|
Post by dizzydean on Jun 24, 2022 14:28:33 GMT -5
Of course PP wasn't set up to specifically help the rich. I have no idea who gets more abortions, rich or poor. BUT NOW people in the states that outlaw abortion won't be able to go to planned parenthood in their state. Rich, or even middle class, people will. If they can't afford to go to another state to have an abortion (for free on taxpayer money), which I totally disagree with, are they going to be able to support the baby when born? Planned Parenthood (oxymoron) is free to the aborter. They basically can't pay for gas to get to their neighboring state that allows abortions? If there even is a neighboring state. Poor is poor. So then what happens? Blackmarket abortion, unsafe and potentially deadly. So I amend my statemenet: some poor people will still get abortions, just more of them will die as a result.
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Jun 24, 2022 14:43:41 GMT -5
I have to wonder how much the people who protest the current packing of the court, would be protesting if THAT had happened. I mean, that means Garland wouldn’t have happened. And we wouldn’t have had a President who lost the popular vote appointing 3 justices in 4 years. We would have had a President who won the popular vote appointing 2 justices in 4 years. Entirely different case, isn’t it? I know I'm still a relative newcomer to this country , but I thought the President wasn't elected by popular vote. For me that makes that particular point moot. But the result would've been the same but in the opposite direction. Are you saying that under those specific circumstances you would've been okay with how SCOTUS would've panned out? Regardless I can understand your objection to the first appointment by Trump (I too objected to how that went down) but the other two seemed to go according to the rules set out for appointments.
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Jun 24, 2022 14:47:46 GMT -5
Have people lost the ability to "control their own bodies" or is that slight hyperbole? It's unrealistic is what it is. Plus as I said elsewhere, birth control doesn't always work. And then there's rape. What percentage of unwanted pregnancies are due to rape, in the US?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 14:50:41 GMT -5
So? Their states won't be able to stop their residents from getting the pills by mail You keep saying this and it isn't true. Even if it were (and it's not), it's immoral to deny people the ability to control their own bodies. If states can't stop their residents from taking narcotics (true), then they sure as hell won't be able to stop them from getting pills in the mail.
A fetus is human DNA that isn't the same as the host. Literally scientifically, it is not your own body.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 14:52:20 GMT -5
I have to wonder how much the people who protest the current packing of the court, would be protesting if THAT had happened. I mean, that means Garland wouldn’t have happened. And we wouldn’t have had a President who lost the popular vote appointing 3 justices in 4 years. We would have had a President who won the popular vote appointing 2 justices in 4 years. Entirely different case, isn’t it? Garland would've been appointed and the Dem 2016 winner would've appointed 2 more, as you said.
So, exactly as I said, it would've been a 6-3 Dem appointed court.
You would be a pig in s__t.
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Jun 24, 2022 14:53:14 GMT -5
Have people lost the ability to "control their own bodies" or is that slight hyperbole? A ban on contraception would certainly mean that. The overturning of Lawrence and Obergefell would, too. Actually doesn't. It does mean that some avenues for preventing pregnancy would no longer be in play, but people still have control over choosing which of the measures that are in play are used. Not having access to all the possible measures isn't the same as having no choices at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 14:53:36 GMT -5
So? Their states won't be able to stop their residents from getting the pills by mail, from states that allow and protect that cottage industry that will pop up. Practically, nonissue. All about ideology, as ever. Who says they wont' be able to stop that? How? Physically.
Propose anything you want. Let's see
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 14:54:49 GMT -5
Have people lost the ability to "control their own bodies" or is that slight hyperbole? A ban on contraception would certainly mean that. The overturning of Lawrence and Obergefell would, too. Nope. It would just be yet another case where "ban" states would not be any more physically capable of preventing their residents from ordering pills by mail, than they're capable of preventing their residents from using narcotics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 14:55:55 GMT -5
I mean, that means Garland wouldn’t have happened. And we wouldn’t have had a President who lost the popular vote appointing 3 justices in 4 years. We would have had a President who won the popular vote appointing 2 justices in 4 years. Entirely different case, isn’t it? Kennedy is almost certainly still on the court if HRC wins in 2016 (and 2020). It's why "vote harder" is such a f*cking stupid strategy. In order to overcome strategic retirements, dems would have to hold the presidency for 30 years in a row to regain a majority on a 9 justice court. Strategic retirements.
Is that like when RBG retired so that a Dem president could nominate her successor?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 14:56:57 GMT -5
Today's decision also paves the way for a federal abortion ban the moment republicans retake Congress and the presidency. So that's awesome. A federal ban is entirely the opposite of letting the issue go to states, is it not?
I guess we'll have to see what SCOTUS does, if that happens.
|
|
|
Post by ringostar on Jun 24, 2022 14:57:04 GMT -5
If they can't afford to go to another state to have an abortion (for free on taxpayer money), which I totally disagree with, are they going to be able to support the baby when born? Planned Parenthood (oxymoron) is free to the aborter. They basically can't pay for gas to get to their neighboring state that allows abortions? If there even is a neighboring state. Poor is poor. So then what happens? Blackmarket abortion, unsafe and potentially deadly. So I amend my statemenet: some poor people will still get abortions, just more of them will die as a result. Problems can me solved by easy, sensible decisions. If you can't afford a baby or a gas tank to get an abortion - you shouldn't be poking around. Not rocket science. Guaranteed that the babies will die as a result of abortion. 100%. I'm amazed at the abortion crowd pitch. "Women's health" - what percentage of women die from having a baby? I'm guessing around 50% because of the fight for the right to abortion is so strong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 14:57:40 GMT -5
If the right to an abortion is that important to you, put it in the constitution. That's the end of the discussion. It is in the constitution Please cite the phrase in the language of the US Constitution granting the federal right to abortion.
I'll wait here for you to spring your trap.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Jun 24, 2022 14:58:16 GMT -5
Kennedy is almost certainly still on the court if HRC wins in 2016 (and 2020). It's why "vote harder" is such a f*cking stupid strategy. In order to overcome strategic retirements, dems would have to hold the presidency for 30 years in a row to regain a majority on a 9 justice court. Strategic retirements. Is that like when RBG retired so that a Dem president could nominate her successor?
as to the blame game, blame Hillary for running the worst campaign for PResident in the last 40 years she had every advantage conceiveable, especially money overconfident, bad polling. she lost to a candidate half the nation couldn't stand
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 14:58:33 GMT -5
It is in the constitution lmao Not anymore No, it never was.
It's patently clear that "in the constitution" refers only to language actually in the document, and does not refer to SCOTUS rulings.
|
|
|
Post by ringostar on Jun 24, 2022 14:59:26 GMT -5
So? Their states won't be able to stop their residents from getting the pills by mail You keep saying this and it isn't true. Even if it were (and it's not), it's immoral to deny people the ability to control their own bodies. How does this compare to Covid vaccination mandates? Was that immoral as well?
|
|