September 1, 2021 Day of Infamy and Betrayal

[bodysong]

We united together, and supported the idea that a woman should not suffer.

Science and the medical community brought mercy to women.

Women placed their trust in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The high and honorable judges of the Supreme Court did not say women are lesser than.

They gave women rights over their reproductive lives and health.

Abortion is a medical issue, a choice issue, and a privacy issue.

American women do not lose their freedom and their lives because of a Pope in Rome.

(a Pope, a Cardinal, a Bishop, push a baby carriage over the body of a dead woman.)

After yesterday, September 1, 2021 The Supreme Court Does Not Represent Women

The Supreme Court sold us out, because they sold themselves to corruption.

Government and Law are not meant to ride in the same cart as Religion.

Yet Religion dips its hands in the Treasury of The People, and gifts the corrupted.

A living breathing woman, that serves and gives, named worth less than a clump of cells.

 

[Rightguide]

We united together, and supported the idea that a woman should not suffer.

Science and the medical community brought mercy to women.

Women placed their trust in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The high and honorable judges of the Supreme Court did not say women are lesser than.

They gave women rights over their reproductive lives and health.

Abortion is a medical issue, a choice issue, and a privacy issue.

American women do not lose their freedom and their lives because of a Pope in Rome.

(a Pope, a Cardinal, a Bishop, push a baby carriage over the body of a dead woman.)

After yesterday, September 1, 2021 The Supreme Court Does Not Represent Women

The Supreme Court sold us out, because they sold themselves to corruption.

Government and Law are not meant to ride in the same cart as Religion.

Yet Religion dips its hands in the Treasury of The People, and gifts the corrupted.

A living breathing woman, that serves and gives, named worth less than a clump of cells.

The simple truth is, the right to abortion does not exist in the Constitution. That does not mean it can't exist under state law with controls.

 

[bodysong]

September 1, 2021

Texas politicians have taken bribes offered up by Evangelicals.
Now the corrupted politicians are completing their end of the deal.
They put their "gambit" into play against women in Texas

Five U.S. Supreme Court judges betrayed the oath that they swore.

September 2, 2021

A divided Supreme Court late Wednesday refused to block a Texas abortion statute
that bans the procedure as early as six weeks into pregnancy.

The court’s five most consistent conservatives said they would let the law stand
while the legal battle over it continues.

Justices Clarence Thomas
Samuel A. Alito Jr.

President Donald Trump’s nominees to the court -
Neil M. Gorsuch,
Brett M. Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) made a pledge to call a vote on legislation
that would enshrine a woman's right to an abortion into federal law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...3cf372-0a6b-11ec-a6dd-296ba7fb2dce_story.html

 

[bodysong]

Last night, in the dead of night, the Supreme Court voted to uphold
the ridiculous Texas abortion bounty hunting law.

Not the way they did it the night before, by simply ignoring it,
but by straight up voting to allow it to continue.

Supreme Court Plays Stupid

- Robyn Pennacchia

September 2, 2021

via Wonkette

 

[Sean Renaud]

The simple truth is, the right to abortion does not exist in the Constitution. That does not mean it can't exist under state law with controls.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[coati]

There are a lot of similarities between extreme Islamists and extreme Christians, not the least of which is paternalism and control of women's bodies.

 

[pecksniff]

The simple truth is, the right to abortion does not exist in the Constitution.

It does until the SCOTUS says it doesn't.

 

[bodysong]

The "conservative" Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court sold what is not theirs: Our Lives

"Conservative" U.S. Supreme Court Justices are hiding the explanation of their votes.

Trump's chosen SCOTUS justices decline to make their votes public or offer reasoning.

"Conservative" SCOTUS judges have abused and misused the "shadow docket."

How can they possibly defend what they have done ?

Michelle Goldberg ✓
Twitter › michelleinbklyn

When I wrote this yesterday I hedged a bit because I thought that Supreme Court
might eventually step in.

After all, the Texas law isn't just sadistic --
it's also a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's authority.
I wasn't cynical enough.

