SCOTUS

[jhu72]

CS, Kra -- could you please start a separate thread to discuss the morality of abortion for those who are interested?

100% does not belong in this thread. Which is about law, not personal moral views.

I'm blocking you now because (like many others on here) I'm not interested in discussing that topic.

Thx

Yes, agreed. Please.

Sorry coaster there has been much angst here from many about the SCOTUS overturning RvW. The last I checked that was kinda, sorta a legal issue involving the SCOTUS. The last thing I would ever want to do is hurt the feelings of some overly sensitive lawyers. If they want to whine about RvW being overturned I will respond accordingly. I will not let them have it both ways. If they don't want to hear opposing opinion stop whining about overturning RvW. I'm all on board with that.

I haven’t whined about Roe v. Wade. Anywhere. I just think the topic is supercharged with much, much more than law. And deserves its own thread for people who really want to “discuss” the issues. The SCOTUS thread can include reproductive rights issues, but the new thread would be a better place to raise the range of social and other pieces of the reproductive rights issue.

And I said please.

You won't hear another peep from me. I said what I had to say. I didn't realize some of our legal eagles were getting hot around the collar about it.

#QFP -

I never realized lawyers were such a bunch of snowflakes. They get almost as ticked off about this topic here as they would if their Bruno Magli wingtips had a scuff on them .

This lawyer is bored, not upset. I agree with everything NJBill has said. Until the Court tackles Roe, I don't need to talk about the issues. And don't need to be characterized, or see women characterized as murderers. There hasn't been a discussion, just folks conveying a lot of less-informed, empathy-free blather.

I disagree with everything NJB has to say. I do respect his opinion on the sense RvW is the law of the land and should not be changed. FYI my opinion is also reinforced by the experience my wife endured actually working in these rooms and assisting in procedures. Her experience does not fit your criteria of less informed empathy free blather. She has been there and done the dirty work in the trenches...and what she did and saw was repulsive to her. I guess from your perspective that doesn't matter. You would never want to have this conversation with my wife. You don't like my perspective I guarantee you will not like hers. Until the court ever brings this up this is the last I will say about, this time for sure.

The reality of abortion is ghastly. It's why pro abortion people don't want to talk/see/hear/engage about it.

https://www.americamagazine.org/politic ... y-abortion

THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO SAY. YOU ARE CHANGING NO ONE"S MIND!!! Calling them baby killers and making those who disagree with you as ghouls is gaining you no converts.

[jhu72]

Catholics split between Ds and Rs. 56% of white Catholics voted for Trump the rest for Biden. 67% of Hispanic Catholics voted for Biden the rest for Trump. The smaller African American Catholic demographic presumably went for Biden, probably 90-10. Seems to me abortion was not driving the Catholic vote.

[cradleandshoot]

“It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”
― Mother Theresa of Calcutta

[kramerica.inc]

CS, Kra -- could you please start a separate thread to discuss the morality of abortion for those who are interested?

100% does not belong in this thread. Which is about law, not personal moral views.

I'm blocking you now because (like many others on here) I'm not interested in discussing that topic.

Thx

Yes, agreed. Please.

Sorry coaster there has been much angst here from many about the SCOTUS overturning RvW. The last I checked that was kinda, sorta a legal issue involving the SCOTUS. The last thing I would ever want to do is hurt the feelings of some overly sensitive lawyers. If they want to whine about RvW being overturned I will respond accordingly. I will not let them have it both ways. If they don't want to hear opposing opinion stop whining about overturning RvW. I'm all on board with that.

I haven’t whined about Roe v. Wade. Anywhere. I just think the topic is supercharged with much, much more than law. And deserves its own thread for people who really want to “discuss” the issues. The SCOTUS thread can include reproductive rights issues, but the new thread would be a better place to raise the range of social and other pieces of the reproductive rights issue.

And I said please.

