If Roe is overturned
-
When Kavanaugh cited various cases in which the court had reversed decisions (Ferguson, et al), Sotomayor commented that in all the cases cited by Kavanaugh were an expansion of rights. Overturning Roe would be a restriction of rights.
My opinion: She doesn't really understand what a "right" is.
Well, she probably does understand it, but won't come out and say it.
@george-k said in If Roe is overturned:
When Kavanaugh cited various cases in which the court had reversed decisions (Ferguson, et al), Sotomayor commented that in all the cases cited by Kavanaugh were an expansion of rights. Overturning Roe would be a restriction of rights.
My opinion: She doesn't really understand what a "right" is.
Well, she probably does understand it, but won't come out and say it.
It comes down to at what point does a person have rights. I still don't understand how we can charge you with two murders if you kill a pregnant woman, but on that same day the woman would have been able to legally terminate that baby. It's not a life if you don't intend it be born?
-
When Kavanaugh cited various cases in which the court had reversed decisions (Ferguson, et al), Sotomayor commented that in all the cases cited by Kavanaugh were an expansion of rights. Overturning Roe would be a restriction of rights.
My opinion: She doesn't really understand what a "right" is.
Well, she probably does understand it, but won't come out and say it.
@george-k said in If Roe is overturned:
My opinion: She doesn't really understand what a "right" is.
I don't read it that way.
The problem is that—sorry, Horace, it's true—both sides, when talking about abortion, have a very narrow set of scenarios in their mind. Liberals are pro-abortion because in their mind, they're pro-15-year-old-rape-victims and pro-life-of-the-mother. Conservatives are pro-life because they're pro-cute-pictures-of-babies.
Both are only legit when taken in context with the other; on their own they're silly caricatures. And unfortunately that's what drives a lot of state legislation—lobbying for cartoon scenarios.
I'm pretty anti-abortion, but I'm not willing to be so stupid as to believe there aren't very good reasons to have the option open. And pretending that "leaving it up to the states" is an example of choice or fairness is ridiculous.
My question for any legislator is, show me you really understand and appreciate the other side of the argument. If you can't and just want to demonize, I want you as far away from these decisions as possible.
-
People are a heckuva lot more nuanced than that.
-
The main argument in defense of Roe v. Wade from the current liberal bloc on the bench seems to be that the decision has been "settled law" for so long that to alter it by even the slightest jot or tittle would be dangerous.
Keep in mind that pre-Roe was "settled law" for even longer.
-
-
@jolly said in If Roe is overturned:
People are a heckuva lot more nuanced than that.
Individuals are. People absolutely are not.
