The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[bearrock]

33 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

You know that there are no similar laws that deny males bodily autonomy, right? I am more important that a collection of cells that are attached to me parasitically that can't survive without my body. I was lucky enough to exercise my right to my bodily autonomy. I was thinking the other day what my life would have been like had I been forced to carry the collection of cells that I aborted. It would have been way different, I most likely wouldn't have had my career, or my daughter. I wasn't prepared mentally to raise a child and while adoption was available, my life would still have been different. I might not have come out as Lesbian, living a life of compulsory heterosexuality. Maybe many more children than I wanted. 

 

Women need bodily autonomy to live the lives they wish, just like men. Otherwise we are slaves to pregnancy.

 

I agree with you.  I don't think I nor anyone else have any business telling a woman what to do with the pregnancy that is ongoing in their body.  That's their business and nobody else's. 

 

I'm just saying that an anti-abortionist can be presented with all the reasons why a pro-choice person is pro-choice, but they just turn their head and say that they come from a fundamentally different underlying assumption and value.  And that underlying difference is not one that is amenable to resolution by proof or logical reasoning.  Not easily anyway.

[LD0506]

35 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I agree with you.  I don't think I nor anyone else have any business telling a woman what to do with the pregnancy that is ongoing in their body.  That's their business and nobody else's. 

 

I'm just saying that an anti-abortionist can be presented with all the reasons why a pro-choice person is pro-choice, but they just turn their head and say that they come from a fundamentally different underlying assumption and value.  And that underlying difference is not one that is amenable to resolution by proof or logical reasoning.  Not easily anyway.

 

So basically <fingers in ears> lalalalalalalala.....

[LadySkinsFan]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

 

I agree with you.  I don't think I nor anyone else have any business telling a woman what to do with the pregnancy that is ongoing in their body.  That's their business and nobody else's. 

 

I'm just saying that an anti-abortionist can be presented with all the reasons why a pro-choice person is pro-choice, but they just turn their head and say that they come from a fundamentally different underlying assumption and value.  And that underlying difference is not one that is amenable to resolution by proof or logical reasoning.  Not easily anyway.

 

I agree that the only thing they want is control over females able to host fetuses. Once there's a birth, they could give a ****. Also, these Dominionist nuts want women out of the workplace which they think is rightfully men's domain. The whole point of these people is to take our country back before the 1920s, before FDR and the progressives of that time. Profit and greed are the goal. And along with lowering the tax rates for the wealthy and corporations and denying women bodily autonomy are just the start.

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

Great plan, Greg. Why did no one ever think of that?

[Chew]

10 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

Great plan, Greg. Why did no one ever think of that?

 

 

[gbear]

I predict a surge in passport applications.

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/07/mexico-abortion-supreme-court/

 

[Jabbyrwock]

37 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

Great plan, Greg. Why did no one ever think of that?

 

Abbot just lost Justice Kavanaugh's support.

[bearrock]

That's Onion worthy.  Good lord what buffoon.

[Larry]

5 hours ago, bearrock said:

The anti-abortion crowd denies that right to privacy is a constitutional right. 

Just pointing out, the anti-abortion crowd has already demonstrated that they will say anything, as long as it will let them ban abortions. 
 

(It's a common theme in pretty much all Republican positions.)

2 hours ago, bearrock said:

I'm just saying that an anti-abortionist can be presented with all the reasons why a pro-choice person is pro-choice, but they just turn their head and say that they come from a fundamentally different underlying assumption and value. 

That's another common theme in Republican positions.  

[Larry]

1 hour ago, Cooked Crack said:

Great plan, Greg. Why did no one ever think of that?

He couldn't have ended all rape earlier. He had to eliminate abortion before he could do it. 

[China]

Justice Department sues Texas over restrictive abortion law

 

The Biden administration is filing a lawsuit against Texas challenging its near-total ban on abortions, which the Supreme Court declined to block last week.

 

Attorney General Merrick Garland said Thursday that the Justice Department filed the suit against Texas over its law, which he called “clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent.”

 

"The United States has the authority and the responsibility to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights to a legislative scheme specifically designed to prevent the vindication of those rights," Garland said at a news conference.

 

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court in Texas, argues the law is unconstitutional and was enacted in open defiance of the Constitution.

