Roe v Wade Being Repealed

[Castrol for a knave]

The comment that seems to be doing the rounds, is that the GOP is now the dog that caught car - what the hell to do with it now.

The Republicans probably never thought Roe v Wade would be overturned, but it was a useful hobby horse. They've now got to own it and in doing so, have weaponised abortion more than ever.

There will be a swath of female RINOs who will be seeing this as a restriction on their personal liberty and that of all women, and who may turn to the Democrats as a consequence.

This is powerful stuff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g2CqOrFGak

Edited by Castrol for a knave on Tuesday 3rd May 10:18

[JagLover]

Castrol for a knave said:

The comment that seems to be doing the rounds, is that the GOP is now the dog that caught car - what the hell to do with it now.

The Republicans probably never thought Roe v Wade would be overturned, but it was a useful hobby horse. They've now got to own it and in doing so, have weaponised abortion more than ever.

Agreed

The truth is most people are around the middle. Most approve of early in the pregnancy abortions or where the child will be born disabled or health of mother is at risk.

If they start effectively banning abortion altogether then this will be a vote loser.

[bloomen]

I wish the US godspeed on its journey back to medieval times. I expect Trump to re enter the White House with multiple negroes on dog leads leading the way.

I wonder what the actual majority makes of this, but it doesn't really matter as a small cadre committed to undermining them also seems to be running rings around them.

[MiniMan64]

America continues it's slow slide into making the Handmaids Tale an awful reality...

[Byker28i]

wisbech said:

Posted from other thread. I agree with Jagdlover - the reason why it has been much less an issue elsewhere is that, for example in the UK, we can just point at the laws passed by Parliament, rather relying on a rather tenuous legal argument.

Quick skim read - yep, it's an absolute overturn - saying a moral issue like this must be the decision of the States, as it was historically. And it isn't written explicitly in the constitution so there!

Historians have pointed out that abortion was legal in the US when the Constitution was written in 1787.

[wisbech]

JagLover said:

Agreed

The truth is most people are around the middle. Most approve of early in the pregnancy abortions or where the child will be born disabled or health of mother is at risk.

If they start effectively banning abortion altogether then this will be a vote loser.

Yep - due to primaries most republican candidates have been going 'holier than thou' on abortion - so zero exceptions, even for rape/ incest. They can't exactly turn round now and say '15 weeks is fine actually' or they will be eaten alive in the primaries.

[silentbrown]

sugerbear said:

...they are elected by virtue of the senate and president being themselves elected.

In the same way that the council workers who collect our bins are also elected, I suppose? Even though they're not employed by the council.

[wisbech]

Byker28i said:

Historians have pointed out that abortion was legal in the US when the Constitution was written in 1787.

Linky? I know in UK common law abortion wasn't a crime until 'quickening' (the mother being able to feel the baby move - partly due to the practical fact that there was no way to prove in court a woman knew she was pregnant until that time). But if abortion was legal in the US in 1787 it would have been on a state by state (colony by colony) basis, rather than at the federal level.

[Type R Tom]

What I find fascinating about this as there are so many that will fight tooth and nail to protect an unborn baby but the second you are born you are on your own, that includes the parents having a massive bill for that birth!

[ZedLeg]

Type R Tom said:

What I find fascinating about this as there are so many that will fight tooth and nail to protect an unborn baby but the second you are born you are on your own, that includes the parents having a massive bill for that birth!

Yeah, it quickly puts paid to the argument that it's about protecting life rather than controlling women doesn't it.

[CloudStuff]

Deploy the Hicks - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSEs7QJyCtY

[Sway]

RDMcG said:

I have a winter place in Arizona and live in Toronto. At this stage the differences are stark . We have long past the debates on abortion,gay marriage,LGBTQ ( still some issues on sports), and have very liberal right-to-die and medical assistance in dying laws.

