Dems need to attack now!
she has a right to be angry about the SCOTUS activist's mayhem on America.
(no message)
and your cult of a party is calling for a complete tie into the church. Lest we forget, the
Catholic Church didn't talk about abortion until 30 years ago when Falwell demanded
abortion be illegal - Thanks Reagan.
Not a fan of evangelical movements either. But elected judges made a ruling based on law and the constitution. You disagree, which is fine, but you can disagree without divisive rhetoric. I also suspect that most people only respond to simple questions - like should abortion be illegal? To which I could surmise most would agree. If you then said would you support abortion until birth - most I suspect would say heavens no. All Dobbs did in my mind was correctly overturn terrible legal logic in Rowe and Casey. In effect, it will send it back to the states where it should be. You will have severe bans in some states, reasonable bans in most states and some states will allow it until the kids are teens....only kidding but you know what I mean. In reality what is so wrong with that?
I am 50 and I have disliked with a white hot passion the fact that even one nickel of my money went to pay for abortions. Against my strongest beliefs and morals. That is passionate and frankly important to me and my beliefs. If this can save the lives of innocent babies then I am 100% in support of this, and I would hope that people on the other side can see my point of view.
Link: https://fortune.com/2022/06/26/most-americans-disagree-with-supreme-courts-roe-decision-cbs-poll-sug
> wrt the Supreme Court Justices...
I think you meant "appointed" as opposed to "elected", and unfortunately two of them were seated 'improperly'...i.e. Obama's choice (Garland) was denied a Senate hearing for nearly a year, while Trump's choice of Barrett was confirmed in 27 days at the very end of his term...this is unfair and would not be tolerated if the party affiliations were switched. Add to this the majority's religious background (Catholic) and political unanimity (all members of the Federalist Society), and you have a very biased court representing a minority of Americans (see image).
Also...the six Justice majority ignored precedent that had been Constitutionally tested for nearly 50 years...very "Un-precedented"...very unreasonable, but not unexpected given their unique bias.
> re: 'Polling'...
As the Gallup Poll history shows, there is no doubt that the vast majority of Americans want to leave the option of abortion legal...why?....because, while they all understand what is entailed in abortion, they also appreciate the fact that completely innocent women should not have to suffer a lifetime burden for something they never wanted (e.g. rape and incest)...IMO this perspective will never change, so any attempt to create a total ban will only produce un-ending chaos.
But...I also sense that the majority of Americans are very concerned with abortions that don't involve severe repercussions for a woman's physical, mental and economic well-being. The question is, how do you assess that situation fairly and justly in light of often very complicated social situations, when there is limited time to make the decision...my opinion...you can't...btw, I'm definitely open to discussing this if you'd like.
Note: I've posted a summary of what "Late Term" abortions are all about...they're not what you think
un
>re: States vs. Federal Law...
Roe v. Wade was a response to utter chaos among states prior to 1973, and it finally took into consideration every woman's right to self-determination when it came to reproduction. You've seen me post the assertion that women are not "Insentient Baby Making Machines" that must carry unwanted pregnancies to term...if 80+% of Americans believe that, as I firmly do...then since a woman in Alabama should have that same basic right as a woman in New York or California, it is wrong and Un-Constitutional for individual states to deny them that right.
Furthermore, I see a significant problem for women who want/demand to have that fundamental right and still be able to "move about the country" in search of opportunity for work or simply living...their options should not be 'foreclosed' because their future goals lie in a state that has enacted laws that put her at serious risk...e.g. rape with no option to terminate a life-changing and totally unwanted pregnancy.
>re: Federal Funding for Abortions...
As I understand it, the Hyde Amendment takes care of that
Now, for some of my thoughts...
>The overwhelming majority of Americans have made their opinion clear...as sad as abortions are, the option must remain legal...everywhere...and given that fact, in order to have a better society we must 'codify' it for the nation...but that is NOT the end of this...because I share your passion for dramatically reducing the number of abortions...legal as well as illegal. (unfortunately, achieving ZERO is not possible in this world).
>With abortion being a legal option, IMO we need to shift out passion toward three major initiatives...1) Contraception awareness and access for all Americans...2) Outstanding and ubiquitous access to Sex/Sexuality Education not only for young people, but also adults...and 3) Investment in programs that encourage/enable women to carry pregnancies to term...this includes social services for those children as well.
>Once more...forcing women to carry truly unwanted pregnancies to term is cruel...the American public (and most of the world) recognizes this and will not tolerate it.
not all that moved. Even RBG said that she did not think that Rowe could stand on right to privacy alone and the irony of all of this is if she retired this decision would not have happed....boom mind blown....
(no message)
it was also the first instance of substantive due process, the same theory behind Rowe and frankly the other cases...Obergefell et al....the argument of stare decisis is frankly unmoving and poor. Dred Scott was a terrible decision on its merits, similar and on par with Rowe and Casey and was the law of the land for longer than Rowe.....Boom precedent...
Your polling comments section is your opinion. Not sure what you have posted regarding late term abortion and not what I think it means. You reference other posts? or are you copying others comments? Confused....it is the state's decision. As it should be. The constitutional contortion to make Rowe and Casey law was poor.
