreme Court "taking away your right of abortion," and Republicans sell it as a future Conservative Supreme Court "stopping the evil carnage of abortion."

Both are self-serving, pandering bullshit. Let's look at the possibilities.

We all like to speak of the "Nuclear Option," so let's address that first. The Nuclear Option for a Conservative Court would be to say, more or less, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, and any related "rights" are therefore void. As for abortion, Roe v. Wade was a horrible, incorrect decision that is entirely overruled. As for the right itself, (a) the only thing mentioned in the Constitution is the Right to Life, which we affirm; (b) the question of when life begins is a theological one which we have neither the knowledge nor the right to rule on; and (c) since we don't know when life begin we must assume it begins with conception. Therefore, abortion is the taking of a life, and must be dealt with as such, by both the Federal and State governments.

This will not ever happen. It won't happen because a Conservative Court disdains "legislating from the bench," and that's what it would be. That sort of decision MUST (according to Conservative thought) be made by the Peoples' representatives in the legislatures. The Nuclear Option will not happen and it is not to be feared.

It is possible that some future Conservative Court would rule that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided (every legal scholar agrees), and must be voided. This is a near-Nuclear decision and is theoretically possible, but such a decision would not uniformly make abortion illegal in the United States. It would merely throw the question back to State law, or, ultimately to Congress (if any consensus could be had). So an "overturning" of Roe v. Wade would merely make getting an abortion in a few states very inconvenient. And wouldn't "Planned Parenthood" and its supporters step in an "help" the unfortunates in those states to go out-of-state to get fixed?

And consider that Leftists alway say that there is a national consensus on the abortion "right," so isn't it fair to ask them to prove it? But I digress.

A third possibility - the most likely one - is the possibility that a Conservative Court would REINFORCE the basic finding in RvW. They would do this because most Justices give due respect to precedent (even when a case was wrongly decided, as with RvW), ESPECIALLY when that precedent has been relied on by the General Public for a number of years. RvW has presumably been the law of the land for almost 40 years - 2 generations, culturally speaking.

Reinforcing RvW would mean, in effect, that a first trimester abortion is a "right" that cannot be limited by the States; a second trimester abortion can be regulated by the states (to be defined); and once the baby is arguably viable - third trimester - then it becomes a "person" for Constitutional purposes, and it cannot be aborted. So the worst that anyone has to fear from a Conservative Court is the loss of the "right" to abort a viable baby. And is that an outrage?

But note well: in no case will Abortion be outlawed by the Supreme Court. It simply cannot and will not happen. A Conservative majority on the USSC would NEVER write a new Amendment into the Constitution, which is what it would take to outlaw abortion. And even if they tried to do that, it would start a bipartisan uprising sufficient to push a Constitutional Amendment in response.

I can not for all my thinking understand why any conservative would want to stop democrats from killing themselves

Ya, conservatives use guns to kill each other.

Try and take mine

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It is all, as usual, tribalism at it's worst.
Abortion is not going to be made illegal any time in the foreseeable future. And both sides know this.
But, of course, that is not important... what is important is the fear mongering to maintain the tribal mindset.

 

[esalla]

It is all, as usual, tribalism at it's worst.
Abortion is not going to be made illegal any time in the foreseeable future. And both sides know this.
But, of course, that is not important... what is important is the fear mongering to maintain the tribal mindset.

Partial birth abortion will be illegal and the demoshits know this which is why they cry

 

[Penelope]

When distilled to their essence, the Democrats sell the abortion issue as fear of a Conservative Supreme Court "taking away your right of abortion," and Republicans sell it as a future Conservative Supreme Court "stopping the evil carnage of abortion."

Both are self-serving, pandering bullshit. Let's look at the possibilities.

We all like to speak of the "Nuclear Option," so let's address that first. The Nuclear Option for a Conservative Court would be to say, more or less, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, and any related "rights" are therefore void. As for abortion, Roe v. Wade was a horrible, incorrect decision that is entirely overruled. As for the right itself, (a) the only thing mentioned in the Constitution is the Right to Life, which we affirm; (b) the question of when life begins is a theological one which we have neither the knowledge nor the right to rule on; and (c) since we don't know when life begin we must assume it begins with conception. Therefore, abortion is the taking of a life, and must be dealt with as such, by both the Federal and State governments.

