Trump's SCOTUS to hear oral arguments challenging Roe v. Wade on Dec. 1

[Counselor706]

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear oral arguments in a Mississippi challenge to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark ruling that effectively legalized abortion in America, on Dec. 1.

The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, focuses on the 15-week abortion ban in Mississippi and will force the nation's highest court to determine "whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional."

Anti-abortion activists have looked at the case as a legitimate chance to reverse Roe.

Source

 

[pecksniff]

If Roe is overturned, that will be the worst thing that has happened to the GOP in decades. There are a lot of Americans who have moral qualms about abortion but still want the clinics to be there in case their daughters get pregnant. They could vote Pub in good conscience so long as the pro-life thing was only a gesture, because Roe gave the issue the insulation of constitutional protection, but they'll change over if there's an actual threat to abortion.

 

[CornusKousa]

If Roe is overturned, that will be the worst thing that has happened to the GOP in decades. There are a lot of Americans who have moral qualms about abortion but still want the clinics to be there in case their daughters get pregnant. They could vote Pub in good conscience so long as the pro-life thing was only a gesture, because Roe gave the issue the insulation of constitutional protection, but they'll change over if there's an actual threat to abortion.

It probably won't be overturned.

However people trying to use it as a means to stop any regulation of abortion they don't like in a state where they lost the democracy game? Will hopefully finally be put to rest, and it's about fucking time.

No rights are absolute.....time for SCOTUS to remind (D)'s of that.

 

[pecksniff]

It probably won't be overturned.

People trying to use it as a means to stop any regulation of abortion they don't like in a state where they lost the democracy game? Will hopefully finally be put to rest, and it's about fucking time.

That would also harm the GOP electorally, even in Texas.

 

[ll74]

Source

Quite telling that you call it "Trump's SCOTUS".

Obviously you are thinking his opinion should have sway there.

And so SCOTUS is a political tool for Trump.

Well done on the admission there.

 

[CornusKousa]

That would also harm the GOP electorally, even in Texas.

I doubt it.

You see, just as much as people aren't for it's prohibition, most folks aren't part of the "It's a totally viable birth, but we haven't cut the umbilical chord yet, if you want to chop it up now and sell it you still can!!" folks on the left ... and widely favor some regulation, especially in red states.

SCOTUS allowing pretty much any regulation that doesn't prohibit, you know like with all our other rights even ones that "shall not be infringed" and how that REALLY means any and all infringement that isn't direct or effective prohibition is just fine??

Well...that's going to swing both ways buddy and some red states are going to swing harder than others.... get some!!

 

[Rightguide]

If Roe is overturned, that will be the worst thing that has happened to the GOP in decades. There are a lot of Americans who have moral qualms about abortion but still want the clinics to be there in case their daughters get pregnant. They could vote Pub in good conscience so long as the pro-life thing was only a gesture, because Roe gave the issue the insulation of constitutional protection, but they'll change over if there's an actual threat to abortion.

Only a nitwit would associate it with a political party, and not the law.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

It should be overturned and democracy allowed to work.

 

[pecksniff]

Only a nitwit would associate it with a political party, and not the law.

It is impossible not to associate the issue with a political party when each party has a definite position on it in opposition to the other's.

 

[pecksniff]

I doubt it.

You see, just as much as people aren't for it's prohibition, most folks aren't part of the "It's a totally viable birth, but we haven't cut the umbilical chord yet, if you want to chop it up now and sell it you still can!!" folks on the left ... and widely favor some regulation, especially in red states.

Doesn't apply. The Texas law kicks in at six weeks. No six-week fetus is viable ("viable" meaning "could survive outside the womb").

 

[CornusKousa]

Doesn't apply.

Of course it does. That's what hard left blue states and voters want.

Those people are a micro-minority in red and a small minority in purple states.

The Texas law kicks in at six weeks. No six-week fetus is viable ("viable" meaning "could survive outside the womb").

That doesn't matter because Texas isn't California or New York.

You guys, the absolute abortionist chop em' up and sell em till age 2 people, aren't in the majority and don't hold any real pull in purple/red states.

Get the fuck over it.

 

[Rightguide]

It is impossible not to associate the issue with a political party when each party has a definite position on it in opposition to the other's.

It was only about a "posiition" when Roe v Wade was originally decided, This time it should only be about what the law actually says.

 

[ll74]

I will be interested to hear how Mississippi argues that it's not adding burden to a woman's health decisions.