State vs Federal law section - if you have copied someone's work as it also references other posts... States can make their own laws. You can choose to live in a state that has laws more toward your liking. Just because one state has a law that you like, doesn't mean you have to have the same law in another state by definition. This argument is strange and frankly dumb....
Hyde amendment - 20% of abortions are paid through medicare. Simple research could find this out...Planned Parenthood is a shell game for federal funds and non profits to pay for abortions. If you truly cared about abortions and funding you would know this.
I do not agree that we must codify abortions. I believe that the vast majority of Americans would believe in the mantra from Bill Clinton safe, legal and rare....
I am a monetary and volunteer to my local Agape House that encourages education and pregnancy and adoption as an alternative. The US has more liberal abortion laws than France....think about that? Not sure where you get that the whole world knows this.....
Your mention of "Safe, Legal, Rare" is what I'd like to focus on, but first some comments on the other points...
>The Dred Scott decision was never addressed straight on as I understand it...got caught up in the 14th Amendment ('Equal Protection')...btw, here is a perspective on the DS decision...
https://www.penncapital-star.com/civil-rights-social-justice/heres-15-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-dred-scott-decision-opinion/
Also, the DS decision doesn't make this list of 'Overturned Decisions'...
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-short-list-of-overturned-supreme-court-landmark-decisions
I'm not an attorney, but Roe v. Wade was unambiguously overturned in spite of being upheld more than once...let's move on...
>Polling is a finger on the pulse of the American public...while there are statistical ranges to be considered, when 80+% of Americans...for nearly 50 years (my Gallup Poll post) state they believe abortion should be legal in at least some cases...that is not "my opinion"...that is the rock solid opinion of an overwhelming majority...in every state (see link).
You're a reasoned person...surely you can accept this reality.
>State vs. Federal Law...I base my comments largely on reading noted Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe's book "Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes" which includes a fairly detailed summary of all the major abortion laws prior to Roe v. Wade, and his understanding of the reasons for them...btw, Prof. Tribe has successfully pled over 30 cases to the Supreme Court.
My impression from reading those accounts is that the odds of states reaching a unified 'opinion' on abortion before Roe were essentially ZERO...therefore, it is necessary for Abortion to be 'Codified' (my un-lawyerly term) at the Federal level...I'll add my personal opinion that a woman in Alabama should have the same rights as a woman in New York or California...to not have such rights would impede her free movement within our United States...makes me think about "Equal Protection".
>The Hyde Amendment...this is all about making sure that poor people are not denied "Equal Protection/Access" to abortion...I'm fine with making sure funds are made available only to truly needy persons, but not eliminating aid altogether.
.......................
And now we get to "Safe, Legal and Rare"...I'm assuming your inclusion of "... I believe that the vast majority of Americans would believe in the mantra from Bill Clinton safe, legal and rare...." means that you would be open to abortions in "some cases"...let me know if this is your position...then we discuss together the best ways of making them "Rarer"...really hope that's the case.
Finally, I wholeheartedly support programs like "Agape House"...my wife and I support a similar facility in the Bay Area...as I've stated in other posts, financial support (from state and federal government) for programs that encourage women to carry pregnancies to term is a pillar of mine toward the goal of reducing abortions...good for you being deeply involved in this.
As for the "Whole World" comment of mine, that has to do with recent decisions by many countries on the abortion issue...Ireland revised its constitution to allow abortions...Mexico's Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of legalizing abortion...and India passed laws making abortion more accessible....plus, the fact that most European countries allow abortion in at least some cases.
Let me know your thoughts...especially wrt "Safe, Legal and Rare"...
Link: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
However, fine Plessy then was law for longer than Rowe and was completely over turned by Brown vs board. The argument for stare decisis is moot.
I am morally opposed to abortion, however under certain circumstances rape incest health of mother, those should be up to the mother. I would highly encourage birth.
I could even hold my nose for lazy birth control but it needs a quick timeline like the Dobbs case. I believe it was 15 weeks.
Finally, equal protection, and due process, breaks both ways here....the science will indicate that is a child and they would have rights. Everyone is quick to dismiss the unborn rights.
The lefts stance of I am going to fuck you to get pregnant and have an abortion to spite you is immoral.
> I am in no position to argue the finer points of 'Stare Decisis"...just that Roe had been upheld more than once.
> I too would like to see the "Birth Option" presented in all cases of legal abortion...hopefully in a non-coercive manner that appreciates the grave burden such women are faced with...maybe have training for both sides (Planned Parenthood, and 'Pro-Life' orgs) before they interact in the same facility with the women...
>The 15 week cutoff has significant issues...from what I've read, the Roe guideline was about right according to the link from the kaiser Family Foundation report on what's been called "Late Term Abortions".
>We live in a pluralistic society...the Jewish faith says "Personhood" begins at "First Breath"...others believe it's at "Quickening"...and even the majority of Catholics in this country support Roe's ruling....while our faith guides our behavior, it mustn't be forced of others...especially since the 'Others' are a significant majority.
>The corollary to your phrasing is..."I don't care how much it affects your physical and mental health...I DEMAND my conjugal RIGHTS!"...or..."I don't WANT to wear a condom, so I WON'T!)
...cuts both ways...let's talk some more about a) Contraception...b) Sex/Sexuality Education...and c) Pro-Birth Programs/Funding.
(no message)
polls are always dead on the money. Just ask Hillary.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)