This will not ever happen. It won't happen because a Conservative Court disdains "legislating from the bench," and that's what it would be. That sort of decision MUST (according to Conservative thought) be made by the Peoples' representatives in the legislatures. The Nuclear Option will not happen and it is not to be feared.

It is possible that some future Conservative Court would rule that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided (every legal scholar agrees), and must be voided. This is a near-Nuclear decision and is theoretically possible, but such a decision would not uniformly make abortion illegal in the United States. It would merely throw the question back to State law, or, ultimately to Congress (if any consensus could be had). So an "overturning" of Roe v. Wade would merely make getting an abortion in a few states very inconvenient. And wouldn't "Planned Parenthood" and its supporters step in an "help" the unfortunates in those states to go out-of-state to get fixed?

And consider that Leftists alway say that there is a national consensus on the abortion "right," so isn't it fair to ask them to prove it? But I digress.

A third possibility - the most likely one - is the possibility that a Conservative Court would REINFORCE the basic finding in RvW. They would do this because most Justices give due respect to precedent (even when a case was wrongly decided, as with RvW), ESPECIALLY when that precedent has been relied on by the General Public for a number of years. RvW has presumably been the law of the land for almost 40 years - 2 generations, culturally speaking.

Reinforcing RvW would mean, in effect, that a first trimester abortion is a "right" that cannot be limited by the States; a second trimester abortion can be regulated by the states (to be defined); and once the baby is arguably viable - third trimester - then it becomes a "person" for Constitutional purposes, and it cannot be aborted. So the worst that anyone has to fear from a Conservative Court is the loss of the "right" to abort a viable baby. And is that an outrage?

But note well: in no case will Abortion be outlawed by the Supreme Court. It simply cannot and will not happen. A Conservative majority on the USSC would NEVER write a new Amendment into the Constitution, which is what it would take to outlaw abortion. And even if they tried to do that, it would start a bipartisan uprising sufficient to push a Constitutional Amendment in response.

I don't see how they could, the court was very republican in 1973 and republican maj ever since,

but abortions will become even stricter that they are now,

These 6 states have only 1 abortion clinic left. Missouri could become the first with zero | CNN

Six states are now down to one abortion clinic -- Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota and West Virginia.

www.cnn.com

Good thing they will have the pill for men coming soon, its about time they learn to take it,

and please wear a condom to avoid std's.

I'm more worried about the civil rights issues, and the ACA, SS, and Medicare, if tramp gets re-elected.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It is all, as usual, tribalism at it's worst.
Abortion is not going to be made illegal any time in the foreseeable future. And both sides know this.
But, of course, that is not important... what is important is the fear mongering to maintain the tribal mindset.

Partial birth abortion will be illegal and the demoshits know this which is why they cry

Well thank God this woman will be the next Supreme Court Justice. So that is not going to happen.
Let them cry.

 

[esalla]

When distilled to their essence, the Democrats sell the abortion issue as fear of a Conservative Supreme Court "taking away your right of abortion," and Republicans sell it as a future Conservative Supreme Court "stopping the evil carnage of abortion."

Both are self-serving, pandering bullshit. Let's look at the possibilities.

We all like to speak of the "Nuclear Option," so let's address that first. The Nuclear Option for a Conservative Court would be to say, more or less, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, and any related "rights" are therefore void. As for abortion, Roe v. Wade was a horrible, incorrect decision that is entirely overruled. As for the right itself, (a) the only thing mentioned in the Constitution is the Right to Life, which we affirm; (b) the question of when life begins is a theological one which we have neither the knowledge nor the right to rule on; and (c) since we don't know when life begin we must assume it begins with conception. Therefore, abortion is the taking of a life, and must be dealt with as such, by both the Federal and State governments.

