Roe & Casey overturned.

[jon-nyc]

@Jolly True, but he was known to apply it rather selectively.

[George K]

Let that sink in. SecDef: We will not obey the law.

[Jolly]

[George K]

[Jolly]

@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

@Jolly said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

I'm not sure he can do that.

Garland will be all over that, right?

Shirley, you jest

[George K]

@Jolly said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

Shirley, you jest

Under who's jurisdiction is the DoD?

If a soldier commits a non-federal crime, like burglary, who prosecutes?

[Horace]

The leftist indoctrination into righteous destruction of any and every conservative political principle continues unabated. And next time a conservative leaning miscreant entity gets naughty, it’ll be right back to terrifying existential threats to our very democracy.

The magic of the human mind is that they don’t even recognize the double standard.

[LuFins Dad]

[Copper]

Proudly killing babies since Mỹ Lai

[George K]

[LuFins Dad]

@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

@LuFins-Dad said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

I imagine the military can continue to provide abortion services on their bases, no matter what that state’s laws may be. It’s Federal Property

That's right. Now, what if birthing person has an abortion on non-military property? Will the military turn xer over to local law enforcement?

(Did I do that correctly by the way?)

If they are having an abortion, aren’t they the definition of non-birthing person?

[George K]

@LuFins-Dad said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

If they are having an abortion, aren’t they the definition of non-birthing person?

Don't make me post that "Scanners" exploding head gif...

[89th]

Mini vent here. I have a number of friends who have posted some variation of “this is taking away a woman’s control over her body!” complaint. It totally misses the mark…

Those that are pro-life (like me) fully support a woman’s right to control her body, of course…it’s only that we see the issue as a question of whether or not it should be legal to end a prenatal human life. To me it’s clearly more important to protect life than to protect an elective medical procedure. It’s about protecting unborn children, not about restricting a woman’s rights.

But the debate will never end because both sides see the issue differently. Can’t solve that. I agree @taiwan_girl this will eventually be reversed way down the road, but until then I think it’s very correct to leave this to each state to decide. It’s hard to think of a clearer example of a tough issue that is appropriate to legislate at the state level.

[Klaus]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the way I understand the verdict, most protesters - from both sides - miss the point.

This was not a verdict about whether abortion is good or bad or whether it should be legal or not. It was about whether a right to abortion can be deduced from the constitution, or whether abortion rights (or lack thereof) have to be dealt with by law. Essentially, it's about whether there is a "natural right" to abortion, or whether it's something that the people decide, using the democratic process.

I do understand the practical consequences of the verdict, but it seems to me that one can agree (or disagree) with the verdict as both a "pro choicer" and a "pro lifer".

[Horace]

@Klaus said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

Maybe I'm missing something, but the way I understand the verdict, most protesters - from both sides - miss the point.

This was not a verdict about whether abortion is good or bad or whether it should be legal or not. It was about whether a right to abortion can be deduced from the constitution, or whether abortion rights (or lack thereof) have to be dealt with by law. Essentially, it's about whether there is a "natural right" to abortion, or whether it's something that the people decide, using the democratic process.

I do understand the practical consequences of the verdict, but it seems to me that one can agree (or disagree) with the verdict as both a "pro choicer" and a "pro lifer".

Under no circumstance will constitutional logic interfere with culture war issues decided by the Supreme Court. If a case makes it to the Supreme Court, culture wars supersede the constitution. Just ask the justices. How else is one supposed to understand predictable differences in their votes? Different understandings of the constitution, or different present day opinions about how the law ought to be?

[George K]

@Klaus said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

Essentially, it's about whether there is a "natural right" to abortion, or whether it's something that the people decide, using the democratic process.

Close. But not quite. Congress can enact a law allowing abortion in any fashion, to any time up to delivery. Presumably, such a law would not be unconstitutional, because, as has been said, the word "abortion" doesn't appear in the constitution. The court's job is to interpret the law and determine the constitutionality of that law, not to determine whether the law is "good" or "bad." That job belongs to the legislature, and by extension, the people who select it.

[jon-nyc]

Here’s his statement:

Nothing is more important to me or to this Department than the health and well-being of our Service members, the civilian workforce and DOD families. I am committed to taking care of our people and ensuring the readiness and resilience of our Force. The Department is examining this decision closely and evaluating our policies to ensure we continue to provide seamless access to reproductive health care as permitted by federal law.

Doesn’t seem that nefarious.

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

Doesn’t seem that nefarious.

The military doesn't cover abortion except in cases of rape, incest or threat to life of mother birthing person. Otherwise they must leave the base.

https://www.azmirror.com/2022/06/23/access-to-abortion-for-members-of-the-military-expanded-in-pentagon-spending-bill/

And, as has been stated there is no "federal law" about abortion - other than the Hyde amendment.

[jon-nyc]

Be that as it may, the actual statement doesn’t really indicate that they intend to ignore any laws.

[taiwan_girl]

@jon-nyc said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

Be that as it may, the actual statement doesn’t really indicate that they intend to ignore any laws.

@George-K I have to agree with Jon. Seems like a headline that is imply way more than has been actually stated.