(link to NY Times)

19 hours ago

Michelle Goldberg ✓
Twitter › michelleinbklyn

The Republican Party increasingly valorizes vigilantism and has taken steps to legalize
various forms of right-wing intimidation. The Texas abortion law should be seen
in that context.

(link to NY Times)

1 day ago

What happened 15 years, ago, to bring women's rights to such a crisis ?

 

[JohnnySavage]

This thread starter is the text version of Mellow69

 

[Champakian]

Would you similarly say that woman are not drafted and only
men's lives are put on the line in times of conflict and war
so that women have no say in the conduct of war?

And in another thing that I wonder about,
if the woman chooses to keep the baby, then
since the man had no say in that decision, should
he subsequently be held fiscally responsible for her choices?
I use the plural in this instance because of contraceptives and womb...

 

[Dribble]

This thread starter is the text version of Mellow69

Yet...here you are...so easily manipulated

 

[RobDownSouth]

Would you similarly say that woman are not drafted and only
men's lives are put on the line in times of conflict and war
so that women have no say in the conduct of war?

And in another thing that I wonder about,
if the woman chooses to keep the baby, then
since the man had no say in that decision, should
he subsequently be held fiscally responsible for her choices?
I use the plural in this instance because of contraceptives and womb...

Men haven't been drafted since 1973 and there hasn't been a "front line" in a war since the Korean Police Action in the 1950s. Women serve in combat zones all the time. You really need to update your false equivalencies to more modern settings.

And your second situation refers to something known colloquially as "financial abortion". The courts decided long ago since the man made HIS decision not to "pull out" during sex, he forfeited the right to being a part in the woman's decision to carry the fetus to term, A pregnant woman (or "birthing vessel" in RWCJ-speak) can have a potential conflict with the limited "rights" of the fetus under the law, and the courts have ruled unequivocably that "ties go to the birthing vessel". If the birthing vessel completes her pregnancy, the sperm donor is responsible for child support. Period. Planned Parenthood v. Danfoth, 1976.

 

[bodysong]

GoDaddy said late Thursday that it had given Texas Right to Life
24 hours to find a new hosting provider before cutting off service.

- NY Times

prolifewhistleblower is the site Texas Right to Life is using for anonymous abortion tip lines.

TikTok Users and Coders Flood Texas Abortion Site With Fake Tips

- NY Times

- Boston Globe

- NPR

Protesters against the vigilante system of reporting on people that help a Texas woman
to get an abortion, are trolling and spamming the prolifewhistleblower site.The protesters
have their IP addresses banned, but not until they spread tons of disinformation through
the system run by Texas Right to Life.

September 3, 2021

As of Wednesday, it's now illegal for anyone in Texas to get an abortion
after about six weeks of pregnancy, and anyone who helps a person get
such an abortion — including doctors and even someone who drives
a person to a clinic — could be sued for thousands of dollars.

The "Pro Life Whistle Blower" website enables residents to report people
for potential violations of the (Texas anti-abortion) law.

https://www.wbur.org/npr/1034008380/tiktok-texas-abortion-ban-spam-website-activists

 

[Bud_Spencer]

What does that have to do with anything?

Everything. It's not a federal or constitutional issue.

 

[bodysong]

Deplorables and Despicables in other states are exited to begin a copycat of Texas ban

Texas Abortion Ban Sadistic, Psychopathic, Dumb As Hell

September 3, 2021

Welcome to Gilead.
Two days ago, because this is the Bad Place, a Texas law banning basically all abortion
and deputizing abortion bounty hunters went into effect. I am not exaggerating when
I say SB 8 is the most batshit, psychopathic, sexist law...

- via Wonkette

Wonkette
Twitter › Wonkette

Weird How Anti-Choicers Never Seem To Want To Make Giving Birth Free

(link to Wonkette)

3 hours ago

Zoe Tillman ✓
Twitter › ZoeTillman

"Unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend." On the Supreme Court's
"shadow docket," and how the justices could greenlight ending nearly all
abortion access in Texas through a two-page, unsigned midnight order:

(link to Buzzfeed News)

9 hours ago

Recommended- The Guardian has a good explanation of the "shadow docket."

