BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

Sad day for all the congressmen who never had the guts to enact that policy into law. I haven't read Dobbs yet but there appears to be a legal basis for overturning the law. I'm with Roberts on precedent but not enough to have a sad day. Let's hold the right people accountable: this is on the players not the refs.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

With options like condoms, birth control and plan b…it's insane that women still have unwanted pregnancies.

It's always been hypocritical of the left to demand abortion, but have absolutely no concern over the huge lack of personal responsibility and prevention awareness of pregnancy.

---

Couples have unplanned pregnancies, not women. And birth control is not 100% effective. The idea that all women control this type of decision making is unbelievably sheltered and naive.

---

Everything in life has consequences.

Democrats haven't been this angry since Republicans freed their slaves. Excellent decision.

I favor DeSantis in 24, but this is the EXACT reason Trump won in 16. This is another Trump win.

303Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

With options like condoms, birth control and plan b…it's insane that women still have unwanted pregnancies.

It's always been hypocritical of the left to demand abortion, but have absolutely no concern over the huge lack of personal responsibility and prevention awareness of pregnancy.

---

Generally agree with you on unwanted pregnancies with some exceptions.

Rape / sexual assault victims are sympathetic, and while I can understand the desire, I cannot get to a place where I believe one horrible crime justifies the killing of the innocent. Would much rather see effort and resources go into after care (both physical and mental) for victims and their families, as well as better policing practices to investigate and prosecute these crimes.

Medically necessary abortions are 100% real, though they are blessedly rare. Things like ectopic pregnancies will kill the mother 100% of the time, and they cannot be maintained long enough to ever hope to produce a viable living child. Certain other conditions such as severe hypertension / diabetes (which can be brought on or exacerbated by a pregnancy) or trauma situations justify, to me, prioritizing a mother's life over that of the child.

That said, the vast, vast majority of abortions are not performed for such reasons or in such circumstances.

---

This is where we are in certain agreement, well over 98% of abortions are issues of convenience. But, that comes down to a heart issue. Our society has been programed to believe a baby in the womb is not a real baby.

Golem said:

---

Democrats haven't been this angry since Republicans freed their slaves. Excellent decision.

I favor DeSantis in 24, but this is the EXACT reason Trump won in 16. This is another Trump win.

---

Yup. It's one of the main reasons I voted for him.

Booray said:

---

Art Vandelay said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

BREAKING: Congresswoman @AOC has arrived in front of the Supreme Court and is chanting that the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade is “illegitimate” and calls for people to get “into the streets” | @TPUSA pic.twitter.com/jNkCYDrLtz

— Drew Hernandez (@DrewHLive) June 24, 2022

---

And that, my friends, is a conspiracy to incite an insurrection.

---

Seems rather insurrectiony to me

---

Seems free speechy to me. In the streets is ok.

---

Yea, but if a conservative said this, the left would say it's code or dog whistle, for tear stuff up.

The left hit the streets the Summer of 2020 and we all saw how that went.

Mothra said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

With options like condoms, birth control and plan b…it's insane that women still have unwanted pregnancies.

It's always been hypocritical of the left to demand abortion, but have absolutely no concern over the huge lack of personal responsibility and prevention awareness of pregnancy.

---

Couples have unplanned pregnancies, not women. And birth control is not 100% effective. The idea that all women control this type of decision making is unbelievably sheltered and naive.

---

Everything in life has consequences.

---

Disproportionate consequences.

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

It is a happy day. A court overturned ITSELF after having usurped the power of the people. If 70% support it, go get a constitutional amendment. Your argument evidences a lack of understanding of our systems of government.

OsoCoreyell said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

It is a happy day. A court overturned ITSELF after having usurped the power of the people. If 70% support it, go get a constitutional amendment. Your argument evidences a lack of understanding of our systems of government.

---

Actually your understanding is the incorrect one. The fact that 70% of the people favor something is zero assurance that the Constitution can be amended.

Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, the Dakotas. Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas can stop an amendment with probably 10% of the population.

OsoCoreyell said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

It is a happy day. A court overturned ITSELF after having usurped the power of the people. If 70% support it, go get a constitutional amendment. Your argument evidences a lack of understanding of our systems of government.

---

If 70% of people support abortion, it should be quite simple to use their majority voting power to make it legal to the extent they support it in their states. The court merely restored legislative authority to the people and there representatives.