When I grew up as a youngster in Ireland I had the very poorly informed view that the US stood for freedom,that the sixties were a wave of optimism and a break from the restrictive laws of Ireland where abortion,divorce,gay rights and media were all controlled by the church which forbade the lot


I would never have imagined Ireland becoming a liberal democracy and the US turning so far backwards. There are more disruptions to cone as the US turns inwards and heads for isolationism.

Off topic, but having cared through to end of life two grandparents - one fked in mind, the other in body, I'm a huge supporter of assisted dying.

However, I then read an article in the Spectator this week regarding how it's actually evolving in Canada - and it was fking horrifying.

If what the Spectator was even remotely true, then the entire Western world should be screaming about the abhorrent approaches being taken. Liberal, it is not...

[ZedLeg]

Sway said:

However, I then read an article in the Spectator this week regarding how it's actually evolving in Canada - and it was fking horrifying.

If what the Spectator was even remotely true,

That's a pretty big if at any point tbh.

[Harrison Bergeron]

Wait why are they going all my body my choice now?

[Castrol for a knave]

Harrison Bergeron said:

Wait why are they going all my body my choice now?

Yeah, I've seen that meme as well.

Feel free to show your workings, but it's not really analogous though is it?

[paulguitar]

Castrol for a knave said:

Feel free to show your workings

I wouldn't hold your breath.

[roger.mellie]

ZedLeg said:

Type R Tom said:

What I find fascinating about this as there are so many that will fight tooth and nail to protect an unborn baby but the second you are born you are on your own, that includes the parents having a massive bill for that birth!

Yeah, it quickly puts paid to the argument that it's about protecting life rather than controlling women doesn't it.

Tired but true argument.

It's a safe assumption that politicians standing on a pro life platform are not aware of the incongruencies in their opinion when it comes to other topics. They might be well meaning but that doesn't mean they're well thought out.

[Type R Tom]

roger.mellie said:

ZedLeg said:

Type R Tom said:

What I find fascinating about this as there are so many that will fight tooth and nail to protect an unborn baby but the second you are born you are on your own, that includes the parents having a massive bill for that birth!

Yeah, it quickly puts paid to the argument that it's about protecting life rather than controlling women doesn't it.

Tired but true argument.

It's a safe assumption that politicians standing on a pro life platform are not aware of the incongruencies in their opinion when it comes to other topics. They might be well meaning but that doesn't mean they're well thought out.

They know exactly what they are doing. How can they want babies born but then not offer maternity leave, healthcare etc. to support those children.

[JeffreyD]

Just been reading a little more around this and it appears there is explicit criticism of the rulings legalising same sex marriage and homosexuality.

Real dark ages stuff.

[wisbech]

JeffreyD said:

Just been reading a little more around this and it appears there is explicit criticism of the rulings legalising same sex marriage and homosexuality.

Real dark ages stuff.

The Texas law referenced wasn't technically about homosexuality, it was about sodomy and oral sex, which were illegal, but normally only used against homosexuals. The SC found the law unconstitutional due to right of privacy (which isn't in the constitution) Logically, the same argument over abortion applies - the constitution doesn't say you and your partner can do oral, so it should be left up to the Texas government to decide what they will or will not allow. Alito (judge who wrote the draft) makes a snarky comment that the right to privacy doesn't cover taking illegal drugs in your home.

Gay marriage was more complicated and needed a Federal or SC ruling -the issue was that the constitution demands that states recognize each others institutions and laws - so having gay marriage in some states but not others was causing problems and unfairness as people moved around for work etc. (similar to in the past some states allowing child brides). Say a couple got married in Vermont, and moved to Texas. Texas had to treat them as a married couple, even if they didn't allow same sex marriage themselves.

What needs to be watched is if states start trying to make it illegal/ restrict to travel for abortions. If you go from Texas to Vermont and get an abortion, there is nothing that Texas can do about it as no crime was committed in either Vermont or Texas. Similar if you go gamble in Vegas even if it is illegal in your home state.