Do Republicans appreciate what losing Roe V Wade will do to them?

[rockcasbah]

The abolition of Roe V Wade could result in an explosion of black children. Is that what the US (and the Republicans) want?

Sounds messy!

 

[Rightguide]

The same Constitution that defines Black people as 3/5 of a human being? They call it a living document for a reason. Disagree all you want with the reasoning behind the right to privacy, but it is based on a sound reading of various amendments.

As for why the term "right to privacy" does not specifically appear in the Constitution, that's easy: In the 18th century, "privacy" was a euphemism for the bathroom. So if you asked Thomas Jefferson about the right to privacy, he'd think you were talking about the right to pee. Even the slaves he owned had that right - sort of - so why put it in the Constitution?

Last but not least, if you think pro-choice Americans are going to just accept this ruling and go home...eh, but you don't. Even you don't believe that.

That clause was reversed by Republicans when they passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments after kicking the shit out of the Southern Democrat racists in the Civil War. The original clause was nothing more than a compromise to hold the fledgling Union together:

"Often misinterpreted to mean that African Americans as individuals are considered three-fifths of a person or that they are three-fifths of a citizen of the U.S., the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) in fact declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state.

The three-fifths clause was part of a series of compromises enacted by the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The most notable other clauses prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territories and ended U.S. participation in the international slave trade in 1807. These compromises reflected Virginia Constitutional Convention delegate (and future U.S. President) James Madison’s observation that “…the States were divided into different interests not by their…size…but principally from their having or not having slaves.”

When Constitutional Convention delegate Roger Sherman of Connecticut proposed that congressional representation be based on the total number of inhabitants of a state, delegate Charles Pinckney of South Carolina agreed saying “blacks ought to stand on an equality with whites….” Pinckney’s statement was disingenuous since at the time he knew most blacks were enslaved in his state and none, slave or free, could vote or were considered equals of white South Carolinians. Other delegates including most notably Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania argued that he could not support equal representation because he “could never agree to give such encouragement to the slave trade…by allowing them [Southern states] a representation for their negroes.”

With the convention seemingly at an impasse Charles Pinckney proposed a compromise: “Three-fifths of the number of slaves in any particular state would be added to the total number of free white persons, including bond servants, but not Indians, to the estimated number of congressmen each state would send to the House of Representatives.” The Pinckney compromise was not completely original. This ratio had already been established by the Congress which adopted the Articles of Confederation in 1781 as the basis for national taxation.

Although the three-fifths compromise and others regarding slavery helped hold this new fragile union of states together, many on both sides of the issue were opposed. James Madison and Edmund Randolph of Virginia used the phrase “Quotas of contribution” to argue that slaves should be fully counted, one for one, and opposed the compromise."

https://www.blackpast.org/african-a...ifths-clause-united-states-constitution-1787/

It pays to know history.

 

[Rightguide]

The abolition of Roe V Wade could result in an explosion of black children. Is that what the US (and the Republicans) want?

Better that, than 63 million slaughtered babies on the national conscience. They are Americans like all others.

 

[Cobaltofdark]

I'm sorry but poll results from a channel classified as entertainment because if it was labeled news would be shut down hardly means anything and I guess will see in November

 

[rockcasbah]

Better that, than 63 million slaughtered babies on the national conscience. They are Americans like all others.

How many were yours?
I don’t have any confirmed kills, but I suspect one with my exwife when we were dating… she never said, impolite to ask.

 

[oggbashan]

Better that, than 63 million slaughtered babies on the national conscience. They are Americans like all others.

I hope you can afford to pay taxes to support millions of fatherless babies.

Your taxes will be massive.

 

[Rightguide]

I'm sorry but poll results from a channel classified as entertainment because if it was labeled news would be shut down hardly means anything and I guess will see in November

Continue on your self-imposed path of purposeful ignorance, it's your choice. I don't give a shit but the facts are this and it couldn't have happened without statewide political support:

the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute reporting states have imposed more than 1,300 abortion restrictions since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, including more than 100 last year alone.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...y-set-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/?sh=6debf1f12f3a

 

[Rightguide]

I hope you can afford to pay taxes to support millions of fatherless babies.

Your taxes will be massive.

We're done it to the tune of trillions since Roe. We need to do something about men and women failing in their responsibility as a people to support their children.

 

[oggbashan]

Rightguide? You do appreciate that legislating against abortion will mean Republicans will be outnumbered in those states in a generation by welfare-dependent Democrat-voting adults?

The Republican party is doomed.