This will not ever happen. It won't happen because a Conservative Court disdains "legislating from the bench," and that's what it would be. That sort of decision MUST (according to Conservative thought) be made by the Peoples' representatives in the legislatures. The Nuclear Option will not happen and it is not to be feared.

It is possible that some future Conservative Court would rule that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided (every legal scholar agrees), and must be voided. This is a near-Nuclear decision and is theoretically possible, but such a decision would not uniformly make abortion illegal in the United States. It would merely throw the question back to State law, or, ultimately to Congress (if any consensus could be had). So an "overturning" of Roe v. Wade would merely make getting an abortion in a few states very inconvenient. And wouldn't "Planned Parenthood" and its supporters step in an "help" the unfortunates in those states to go out-of-state to get fixed?

And consider that Leftists alway say that there is a national consensus on the abortion "right," so isn't it fair to ask them to prove it? But I digress.

A third possibility - the most likely one - is the possibility that a Conservative Court would REINFORCE the basic finding in RvW. They would do this because most Justices give due respect to precedent (even when a case was wrongly decided, as with RvW), ESPECIALLY when that precedent has been relied on by the General Public for a number of years. RvW has presumably been the law of the land for almost 40 years - 2 generations, culturally speaking.

Reinforcing RvW would mean, in effect, that a first trimester abortion is a "right" that cannot be limited by the States; a second trimester abortion can be regulated by the states (to be defined); and once the baby is arguably viable - third trimester - then it becomes a "person" for Constitutional purposes, and it cannot be aborted. So the worst that anyone has to fear from a Conservative Court is the loss of the "right" to abort a viable baby. And is that an outrage?

But note well: in no case will Abortion be outlawed by the Supreme Court. It simply cannot and will not happen. A Conservative majority on the USSC would NEVER write a new Amendment into the Constitution, which is what it would take to outlaw abortion. And even if they tried to do that, it would start a bipartisan uprising sufficient to push a Constitutional Amendment in response.

I don't see how they could, the court was very republican in 1973 and republican maj ever since,

but abortions will become even stricter that they are now,

These 6 states have only 1 abortion clinic left. Missouri could become the first with zero | CNN

Six states are now down to one abortion clinic -- Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota and West Virginia.

www.cnn.com

Good thing they will have the pill for men coming soon, its about time they learn to take it,

and please wear a condom to avoid std's.

I'm more worried about the civil rights issues, and the ACA, SS, and Medicare, if tramp gets re-elected.

Are you scared that you might make another retard like yourself?

 

[Moonglow]

When distilled to their essence, the Democrats sell the abortion issue as fear of a Conservative Supreme Court "taking away your right of abortion," and Republicans sell it as a future Conservative Supreme Court "stopping the evil carnage of abortion."

Both are self-serving, pandering bullshit. Let's look at the possibilities.

We all like to speak of the "Nuclear Option," so let's address that first. The Nuclear Option for a Conservative Court would be to say, more or less, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, and any related "rights" are therefore void. As for abortion, Roe v. Wade was a horrible, incorrect decision that is entirely overruled. As for the right itself, (a) the only thing mentioned in the Constitution is the Right to Life, which we affirm; (b) the question of when life begins is a theological one which we have neither the knowledge nor the right to rule on; and (c) since we don't know when life begin we must assume it begins with conception. Therefore, abortion is the taking of a life, and must be dealt with as such, by both the Federal and State governments.

This will not ever happen. It won't happen because a Conservative Court disdains "legislating from the bench," and that's what it would be. That sort of decision MUST (according to Conservative thought) be made by the Peoples' representatives in the legislatures. The Nuclear Option will not happen and it is not to be feared.

It is possible that some future Conservative Court would rule that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided (every legal scholar agrees), and must be voided. This is a near-Nuclear decision and is theoretically possible, but such a decision would not uniformly make abortion illegal in the United States. It would merely throw the question back to State law, or, ultimately to Congress (if any consensus could be had). So an "overturning" of Roe v. Wade would merely make getting an abortion in a few states very inconvenient. And wouldn't "Planned Parenthood" and its supporters step in an "help" the unfortunates in those states to go out-of-state to get fixed?

