--> Jump to content

Roe v Wade to be overturned


UTGrad98

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Dewey defeats Truman!

You may be right but this is pretty damning. Apparently this type of leak is ultra rare and violates all kinds of trust in the Supreme Court 

Edited by UTGrad98
Wtf auto correct
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, UTGrad98 said:

You may be right but this is pretty damming. Apparently this type of leak is ultra rare and violates all kinds of trust in the Supreme Court 

Ultra rare meaning never ever happened in the history of ever. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not the first SCOTUS opinion to leak. Hell, it's not even the first opinion concerning Roe v. Wade to leak. Because Roe v. Wade also leaked, and it was a case few people even gave a shit about at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

WHO CARES ABOUT THE LEAK

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE ACTUAL RULING I GUESS

I’m not trying to throw gas on the fire, but honestly what the fuck is anyone supposed to do about it? Vote in November and hope the chucklefucks elected actually grow a spine? Write strongly worded letters to your friendly representatives trash can? 
this happened after decades of inaction and a comedy of errors induced by arrogance, ego and hubris. 
I get that you are pissed, I’m pissed, we are all pissed, but this isn’t the first time in 2022 that we’ve been turbofucked by a woefully inept government that isn’t even close to being a representative democracy. 
the only real thing to talk about is speculating what the fallout is and what’s next from the leak and or the ruling actually coming out. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's going to be overturned.  It looks like SCOTUS is going to allow each state to decide, instead of banning it nationwide.  When the GOP is back in power, likely in 2024 unless this ignites some kind of voter uprising, they'll ban it nationwide.  In the meantime, is SCOTUS going to allow states to regulate medical procedures performed in other states becomes the immediate question. 

Will they allow the jailing of a woman who has an abortion after the time limit in her own state, even if she is within the legal time limit in the state where the abortion is performed?  Will they allow family members of the father to sue the woman who has an abortion? Will they allow the lawsuits against anyone who helps the woman?  It seems like 5 of them are open to these ideas.  So while abortion may be technically legal for a couple of years, SCOTUS will likely allow these types of counter measures to stay in place, effectively banning the practice in any red state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes, yes… the judges were going to backpedal on their secret ruling before the leak. Galaxy brain stuff, here.

Even more brilliant insight from the poster who thinks Texas will still allow first trimester abortions after Roe is overturned. Solid work last night, Tucker.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:


Yes, yes… the judges were going to backpedal on their secret ruling before the leak. Galaxy brain stuff, here.

Even more brilliant insight from the poster who thinks Texas will still allow first trimester abortions after Roe is overturned. Solid work last night, Tucker.

No brain, just vibes from the clap last night.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve always thought overturning Roe would be a killer for the GOP on a national scale.  Some on the pro choice side have not pushed back on the slow erosion of pro choice options, and they’ve voted based on other issues. Now they’re having Roe overturned and other non-abortion rights in the crosshairs. A certain # will cross over to vote Dem or at least not vote GOP.

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I’ve always thought overturning Roe would be a killer for the GOP on a national scale.  Some on the pro choice side have not pushed back on the slow erosion of pro choice options, and they’ve voted based on other issues. Now they’re having Roe overturned and other non-abortion rights in the crosshairs. A certain # will cross over to vote Dem or at least not vote GOP.

 

That's cute.  They've convinced their base that the dems are pedophile lovers who kill babies and want to teach kindergartners about sex in school.  Their cult isn't switching over.  And I'm not sure when we last had a free and fair election, but the next one won't be.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, B00M said:

"Deserved punishment"

That's really the wording you wanna go with here?

That's not the wording they want.  It's the quiet part said out loud. Get them to talking about it long enough and inevitably they'll throw out words like punishment and consequences.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strikes me as a pyrrhic W for the Rs.  Say goodbye to all those swing district suburban moms you think you are going to take in the midterms because of CRT and elementary school teachers spouting gender theory instead of multiplication tables.  The original culture war issue is now front and center and mommy isn't going to give up McKenzie's abortions without a fight.  The irony, of course, is that most of the would-be abortions will be supporting a permanent D majority in 20 years and reveling in an environment where you can get an abortion at CVS.

Roberts' proposed approach was the best long-term solution for the pro-lifers but they couldn't resist getting greedy when the opportunity presented itself.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Satchel said:

It’s why they talk more about freedom than democracy, because freedom has come to represent a rejection of anything that compels them to acknowledge the humanity of those they judge to be inferior to them. 

Are you talking about fetuses?   

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically all the red states (aka the former Confederate states + some Midwest fat ones) will ban abortion and all the blue states will pass laws granting abortion. We’ve come a long way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Neonmoon said:

So basically all the red states (aka the former Confederate states + some Midwest fat ones) will ban abortion and all the blue states will pass laws granting abortion. We’ve come a long way. 

