The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[The Sisko]

It didn't receive nearly the attention it should have.

[86 Snyder]

Haven’t done the diligence to confirm yet but…

 

 

[Larry]

Does seem believable, though. 
 

I mean, the debate on abortion for the last 50 years has been:

 

1). I want to ban abortion. Doesn't matter how or why. 
 

1a). Well, the only moral way you can justify forcing someone to dedicate their body to being a life support system, is to save the life of another person. 
 

1b). OK, the fetus is a person. Now can I ban abortion?  
 

2). Well, if the fetus is a person, then that means you have to do X. 
 

2a). OK, I did X. Now can I ban abortion?  
 

We've  been repeating Step 2 now for 50 years, and we have yet to find an X that people aren't willing to fervently do, if it will get them to where they can ban abortions. 
 

Don't think this one is going to make them. 
 

[balki1867]

1 hour ago, 86 Snyder said:

Haven’t done the diligence to confirm yet but…

 

 

 

So the woman can't have an abortion, but someone else can kill the woman which also likely end the viability of the fetus.

That means that if a guy accidentally gets a girl pregnant and wants her to terminate the pregnancy, she can't get an abortion, but he can kill her without consequence because she thought about terminating the pregnancy.

And who gets to decide she was going to get an abortion?

Also why am I applying logic to anything of this?

[skinsmarydu]

2 minutes ago, balki1867 said:

 

 

Also why am I applying logic to anything of this?

Trust me, we women have gotten twisted for 50 years. 

[The Sisko]

2 hours ago, balki1867 said:

 

So the woman can't have an abortion, but someone else can kill the woman which also likely end the viability of the fetus.

That means that if a guy accidentally gets a girl pregnant and wants her to terminate the pregnancy, she can't get an abortion, but he can kill her without consequence because she thought about terminating the pregnancy.

And who gets to decide she was going to get an abortion?

Also why am I applying logic to anything of this?

We’ll, if you’re going to be all logical and reasonable and whatnot.🙄 You’ve got to stop that sort of thing if you want to be a real MAGA. 

[bcl05]

 

[ixcuincle]

https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2022/07/19/michigan-coach-jim-harbaugh-at-anti-abortion-let-the-unborn-be-born/

 

Former 49ers head coach and current Michigan coach Jim Harbaugh does not shy away from sharing his personal views on a number of topics, including the rights of college athletes, the legal needs of low-income Americans as a member of the Legal Services Corporation Leaders Council, and his pro-life support.

 

Harbaugh was part of a pro-life fundraiser in Plymouth on Sunday, according to DetroitCatholic.com. The event at the Inn at St. John’s raised money for pro-life charities and programs in southeast Michigan.

 

Harbaugh spoke on the theme of “We Were Made to be Courageous,” along with Fr. John Riccardo. Harbaugh’s wife, Sarah, was also on stage and took part in a question-and-answer session.

 

“I believe in having the courage to let the unborn be born,” Jim Harbaugh said at the function, according to the publication. “I love life. I believe in having a loving care and respect for life and death. My faith and my science are what drives these beliefs in me. Quoting from Jeremiah, ‘Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart. I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.’”

 

 

 

 

 

 

While I do not agree with Jim Harbaugh's views here, I will continue to respect him. Jim is free to feel his way about abortion, and I am free to disagree. That doesn't mean Jim is a bad man, or necessarily evil.

 

I think we as a society need to take a long, hard look at how we treat people that disagree with us. At least most people. It's okay to disagree on politics. That doesn't mean the other person is evil. It just means we were raised differently, have different political thoughts. And that's okay.

[ixcuincle]

 

[China]

[86 Snyder]

Nice summation

 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

8 hours ago, ixcuincle said:

 

While I do not agree with Jim Harbaugh's views here, I will continue to respect him. Jim is free to feel his way about abortion, and I am free to disagree. That doesn't mean Jim is a bad man, or necessarily evil.