 

[jomar]

Rightguide? You do appreciate that legislating against abortion will mean Republicans will be outnumbered in those states in a generation by welfare-dependent Democrat-voting adults?

The Republican party is doomed.

Not to worry. Repubs are at this moment passing laws and statutes making it harder for the other to vote. Meanwhile, there’s plenty of gerrymandering still to be done.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Rightguide? You do appreciate that legislating against abortion will mean Republicans will be outnumbered in those states in a generation by welfare-dependent Democrat-voting adults?

The Republican party is doomed.

I realize you live in the UK and are not immersed in US culture, but Americans have been hearing the GOP is doomed for years. The most recent obituary at the national level was performed after Romney lost to Obama. The assumed cause of death at the time was the rise of the Hispanic population combined with a large drop off in Hispanic support for GOP candidates after Bush 43 left office. Four years later, Americans elected Donald Trump. Go figure.

When Texas passed it’s abortion law, that was dubbed the beginning of the end for the GOP in the Lone Star State. Yet just this month, the GOP flipped a non-gerrymandered Democratic district. The winner is the first Mexican-born member of Congress. Go figure.

Why the disconnect between predictions and results? Most of the media and beltway pundits live in DC and the major coastal cities. The have no clue how the rest of the country thinks.

 

[Cobaltofdark]

Continue on your self-imposed path of purposeful ignorance, it's your choice. I don't give a shit but the facts are this and it couldn't have happened without statewide political support:

the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute reporting states have imposed more than 1,300 abortion restrictions since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, including more than 100 last year alone.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...y-set-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/?sh=6debf1f12f3a

Facts do not come from fox news studies have shown people who dont watch any news source are more informed then fox news viewers you'll see come November its not going to be pretty

 

[Rightguide]

Rightguide? You do appreciate that legislating against abortion will mean Republicans will be outnumbered in those states in a generation by welfare-dependent Democrat-voting adults?

The Republican party is doomed.

The Roe v Wade decision itself wasn't political. It was a legal decision with political and moral ramifications for the states. Which is what we want. This is a democracy. Political issues of morality should be decided in institutions that are closer to the people they serve, who in their realms of self-governance hold varying moral beliefs that a one size fits all solution cannot satisfy. Hence the 50 years of abortion discord we've lived through since Roe. This is an issue best solved within the 9th and 10th Amendment's authority granted exclusively to the states and to the people within those states. That's what the court did. After ruling that Roe was incorrectly decided and that an abortion right is not enumerated in the Constitution, it remanded the issue back to the states for adjudication through the democratic legislative process. The politics and consequences of the final outcomes in the states will be on the shoulders of those state representatives who passed it into law, as it should be under a democracy.

We have not seen the end of abortion. It will now become a state issue. What we'll likely see is in some states it will be outlawed, and in others, it won't be according to the closely held beliefs of those majority self-governing constituencies. Congress itself if so inclined could intervene and codify abortion or offer up an amendment to the Constitution.

 

[Rightguide]

Facts do not come from fox news studies have shown people who dont watch any news source are more informed then fox news viewers you'll see come November its not going to be pretty

That is a flat-out ignorant lie perpetrated by people with no respect for your ability to discern the truth. Keep that in mind as you continue to soak up their gaseous bullshit. This is no doubt why you are always surprised by reality when it pops up and smacks you in the face with a wet mop.

 

[Cobaltofdark]

Lol yeah all the studies are lies well see November's not that far away

 

[oggbashan]

Sorry, Rightguide. The decision may not be political. The impact is, and will be hardest on those states that pass laws banning abortion.

The poor mothers who cannot afford to travel (or are prevented) from travelling to states where abortion is legal, will produce more and more fatherless welfare-dependent children that will ultimately outnumber Republican voters.

Those states are committing slow suicide.

 

[butters]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1540703612338184192

republican off-duty cop and opponent to dem Jennifer Rourke... a guy trying to disrupt an abortion rights rally finally decides to leave and gets punched (after Ms Rourke was telling people to back off and was providing a path for him to leave but he chose to push through the crowd anyway), so the cop rep opponent to Jennifer Rourke decides to punch HER in the face thinking he'd get away with it in the melee kicking off but others protect her. He's on PAID leave.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...sedgntp&cvid=16f6de1b103146ed951a0056f047a0ed

Tweetmaster General
@TwicksRitter
·
2h

Regardless it does not matter. Jennifer Rourke was struck in a cheap shot aimed directly at her by her assailant who thought the fight was about to begin and he could take a shot without getting caught because of the scene…but the scene didn’t happen and he is caught.

 

[Rightguide]

Sorry, Rightguide. The decision may not be political. The impact is, and will be hardest on those states that pass laws banning abortion.