You won't hear another peep from me. I said what I had to say. I didn't realize some of our legal eagles were getting hot around the collar about it.

#QFP -

I never realized lawyers were such a bunch of snowflakes. They get almost as ticked off about this topic here as they would if their Bruno Magli wingtips had a scuff on them .

This lawyer is bored, not upset. I agree with everything NJBill has said. Until the Court tackles Roe, I don't need to talk about the issues. And don't need to be characterized, or see women characterized as murderers. There hasn't been a discussion, just folks conveying a lot of less-informed, empathy-free blather.

I disagree with everything NJB has to say. I do respect his opinion on the sense RvW is the law of the land and should not be changed. FYI my opinion is also reinforced by the experience my wife endured actually working in these rooms and assisting in procedures. Her experience does not fit your criteria of less informed empathy free blather. She has been there and done the dirty work in the trenches...and what she did and saw was repulsive to her. I guess from your perspective that doesn't matter. You would never want to have this conversation with my wife. You don't like my perspective I guarantee you will not like hers. Until the court ever brings this up this is the last I will say about, this time for sure.

The reality of abortion is ghastly. It's why pro abortion people don't want to talk/see/hear/engage about it.

https://www.americamagazine.org/politic ... y-abortion

THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO SAY. YOU ARE CHANGING NO ONE"S MIND!!! Calling them baby killers and making those who disagree with you as ghouls is gaining you no converts.

I disagree.

There are plenty of the younger generations who don’t necessarily understand the true nature of abortions. And then they get one because “it’s just a procedure.”

Then they make a choice to do something that haunts them
for the rest of their life.

Focusing on the facts is completely necessary. Give the facts, then, let people “choose.” Or not.

Generational attitudes about a Myriad of topics hbe changed over the course of time. It used to be ok to call kids “gay” or “retarded” glossing over the seriousness of what these kids might be experiencing. Now we are all
aware through facts and education.

[ggait]

Obamacare argument at 10 AM ET on Tuesday.

Really interested to hear what ACB has to say in oral argument.

For context, the arguments in this case against Obamacare are so so weak. Even the 5th Circuit thought noted partisan hack Judge Reed O'Connor in NDTX did a lousy job. While this decision should be 9-0, in these polarized SCOTUS times anything is possible.

To give you guys some context/flavor, here's what the dissenting (Carter appointee) 5th Circuit judge thought of the opinion from NDTX:

Limits on judicial power demand special respect in a case like this. For one thing, careless judicial interference has the potential to be especially pernicious when it involves a complex statute like the ACA, which carries such significant implications for the welfare of the economy and the American populace at large. For another, the legitimacy of the judicial branch as a counter majoritarian institution in an otherwise democratic system depends on its ability to operate with restraint—and especially so in a high-profile case such as the one at bar. The district court’s opinion is textbook judicial overreach. The majority perpetuates that overreach and, in remanding, ensures that no end for this litigation is in sight.I respectfully dissent.

That's judge speak for "with all due respect, you are a forking idiot."

[jhu72]

CS, Kra -- could you please start a separate thread to discuss the morality of abortion for those who are interested?

100% does not belong in this thread. Which is about law, not personal moral views.

I'm blocking you now because (like many others on here) I'm not interested in discussing that topic.

Thx

Yes, agreed. Please.

Sorry coaster there has been much angst here from many about the SCOTUS overturning RvW. The last I checked that was kinda, sorta a legal issue involving the SCOTUS. The last thing I would ever want to do is hurt the feelings of some overly sensitive lawyers. If they want to whine about RvW being overturned I will respond accordingly. I will not let them have it both ways. If they don't want to hear opposing opinion stop whining about overturning RvW. I'm all on board with that.

I haven’t whined about Roe v. Wade. Anywhere. I just think the topic is supercharged with much, much more than law. And deserves its own thread for people who really want to “discuss” the issues. The SCOTUS thread can include reproductive rights issues, but the new thread would be a better place to raise the range of social and other pieces of the reproductive rights issue.

