Roe & Casey overturned.
-
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 00:04 last edited by 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.
-
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 00:21 last edited by
@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.
-
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 00:31 last edited by
Proudly killing babies since Mỹ Lai
-
@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.
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 00:31 last edited by 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-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?)
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 01:30 last edited by@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 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?
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 01:33 last edited by@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...
-
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 02:51 last edited by
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.
-
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 09:27 last edited by
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".
-
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".
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 09:54 last edited by@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?
-
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".
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 11:43 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 11:55 last edited by
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.
-
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.
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 12:50 last edited by@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
motherbirthing person. Otherwise they must leave the base.And, as has been stated there is no "federal law" about abortion - other than the Hyde amendment.
-
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 13:04 last edited by
Be that as it may, the actual statement doesn’t really indicate that they intend to ignore any laws.
-
Be that as it may, the actual statement doesn’t really indicate that they intend to ignore any laws.
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 13:19 last edited by@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.
-
Be that as it may, the actual statement doesn’t really indicate that they intend to ignore any laws.
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 13:25 last edited by@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
lawslaw 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.
-
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 13:27 last edited by
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.
-
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.
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 13:28 last edited by@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.
-
@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
lawslaw 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.
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 13:37 last edited by@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"
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 )
-
@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"
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 )
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 13:48 last edited by@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"
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?
-
@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"
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 )
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 13:48 last edited by@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"
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.