The poor mothers who cannot afford to travel (or are prevented) from travelling to states where abortion is legal, will produce more and more fatherless welfare-dependent children that will ultimately outnumber Republican voters.

Those states are committing slow suicide.

The fact is Ogg, the pro-life movement has gotten bigger and younger. It never slipped into oblivion like the leftist media chooses to portray them. There were just as many of them out in front of the SCOTUS as there were those opposed. Leftists are masters of miscalculation. We've seen it clearly for two years now. To think this issue is going to shift any votes to the Democrats, or all of a sudden produce fans for the high price of gas and everything else this fall would be a mistake.

 

[mayfly13]

The fact is Ogg, the pro-life movement has gotten bigger and younger. It never slipped into oblivion like the leftist media chooses to portray them. There were just as many of them out in front of the SCOTUS as there were those opposed. Leftists are masters of miscalculation. We've seen it clearly for two years now. To think this issue is going to shift any votes to the Democrats, or all of a sudden produce fans for the high price of gas and everything else this fall would be a mistake.

you're right, actually.
Biden's "sanctions" that led to global recession and even famine,
far more than they hurt Russia
trump that.

 

[Wrong Element]

How many support banning abortions?

Fetal personhood?

Restrictions existed prior to this ruling

Roe explicitly permitted regulation of abortion, something Alito's opinion seemed unaware of for some reason.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Most US citizens who identify as anti-abortion show no evidence that they really care about the lives of fetuses or babies. They just want to punish. They are the American Taliban!

If pro life people really were "pro life" they would be in favor of universal health coverage. That would reduce rates of infant mortality and women who die in childbirth.

If pro choice people really were "pro choice" they would be opposed to gun control laws.

So both sides are hypocritical. I say that I am pro abortion, and I never justify any of my opinions by referring to the Constitution.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

If pro life people really were "pro life" they would be in favor of universal health coverage. That would reduce rates of infant mortality and women who die in childbirth.

If pro choice people really were "pro choice" they would be opposed to gun control laws.

So both sides are hypocritical. I say that I am pro abortion, and I never justify any of my opinions by referring to the Constitution.

I've always believed that what two or more people do in privacy is none of my business as long as it doesn't involve children or animals. I also don't care about what other people do as long as it doesn't impact me. People having abortions doesn't affect me but some people having access to combat weapons does. Gun violence is no longer the result of inner-city gangs killing each other for fun and profit. The US spends billions of dollars protecting us from foreign forces but has allowed itself to become a combat zone. I don't see any contradictions.

 

[rockcasbah]

Good summary in vanity fair.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/06/fall-of-roe-rise-of-republican-orthodoxy-at-supreme-court

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

If pro life people really were "pro life" they would be in favor of universal health coverage. That would reduce rates of infant mortality and women who die in childbirth.

If pro choice people really were "pro choice" they would be opposed to gun control laws.

So both sides are hypocritical. I say that I am pro abortion, and I never justify any of my opinions by referring to the Constitution.

Wait, why do you think convicted felons and little kids should have guns?

 

[Rightguide]

Roe explicitly permitted regulation of abortion, something Alito's opinion seemed unaware of for some reason.

have you actually read the decision? Alito demonstrates how Casey overruled much of Roe:

"Paradoxically, the judgment in Casey did a fair amount of overruling. Several important abortion decisions were overruled in toto, and Roe itself was overruled in part.10 Casey threw out Roe’s trimester scheme and substituted a new rule of uncertain origin under which States were forbidden to adopt any regulation that imposed an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to have an abortion.11
The decision provided no clear guidance about the difference between a “due” and an “undue” burden. But the three Justices who authored the controlling opinion “call[ed] the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division” by treating the Court’s decision as the final settlement of the question of the constitutional right to abortion.

As has become increasingly apparent in the intervening years, Casey did not achieve that goal. Americans continue to hold passionate and widely divergent views on abortion, and state legislatures have acted accordingly. Some have recently enacted laws allowing abortion, with few restrictions, at all stages of pregnancy. Others have tightly restricted abortion beginning well before viability. And in this case, 26 States have expressly asked this Court to overrule Roe and Casey and allow the States to regulate or prohibit pre-viability abortions.

Before us now is one such state law. The State of Mississippi asks us to uphold the constitutionality of a law that generally prohibits an abortion after the 15th week of pregnancy—several weeks before the point at which a fetus is now regarded as “viable” outside the womb. In defending this law, the State’s primary argument is that we should reconsider and overrule Roe and Casey and once again allow each State to regulate abortion as its citizens wish."