Golem said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

It is a happy day. A court overturned ITSELF after having usurped the power of the people. If 70% support it, go get a constitutional amendment. Your argument evidences a lack of understanding of our systems of government.

---

If 70% of people support abortion, it should be quite simple to use their majority voting power to make it legal to the extent they support it in their states. The court merely restored legislative authority to the people and there representatives.

---

Different issue. And why I asked the question of whether Do bs means that the federal government cannot regulate abortion.

What is your answer to that question?

Booray said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

It is a happy day. A court overturned ITSELF after having usurped the power of the people. If 70% support it, go get a constitutional amendment. Your argument evidences a lack of understanding of our systems of government.

---

Actually your understanding is the incorrect one. The fact that 70% of the people favor something is zero assurance that the Constitution can be amended.

Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, the Dakotas. Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas can stop an amendment with probably 10% of the population.

---

I wasn't implying that a mere 70% of the total population would get you a constitutional amendment; But his idea that 70% of the folks should get their way nationally is not our system. Legislatures can act, and have. You might note that there is also NOT an interpretation of the Constitution to outlaw abortion nationally, though on the reasoning of Roe, the Court could've easily found that it does (by merely assuming the person-hood of a fetus). The Court correctly chose not to make the "opposite" error and put things back where they belong, in the hands of elected officials.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

With options like condoms, birth control and plan b…it's insane that women still have unwanted pregnancies.

It's always been hypocritical of the left to demand abortion, but have absolutely no concern over the huge lack of personal responsibility and prevention awareness of pregnancy.

---

Couples have unplanned pregnancies, not women. And birth control is not 100% effective. The idea that all women control this type of decision making is unbelievably sheltered and naive.

---

Abstinence is 100% effective. But that's just a fancy way of dressing up the evil "personal responsibility" that we all should strive to avoid in all aspects of our lives, right?

Golem said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

It is a happy day. A court overturned ITSELF after having usurped the power of the people. If 70% support it, go get a constitutional amendment. Your argument evidences a lack of understanding of our systems of government.

---

If 70% of people support abortion, it should be quite simple to use their majority voting power to make it legal to the extent they support it in their states. The court merely restored legislative authority to the people and there representatives.

---

Cobretti said:

---

Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters calls for pro-abortion extremists to "fight": "The hell with the Supreme Court! We will defy them!"

"You ain't seen nothin' yet." pic.twitter.com/T35haOT6Dr

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 24, 2022

---

Perhaps the least surprising thing to see today.

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives."

---

I read that as saying the Constitution also empowers states to allow abortions. Is the pro-life world willing to live with half the US having access to abortions?

Or is the whole "let the states decide it" theory going to get thrown out next?

---

Unless the federal government decides to pass a federal law, and thus invoking the supremacy clause, you will have state by state regulation on abortion.

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

I'm no great fan of abortion as a practice, but you can already see the practical effects this ruling will have in places where access is heavily restricted. And the most damaging outcomes will skew, as these things always do, toward the most disadvantaged populations among us.

More than for anyone else, I'm disheartened for the thousands of children who will soon be added to the nearly half-million kids we already have in foster care -- many of whom will age out to horrific outcomes while being called a victory by politicians and the religious right.

This country doesn't have an abortion problem as much has it has an unwanted pregnancy/uncared-for child problem. And restricting abortion access will do nothing to solve that. When those who are most anti-abortion are prepared to make contraceptives available to all who want/need them and will take on the burden themselves of fostering and adopting all of the children who need stable homes in this country, I'll take the term "pro-life" more seriously. But pro-birth policies create and exacerbate as many problems as they solve.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

With options like condoms, birth control and plan b…it's insane that women still have unwanted pregnancies.

It's always been hypocritical of the left to demand abortion, but have absolutely no concern over the huge lack of personal responsibility and prevention awareness of pregnancy.

---

Couples have unplanned pregnancies, not women. And birth control is not 100% effective. The idea that all women control this type of decision making is unbelievably sheltered and naive.

---

Women and children are also raped and end up pregnant as a result.

In the news this week: a judge in Brazil blocked an 11-year-old rape victim from getting an abortion for weeks. She finally got it at 22 weeks--a bad outcome for everyone involved. An 11-year-old might suffer permanent health issues by carrying a pregnancy to tem. How anyone could possibly think that such a pregnancy is part of God's plan and must be preserved regardless of its impact on her body and mental health is beyond me.