 

[bodysong]

HuffPost ✓
Twitter › HuffPost

The Match CEO said "I now live in a state where women’s reproductive laws
are more regressive than most of the world."

17 minutes ago

 

[pecksniff]

Everything. It's not a federal or constitutional issue.

It is if the SCOTUS says so.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Everything. It's not a federal or constitutional issue.

We've long since accepted that we are the United States and there are things should and somethings that must be universal. Besides if that is your argument, that if the Constitution doesn't specifically cover it that its not a federal issue, can I assume that if states started restricting speech, setting up official religions, removing fire arms, spying on citizens, soldiers living in civilian homes so on and so forth? As you correctly point out the Constitution is (supposed to be even though LOTS of court cases have judged that the Constitution to various levels does in fact apply to individual states.) only applicable at the federal level. If we are using the letter of the law instead of common fucking sense there is no real limits.

Cus if that isn't where you stand that's some dangerous territory. If Texas literally doesn't want Afghanis in their state, or wants to put them in camps can you show me exactly where the Constitution says they cannot? But that would be lunacy.

 

[bodysong]

70 year old, 80 year old, and 90 year old feminists are crying

24 states are hoping to follow Texas's lead.

They put their trust in the U.S. Supreme Court

September 2, 2021

At midnight on Wednesday, in an unsigned, 5–4 decision,
the Supreme Court effectively overturned Roe v. Wade

The five most conservative Republican-appointed justices refused
to block Texas’ abortion ban

There is no exception for rape or incest.

The decision renders almost all abortions in Texas illegal for the first time since 1973.

The Supreme Court has abandoned the constitutional right to abortion.

Texas’ ban, known as SB 8, constitutes a uniquely insidious workaround to Roe.
It outlaws abortion after six weeks, but does not call on state officials to enforce
its restrictions.

Instead, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent, the law “deputized the state’s
citizens as bounty hunters, offering them cash prizes for civilly prosecuting their
neighbors’ medical procedures.”

The act’s language is incredibly broad, encompassing any friend, family member,
clergy member, or counselor who facilitates the abortion in any way.

Every employee of an abortion clinic, from front-desk staff to doctors, is liable as well.

- Mark Joseph Stern
Slate

Mark Joseph Stern ✓
Twitter › mjs_DC

(graphic - Kimberlyn Schwartz, serving as spokesperson for Texas Right to Life)

This is not at all dystopian

1 day ago

Chilling words from Kimberlyn Schwartz -"We’ll be on the lookout for illegal abortions
that are happening," she said. "We will see how the abortionists behave."

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/01/supreme-court-texas-abortion-ban-508275

 

[Rightguide]

What does that have to do with anything?

Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. There is no "right" to abortion in the Constitution, despite the illiterate finding in 1973 that it existed in a wholly invented penumbra in the 14th Amendment...never before discovered or imagined by any other SCOTUS or the Founders themselves. So, it is bound to be rectified by a competent court either now or later. All that said, such a ruling would not preclude the lawful existence of the right of Abortion under state law, and I would bet that Abortion would be allowed in most states, as it is in Texas, under certain restraints.

 

[icanhelp1]

Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. There is no "right" to abortion in the Constitution, despite the illiterate finding in 1973 that it existed in a wholly invented penumbra in the 14th Amendment...never before discovered or imagined by any other SCOTUS or the Founders themselves. So, it is bound to be rectified by a competent court either now or later. All that said, such a ruling would not preclude the lawful existence of the right of Abortion under state law, and I would bet that Abortion would be allowed in most states, as it is in Texas, under certain restraints.

^^^^^^^
I shared this posting earlier hoping to give a little incite on the beginnings of [Roe vs Wade]. I guess the left refuses to believe that the foundation for Roe vs Wade is not settled law.


