Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. Roe & Casey overturned.

Roe & Casey overturned.

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
276 Posts 18 Posters 9.5k Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • George KG George K

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

    LuFins DadL Offline
    LuFins DadL Offline
    LuFins Dad
    wrote on last edited by
    #58

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

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

    Insurrectiony!

    Seriously, 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, kind of like how US Embassies in other countries are on US soil, technically.

    The Brad

    George KG 1 Reply Last reply
    • CopperC Online
      CopperC Online
      Copper
      wrote on last edited by
      #59

      Proudly killing babies since Mỹ Lai

      1 Reply Last reply
      • LuFins DadL LuFins Dad

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

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

        Insurrectiony!

        Seriously, 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, kind of like how US Embassies in other countries are on US soil, technically.

        George KG Offline
        George KG Offline
        George K
        wrote on last edited by George K
        #60

        @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?)

        "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

        The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

        LuFins DadL 1 Reply Last reply
        • George KG George K

          @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?)

          LuFins DadL Offline
          LuFins DadL Offline
          LuFins Dad
          wrote on last edited by
          #61

          @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?

          The Brad

          George KG 1 Reply Last reply
          • LuFins DadL 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 KG Offline
            George KG Offline
            George K
            wrote on last edited by
            #62

            @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...

            "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

            The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

            1 Reply Last reply
            • 89th8 Offline
              89th8 Offline
              89th
              wrote on last edited by
              #63

              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.

              1 Reply Last reply
              • KlausK Offline
                KlausK Offline
                Klaus
                wrote on last edited by
                #64

                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".

                HoraceH George KG 2 Replies Last reply
                • KlausK 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".

                  HoraceH Online
                  HoraceH Online
                  Horace
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #65

                  @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?

                  Education is extremely important.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  • KlausK 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".

                    George KG Offline
                    George KG Offline
                    George K
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #66

                    @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.

                    "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

                    The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

                    KlausK 1 Reply Last reply
                    • jon-nycJ Online
                      jon-nycJ Online
                      jon-nyc
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #67

                      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.

                      Only non-witches get due process.

                      • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                      George KG 1 Reply Last reply
                      • jon-nycJ 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 KG Offline
                        George KG Offline
                        George K
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #68

                        @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.

                        "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

                        The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        • jon-nycJ Online
                          jon-nycJ Online
                          jon-nyc
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #69

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

                          Only non-witches get due process.

                          • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                          taiwan_girlT George KG LuFins DadL 3 Replies Last reply
                          • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

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

                            taiwan_girlT Offline
                            taiwan_girlT Offline
                            taiwan_girl
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #70

                            @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.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

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

                              George KG Offline
                              George KG Offline
                              George K
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #71

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

                              the actual statement doesn’t really indicate that they intend to ignore any laws.

                              True. It's a weasely response, however. I would hope the Secretary of Defense knows what federal laws law exists regarding abortion.

                              @taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

                              Seems like a headline that is imply way more than has been actually stated.

                              That's true. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out wrt the military.

                              "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

                              The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

                              taiwan_girlT 1 Reply Last reply
                              • jon-nycJ Online
                                jon-nycJ Online
                                jon-nyc
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #72

                                If federal law allows the dod to perform abortions in cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother, they would still be able to do that on military bases even in states that outlawed those cases. But that’s a jurisdictional matter, not ignoring a law.

                                Only non-witches get due process.

                                • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                                George KG 1 Reply Last reply
                                • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

                                  If federal law allows the dod to perform abortions in cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother, they would still be able to do that on military bases even in states that outlawed those cases. But that’s a jurisdictional matter, not ignoring a law.

                                  George KG Offline
                                  George KG Offline
                                  George K
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #73

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

                                  f federal law allows the dod to perform abortions in cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother, they would still be able to do that on military bases even in states that outlawed those cases. But that’s a jurisdictional matter, not ignoring a law.

                                  That's right.

                                  "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

                                  The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

                                  MikM 1 Reply Last reply
                                  • George KG George K

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

                                    the actual statement doesn’t really indicate that they intend to ignore any laws.

