I really think my favorite thing about this topic is the sheer amount of people who will advocate for something they don't actually support because they know they'll never be in the position to have to follow through on it.
General The Supreme Court has overturned Roe vs Wade.
- Thread starter John Lee Pettimore
- Start date
But think they have the right to make their own choice if they are in that position?
I almost wrote that for your post. What I mean is, whether or not a person finds themselves in the position where that decision has to be made, the point is that they have the freedom to make their own choice.
I believe others should have the right to choose even though I myself would not abort if the pregnancy is viable.
It's really not a difficult stance to grasp whatsoever, and it is perfectly logically consistent.
Clowns are gonna shill, though.
??
There are situations in a pregnancy where I can't pretend that I think performing an abortion is ethical. I don't full stop oppose abortion, but I also don't support "Whenever I want, for any reason." At some point the babies, or father's freedom of choice has to matter too.
And I respect your opinion, even though I do not agree.
The problem is that people don’t understand we all can’t, shouldn’t, and won’t have the same opinions. And I don’t appreciate being labeled on any side for the opinions I do have. This is why the country is not doing well, everyone wants everything to be black and white and when you don’t agree with the agenda they’re pushing, you’re vilified and bullied. We see it right here and is the reason for so many arguments, fights, etc. People don’t have to get along, not by a long shot, but the separation and hate is so stupid and gross.
and I feel the same.
I think that's entirely dependent on the topic at hand. There are a lot of opinions that we'd all agree should be the same, and no one would listen to someone if they held a different one.
That's a very valid point. You'll get no argument from me there.
how safe are kids in the classroom?
Safer than kids in the church.
From what?
After Roe v Wade's fall, a Supreme Court justice indicates that same-sex marriage and contraception could be next - ABC News
When he overturned abortion, this US justice hinted at rights that could be next. He omitted one that impacts him
When the US Supreme Court dramatically overturned the right of Americans to terminate a pregnancy, one justice was particularly fervent.
"The constitution does not confer a right to abortion," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion, echoing his colleagues' sentiments.
It was a marked shift from his public statements on reproductive rights 30 years ago.
During his confirmation hearing in 1991, then-judge Thomas was cagey about his position on Roe v Wade, the landmark ruling that protected Americans' right to abortion for nearly 50 years.
"I can say on that issue… I have no agenda," he told the US Senate under oath.
ack then, he argued that as a judge, it would be inappropriate to take a case "in which he or she has such strong views that he or she cannot be impartial".
And yet, once confirmed as a justice on the nation's highest court, he spent the next three decades openly expressing his deeply conservative beliefs, often through the power of the law.
On June 24, Justice Thomas and five of his colleagues chose to uphold a Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks.
But four of those justices didn't just strike down one case. They shook Roe v Wade to its constitutional foundations.
In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito labelled the 1973 decision "egregiously wrong" given the US constitution made no explicit mention of abortion.
He argued, choosing his words carefully, that no other constitutional rights would be risked by the toppling of half a century of precedent.
But Justice Thomas undercut him.
One sentence that could change everything
Buried on page 119 of the final opinion, Justice Thomas wrote the court "should reconsider" other past rulings that afford Americans certain rights.
He referenced the key cases guaranteeing access to contraception, and legalising same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.
"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," he wrote.
In doing so, he all but confirmed the fears of millions of Americans that some conservatives won't be content with just scrapping abortion rights.
They could target other hard-won rights next.
Why this clause is so important
In the United States, the right to have an abortion, to access birth control, and to have sex with or marry a person of the same gender all stem from one legal principle.
"The 14th amendment to the US constitution says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law," said Alexis Karteron, an associate professor of law and the director of the Constitutional Rights Clinic at Rutgers University.
She added the due process clause of the amendment, which has existed for more than 150 years, has been read to address "very important issues to many, many Americans".
"That's because, in part, the right to an abortion was not something that the people who wrote the 14th amendment would have thought about at the time it was passed in the mid-19th century," Ms Karteron said.
It is not totally unprecedented for the court to reverse one of its decisions, she explained.