The whole Roe vs Wade is an ideological debacle in itself.

First: the original ruling by the court was blatantly unconstitutional and turned on its head the system of federalism where the states and feds coexisted. The federal government would be limited to the enumerated powers granted to it by the constitution, all other powers were reserved to the states unless it failed validity of the constitution.

Nowhere in the constitution is there a stated right to abortion. What the court did was pull a rabbit out of the hat using the 14th amendment's *liberty clause* and created the privacy clause. What the Supreme court did was include abortion in the privacy clause and took the issue away from the states and congress which was way outside the purview of the court and their judicial role in the separation of powers. What the court became was super-legislator and imposed its own social preferences when dealing with abortion. There is no constitutional explicit right to privacy and there certainly is no right to abortion included in the constitution.

The issue of precedence does not mean that a ruling cannot be overturned. Stare Decisis is an important principle, overruling a decision found to be unconstitutional could topple the principle of stare decisis on its head and give the courts the standing to overturn Roe vs Wade. But then we'd have a civil war on our hands simply because the court took the legislative authority out of the hands of legislators and imposed their will on the people.

I guess my point is is that the court imposed its own ideology to begin with and acted outside its constitutional authority and failed to uphold the separation of powers. IMHO

 

[ll74]

Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. There is no "right" to abortion in the Constitution, despite the illiterate finding in 1973 that it existed in a wholly invented penumbra in the 14th Amendment...never before discovered or imagined by any other SCOTUS or the Founders themselves. So, it is bound to be rectified by a competent court either now or later. All that said, such a ruling would not preclude the lawful existence of the right of Abortion under state law, and I would bet that Abortion would be allowed in most states, as it is in Texas, under certain restraints.

Roe v Wade doesn't give people the right to an abortion. It gives people a right to privacy regarding medical treatment that is decided upon by a doctor and their patient. It was correctly decided. It means the government has no access to that information and therefore has no right to block that treatment.

 

[Rightguide]

^^^^^^^
I shared this posting earlier hoping to give a little incite on the beginnings of [Roe vs Wade]. I guess the left refuses to believe that the foundation for Roe vs Wade is not settled law.


The whole Roe vs Wade is an ideological debacle in itself.

First: the original ruling by the court was blatantly unconstitutional and turned on its head the system of federalism where the states and feds coexisted. The federal government would be limited to the enumerated powers granted to it by the constitution, all other powers were reserved to the states unless it failed validity of the constitution.

Nowhere in the constitution is there a stated right to abortion. What the court did was pull a rabbit out of the hat using the 14th amendment's *liberty clause* and created the privacy clause. What the Supreme court did was include abortion in the privacy clause and took the issue away from the states and congress which was way outside the purview of the court and their judicial role in the separation of powers. What the court became was super-legislator and imposed its own social preferences when dealing with abortion. There is no constitutional explicit right to privacy and there certainly is no right to abortion included in the constitution.

The issue of precedence does not mean that a ruling cannot be overturned. Stare Decisis is an important principle, overruling a decision found to be unconstitutional could topple the principle of stare decisis on its head and give the courts the standing to overturn Roe vs Wade. But then we'd have a civil war on our hands simply because the court took the legislative authority out of the hands of legislators and imposed their will on the people.

I guess my point is is that the court imposed its own ideology to begin with and acted outside its constitutional authority and failed to uphold the separation of powers. IMHO

All true. We have to remember the 14th Amendment is a grab bag where the left can, all of a sudden "discover" a legal basis for agenda items it cannot achieve through the legislative process.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Why do people keep bringing up that there is nothing in the Constitution about this? Can someone find me the line where it says you have a right to hunt? To farm? To build houses? Cus if you can't your argument is invalid.

 

[Rightguide]

Why do people keep bringing up that there is nothing in the Constitution about this? Can someone find me the line where it says you have a right to hunt? To farm? To build houses? Cus if you can't your argument is invalid.

We bring it up because we are correct to do so and to provide context. All or most of what you suggest are encompassed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, or in other words, left to the states.