And consider that Leftists alway say that there is a national consensus on the abortion "right," so isn't it fair to ask them to prove it? But I digress.

A third possibility - the most likely one - is the possibility that a Conservative Court would REINFORCE the basic finding in RvW. They would do this because most Justices give due respect to precedent (even when a case was wrongly decided, as with RvW), ESPECIALLY when that precedent has been relied on by the General Public for a number of years. RvW has presumably been the law of the land for almost 40 years - 2 generations, culturally speaking.

Reinforcing RvW would mean, in effect, that a first trimester abortion is a "right" that cannot be limited by the States; a second trimester abortion can be regulated by the states (to be defined); and once the baby is arguably viable - third trimester - then it becomes a "person" for Constitutional purposes, and it cannot be aborted. So the worst that anyone has to fear from a Conservative Court is the loss of the "right" to abort a viable baby. And is that an outrage?

But note well: in no case will Abortion be outlawed by the Supreme Court. It simply cannot and will not happen. A Conservative majority on the USSC would NEVER write a new Amendment into the Constitution, which is what it would take to outlaw abortion. And even if they tried to do that, it would start a bipartisan uprising sufficient to push a Constitutional Amendment in response.

Abortion is not the focus of Roe vs Wade liberty is, the court decided that a woman had the liberty to do with their bodies what they wanted to do, it is not about conservative or liberal it is about body autonomy and control by the person and their body and how the state or anyone else doesn't have the right to take away your own control..Conservatives seek to take away that liberty and choice and put it back into the hands of the state. Now those damn conservatives are the commies.

 

[Taz]

When distilled to their essence, the Democrats sell the abortion issue as fear of a Conservative Supreme Court "taking away your right of abortion," and Republicans sell it as a future Conservative Supreme Court "stopping the evil carnage of abortion."

Both are self-serving, pandering bullshit. Let's look at the possibilities.

We all like to speak of the "Nuclear Option," so let's address that first. The Nuclear Option for a Conservative Court would be to say, more or less, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, and any related "rights" are therefore void. As for abortion, Roe v. Wade was a horrible, incorrect decision that is entirely overruled. As for the right itself, (a) the only thing mentioned in the Constitution is the Right to Life, which we affirm; (b) the question of when life begins is a theological one which we have neither the knowledge nor the right to rule on; and (c) since we don't know when life begin we must assume it begins with conception. Therefore, abortion is the taking of a life, and must be dealt with as such, by both the Federal and State governments.

This will not ever happen. It won't happen because a Conservative Court disdains "legislating from the bench," and that's what it would be. That sort of decision MUST (according to Conservative thought) be made by the Peoples' representatives in the legislatures. The Nuclear Option will not happen and it is not to be feared.

It is possible that some future Conservative Court would rule that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided (every legal scholar agrees), and must be voided. This is a near-Nuclear decision and is theoretically possible, but such a decision would not uniformly make abortion illegal in the United States. It would merely throw the question back to State law, or, ultimately to Congress (if any consensus could be had). So an "overturning" of Roe v. Wade would merely make getting an abortion in a few states very inconvenient. And wouldn't "Planned Parenthood" and its supporters step in an "help" the unfortunates in those states to go out-of-state to get fixed?

And consider that Leftists alway say that there is a national consensus on the abortion "right," so isn't it fair to ask them to prove it? But I digress.

A third possibility - the most likely one - is the possibility that a Conservative Court would REINFORCE the basic finding in RvW. They would do this because most Justices give due respect to precedent (even when a case was wrongly decided, as with RvW), ESPECIALLY when that precedent has been relied on by the General Public for a number of years. RvW has presumably been the law of the land for almost 40 years - 2 generations, culturally speaking.

Reinforcing RvW would mean, in effect, that a first trimester abortion is a "right" that cannot be limited by the States; a second trimester abortion can be regulated by the states (to be defined); and once the baby is arguably viable - third trimester - then it becomes a "person" for Constitutional purposes, and it cannot be aborted. So the worst that anyone has to fear from a Conservative Court is the loss of the "right" to abort a viable baby. And is that an outrage?