But this was the first time, to her knowledge, a right the court had previously recognised was taken away.
"We should not take any comfort in the fact that the majority opinion claims to only address abortion," she said.
The question of interracial marriage
Critics of Justice Thomas were quick to point out there was one ruling he didn't mention in his opinion.
And it's one that affects him personally.
The 1967 ruling in the case of Loving v Virginia protects the right to interracial marriage.
It was brought to the Supreme Court by Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, a black woman, who fell in love and married in the 1950s.
They were handed a year in jail for violating Virginia's ban on interracial unions, though the sentence was suspended on the condition they leave the state for 25 years.
As a black man, Justice Thomas's own marriage to Ginni Thomas is recognised in the US because of the precedent set by Loving v Virginia.
Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff behind the court's landmark ruling on same-sex marriage, told US media he found it "quite telling" Loving v Virginia was left out of Justice Thomas's opinion.
"That affects him personally, but he doesn't care about the LGBT community," Mr Obergefell told MSNBC.
"I'm just concerned that hundreds of thousands of marriages across this nation are at risk, and the ability of people across this nation to marry the person they love is at risk."
How quickly could America change?
It's important to note that none of the other justices signed Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion.
That suggests he doesn't have broad support within the court for his views.
In fact, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who also voted to dismantle Roe, appeared to reject his colleague's position in his own opinion.
But Democrats say that by overturning the ruling, the court has put other rights on the table — even, potentially, their own.
The toppling of Roe v Wade may have felt impossible to many Americans just a few years ago.
But in one term, then US-president Trump had the opportunity to install three justices, shifting the balance of the court to the right.
His presidential successor, Joe Biden, said Justice Thomas had put America on an "extreme and dangerous path".
"He explicitly called to reconsider the right of marriage equality, the right of couples to make their choices on contraception," President Biden said.
Ms Karteron, who described Justice Thomas as "extremely conservative", said he has made his position clear.
"He has really never been shy about saying exactly what he thinks," she said.
"He's made clear for a very long time, that he thought that Roe was wrongly decided and needed to be reversed.
"And now obviously the same is true of these other precedents that he is calling on the court to reconsider and presumably reverse."
When he overturned abortion, this US justice hinted at rights that could be next. He omitted one that impacts him
When the US Supreme Court dramatically overturned the right of Americans to terminate a pregnancy, one justice was particularly fervent.
"The constitution does not confer a right to abortion," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion, echoing his colleagues' sentiments.
It was a marked shift from his public statements on reproductive rights 30 years ago.
During his confirmation hearing in 1991, then-judge Thomas was cagey about his position on Roe v Wade, the landmark ruling that protected Americans' right to abortion for nearly 50 years.
"I can say on that issue… I have no agenda," he told the US Senate under oath.
ack then, he argued that as a judge, it would be inappropriate to take a case "in which he or she has such strong views that he or she cannot be impartial".
And yet, once confirmed as a justice on the nation's highest court, he spent the next three decades openly expressing his deeply conservative beliefs, often through the power of the law.
On June 24, Justice Thomas and five of his colleagues chose to uphold a Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks.
But four of those justices didn't just strike down one case. They shook Roe v Wade to its constitutional foundations.
In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito labelled the 1973 decision "egregiously wrong" given the US constitution made no explicit mention of abortion.
He argued, choosing his words carefully, that no other constitutional rights would be risked by the toppling of half a century of precedent.
But Justice Thomas undercut him.
One sentence that could change everything
Buried on page 119 of the final opinion, Justice Thomas wrote the court "should reconsider" other past rulings that afford Americans certain rights.
He referenced the key cases guaranteeing access to contraception, and legalising same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.
"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," he wrote.
In doing so, he all but confirmed the fears of millions of Americans that some conservatives won't be content with just scrapping abortion rights.
They could target other hard-won rights next.
Why this clause is so important
In the United States, the right to have an abortion, to access birth control, and to have sex with or marry a person of the same gender all stem from one legal principle.
