Republicans want to end abortion

[Ishmael]

Shit's getting real.

More than two hundred members of Congress have urged the US supreme court to reconsider the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade ruling which legalized abortion nationwide.

The appeal came in an amicus brief in a Louisiana case, and was signed by 205 Republicans and two Democrats, and calls on the high court to revisit the ruling, which affirmed that access to safe abortion is a constitutional right.

It comes at a time when abortion rights in the US are increasingly under threat, and the issue is likely to become a point of fierce debate in the lead up to the 2020 US election.

“Forty-six years after Roe was decided, it remains a radically unsettled precedent: two of the seven justices who originally joined the majority subsequently repudiated it in whole or in part, 82 and virtually every abortion decision since has been closely divided,” the lawmakers argue in the brief.

“Furthermore, Roe’s jurisprudence has been haphazard from the beginning. Roe did not actually hold that abortion was a ‘fundamental’ constitutional right, but only implied it.”

The amicus brief, which is also signed by a number of conservative anti-abortion groups, underscores the strong opposition to Roe v Wade among Republicans on Capitol Hill and a few conservative Democrats and the hope that the supreme court, which now has a majority of justices appointed by Republican presidents, could review and overturn the law.

“Anti-abortion politicians are using every trick in the book to ban abortion,” Alexis McGill Johnson, acting president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, wrote on Twitter in reaction to the move. “Asking the Supreme Court to reconsider overturning Roe is an assault on our basic rights, plain and simple. Abortion is safe and legal, and we’re doing everything we can to keep it that way.”

Pro-choice advocates said the brief defies public opinion on reproductive rights. Sixty-one per cent of adults said in a 2019 Pew research survey that abortion should be legal in the US in all or most cases, compared with 38% who said it should be illegal all or most of the time.

{snip}

The case will also be the first time that the Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, both appointed by Donald Trump, hear an abortion case as members of the high court.

Are the old white men of the Repugnican party going to dictate what a woman does with her body? Time for people to stand up to these quasi-religious thugs.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/02/congress-supreme-court-roe-v-wade-appeal

 

[Olsonist]

Well known feminist @Shootist Jeffwill be along shortly to blame this on Hillary. Or is denying a woman the right to choose what the fuck she wants to do with her body an example of Burn This Bitch To The Ground? I can never get that right. Guy will be anything but concerned. Tom will wander off into the gun threads.

 

[badlatitude]

Stare decisis? What’s that?

A precedent that is binding on future decisions.

 

[Ishmael]

A precedent that is binding on future decisions.

But only food for thought for Gorsuch and Beer-Boy.

 

[3to1]

I wanna' end republiturds. their priorities are so very fucked, so asinine.

fkg evil, sub-human clowns.

 

[badlatitude]

But only food for thought for Gorsuch and Beer-Boy.

Yes, a long-planned for operation to end Roe v Wade. Getting closer by the day now.

 

[SloopJonB]

It's a logical position for the party of smaller, less intrusive government.

Abortion clinics will become big business here and in Mexico when the scum push it through.

 

[Happy]

I'm sure some Repugnicans are planning to reintroduce laws against witchcraft, so they can go after Pelosi. "Burn the witch! Save our God-sent President!" 

America has always been weird, but Trumpism is producing some new bizarro heights.

 

[another 505 sailor]

While the rest of the world is relaxing abortion laws, we are doing the opposite.

What do we know that the rest of the world doesn't?

I wonder, in the future, will youtube remove abortion how to videos after enough women die?

 

[Not for nothing]

So I guess the Republicans want  health care to all mothers to be so babies are are born healthy?

Now once the babies are born, the repulbicans want free health care so the babies stay healthy? ...medicaid

Their also will provide food, education and housing to these babies ? sounds like welfare programs to me........WOW that sounds like socialism,.

This is coming from a country that has the highest infant moralilty rate, kids go hungry, homeless uneducated but don't take away there God give right to carry a gun and rob people .

