Will the death of R v W kill the Republicans chances?

NiftyNiblick said:
Women will retain their personal rights in civilized states like Massachusetts, New York, and California.
If they choose to live in Handmaiden states, don't get knocked up if you can't afford a trip for a Blue state abortion.
You can't afford kids in that circumstance anyway.

I truly loathe the misogyny and theocracy of Red State America, but the women in my life were thankfully never subjected to it.
Click to expand...

Mini poor women do not have the opportunity to leave the state they were born in, or to travel for an abortion. The Republicans don’t care because they know their daughters will have the financial ability. This rule is to keep poor people poor, that’s all.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
If the red states, particularly the poorest of them, get into the forced-birth business, they are going to see their poverty rates skyrocket. Then we can watch them beg the rest of us to feed and care for all the extra kids that the parents -- and those states -- can't afford. Wait for it.
Click to expand...

Isn’t that what the Republicans need to keep their power? Keep the poor repressed and uneducated.
 
Earl said:
Murdering an unborn child is not a medical decision.

It will soon be a crime.
Click to expand...

So if your daughter was faced with a situation where she would likely die without an abortion, Your position would remain the same?
 
Jarod said:
You do not believe that Americans have the Constitutional right to privacy from the government when making medical decisions?
Click to expand...

Wolverine is the poster boy for opposition to abortion. It's about scoring points with Jesus. He does not care AT ALL about that life once it's born. I guess Jesus doesn't cotton to single moms. The hypocrisy of this position is beyond the pale, especially among anti-vaxxers. They feel they have a right to kill however many people they want because it's THEIR BODY!!!! Unless they are a pregnant woman. Then white men decide.

This law will clearly be allowed to stand. The only question is whether that decision redefines Roe or eliminates it. I suspect the latter. It will be another nail in the GOP coffin. If I was Kavanaugh or Barrett or Gorsuch I would be embarrassed. The right views you as a partisan tool not a Supreme Court Justice. You got the job on the condition you voted their way. It's a sad day.
 
Concart said:
Wolverine is the poster boy for opposition to abortion. It's about scoring points with Jesus. He does not care AT ALL about that life once it's born. I guess Jesus doesn't cotton to single moms. The hypocrisy of this position is beyond the pale, especially among anti-vaxxers. They feel they have a right to kill however many people they want because it's THEIR BODY!!!! Unless they are a pregnant woman. Then white men decide.

This law will clearly be allowed to stand. The only question is whether that decision redefines Roe or eliminates it. I suspect the latter. It will be another nail in the GOP coffin. If I was Kavanaugh or Barrett or Gorsuch I would be embarrassed. The right views you as a partisan tool not a Supreme Court Justice. You got the job on the condition you voted their way. It's a sad day.
Click to expand...

Well I agree that the Supreme Court is only going to chip away at row over the next five years, but I suspect the Mississippi law will be allowed to stand, removing viability as the bright line between Constitutional and unconstitutional. Once that line has been removed, it’s only a matter of whittling down the period in which abortion is legal to a point where it would be close to impossible for most people to know they’re pregnant in time to get one.
 
Jarod said:
Well I agree that the Supreme Court is only going to chip away at row over the next five years, but I suspect the Mississippi law will be allowed to stand, removing viability as the bright line between Constitutional and unconstitutional. Once that line has been removed, it’s only a matter of whittling down the period in which abortion is legal to a point where it would be close to impossible for most people to know they’re pregnant in time to get one.
Click to expand...

That would be the worst possible outcome. But I don't see where the fifth vote to leave Roe in place is going to come from. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh or Barrett. I don't think any of them will keep it intact. I think it is dead. Since every one of those judges was appointed SPECIFICALLY to get rid of Roe, I don't see them shifting on that. My take, in some ways, I hope I'm not wrong. Just pull off the bandaid. I think it helps immensely in the next midterms, and then maybe we fix the court and correct the Garland mis-carriage. Two more Democratic appointees rectifies that in my mind.
 
Jarod said:
So if your daughter was faced with a situation where she would likely die without an abortion, Your position would remain the same?
Click to expand...