"The 14th amendment to the US constitution says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law," said Alexis Karteron, an associate professor of law and the director of the Constitutional Rights Clinic at Rutgers University.
She added the due process clause of the amendment, which has existed for more than 150 years, has been read to address "very important issues to many, many Americans".
But last week the court ruled the language of the clause should never apply to abortion access.
"That's because, in part, the right to an abortion was not something that the people who wrote the 14th amendment would have thought about at the time it was passed in the mid-19th century," Ms Karteron said.
It is not totally unprecedented for the court to reverse one of its decisions, she explained.
But this was the first time, to her knowledge, a right the court had previously recognised was taken away.
"We should not take any comfort in the fact that the majority opinion claims to only address abortion," she said.
The question of interracial marriage
Critics of Justice Thomas were quick to point out there was one ruling he didn't mention in his opinion.
And it's one that affects him personally.
The 1967 ruling in the case of Loving v Virginia protects the right to interracial marriage.
It was brought to the Supreme Court by Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, a black woman, who fell in love and married in the 1950s.
They were handed a year in jail for violating Virginia's ban on interracial unions, though the sentence was suspended on the condition they leave the state for 25 years.
As a black man, Justice Thomas's own marriage to Ginni Thomas is recognised in the US because of the precedent set by Loving v Virginia.
Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff behind the court's landmark ruling on same-sex marriage, told US media he found it "quite telling" Loving v Virginia was left out of Justice Thomas's opinion.
"That affects him personally, but he doesn't care about the LGBT community," Mr Obergefell told MSNBC.
"I'm just concerned that hundreds of thousands of marriages across this nation are at risk, and the ability of people across this nation to marry the person they love is at risk."
How quickly could America change?
It's important to note that none of the other justices signed Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion.
That suggests he doesn't have broad support within the court for his views.
In fact, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who also voted to dismantle Roe, appeared to reject his colleague's position in his own opinion.
But Democrats say that by overturning the ruling, the court has put other rights on the table — even, potentially, their own.
The toppling of Roe v Wade may have felt impossible to many Americans just a few years ago.
But in one term, then US-president Trump had the opportunity to install three justices, shifting the balance of the court to the right.
His presidential successor, Joe Biden, said Justice Thomas had put America on an "extreme and dangerous path".
"He explicitly called to reconsider the right of marriage equality, the right of couples to make their choices on contraception," President Biden said.
Ms Karteron, who described Justice Thomas as "extremely conservative", said he has made his position clear.
"He has really never been shy about saying exactly what he thinks," she said.
"He's made clear for a very long time, that he thought that Roe was wrongly decided and needed to be reversed.
"And now obviously the same is true of these other precedents that he is calling on the court to reconsider and presumably reverse."
Pretty sure this is just the start of the Nu GOP dismantling granted rights.
They're so into freedom.
They're so into freedom.
Jesus fucking Christ, Thomas is pointing the Court's power at gay marriage and contraception.
Is this where America is headed?
Taking away rights?
What the fuck, Republicans?
Is this where America is headed?
Taking away rights?
What the fuck, Republicans?
Stay Classy BeetleJuice..Stay Classy:
View: https://mobile.twitter.com/jehovahrappha/status/1541282291460308992
View: https://mobile.twitter.com/jehovahrappha/status/1541282291460308992
i think we're headed away from the SCOTUS writing laws, which is good.
time for legislators to do their job and make laws.
Maybe just maybe they will go back to declaring which wars and treaties are legal and get us way from this rule by pen shit.
If the people can elect politicians, I don't know why we can't have serious issues like this on a ballot - either at the state or federal level.
If I can vote pass/fail on local school levies, why not abortion laws? Why should that legality fall to flip-flopping politicians?
Now you're getting it.
As bad as Biden and the Dems have completely fucked up the last 2 years, this is just a really dumb time for the GOP to push something so polarizing.
Prior to this mess, the midterms were going to be a slam dunk. Now? Not as much.
Fucking lunacy.
Anyone else notice the black dude is the one taking pretty much all the heat?
I've never not gotten it, bruh. ?