But note well: in no case will Abortion be outlawed by the Supreme Court. It simply cannot and will not happen. A Conservative majority on the USSC would NEVER write a new Amendment into the Constitution, which is what it would take to outlaw abortion. And even if they tried to do that, it would start a bipartisan uprising sufficient to push a Constitutional Amendment in response.

I can not for all my thinking understand why any conservative would want to stop democrats from killing themselves

Ya, conservatives use guns to kill each other.

Try and take mine

Not that it probably wouldn't be an easy thing to do because you seem like a major pussy, but why would I want to?

 

[Gdjjr]

Who Made The Supreme Court King?

And-
it seems we have cases of MISinterpretation represented-

In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. But it also ruled that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life.[4][5] The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.[5] The Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as "fundamental", which required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States.[6]

How was it wrong? And no, I'm not pro-abortion. I'm anti nosey by the gov't. In that regard they were correct- it's not the fed gov't's business- but, alas, lawyers typical, twist, spin and castigate ruled the day- the 14th amendment is the culprit in many wrongs, but, at the same time, it's a good thang stopping over zealous Empty Suits at the state level from infringing on a person, and, history proves, given an inch a mile is always taken- always.

IF you get right down to it- the SC got their ruling correct is so far as their ruling goes- after the fact is when the UNintended consequences come into play- just as they always do when the gov't sides with one over another.

 

[esalla]

When distilled to their essence, the Democrats sell the abortion issue as fear of a Conservative Supreme Court "taking away your right of abortion," and Republicans sell it as a future Conservative Supreme Court "stopping the evil carnage of abortion."

Both are self-serving, pandering bullshit. Let's look at the possibilities.

We all like to speak of the "Nuclear Option," so let's address that first. The Nuclear Option for a Conservative Court would be to say, more or less, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, and any related "rights" are therefore void. As for abortion, Roe v. Wade was a horrible, incorrect decision that is entirely overruled. As for the right itself, (a) the only thing mentioned in the Constitution is the Right to Life, which we affirm; (b) the question of when life begins is a theological one which we have neither the knowledge nor the right to rule on; and (c) since we don't know when life begin we must assume it begins with conception. Therefore, abortion is the taking of a life, and must be dealt with as such, by both the Federal and State governments.

This will not ever happen. It won't happen because a Conservative Court disdains "legislating from the bench," and that's what it would be. That sort of decision MUST (according to Conservative thought) be made by the Peoples' representatives in the legislatures. The Nuclear Option will not happen and it is not to be feared.

It is possible that some future Conservative Court would rule that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided (every legal scholar agrees), and must be voided. This is a near-Nuclear decision and is theoretically possible, but such a decision would not uniformly make abortion illegal in the United States. It would merely throw the question back to State law, or, ultimately to Congress (if any consensus could be had). So an "overturning" of Roe v. Wade would merely make getting an abortion in a few states very inconvenient. And wouldn't "Planned Parenthood" and its supporters step in an "help" the unfortunates in those states to go out-of-state to get fixed?

And consider that Leftists alway say that there is a national consensus on the abortion "right," so isn't it fair to ask them to prove it? But I digress.

A third possibility - the most likely one - is the possibility that a Conservative Court would REINFORCE the basic finding in RvW. They would do this because most Justices give due respect to precedent (even when a case was wrongly decided, as with RvW), ESPECIALLY when that precedent has been relied on by the General Public for a number of years. RvW has presumably been the law of the land for almost 40 years - 2 generations, culturally speaking.

Reinforcing RvW would mean, in effect, that a first trimester abortion is a "right" that cannot be limited by the States; a second trimester abortion can be regulated by the states (to be defined); and once the baby is arguably viable - third trimester - then it becomes a "person" for Constitutional purposes, and it cannot be aborted. So the worst that anyone has to fear from a Conservative Court is the loss of the "right" to abort a viable baby. And is that an outrage?