And I said please.

You won't hear another peep from me. I said what I had to say. I didn't realize some of our legal eagles were getting hot around the collar about it.

#QFP -

I never realized lawyers were such a bunch of snowflakes. They get almost as ticked off about this topic here as they would if their Bruno Magli wingtips had a scuff on them .

This lawyer is bored, not upset. I agree with everything NJBill has said. Until the Court tackles Roe, I don't need to talk about the issues. And don't need to be characterized, or see women characterized as murderers. There hasn't been a discussion, just folks conveying a lot of less-informed, empathy-free blather.

I disagree with everything NJB has to say. I do respect his opinion on the sense RvW is the law of the land and should not be changed. FYI my opinion is also reinforced by the experience my wife endured actually working in these rooms and assisting in procedures. Her experience does not fit your criteria of less informed empathy free blather. She has been there and done the dirty work in the trenches...and what she did and saw was repulsive to her. I guess from your perspective that doesn't matter. You would never want to have this conversation with my wife. You don't like my perspective I guarantee you will not like hers. Until the court ever brings this up this is the last I will say about, this time for sure.

The reality of abortion is ghastly. It's why pro abortion people don't want to talk/see/hear/engage about it.

https://www.americamagazine.org/politic ... y-abortion

THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO SAY. YOU ARE CHANGING NO ONE"S MIND!!! Calling them baby killers and making those who disagree with you as ghouls is gaining you no converts.

I disagree.

There are plenty of the younger generations who don’t necessarily understand the true nature of abortions. And then they get one because “it’s just a procedure.”

Then they make a choice to do something that haunts them
for the rest of their life.

Focusing on the facts is completely necessary. Give the facts, then, let people “choose.” Or not.

Generational attitudes about a Myriad of topics hbe changed over the course of time. It used to be ok to call kids “gay” or “retarded” glossing over the seriousness of what these kids might be experiencing. Now we are all
aware through facts and education.

... I'd say you are losing the battle. 66% of all adults oppose overturning RvW as of September 2020. In the 80's the number was closer to 50%. Today only republicans favor overturning RvW, and they only 50% to 47%. Every other group favors retaining RvW by 3 or 4 to 1.

[kramerica.inc]

Possible, but I'd be interested in seeing your source for those numbers. And of course, public opinion can swing wildly, especially when things change in the laws or courts. Just as public opinion has swung in favor of abortions, since reo v wade, the opposite could occur if it is overturned for a similar 40-50 yr stretch.

[holmes435]

Who is advocating for mental health care for those who have no other option but to to deal with a legal abortion?

Who is advocating for health care for those who can't afford to deliver a baby on their own?

Who is advocating for those who can't afford to provide for their kid, even with two full time jobs?

Who is advocating for health care for that kid?

Who is advocating for good education for that kid?

Who is advocating for sex-ed and birth control so unwanted pregnancies don't happen and abortion rates drop?

[MDlaxfan76]

Possible, but I'd be interested in seeing your source for those numbers. And of course, public opinion can swing wildly, especially when things change in the laws or courts. Just as public opinion has swung in favor of abortions, since reo v wade, the opposite could occur if it is overturned for a similar 40-50 yr stretch.

Sure, and by your logic slavery could become 'popular' again too if implemented for 40-50 years. After all, only the slaves would have an issue with it.

[jhu72]

Possible, but I'd be interested in seeing your source for those numbers. And of course, public opinion can swing wildly, especially when things change in the laws or courts. Just as public opinion has swung in favor of abortions, since reo v wade, the opposite could occur if it is overturned for a similar 40-50 yr stretch.

Results of 48,000 person poll. The first graphic gives the numbers.

[jhu72]

Who is advocating for mental health care for those who have no other option but to to deal with a legal abortion?

Who is advocating for health care for those who can't afford to deliver a baby on their own?