 

I think we as a society need to take a long, hard look at how we treat people that disagree with us. At least most people. It's okay to disagree on politics. That doesn't mean the other person is evil. It just means we were raised differently, have different political thoughts. And that's okay.

I think the issue is yes, people can disagree with whatever they want, but the state is siding with religious zealots which is a clear violation of the first amendment.
 

There is no medical or scientific reason to prevent a woman from having an abortion however, there are numerous medical reasons for a woman to seek an abortion. The state is disregarding that science in the name of religious morality and risking the lives of women in the process. And therefore people like Harbaugh are supporting religious fascism. There is no reason to condone him.

 

It isn’t disagreeing on politics. It is disagreement on basic human rights and the dignity of women.

Edited July 20, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Cooked Crack]

 

[LadySkinsFan]

I recommend this book, Our Gang by Philip Roth. Here's the overview followed by my comments.

 

Book Overview
A ferocious political satire in the great tradition, Our Gang is Philip Roth's brilliantly indignant response to the phenomenon of Richard M. Nixon. In the character of Trick E. Dixon, Roth shows us a man who outdoes the severest cynic, a peace-loving Quaker and believer in the sanctity of human life who doesn't have a problem with killing unarmed women and children in self-defense. A master politician with an honest sneer, he finds himself battling the Boy Scouts, declaring war on Pro-Pornography Denmark, all the time trusting in the basic indifference of the voting public. 

 

 

My comments:  In the book, they talk about extending voting rights to the unborn, which reminds me of the meme above. I've recommended this book before and it's even more relevant to today.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 20, 2022 by LadySkinsFan

[The Evil Genius]

Imagine 2 foreigners conceiving a child in the US on vacation.

 

Boom, that fetus is now a person and should be a US citizen, right? Take that GOP losers. 😁

[China]

State legislators passed abortion bans. These corporations sent checks.

 

The state of Texas did not wait for the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health to ban abortion. In May 2021, Texas enacted SB8, a ban on nearly all abortions. The legislation prohibits abortion after six weeks of pregnancy — before many women know they were pregnant — and attaches a bounty to anyone who helped a woman obtain an abortion after that time. 

 

The legislation took effect last September. The Supreme Court let it stay in place, the first clear sign the new majority was prepared to overturn Roe v. Wade. 

 

The elected officials behind Texas' abortion ban subsequently received financial support from major corporations, according to new campaign finance filings with the Texas Ethics Commission. Some donations come from the same corporations that purport to support their employees' reproductive rights by paying for out-of-state travel for abortions. 

 

On June 24, the day of the Dobbs decision, Dallas-based AT&T announced it was "reimbursing travel expenses for medical procedures," including abortion. "The health of our employees and their families is important to our company," the company said. 

 

Since the beginning of 2022, however, AT&T has donated $214,000 to the legislators behind Texas’ abortion bans. That includes $164,000 to 40 individual elected officials that supported the bans and $50,000 to the two committees — the Texas Republican Legislative Caucus and the Associated Republicans of Texas Campaign Fund — that elect anti-abortion candidates to the legislature. 

 

Texas Representative Dustin Burrows (R) told the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal in May that he was proud to "champion" SB8. Burrows was also a vocal supporter of a separate "trigger" law, enacted in June 2021, that bans all abortion from the moment of fertilization with no exceptions for rape or incest. The trigger law will go into effect at the end of July. 

 

In Ohio, Governor Mike DeWine (R) signed a bill banning abortion after about 6 weeks in 2019.

 

CVS Health, which operates 389 pharmacy stores in Ohio, says it supports its employees' right to choose by "making out-of-state abortion healthcare services more accessible and affordable." But the company donated $10,000 to DeWine's reelection campaign on June 3, 2022. DeWine's Democratic opponent, Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley, supports abortion rights. 

 

CVS also supported the Texas Republicans behind the state's abortion ban by donating $20,000 to the Texas House Republican Caucus on February 9, 2022, and $20,000 to the Texas Senate Republican Caucus on March 1, 2022. 