But note well: in no case will Abortion be outlawed by the Supreme Court. It simply cannot and will not happen. A Conservative majority on the USSC would NEVER write a new Amendment into the Constitution, which is what it would take to outlaw abortion. And even if they tried to do that, it would start a bipartisan uprising sufficient to push a Constitutional Amendment in response.

I can not for all my thinking understand why any conservative would want to stop democrats from killing themselves

Ya, conservatives use guns to kill each other.

Try and take mine

Not that it probably wouldn't be an easy thing to do because you seem like a major pussy, but why would I want to?

If I am a pussy you can take my gun easily.

Come on down

 

[Fueri]

When distilled to their essence, the Democrats sell the abortion issue as fear of a Conservative Supreme Court "taking away your right of abortion," and Republicans sell it as a future Conservative Supreme Court "stopping the evil carnage of abortion."

Both are self-serving, pandering bullshit. Let's look at the possibilities.

We all like to speak of the "Nuclear Option," so let's address that first. The Nuclear Option for a Conservative Court would be to say, more or less, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, and any related "rights" are therefore void. As for abortion, Roe v. Wade was a horrible, incorrect decision that is entirely overruled. As for the right itself, (a) the only thing mentioned in the Constitution is the Right to Life, which we affirm; (b) the question of when life begins is a theological one which we have neither the knowledge nor the right to rule on; and (c) since we don't know when life begin we must assume it begins with conception. Therefore, abortion is the taking of a life, and must be dealt with as such, by both the Federal and State governments.

This will not ever happen. It won't happen because a Conservative Court disdains "legislating from the bench," and that's what it would be. That sort of decision MUST (according to Conservative thought) be made by the Peoples' representatives in the legislatures. The Nuclear Option will not happen and it is not to be feared.

It is possible that some future Conservative Court would rule that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided (every legal scholar agrees), and must be voided. This is a near-Nuclear decision and is theoretically possible, but such a decision would not uniformly make abortion illegal in the United States. It would merely throw the question back to State law, or, ultimately to Congress (if any consensus could be had). So an "overturning" of Roe v. Wade would merely make getting an abortion in a few states very inconvenient. And wouldn't "Planned Parenthood" and its supporters step in an "help" the unfortunates in those states to go out-of-state to get fixed?

And consider that Leftists alway say that there is a national consensus on the abortion "right," so isn't it fair to ask them to prove it? But I digress.

A third possibility - the most likely one - is the possibility that a Conservative Court would REINFORCE the basic finding in RvW. They would do this because most Justices give due respect to precedent (even when a case was wrongly decided, as with RvW), ESPECIALLY when that precedent has been relied on by the General Public for a number of years. RvW has presumably been the law of the land for almost 40 years - 2 generations, culturally speaking.

Reinforcing RvW would mean, in effect, that a first trimester abortion is a "right" that cannot be limited by the States; a second trimester abortion can be regulated by the states (to be defined); and once the baby is arguably viable - third trimester - then it becomes a "person" for Constitutional purposes, and it cannot be aborted. So the worst that anyone has to fear from a Conservative Court is the loss of the "right" to abort a viable baby. And is that an outrage?

But note well: in no case will Abortion be outlawed by the Supreme Court. It simply cannot and will not happen. A Conservative majority on the USSC would NEVER write a new Amendment into the Constitution, which is what it would take to outlaw abortion. And even if they tried to do that, it would start a bipartisan uprising sufficient to push a Constitutional Amendment in response.

Exactly.

The Evil Court is this election season's Boogeyman. It is going to overturn Wade, the ACA and who knows what other injustices will flow from these robed plotters of evil.

It is pure propaganda and fear mongering. The dems know it and they're spraying this foul piss everywhere anyhow. That is not amazing. What is amazing to me is how many people so readily lap it up and take these scenarios as foregone conclusions.

It is embarassing how easily and readily led a lot of peope are, despite having seen this over and over and over again.

 

[Taz]

When distilled to their essence, the Democrats sell the abortion issue as fear of a Conservative Supreme Court "taking away your right of abortion," and Republicans sell it as a future Conservative Supreme Court "stopping the evil carnage of abortion."