 

The DOJ seeks a declaratory judgment that the law, known as Senate Bill 8, is invalid under the Supremacy Clause and the 14th Amendment, is preempted by federal law and violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity.

 

The statute prohibits most abortions, even in cases of rape, sexual abuse, or incest. It also prohibits any effort to aid — or any intent to aid — the doctors who provide the prohibited abortions or women who try to get one.

 

S.B. 8 bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant. It also has unique enforcement provisions allowing private citizens, rather than state officials, to sue abortion providers.

 

After the Supreme Court’s decision last week, President Joe Biden vowed a "whole-of-government" response to try to safeguard access to abortions in Texas. 

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

 

[China]

 

[Ball Security]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/09/salesforce-to-pay-texas-employees-relocation-costs-in-wake-of-abortion-ban-law/%3famp=1
 

Salesforce offers to help relocate Texas employees.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[China]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[China]

81% disapprove of giving $10,000 to private citizens for abortion lawsuits under new Texas law

 

A new Monmouth University poll found that an overwhelming majority of Americans disapprove of two key provisions in Texas’s new abortion law.

 

81% of Americans said they disapproved of giving $US10,000 ($AU13,765) to private citizens who successfully file abortion lawsuits, as the Texas law stipulates. That even includes 62% of Republican voters and 82% of independents.

 

Under the Texas law, a plaintiff that successfully wins a civil suit is entitled to a minimum of $US10,000 ($AU13,765) “for each abortion that the defendant performed,” plus costs and attorney fees they’ve incurred.

 

Meanwhile, 65% of Americans also disapprove of having the law enforced by private citizens’ lawsuits rather than government prosecutors. While 89% of Democrats and 73% of independent voters voiced their disapproval of this provision, Republicans were more split; 46% supported it, while 41% were against it.

 

And a majority of Americans – 54% – disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Texas abortion ban to take effect, suggesting that Republicans could face political blowback over the new law.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2021 by Cooked Crack

[Simmsy]

Could I also sue this doctor or is it only one lawsuit per person? Someone should sue this doctor 10,000 times and clog up the court system. 

[Cooked Crack]

13 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

Could I also sue this doctor or is it only one lawsuit per person? Someone should sue this doctor 10,000 times and clog up the court system. 

Quote

A court cannot collect relief from the same defendant for the same abortion more than once. For example, 10 different plaintiffs could sue one abortion provider for a single abortion, but only one could collect damages.

The law does not protect a defendant from having to fight off multiple lawsuits for the same abortion and being forced to defend themselves (costing time and money) as each case progresses.

 

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/10/texas-abortion-law-ban-enforcement/

[tshile]

When I read that they filed the lawsuit despite being against the law just to get it before a judge, I can’t help but have a sinking feeling that’ll backfire  

[Fergasun]

I still don't get how this scheme was already upheld by the Supreme Court.  Doesn't this put all widely held Federal rights in jeopardy?  This judgement also imperil's the doctrine that we are all taught of "stare decisis". 

 

I mean I think we should all understand that there's no such thing as "stare decisis" anymore... (it is what the SC says it is) but how can we live in a country where a Federal right has been exercised for 50 years and now it could be taken away via some scheme and tbe Supreme Court doesn't stop it? 

[tshile]

It wasn’t “upheld” by SCOTUS

 

they just refused to block it based on what was put before them. 
 

they specifically said they were not ruling on the constitutionality of it. 

In fact it sounds like abortion rights groups are the ones filing suites right now for the sole purpose of getting this in front of judges (including scotus, presumably) for the express purpose of getting the constitutionality ruled on. 

[LadySkinsFan]

45 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

I still don't get how this scheme was already upheld by the Supreme Court.  Doesn't this put all widely held Federal rights in jeopardy?  This judgement also imperil's the doctrine that we are all taught of "stare decisis". 

 

I mean I think we should all understand that there's no such thing as "stare decisis" anymore... (it is what the SC says it is) but how can we live in a country where a Federal right has been exercised for 50 years and now it could be taken away via some scheme and tbe Supreme Court doesn't stop it? 

 

It also puts "action against abortion after six weeks" in the hands of citizens and not the government, thereby handily avoiding the government prosecuting abortion providers and facilitators. Rule by mob if you will.