Who is advocating for those who can't afford to provide for their kid, even with two full time jobs?

Who is advocating for health care for that kid?

Who is advocating for good education for that kid?

Who is advocating for sex-ed and birth control so unwanted pregnancies don't happen and abortion rates drop?

Yes, the significant decrease in abortions since RvW was adopted is largely due to LIBERAL POLICIES! The REACTIONARY position of keeping people uninformed, limiting health care options and punishing them doesn't reduce abortions.

[kramerica.inc]

Possible, but I'd be interested in seeing your source for those numbers. And of course, public opinion can swing wildly, especially when things change in the laws or courts. Just as public opinion has swung in favor of abortions, since reo v wade, the opposite could occur if it is overturned for a similar 40-50 yr stretch.

Sure, and by your logic slavery could become 'popular' again too if implemented for 40-50 years. After all, only the slaves would have an issue with it.

Strawman.

[jhu72]

Possible, but I'd be interested in seeing your source for those numbers. And of course, public opinion can swing wildly, especially when things change in the laws or courts. Just as public opinion has swung in favor of abortions, since reo v wade, the opposite could occur if it is overturned for a similar 40-50 yr stretch.

Sure, and by your logic slavery could become 'popular' again too if implemented for 40-50 years. After all, only the slaves would have an issue with it.

Strawman.

so is yours

[kramerica.inc]

Possible, but I'd be interested in seeing your source for those numbers. And of course, public opinion can swing wildly, especially when things change in the laws or courts. Just as public opinion has swung in favor of abortions, since reo v wade, the opposite could occur if it is overturned for a similar 40-50 yr stretch.

Sure, and by your logic slavery could become 'popular' again too if implemented for 40-50 years. After all, only the slaves would have an issue with it.

In this case the 600,000K+ aborted children per year don't have a voice. You care about imaginary slaves in your strawman scenario, why not real children in utero that are dismembered and vacuumed out each year?

You are a member of the party who pounds the table for real facts. Why so touchy about these?

Everyone knows why.

Talk about an "Inconvenient Truth."

[kramerica.inc]

Possible, but I'd be interested in seeing your source for those numbers. And of course, public opinion can swing wildly, especially when things change in the laws or courts. Just as public opinion has swung in favor of abortions, since reo v wade, the opposite could occur if it is overturned for a similar 40-50 yr stretch.

Sure, and by your logic slavery could become 'popular' again too if implemented for 40-50 years. After all, only the slaves would have an issue with it.

Strawman.

so is yours

Is it? My scenario could actually happen. Pulling it back to the new SCOTUS member.

[dislaxxic]

kramer constantly conjures images of "babies being dismembered and sucked out" in the most gruesome example possible of what the whole of the abortion issue presents. Are there any "libruls" here that support late-term abortion?

What happened to the discussion about "when is what is in that womb viable" as a human being?

For me, once that "human being" starts to form as such, it's probably too late to realistically consider abortion. That's the rub though, isn't it? What is that point at which there should probably be no thought of abortion? Sentience? Consciousness? Viability outside the womb? I would hope "the science" could enlighten us about this sort of thing...

..

[MDlaxfan76]

Possible, but I'd be interested in seeing your source for those numbers. And of course, public opinion can swing wildly, especially when things change in the laws or courts. Just as public opinion has swung in favor of abortions, since reo v wade, the opposite could occur if it is overturned for a similar 40-50 yr stretch.

Sure, and by your logic slavery could become 'popular' again too if implemented for 40-50 years. After all, only the slaves would have an issue with it.

In this case the 600,000K+ aborted children per year don't have a voice. You care about imaginary slaves in your strawman scenario, why not real children in utero that are dismembered and vacuumed out each year?

You are a member of the party who pounds the table for real facts. Why so touchy about these?

Everyone knows why.

Talk about an "Inconvenient Truth."

slaves weren't imaginary. And did they have a voice?

