Roe & Casey overturned.
-
@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...
-
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.
-
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".
-
@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?
-
@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.
-
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.
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@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.
-
-
@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.
-
@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.
"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.
-
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@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.
-
@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 )
-
@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?
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
"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/)The difference is that, though you might disagree, there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm. SCOTUS reaffirmed that this week. No such right to abortion exists, and it's up to the individual states to legislate that.
NB: For the record, I am NOT opposed to abortion in many cases. I'm just talking about the law and the courts. I think a total ban is ridiculous (see Texas and Oklahoma).
"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.
-
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
"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.
-
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@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.
Yep the headline is just outrage clickbait. There’s no there there.