Haha.  Basically the exact same place we would be if the Court had followed Roberts' proposal (allowing de facto bans) but Alito and the other Caths couldn't resist dropping the match in the gas can.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good*.  Now we can legislate it in states that value liberty.  Maybe it will get more voters who care about liberty to vote. 

We're like an alcoholic country.  We still have further to go before we get on the mend@.

Time to rally.

*Either that or the court will find that the fetus is a person.

@Either that or they will ban alcohol.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, alincoln said:

Strikes me as a pyrrhic W for the Rs.  Say goodbye to all those swing district suburban moms you think you are going to take in the midterms because of CRT and elementary school teachers spouting gender theory instead of multiplication tables.  The original culture war issue is now front and center and mommy isn't going to give up McKenzie's abortions without a fight.  The irony, of course, is that most of the would-be abortions will be supporting a permanent D majority in 20 years and reveling in an environment where you can get an abortion at CVS.

Roberts' proposed approach was the best long-term solution for the pro-lifers but they couldn't resist getting greedy when the opportunity presented itself.  

Lucky for them they gutted the Voting Rights Act first.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, B00M said:

"Deserved punishment"

That's really the wording you wanna go with here?

Sure, because in the GQP mindset, you're not winning unless other people are suffering or being punished.  Winning or losing, no compromises.

  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, alincoln said:

Strikes me as a pyrrhic W for the Rs.  Say goodbye to all those swing district suburban moms you think you are going to take in the midterms because of CRT and elementary school teachers spouting gender theory instead of multiplication tables.

CRT already has done its damage.  Those folks are going to roll in all the school board elections with anti-CRT candidates.  Not enough people give a fuck.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

CRT already has done its damage.  Those folks are going to roll in all the school board elections with anti-CRT candidates.  Not enough people give a fuck.

Is there data regarding this?  In my anecdotal world, the anti-CRT candidates have generally lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, alincoln said:

Is there data regarding this?  In my anecdotal world, the anti-CRT candidates have generally lost.

In school boards?  I hope you are correct and I am wrong.  Maybe I'm just too damn close to Southlake. 

Edited by The Original Greaser Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

In school boards?  I hope you are correct and I am wrong.  Maybe I'm just too damn close to Southlake. 

Yeah, not in the school boards in Wilco and Lake Travis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Sure, because in the GQP mindset, you're not winning unless other people are suffering or being punished.  Winning or losing, no compromises.

Exactly. I imagine that the first reaction of many, in hearing this news, is "I hope the Libs are crying tonight."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

So basically all the red states (aka the former Confederate states + some Midwest fat ones) will ban abortion and all the blue states will pass laws granting abortion. We’ve come a long way. 

Some of the blue states that have Republican state houses (Minnesota, Wisconsin) will probably ban it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Some of the blue states that have Republican state houses (Minnesota, Wisconsin) will probably ban it too.

They can't override a veto

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So…the ‘leak’ was to let as much fervor die down before elections, right?  “Ehh let em get pissy all summer, they’re stupid and will forget by the Fall”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nurse Aunt of mine from CA is saying that in the event of rape, meds for STDs and the morning after pill are prescribed without an exam or out of pocket costs... Is this California optimism being projected to Texas or will it actually be the case here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't fully agree with the legal types up in arms about drafts being leaked. I get that someone doesn't want a leak in their group but the Supreme Court isn't some sacred, non-partisan institution. That ship sailed a long time ago, and honesty, it probably was rarely in that category. Perhaps never.

I don't think the Supreme Court should be required to release drafts but I don't have a problem if the public gets their hands on the initial thoughts of the justices. It shows them for who they are. There actual motivations, etc.  

I can understand that there's turmoil in the court today with this leak. I imagine that fingers are being pointed at the liberal justices' clerks.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, alincoln said:

They can't override a veto

I'm not so sure it would get vetoed.  Definitely wouldn't get vetoed in Wisconsin.  Evers won by a tiny margin and there are plenty of people who generally align with Democrats in the Upper Midwest that don't like abortion and are quietly happy about this.

Minnesota might seem a little safer, but I'll show two maps.  The first is Tim Walz's (Governor) 2018 gubernatorial election.  The second is the 2020 presidential election.  Quite a few counties that voted for Walz and then went right in the wake of George Floyd and Covid.  Walz won't win those southern counties (outside of Olmsted) this fall.

800px-2018_Minnesota_gubernatorial_elect

800px-Minnesota_Presidential_Election_Re

This will absolutely be a wedge midterm issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Some of the blue states that have Republican state houses (Minnesota, Wisconsin) will probably ban it too.

Wisconsin is already there as they apparently never took it off the books.