 

According to the New York Times, Wells Fargo told its employees “that the firm would expand its existing travel benefits for medical coverage to include imbursement for abortion travel ‘in accordane with applicable law” after Roe was overturned. 

 

Since the beginning of 2022, however, Wells Fargo has donated a total of $68,500 to 18 public officials behind the state’s abortion ban. 

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]

 

[EmirOfShmo]

 

[Captain Wiggles]

Quote

They're now voting against a right to contraception. That'll play well in attack ads.

 

Meh. They'll just say no law is needed because nobody would ever pass laws banning contraception. Prolly won't lose many votes over it either in November. 😑

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[EmirOfShmo]

 

[China]

Supreme Court leak probe: So many questions, so few answers

 

Less than 24 hours after the unprecedented leak of the draft opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade, Chief Justice John Roberts ordered an investigation into the “egregious breach. ”

Since then? Silence.

 

The Supreme Court won’t say whether it’s still investigating.

 

The court also won’t say whether the leaker has been identified or whether anyone has been disciplined.

 

Or whether an outside law firm or the FBI has been called in.

 

Or whether the court will ever offer an accounting of what transpired.

 

Or whether it has taken steps to try to prevent a repeat.

 

To these and other emailed questions, Supreme Court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said by email: “The Court has no comment.”

 

Roberts announced the investigation on May 3, the day after Politico published its explosive leak detailing the draft of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion. Court Marshal Gail Curley was tapped to lead the investigation.

 

The story filled the airwaves, news pages and online comment sections. There were calls for impeachment if a justice was involved. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said the leak was a pressure campaign to “sway” the outcome and he suggested the “lawless action should be investigated and punished to the fullest extent possible.”

 

Justice Clarence Thomas, the longest tenured member of the court, said the court had been irrevocably harmed. “When you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I’m in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder. It’s like kind of an infidelity that you can explain it, but you can’t undo it.”

 

The court finished its work for the summer on June 30, after which the justices’ law clerks began leaving for their next jobs. That means roughly three dozen people who likely had access to the draft opinion, out of about 70 in all, are no longer within easy reach of investigators.

 

Roberts should close the investigation, said Gabe Roth, leader of the court transparency group Fix the Court.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Long n Left]

6 hours ago, China said:

Supreme Court leak probe: So many questions, so few answers

 

Less than 24 hours after the unprecedented leak of the draft opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade, Chief Justice John Roberts ordered an investigation into the “egregious breach. ”

Since then? Silence.

 

The Supreme Court won’t say whether it’s still investigating.

 

The court also won’t say whether the leaker has been identified or whether anyone has been disciplined.

 

Or whether an outside law firm or the FBI has been called in.

 

Or whether the court will ever offer an accounting of what transpired.

 

Or whether it has taken steps to try to prevent a repeat.

 

To these and other emailed questions, Supreme Court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said by email: “The Court has no comment.”

 

Roberts announced the investigation on May 3, the day after Politico published its explosive leak detailing the draft of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion. Court Marshal Gail Curley was tapped to lead the investigation.

 

The story filled the airwaves, news pages and online comment sections. There were calls for impeachment if a justice was involved. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said the leak was a pressure campaign to “sway” the outcome and he suggested the “lawless action should be investigated and punished to the fullest extent possible.”

 

Justice Clarence Thomas, the longest tenured member of the court, said the court had been irrevocably harmed. “When you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I’m in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder. It’s like kind of an infidelity that you can explain it, but you can’t undo it.”

 

The court finished its work for the summer on June 30, after which the justices’ law clerks began leaving for their next jobs. That means roughly three dozen people who likely had access to the draft opinion, out of about 70 in all, are no longer within easy reach of investigators.

 

Roberts should close the investigation, said Gabe Roth, leader of the court transparency group Fix the Court.

 

Click on the link for the full article

This leads me to believe it was a calculated gamble by one of the christo-fascist 6 to try and help the right “get out in front” of the backlash.

 

Also, the irony in the Thomas statement now, is beyond a proper reply.

[China]

 

[Cooked Crack]