 

[Navig8tor]

Proof that republicans are indeed retarded..... has anyone actually....... asked a girl or several...... just to have a consensus ?

The stupid fucks drive the Abortion issue away,  and create an underground abortion network,  but don't worry,  they have all heavily invested in coathangers, -its a growth industry..

YCMTSU

 

[jzk]

It's a logical position for the party of smaller, less intrusive government.

Abortion clinics will become big business here and in Mexico when the scum push it through.

This is about the dumbest case for abortion ever made.  Abortion depends on whether or not the fetus is a human life.  If it is, the government certainly has a place protecting human life.  

 

[BeSafe]

At some point, I think the Supreme court does need to reconsider Roe V Wade.  I believe it will get reaffirmed.

This is about the dumbest case for abortion ever made.  Abortion depends on whether or not the fetus is a human life.  If it is, the government certainly has a place protecting human life.  

No.  Abortion rights are based on the principle that Doctor + Patient > State.

The state can override a patient.  The state can override a doctor.  But the state cannot override a doctor + patient without a herculean lift.  That's the pillar upon which Roe V Wade  is built and what has supported it for decades.   It is fundamentally a libertarian argument.

If it was just 'protecting life', it would have been changed decades ago.

 

[jzk]

At some point, I think the Supreme court does need to reconsider Roe V Wade.

No.  Abortion rights are based on the principle that Doctor + Patient > State.

The state can override a patient.  The state can override a doctor.  But the state cannot override a doctor + patient without a herculean lift.  That's the pillar upon which Roe V Wade  it's built and what has supported it for decades.

If it was just 'protecting life', it would have been changed decades ago.

Whether or not the state has an interest in protecting the fetus depends on whether or not it is a human life.  If it is, it certainly has an interest, and supporting government intervention is not supporting a big intrusive government.

The state overrides a doctor and a patient all the time.  See the FDA.

 

[Ease the sheet.]

This is about the dumbest case for abortion ever made.  Abortion depends on whether or not the fetus is a human life.  If it is, the government certainly has a place protecting human life.  

So whose life is more important, the mothers or the fetus?

 

[jzk]

So whose life is more important, the mothers or the fetus?

If you agree that the fetus is a human life, that becomes a very difficult question.  The good news is that very few abortions are the result of having to answer that question.

 

[Ease the sheet.]

If you agree that the fetus is a human life, that becomes a very difficult question.  The good news is that very few abortions are the result of having to answer that question.

Very few? You got a cite for that?

 

[BeSafe]

Whether or not the state has an interest in protecting the fetus depends on whether or not it is a human life.  If it is, it certainly has an interest, and supporting government intervention is not supporting a big intrusive government.

The state overrides a doctor and a patient all the time.  See the FDA.

The FDA is a government run agency that determines if a medical treatment is 'safe' by a preponderance of data collected and informed by medical science.  They are the expression of  'doctors' to give the practice of medicine guard rails.  The FDA largely avoids getting into specific applications and 'off label' uses occur all the time - with the permission of the doctor and the acquiescence of the patient.

 There are all kind of things the government "allows" and even supports that are contrary to protecting human life.  Protecting human life is not the foundation of Roe V Wade and will not be the argument upon which it would be overturned. 

 

[jzk]

The FDA is a government run agency that determines if a medical treatment is 'safe' by a preponderance of data collected and informed by medical science.  They are 'doctors'.  The FDA largely avoids getting into specific applications and 'off label' uses occur all the time - with the permission of the doctor and the acquiescence of the patient.

 There are all kind of things the government "allows" and even supports that are contrary to protecting human life.  Protecting human life is not the foundation of Roe V Wade and will not be the argument upon which it will be overturned. 

Protecting human life is, however, a legitimate government purpose even if you advocate for a small unintrusive government.  

The justification for overturning Roe v. Wade is that it is bad law based on made up Constitutional rights.