 

[CornusKousa]

I will be interested to hear how Mississippi argues that it's not adding burden to a woman's health decisions.

Same reason banning everything but guns that look less scary to leftist isnt' an infringement upon 2A.

 

[pecksniff]

It was only about a "posiition" when Roe v Wade was originally decided, This time it should only be about what the law actually says.

What makes you think it wasn't the same at the time of Roe? The politics of abortion were underdeveloped then. Neither party had a clear position. Most of the pro-choice and pro-life organizations now in the field did not exist.

 

[CuttingEdge]

The abortion debate is being eroded with every passing day as science catches up with Roe versus Wade.

The majority of the younger generation now find abortion appalling, but why wouldn't they? They saw the pictures of their siblings up on the refrigerator when they were still in their mother.

And science keeps on backing up the right to life as more details come out about how life starts earlier and earlier. Add in medical science that is allowing babies to live despite being in the womb so short of a time (premies) and the abortion debate is eroding fast.

It will be like slavery is for us today. A hundred years from now we will look back and think how silly we were to even allow it. 40 million dead babies. That is a lot of Mozarts, Stephen King's, and other potential greats of the arts and sciences who were lost before they started.

As I always say: if a fetus is not a living thing, then why do doctors have to kill it?

It just no longer makes sense.

 

[Lazaran]

^
Wow, somebody is completely uninformed about Roe AND abortion.

JFC

SAD!!!

 

[ll74]

Lol

Yes, because abortion kills babies

(). o

Sorry, science doesn't recognize the the baby until after birth. Abortion is medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy. Typically happens prior to anything close to a "baby"

The abortion debate isn't about science....it's about religious believers who want to force women to carry a pregnancy to term regardless of any reasons against it she may have.

The abortion debate is being eroded with every passing day as science catches up with Roe versus Wade.

The majority of the younger generation now find abortion appalling, but why wouldn't they? They saw the pictures of their siblings up on the refrigerator when they were still in their mother.

And science keeps on backing up the right to life as more details come out about how life starts earlier and earlier. Add in medical science that is allowing babies to live despite being in the womb so short of a time (premies) and the abortion debate is eroding fast.

It will be like slavery is for us today. A hundred years from now we will look back and think how silly we were to even allow it. 40 million dead babies. That is a lot of Mozarts, Stephen King's, and other potential greats of the arts and sciences who were lost before they started.

As I always say: if a fetus is not a living thing, then why do doctors have to kill it?

It just no longer makes sense.

 

[pecksniff]

TThe majority of the younger generation now find abortion appalling . . .

Cite?

And science keeps on backing up the right to life as more details come out about how life starts earlier and earlier.

It does not start, it continues. An embryo is formed by the merger of two living cells, neither of which has any more personhood than your fingernail clippings, and neither does the embryo. A new "soul" does not pop into existence when sperm and egg merge.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

RGB was nice enough to let President Trump and Senator McConnnell replace her with ACB.

 

[pecksniff]

RGB was nice enough to let President Trump and Senator McConnnell replace her with ACB.

Her last request was, "Don't fill my seat until after the election!"

 

[pecksniff]

You guys, the absolute abortionist chop em' up and sell em till age 2 people . . .

 

[Lazaran]

.
The title of this thread says it all.

Reform the court.

 

[phrodeau]

Lol

Yes, because abortion kills babies

(). o

Sorry, science doesn't recognize the the baby until after birth. Abortion is medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy. Typically happens prior to anything close to a "baby"

The abortion debate isn't about science....it's about religious believers who want to force women to carry a pregnancy to term regardless of any reasons against it she may have.

Abrahamic religions don’t recognize a soul until after birth. Adam didn’t have a soul until God gave him CPR.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

The abortion debate is being eroded with every passing day as science catches up with Roe versus Wade.

The majority of the younger generation now find abortion appalling, but why wouldn't they? They saw the pictures of their siblings up on the refrigerator when they were still in their mother.

And science keeps on backing up the right to life as more details come out about how life starts earlier and earlier. Add in medical science that is allowing babies to live despite being in the womb so short of a time (premies) and the abortion debate is eroding fast.

It will be like slavery is for us today. A hundred years from now we will look back and think how silly we were to even allow it. 40 million dead babies. That is a lot of Mozarts, Stephen King's, and other potential greats of the arts and sciences who were lost before they started.

As I always say: if a fetus is not a living thing, then why do doctors have to kill it?

It just no longer makes sense.

Exactly right. It's about one human being's total dominion over another, to the point of extinguishing that life.