Of course what Earl doesn't get is that once Roe is gone, the states will decide. Because Earl is an idiot.
 
Concart said:
That would be the worst possible outcome. But I don't see where the fifth vote to leave Roe in place is going to come from. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh or Barrett. I don't think any of them will keep it intact. I think it is dead. Since every one of those judges was appointed SPECIFICALLY to get rid of Roe, I don't see them shifting on that. My take, in some ways, I hope I'm not wrong. Just pull off the bandaid. I think it helps immensely in the next midterms, and then maybe we fix the court and correct the Garland mis-carriage. Two more Democratic appointees rectifies that in my mind.
Click to expand...

I think that weasel Kavanaugh is politically savvy enough to understand the reality and go with the incremental approach.
 
Jarod said:
I think that weasel Kavanaugh is politically savvy enough to understand the reality and go with the incremental approach.
Click to expand...

Didn't sound like it yesterday, but you might be right. Pretty laughable that he's trying to compare Roe to Brown v Board. Incredibly simplistic thinking for a Supreme Court justice.
 
"I have a question about safe haven laws. You can terminate parental rights by relinquishing a child after giving birth. The cases emphasized the burden of parenting. But women don't have to parent if they don't want to! Why don't safe haven laws take care of that?" asked Barrett, who has seven kids, two of whom are adopted."

A win for the pro-life group.
 
Concart said:
Didn't sound like it yesterday, but you might be right. Pretty laughable that he's trying to compare Roe to Brown v Board. Incredibly simplistic thinking for a Supreme Court justice.
Click to expand...

He is a political animal, something the founders tried to prevent for supreme court justices. Rulings should be based on sound legal principals, not political advantage.
 
Earl said:
There will be exceptions in the SC ruling...you know that.
Click to expand...

The issue of such exceptions is not being considered by the S.Ct. they do not have authority, in this case, to require such. Congressional democrats have tried, time and again, to pass legislation protecting the right to chose in such situations and have been shot down every time.
 
Earl said:
"I have a question about safe haven laws. You can terminate parental rights by relinquishing a child after giving birth. The cases emphasized the burden of parenting. But women don't have to parent if they don't want to! Why don't safe haven laws take care of that?" asked Barrett, who has seven kids, two of whom are adopted."

A win for the pro-life group.
Click to expand...

Have you ever lived with a pregnant woman?
 
Jarod said:
The issue of such exceptions is not being considered by the S.Ct. they do not have authority, in this case, to require such. Congressional democrats have tried, time and again, to pass legislation protecting the right to chose in such situations and have been shot down every time.
Click to expand...

LOL, Earl doesn't even understand the basics. I don't know if there are exceptions in the Mississippi law, but that is not the controversy SCOTUS is being asked to resolve. If Roe v. Wade disappears, states have no obligation whatsoever to make exceptions.
 
Earl said:
Murdering an unborn child is not a medical decision.

It will soon be a crime.
Click to expand...

It is a medical decision. Period. In the unlikely event that Roe v Wade is completely overturned, it will then be up to the individual states to define the legality of abortion in their jurisdictions. Some may very well term it "murder." In others it will be legal, up to a clearly-defined point. In still others it will be as it should be -- a grave and carefully-considered decision between a woman and her physician.

In the end, you fascist do-gooders will not end it. You'll merely end one of the biggest draws the QOP has for its voters.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
do you think Mississippi will go blue?........meanwhile, if you want to kill your unborn children you can always go to California........I believe they have a right to abort in their constitution......
Click to expand...

Dumb fuck it won't be ten minutes and every city will have places to get a cash abortion,by a coathanger by a guy who's training is he saw ER
 
Jarod said:
The issue of such exceptions is not being considered by the S.Ct. they do not have authority, in this case, to require such. Congressional democrats have tried, time and again, to pass legislation protecting the right to chose in such situations and have been shot down every time.
Click to expand...
Post a link proving this is not a part of the case.

"The issue of such exceptions is not being considered by the S.Ct."

Exceptions for adoption were discussed by Justice Barrett.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top