I rolled my eyes at the "pregnant person" characterization until it dawned on me that lots of unplanned pregnancies happen to children due to rape or incest. Girls are also entering puberty earlier thanks to our diet--some as early as 8 or 9.

The New York Times published a harrowing account from a woman who recalled being taken to an OB/GYN in downtown Dallas by her father for a pregnancy test. He had raped her. She had decided that, if the test was positive, she was going to find a place where she could jump off a balcony and commit suicide. Fortunately, the test was negative, and her anger over the test and then being taken out to a nice restaurant for lunch by Papa Perv was so great that she gained the courage to stand up to him and end the abuse.

Nothing I say will put an end to the smug self-satisfaction of right-wingers of both sexes who have now reduced women to second-class citizens without complete right of agency over their medical choices and those who believe God is happy about this result and that it reflects His will for women.

One outcome I hope will happen is more DNA testing. We can now determine who the father is at 8 weeks. Men and boys should share equally in the cost of prenatal care and pay child support or for counseling for women who do as Amy Coney Barrett blithely suggested and leave the baby at a firehall. Women shouldn't have to literally bear the sole burden of the obligation of birth the hard-core Religious right will now imposed on them with the force of law alone. It takes 2.

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

I'm no great fan of abortion as a practice, but you can already see the practical effects this ruling will have in places where access is heavily restricted. And the most damaging outcomes will skew, as these things always do, toward the most disadvantaged populations among us.

More than for anyone else, I'm disheartened for the thousands of children who will soon be added to the nearly half-million kids we already have in foster care -- many of whom will age out to horrific outcomes while being called a victory by politicians and the religious right.

This country doesn't have an abortion problem as much has it has an unwanted pregnancy/uncared-for child problem. And restricting abortion access will do nothing to solve that. When those who are most anti-abortion are prepared to make contraceptives available to all who want/need them and will take on the burden themselves of fostering and adopting all of the children who need stable homes in this country, I'll take the term "pro-life" more seriously. But pro-birth policies create and exacerbate as many problems as they solve.

---

You think its better if children are never born than for them to end up in foster care?

What.....

This is like when you see some rich liberals say..."What's the point of being alive if you have to life in poverty in the 3rd world"

What a disgusting nihilistic view of human life.

Booray said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

With options like condoms, birth control and plan b…it's insane that women still have unwanted pregnancies.

It's always been hypocritical of the left to demand abortion, but have absolutely no concern over the huge lack of personal responsibility and prevention awareness of pregnancy.

---

Couples have unplanned pregnancies, not women. And birth control is not 100% effective. The idea that all women control this type of decision making is unbelievably sheltered and naive.

---

Everything in life has consequences.

---

Disproportionate consequences.

---

That's life.

Obama in an effort to get elected promised Planned Parenthood that he would get Roe vs. Wade codified into law the moment he was in office this was in 2007.

Once in office his statement to them was, The Freedom of Choice is not my highest Legislative Priority, this when he had a Supermajority of a small window of time.


So even though both Obamas have put incredibly smug Tweets out there about this decision, when you break it down to reality, it was his campaign lie that made this decision possible, he seems to have forgotten that.

Quote:

---

In 2007, when Barack Obama was running for president, he promised that "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," which would affirm abortion rights and effectively codify Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark decision that guaranteed abortion rights as constitutionally protected.

Then-presidential candidate Obama made this promise on July 17, 2007 in a speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which works to fight for laws and policies to protect reproductive rights and advance access to sexual health care.

Obama was elected president on Nov. 4, 2008. At a news conference marking his first 100 days in office, he was asked about the Freedom of Choice Act.

"Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority," Obama said. "I believe that women should have the right to choose, but I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that's where I'm going to focus."

---

Wangchung said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

With options like condoms, birth control and plan b…it's insane that women still have unwanted pregnancies.

It's always been hypocritical of the left to demand abortion, but have absolutely no concern over the huge lack of personal responsibility and prevention awareness of pregnancy.

---

Couples have unplanned pregnancies, not women. And birth control is not 100% effective. The idea that all women control this type of decision making is unbelievably sheltered and naive.

---

Abstinence is 100% effective. But that's just a fancy way of dressing up the evil "personal responsibility" that we all should strive to avoid in all aspects of our lives, right?

---

Abstinence promotion/education as a means of reducing unwanted pregnancies is wholly ineffective because humans, like all other animals, are driven by instincts. Expecting immature teenagers with raging hormones and underdeveloped brains to make the right decisions is not a strategy. It's naivety.