Roe & Casey overturned.
-
wrote on 8 Jul 2022, 11:44 last edited by
President Biden is planning to outline additional steps aimed at bolstering abortion rights on Friday morning, two weeks after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, as many Democrats have called on him to respond with bolder and more urgent action.
Biden, joined by Vice President Harris, plans to deliver a speech from the Roosevelt Room at the White House on his efforts to protect access to reproductive health-care services.
He is also planning to sign an executive order that, according to a statement released late Thursday by the White House, will attempt to safeguard access to abortion medication and emergency contraception, protect patient privacy and bolster legal options for those seeking access to such services.
The order directs Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra to submit a report within 30 days that would address many of those items. Becerra is also charged with finding ways to increase public outreach so that those seeking reproductive health-care services, including abortion, know how to access them.In a nod to some of the legal battles that could come, Biden is also directing the attorney general and the White House counsel to convene private pro bono attorneys, bar associations, and public interest organizations to encourage legal representation for those seeking or offering reproductive health services.
“Such representation could include protecting the right to travel out of state to seek medical care,” according to the White House statement.
Legal assistance has been a chief concern among some abortion rights advocates. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-Mich.) urged the Biden administration on Thursday to “pull out all the stops,” point out legal obstacles that could prevent Michigan residents from seeking services in Canada or from bringing medication back from across the border. -
wrote on 8 Jul 2022, 12:47 last edited by
Yep, with all the problems this country has - inflation, energy production, healthcare, lack of affordable cars, infrastructure, housing prices, China, Russia - THIS issue deserves his full attention.
-
wrote on 8 Jul 2022, 19:24 last edited by
If we ever have a group of mothers in this country who would have aborted if it were legal, we should make a note to poll them, some years down the line, about whether they wish they'd been able to abort. I guess you could also ask the kid, but that wouldn't be fair.
-
wrote on 8 Jul 2022, 19:28 last edited by
OK, so his 'bold response' is to order a report that tell him how to do this. End of quote. Repeat this line.
-
wrote on 8 Jul 2022, 19:32 last edited by
It's horseshit and mirrors. Much of the actual stuff concerns PHI and making sure the government keeps close watch on sale of information such as names, addresses, etc.
Joe? That's already illegal. It's that HIPPO law, Joe. You like hippos, don't you? Want one for Christmas?
-
wrote on 8 Jul 2022, 19:38 last edited by
I just wonder when Xi moves on Taiwan.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2022, 15:53 last edited by
"FACT SHEET: President Biden to Sign Executive Order Protecting Access to Reproductive Health Care Services"
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2022, 21:34 last edited by
How about a Fact-check instead of a fact sheet?
WaPo states the 10 year old rape story is extremely difficult to corroborate and points out a couple of potential flaws with the story…
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2022, 21:37 last edited by
When you've lost WaPo...
-
How about a Fact-check instead of a fact sheet?
WaPo states the 10 year old rape story is extremely difficult to corroborate and points out a couple of potential flaws with the story…
wrote on 9 Jul 2022, 22:27 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
How about a Fact-check instead of a fact sheet?
WaPo states the 10 year old rape story is extremely difficult to corroborate and points out a couple of potential flaws with the story…
Someone tell the White House.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2022, 22:30 last edited by
Here’s Jon Stewart and a group of True Believers opining on the ruling.
Link to videoBasically it’s projection about the court having an ideology and working towards a ruling from there. No reflection that that might be what Roe V Wade was.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2022, 23:27 last edited by
What to do now?
Stop killing babies.
An apology wouldn't go amiss.
-
Here’s Jon Stewart and a group of True Believers opining on the ruling.
Link to videoBasically it’s projection about the court having an ideology and working towards a ruling from there. No reflection that that might be what Roe V Wade was.
wrote on 9 Jul 2022, 23:31 last edited by@Horace said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Basically it’s projection about the court having an ideology and working towards a ruling from there. No reflection that that might be what Roe V Wade was.
One of the more interesting comments about the ruling is that the basic difference between the "two wings" of SCOTUS is that one wing judges on what the law should be, whereas the other one judges on what the law actually is.
Perhaps an overly simplistic view, but it got my attention.
-
wrote on 10 Jul 2022, 00:10 last edited by
Up to the legislature to write the law. That ain't the court's job.
-
wrote on 10 Jul 2022, 00:15 last edited by
@Jolly said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Up to the legislature to write the law. That ain't the court's job.
OK, so, let's assume that congress passes a law codifying the "right" to abortion.
Would the current 6-3 character of the court overturn that law? My guess is that they wouldn't.
-
wrote on 10 Jul 2022, 00:17 last edited by
@Jolly said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Up to the legislature to write the law. That ain't the court's job.
There's a fine line between writing and interpreting.
I would think that how a law is interpreted by the SCOTUS would be thought by some to almost amount to writing it, or rewriting it. -
@Jolly said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Up to the legislature to write the law. That ain't the court's job.
OK, so, let's assume that congress passes a law codifying the "right" to abortion.
Would the current 6-3 character of the court overturn that law? My guess is that they wouldn't.
wrote on 10 Jul 2022, 01:07 last edited by@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@Jolly said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Up to the legislature to write the law. That ain't the court's job.
OK, so, let's assume that congress passes a law codifying the "right" to abortion.
Would the current 6-3 character of the court overturn that law? My guess is that they wouldn't.
I don't think they would.
-
wrote on 10 Jul 2022, 03:56 last edited by
I don’t think you’ll find anywhere in the Roe overturn ruling, any reasoning that could be used to overturn a new law guaranteeing access to abortions.
-
@Horace said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Basically it’s projection about the court having an ideology and working towards a ruling from there. No reflection that that might be what Roe V Wade was.
One of the more interesting comments about the ruling is that the basic difference between the "two wings" of SCOTUS is that one wing judges on what the law should be, whereas the other one judges on what the law actually is.
Perhaps an overly simplistic view, but it got my attention.
wrote on 10 Jul 2022, 04:03 last edited by@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@Horace said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Basically it’s projection about the court having an ideology and working towards a ruling from there. No reflection that that might be what Roe V Wade was.
One of the more interesting comments about the ruling is that the basic difference between the "two wings" of SCOTUS is that one wing judges on what the law should be, whereas the other one judges on what the law actually is.
Perhaps an overly simplistic view, but it got my attention.
I imagine the two sides of the court as lawyers arguing cases for their client. Each side of the culture war is a client. Their lawyers on the Supreme Court fashion their constitutional case as well as they can, but the assumption going into it is that they know who their client is, and therefore which side they’re arguing.
Once in a while judges use their prerogative to switch sides on a case, but with cases where progressives want new law to support their ideology, which is what Roe always was, I suspect the divisions will be exactly as predicted.
