Jason Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/04/supreme-court-review-louisiana-abortion-restrictions-000275 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marioandsonic Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 We're fucked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 7 minutes ago, marioandsonic said: We're fucked. I doubt it. This could end up being a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 5 minutes ago, Jose said: I doubt it. This could end up being a good thing. How TF you so optimistic here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 29, 2019 Author Share Posted October 29, 2019 32 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: How TF you so optimistic here? Maybe he boofed a whole bottle of wine before posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwinIon Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 So what's the likely end game here? Am I being naive when I doubt that they entirely overturn Roe V Wade and decide that states can make abortion illegal? My guess is that they instead come up with some ridiculous framework under which states can impose incredibly burdensome abortion laws, allowing many states to do everything but banning it. Something like "while we recognize the courts' previous decision in allowing a woman to terminate her pregnancy, the government has no compelling interest in ensuring access to such a service, therefore any reasonable restrictions put in place for the safety of the mother or the fetus shall be allowed." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 3 minutes ago, TwinIon said: So what's the likely end game here? Am I being naive when I doubt that they entirely overturn Roe V Wade and decide that states can make abortion illegal? My guess is that they instead come up with some ridiculous framework under which states can impose incredibly burdensome abortion laws, allowing many states to do everything but banning it. Something like "while we recognize the courts' previous decision in allowing a woman to terminate her pregnancy, the government has no compelling interest in ensuring access to such a service, therefore any reasonable restrictions put in place for the safety of the mother or the fetus shall be allowed." This is what I expect. Conservatives can then claim it is the type of "compromise" that is worshiped in American politics, and the media will hail it as a reasonable decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 Roe v Wade isn't getting overturned and there is a solid chance the Louisiana law gets struck down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentWorld Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 It could actually be a good thing if Roe v Wade is overturned because people might finally realize what’s at stake and start voting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 States’ rights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 9 minutes ago, SilentWorld said: It could actually be a good thing if Roe v Wade is overturned because people might finally realize what’s at stake and start voting. Yes, this is good if you don't value the lives of women Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 You guys are nuts if you think Roberts would overturn Roe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skillzdadirecta Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Yes, this is good if you don't value the lives of women People who claim to value the lives of women should actually you know, vote maybe? It's not like conservatives have been especially secretive about wanting to overturn Roe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 29, 2019 Author Share Posted October 29, 2019 9 minutes ago, Jose said: You guys are nuts if you think Roberts would overturn Roe. They don't have to outright overturn Roe to start hollowing out abortion rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 3 minutes ago, Jason said: They don't have to outright overturn Roe to start hollowing out abortion rights. Indeed, but folks are predicting that it will be overturned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 44 minutes ago, TwinIon said: So what's the likely end game here? Am I being naive when I doubt that they entirely overturn Roe V Wade and decide that states can make abortion illegal? My guess is that they instead come up with some ridiculous framework under which states can impose incredibly burdensome abortion laws, allowing many states to do everything but banning it. Something like "while we recognize the courts' previous decision in allowing a woman to terminate her pregnancy, the government has no compelling interest in ensuring access to such a service, therefore any reasonable restrictions put in place for the safety of the mother or the fetus shall be allowed." The goal is to always chip away, get some new restriction passed that wasn't there before, with an outside hope that you get a conservative court to overturn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 29, 2019 Author Share Posted October 29, 2019 6 minutes ago, Jose said: Indeed, but folks are predicting that it will be overturned. It quickly becomes a difference without a distinction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 21 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said: People who claim to value the lives of women should actually you know, vote maybe? It's not like conservatives have been especially secretive about wanting to overturn Roe. They do though. Just now, Jason said: It quickly becomes a difference without a distinction. MO had an emergency injunction to keep it's only abortion clinic open recently in light of the administrative restrictions placed on it. KY and MS and other southern states that have few providers who will be put through the ringer and may lock out access for millions of women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 I don’t anticipate a full on overturning of Roe, but Casey will be replaced with the Gee standard. That gets pretty close to allowing states to ban from a practical standpoint as it will only be a matter of time before they find the exact soup of restrictions that closed up all the abortion shops in the state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 1 hour ago, Jose said: Roe v Wade isn't getting overturned and there is a solid chance the Louisiana law gets struck down. Roe v Wade should get overturned for being a shit argument. "Privacy" and all that jazz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 1 hour ago, mclumber1 said: Roe v Wade should get overturned for being a shit argument. "Privacy" and all that jazz. 1973 wants it’s argument back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastlevaniaNut18 Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 Can't wait for the government to strip my control over my own body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 4 hours ago, TwinIon said: So what's the likely end game here? Am I being naive when I doubt that they entirely overturn Roe V Wade and decide that states can make abortion illegal? My guess is that they instead come up with some ridiculous framework under which states can impose incredibly burdensome abortion laws, allowing many states to do everything but banning it. Something like "while we recognize the courts' previous decision in allowing a woman to terminate her pregnancy, the government has no compelling interest in ensuring access to such a service, therefore any reasonable restrictions put in place for the safety of the mother or the fetus shall be allowed." The problem with that is how it applies to guns. The court can't find there's no compelling interest in protecting access to a thing citizens have a right to obtain for abortion and have that precedent not apply to regulating the sales of guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 30 minutes ago, Anathema- said: ...The court can't find... It most certainly can and probably will Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 4 minutes ago, sblfilms said: It most certainly can and probably will It can't in the sense that it will set a precedence for something they would ostensibly be against. The two things can't co-exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 29, 2019 Author Share Posted October 29, 2019 6 minutes ago, Anathema- said: It can't in the sense that it will set a precedence for something they would ostensibly be against. The two things can't co-exist. It can once SCOTUS is a fully-owned subsidiary of the GOP and precedent doesn't matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 8 minutes ago, Anathema- said: It can't in the sense that it will set a precedence for something they would ostensibly be against. The two things can't co-exist. Yeah, I was just joking about the fact that logical consistency doesn't matter anymore. Whatever advances the political end of the current court makeup will largely win the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 1 hour ago, sblfilms said: Yeah, I was just joking about the fact that logical consistency doesn't matter anymore. Whatever advances the political end of the current court makeup will largely win the day. I'm hoping that this one is too inconsistent to support though, I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 2 hours ago, Anathema- said: The problem with that is how it applies to guns. The court can't find there's no compelling interest in protecting access to a thing citizens have a right to obtain for abortion and have that precedent not apply to regulating the sales of guns. We can nickle and dime the right to bear arms until it is essentially no longer a right, but we can't nickle and dime abortion rights I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 30, 2019 Author Share Posted October 30, 2019 38 minutes ago, Anathema- said: I'm hoping that this one is too inconsistent to support though, I suppose. Republican cognitive dissonance intensifies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 15 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: We can nickle and dime the right to bear arms until it is essentially no longer a right, but we can't nickle and dime abortion rights I guess. Point is that I don't see how we don't nickle and dime them together. The arguments are logically inextricable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 30, 2019 Author Share Posted October 30, 2019 4 minutes ago, Anathema- said: Point is that I don't see how we don't nickle and dime them together. The arguments are logically inextricable. 18 minutes ago, Jason said: Republican cognitive dissonance intensifies 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 The cognitive dissonance on both sides is huge when it comes to constitutional rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 30, 2019 Author Share Posted October 30, 2019 5 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: The cognitive dissonance on both sides is huge when it comes to constitutional rights. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 Good thing there is no right to privacy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.