Both are self-serving, pandering bullshit. Let's look at the possibilities.

We all like to speak of the "Nuclear Option," so let's address that first. The Nuclear Option for a Conservative Court would be to say, more or less, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, and any related "rights" are therefore void. As for abortion, Roe v. Wade was a horrible, incorrect decision that is entirely overruled. As for the right itself, (a) the only thing mentioned in the Constitution is the Right to Life, which we affirm; (b) the question of when life begins is a theological one which we have neither the knowledge nor the right to rule on; and (c) since we don't know when life begin we must assume it begins with conception. Therefore, abortion is the taking of a life, and must be dealt with as such, by both the Federal and State governments.

This will not ever happen. It won't happen because a Conservative Court disdains "legislating from the bench," and that's what it would be. That sort of decision MUST (according to Conservative thought) be made by the Peoples' representatives in the legislatures. The Nuclear Option will not happen and it is not to be feared.

It is possible that some future Conservative Court would rule that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided (every legal scholar agrees), and must be voided. This is a near-Nuclear decision and is theoretically possible, but such a decision would not uniformly make abortion illegal in the United States. It would merely throw the question back to State law, or, ultimately to Congress (if any consensus could be had). So an "overturning" of Roe v. Wade would merely make getting an abortion in a few states very inconvenient. And wouldn't "Planned Parenthood" and its supporters step in an "help" the unfortunates in those states to go out-of-state to get fixed?

And consider that Leftists alway say that there is a national consensus on the abortion "right," so isn't it fair to ask them to prove it? But I digress.

A third possibility - the most likely one - is the possibility that a Conservative Court would REINFORCE the basic finding in RvW. They would do this because most Justices give due respect to precedent (even when a case was wrongly decided, as with RvW), ESPECIALLY when that precedent has been relied on by the General Public for a number of years. RvW has presumably been the law of the land for almost 40 years - 2 generations, culturally speaking.

Reinforcing RvW would mean, in effect, that a first trimester abortion is a "right" that cannot be limited by the States; a second trimester abortion can be regulated by the states (to be defined); and once the baby is arguably viable - third trimester - then it becomes a "person" for Constitutional purposes, and it cannot be aborted. So the worst that anyone has to fear from a Conservative Court is the loss of the "right" to abort a viable baby. And is that an outrage?

But note well: in no case will Abortion be outlawed by the Supreme Court. It simply cannot and will not happen. A Conservative majority on the USSC would NEVER write a new Amendment into the Constitution, which is what it would take to outlaw abortion. And even if they tried to do that, it would start a bipartisan uprising sufficient to push a Constitutional Amendment in response.

I can not for all my thinking understand why any conservative would want to stop democrats from killing themselves

Ya, conservatives use guns to kill each other.

Try and take mine

Not that it probably wouldn't be an easy thing to do because you seem like a major pussy, but why would I want to?

If I am a pussy you can take my gun easily.

Come on down

Post your address.

 

[DGS49]

The fact is that there is no national consensus on abortion or, more to the point, when a child in the womb becomes a "person" for Constitutional purposes. The Supreme Court drew a line at viability, which was a logically defensible position, and that is the essence of RvW.

It is a "bad" decision because (a) the drawing of such "lines" is not a judicial function, it is a legislative one, one that should be made by the elected representatives of the people, and (b) the "right"upon which the case rests - the Right of Privacy - is wholly made-up right, based on nothing but fluff.

Among the MOST vacuous arguments in support of the "right" of abortion is that it's all about women having a right to control their own bodies. A human fetus, while dependent on a biological host, is not a part of the mother's body. It has its own completely unique genetic makeup. That baby will be dependent on others - usually its mother - for up to forty years after birth. TO say that because the baby is dependent on its mother it is not an independent person is ridiculous.

If women want control over their bodies and their reproductive organs then they should refrain from reproductive activity when they don't want to have a child...or take cheap, easy, safe precautions to prevent pregnancy...or insist that the sperm donor do the same.

No, wait! That would require that they assume responsibility for their actions! How silly of me!