I'm simply piercing the specious logic you presented that public opinion might change if abortions were outlawed for 40-50 years. That was your point.

It's poor logic on its face, as of course the uproar would be overwhelming right away, there's no going back to slavery nor to 100% outlawed abortions. It's possible that will be tested in the coming years, but it's not going to stand.

BTW, public opinion has never swung "in favor of abortions". No one wants more abortions. People want less abortions.

They just want it less without restricting a woman's right to make that choice for herself and her fetus. Sex education, birth control, financial support for mothers in difficult situations, etc. These work to reduce abortions...do more.

That's certainly the case for groups like Planned Parenthood. They want every baby born to be a planned and wanted opportunity and most of their actual clinical work is with birth control and prenatal care, not abortions. Their advocacy work, however, is forced to be focused on defending Choice. I find some of that advocacy to be 'extreme' at times but that's in the face of very extreme views attacking Choice.

[cradleandshoot]

Possible, but I'd be interested in seeing your source for those numbers. And of course, public opinion can swing wildly, especially when things change in the laws or courts. Just as public opinion has swung in favor of abortions, since reo v wade, the opposite could occur if it is overturned for a similar 40-50 yr stretch.

Sure, and by your logic slavery could become 'popular' again too if implemented for 40-50 years. After all, only the slaves would have an issue with it.

Strawman.

so is yours

I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.
Ronald Reagan

[cradleandshoot]

Possible, but I'd be interested in seeing your source for those numbers. And of course, public opinion can swing wildly, especially when things change in the laws or courts. Just as public opinion has swung in favor of abortions, since reo v wade, the opposite could occur if it is overturned for a similar 40-50 yr stretch.

Sure, and by your logic slavery could become 'popular' again too if implemented for 40-50 years. After all, only the slaves would have an issue with it.

In this case the 600,000K+ aborted children per year don't have a voice. You care about imaginary slaves in your strawman scenario, why not real children in utero that are dismembered and vacuumed out each year?

You are a member of the party who pounds the table for real facts. Why so touchy about these?

Everyone knows why.

Talk about an "Inconvenient Truth."

slaves weren't imaginary. And did they have a voice?

I'm simply piercing the specious logic you presented that public opinion might change if abortions were outlawed for 40-50 years. That was your point.

It's poor logic on its face, as of course the uproar would be overwhelming right away, there's no going back to slavery nor to 100% outlawed abortions. It's possible that will be tested in the coming years, but it's not going to stand.

BTW, public opinion has never swung "in favor of abortions". No one wants more abortions. People want less abortions.

They just want it less without restricting a woman's right to make that choice for herself and her fetus. Sex education, birth control, financial support for mothers in difficult situations, etc. These work to reduce abortions...do more.

That's certainly the case for groups like Planned Parenthood. They want every baby born to be a planned and wanted opportunity and most of their actual clinical work is with birth control and prenatal care, not abortions. Their advocacy work, however, is forced to be focused on defending Choice. I find some of that advocacy to be 'extreme' at times but that's in the face of very extreme views attacking Choice.

No unborn baby has ever had the right to choose or deny its own destruction.
R. C. Sproul

Feel better now MD?

[kramerica.inc]

kramer constantly conjures images of "babies being dismembered and sucked out" in the most gruesome example possible of what the whole of the abortion issue presents. Are there any "libruls" here that support late-term abortion?

What happened to the discussion about "when is what is in that womb viable" as a human being?

For me, once that "human being" starts to form as such, it's probably too late to realistically consider abortion. That's the rub though, isn't it? What is that point at which there should probably be no thought of abortion? Sentience? Consciousness? Viability outside the womb? I would hope "the science" could enlighten us about this sort of thing...

..

You speak to the realities of abortion for the same reason you teach any topic to the letter of the law. Those are the potential realities. What happens on an individual basis may be different, but the possibility is real.