Trigger law states

In the United States, thirteen states — Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma,[1] South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,[2] Utah, and Wyoming[3] have trigger laws that would automatically ban abortion in the first and second trimesters if the landmark case Roe v. Wade were overturned.[4][5][6] Illinois formerly had a trigger law (enacted in 1975), but repealed it in 2017.[7][8][9] Also, nine states — Alabama, Arizona, Michigan, West Virginia, and Wisconsin as well as the already mentioned Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas, still have their unenforced pre-Roe v. Wade abortion bans on the law books. Those laws are not currently enforceable due to Roe v. Wade, but could be enforced if Roe v. Wade was overturned.[5]

 

1280px-US_state_abortion_trigger_laws.svg.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

So basically all the red states (aka the former Confederate states + some Midwest fat ones) will ban abortion and all the blue states will pass laws granting abortion. We’ve come a long way. 

No need to speculate about what will happen in Texas.  Here's the text of the Texas trigger law, which will go into effect 30 days after this decision is handed down:
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/HB01280F.pdf

Abortion in Texas will be prohibited, unless a physician judges that the health of the mother is at stake.

  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent news if true

 

2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

the Supreme Court isn't some sacred, non-partisan institution

Nonpartisan was always a bad joke of course but as far as sacred the supreme court is the closest thing the United States has to a brahminical high priesthood their job is to provide the final word on exegesis of the Most Sacred Text

  • Fuck You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Lol, wut? Suburban moms are the aggy of voters. They go to their mega church who tells them to be subservient to they're husbands, close their legs, and pray for abbott and friends. This does zero to them, nothing whatsoever. If their little snowflake gets knocked up at 14 they'll find the funds to make it to the nearest blue state and continue judging all those pregnant teenage sluts as though it never happened to them. That's how the right works these days. It's about judging others in the name of your church and feeling superior while being a massive hypocrit. These are the people going to school boards to cry about crt and how the teachers had gay sex in front of the kindergarten class in the name of diversity. Absolute worse case scenario they'll see this and forget about it when an ad on tv for the local theocrat puts a photo of AOC and Nancy Pelosi on the screen. No context, no words, just their pictures, and the Karen in them will get all pissy and vote for the fuckstain candidate who says jesus a lot. We are a failed country, this is just the latest major shift towards complete theocracy. As soon as they get another majority in both houses and the white house, even blue states won't be safe, because they are all about state's rights, until they control the federal government.

I'm not talking about suburban moms in backwater Oklahoma.  Suburban moms are swing voters outside of your megachurch hellscape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, alincoln said:

I'm not talking about suburban moms in backwater Oklahoma.  Suburban moms are swing voters outside of your megachurch hellscape.

Suburban housemoms in red states are all the fucking same, including Texas. It's going to be illegal in half the states now and these right wing bitches aren't going to change their vote at all. If anything they'll continue supporting voter suppression to get their way. Seriously, who are these pro-choice republican moms who are going to change their votes because of this? They don't exist. If anything more will start voting because they are finally getting their way.

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I’ve always thought overturning Roe would be a killer for the GOP on a national scale.  Some on the pro choice side have not pushed back on the slow erosion of pro choice options, and they’ve voted based on other issues. Now they’re having Roe overturned and other non-abortion rights in the crosshairs. A certain # will cross over to vote Dem or at least not vote GOP.

 

On the topic of untended consequences re R v. W., I was watching Freakonomics on Netflix the other night and caught the segment on the hypothesis that increase in abortions beginning right after R. v. W. amd onward was, in part, responsible for the decrease in crime in the late 80's through mid 90's (end of data in 1997).  The work and its findings are more nuanced than I am presenting here, but are thorough and have stood up well under reanalysis, new data, and the passage of time.

Over the years, the controversial hypothesis, has had its detractors who cited other factors such as the removal of lead from gasoline, the crack epidemic, defense spending, and the end of the cold war, none of which had any legitimate or significant published findings, but nonetheless may have played a lesser role in the crime reduction seen.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Jiggy-Z said:

On the topic of untended consequences re R v. W., I was watching Freakonomics on Netflix the other night and caught the segment on the hypothesis that increase in abortions beginning right after R. v. W. amd onward was, in part, responsible for the decrease in crime in the late 80's through mid 90's (end of data in 1997).  The work and its findings are more nuanced than I am presenting here, but are thorough and have stood up well under reanalysis, new data, and the passage of time.

Over the years, the controversial hypothesis, has had its detractors who cited other factors such as the removal of lead from gasoline, the crack epidemic, defense spending, and the end of the cold war, none of which had any legitimate or significant published findings, but nonetheless may have played a lesser role in the crime reduction seen.

there will indeed be unintended consequences.  the dog has caught the car it's been chasing for 50 years with no expectation of catching it...now the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Homercles said:

So…the ‘leak’ was to let as much fervor die down before elections, right?  “Ehh let em get pissy all summer, they’re stupid and will forget by the Fall”

Aren't SC decisions coming in June.  Not sure what 45-60 days more time accomplishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...