                                    True. It's a weasely response, however. I would hope the Secretary of Defense knows what federal laws law exists regarding abortion.

                                    @taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

                                    Seems like a headline that is imply way more than has been actually stated.

                                    That's true. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out wrt the military.

                                    taiwan_girlT Offline
                                    taiwan_girlT Offline
                                    taiwan_girl
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #74

                                    @George-K Putting on my AX hat.

                                    "Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"

                                    (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-colorado-sheriffs-say-they-wont-enforce-red-flag-gun-law-60-minutes-2019-11-15/)

                                    Now, I say yes. There is a difference between a sheriff in Colorado and the Minister of Defense.

                                    (But I am someone who would also say there is a difference between rioting/insurrection/peaceful protest of January 6 and the rioting/insurrection/peaceful protest about the Black Life Matters )

                                    LuFins DadL JollyJ George KG 3 Replies Last reply
                                    • taiwan_girlT taiwan_girl

                                      @George-K Putting on my AX hat.

                                      "Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"

                                      (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-colorado-sheriffs-say-they-wont-enforce-red-flag-gun-law-60-minutes-2019-11-15/)

                                      Now, I say yes. There is a difference between a sheriff in Colorado and the Minister of Defense.

                                      (But I am someone who would also say there is a difference between rioting/insurrection/peaceful protest of January 6 and the rioting/insurrection/peaceful protest about the Black Life Matters )

                                      LuFins DadL Offline
                                      LuFins DadL Offline
                                      LuFins Dad
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #75

                                      @taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

                                      @George-K Putting on my AX hat.

                                      "Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"

                                      (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-colorado-sheriffs-say-they-wont-enforce-red-flag-gun-law-60-minutes-2019-11-15/)

                                      Now, I say yes. There is a difference between a sheriff in Colorado and the Minister of Defense.

                                      (But I am someone who would also say there is a difference between rioting/insurrection/peaceful protest of January 6 and the rioting/insurrection/peaceful protest about the Black Life Matters )

                                      What about the rioting/insurrection/peaceful protestors that are trying to burn down the Supreme Court?

                                      The Brad

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      • taiwan_girlT taiwan_girl

                                        @George-K Putting on my AX hat.

                                        "Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"

                                        (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-colorado-sheriffs-say-they-wont-enforce-red-flag-gun-law-60-minutes-2019-11-15/)

                                        Now, I say yes. There is a difference between a sheriff in Colorado and the Minister of Defense.

                                        (But I am someone who would also say there is a difference between rioting/insurrection/peaceful protest of January 6 and the rioting/insurrection/peaceful protest about the Black Life Matters )

                                        JollyJ Offline
                                        JollyJ Offline
                                        Jolly
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #76

                                        @taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

                                        @George-K Putting on my AX hat.

                                        "Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"

                                        (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-colorado-sheriffs-say-they-wont-enforce-red-flag-gun-law-60-minutes-2019-11-15/)

                                        Now, I say yes. There is a difference between a sheriff in Colorado and the Minister of Defense.

                                        (But I am someone who would also say there is a difference between rioting/insurrection/peaceful protest of January 6 and the rioting/insurrection/peaceful protest about the Black Life Matters )

                                        Actually, no.

                                        A sheriff is an elected official of local government. In almost all cases, the majority of his funding is provided by the county (or parish) he's in. As such, he has finite resources and pick and chooses to make the most of those limited resources.

                                        The sheriff is THE most powerful political entity in most counties.

                                        You do not piss off the majority of the people in your county and remain sheriff very long. Therefore, if you don't have a gun problem, it would be head-banging stupid to rigorously enforce some of the sillier laws, while letting serious stuff slide, because you were using your resources on a non-existent problem.

                                        “Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”

                                        Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

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

                                          LuFins DadL Offline
                                          LuFins DadL Offline
                                          LuFins Dad
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #77

                                          @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.

                                          My question is whether there has been more than one statement made? The Pentagon is not Sec Def. It’s possible a poorly worded message went out by the Pentagon and then SecDef cleaned it up.

                                          The Brad

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups