Egregiously wrong from the start

[JMintzer]

4th time, but who IS keeping score!

Sorry, but with you, it's impossible to keep track...

[CMKKS]

I trust all you "my body, my choice" folks feel the same about vaccines? Asking for a friend.

No one has ever been forced to get a vaccine.

[JMintzer]

The point is that this Stubborn Court (SC) decision will let the backward states stop abortions and people will need a car unless they want to hitchhike or walk 700 miles from the middle of the country (dark ages) to one of the coastal states (enlighten ages) for a SAFE MEDICAL ABORTION.

They should just buy an EV! Isn't that the solution for the poor people who can't afford gas?

Oh, and are Wisconsin and Michigan living in the "dark ages"?

[CMKKS]

If the S C does it job it makes decisions according to the law not current public opinion, our elected representatives can make and change laws, even the constitution itself if there is the collective political will to do so

No, they do not make decisions according to the law. They interpret the Constitution and depend upon precedent to determine if a law is Constitutional. There's a world of difference.

[JMintzer]

No one has ever been forced to get a vaccine.

Okay, is mandated, threatened or coerced better?

[JMintzer]

Of course. That IS what a forum is all about. 90 % of every post is opinion!

I do my best to work with facts. I know, it's a difficult concept to grasp...

[Pballer]

Where in the Constitution does it give SCOTUS the right to privacy? If it doesn't explicitly state it, the right doesn't exist. So the more leaking the better.

[CMKKS]

There is a possibility that the decision the SC is going to reach is that it is not a constitutionally (Federal) mandated right and as such the people of each state will get to decide the issue by who they elect at the state level. I don’t think most people understand that - certainly not the talking heads on most opinion shows. The SC is being asked to render a legal argument and Roe has apparently been on questionable legal grounds. Kicking it back to the states to decide makes a lot of sense. No decision has been reached yet.

It's not about any legal grounds. Five current justices are arguing that abortion rights aren't in the Constitution. The Constitutional grounds for Roe are that a woman’s right to an abortion is implicit in the right to privacy protected under the 14th Amendment. If you say that's not so, then you are saying that there are no rights guaranteed by SCOTIS in the past under the right to privacy, including using contraceptives, interracial marriages, and much more.

[CMKKS]

My preference would be that the states enact their own laws. This way if you don't agree with the law you can move to another state. Such freedoms don't exist with Federal Law unless you want to leave the country. The SC is doing their job by ruling on Roe.

My preference is that these justices actually read the Constitution.

[CMKKS]

You can argue all day long about abortion, but this has nothing to do with whether you are killing a baby, fetus or whatever. It has nothing to do with a "woman's rights."
It is decision as to whether or not the Federal Gov. should have any say or whether it should be left up to the states to decide if they wish to legalize abortion in their state. It has to do with Federal Government overreach. It does not define what is abortion, murder or anything to do with infringing on women's rights. Just a simple decision on whether or not Roe is going to control our individual states rights. And the whole thing is based on a "draft" of what is being proposed. If I am wrong, show me in Dodd where I am wrong on my analysis. This is NOT political, but a Constitutional legality of whether or not the overlord federal gov can make decisions for individuals in an individual state or abide by the 10th Amendment.

No. It is about what rights are guaranteed by the Constitution in the 14th Amendment.

[CMKKS]

This leak has certainly been a catalyst for emotions to run amok. Just heard that barricades are being erected around the Supreme Court building in Washington. It is my hope that this opinion is going to be officially rendered as soon as possible. Nothing is gained at this point by drawing things out.

But about the decision itself...I'm certainly no expert but what are the chances that the word "abortion" will itself be absent in the final decision? My thought is that it will deal solely with the Constitutionality of Rove v. Wade. The Roberts court has shown a penchant for rendering the narrowest possible decisions and this could be no exception.

Uh, no.

[Worldseries27]

There's a great film 1991's defending your life. Never too early to start preparing for it .

[jimbomaybe]

No. It is about what rights are guaranteed by the Constitution in the 14th Amendment.

You must not be a black female or we would be addressing you as Justice CMKKS, looking forward to your written (pardon the phrase) opinion explaining where and how the Supreme Court is right and or wrong

[jimbomaybe]

There's a fetus. There's a baby. There is no fetus/baby. A fetus is merely a collection of cells. It has no rights.
I don't think you will reply but I'll ask anyway, Is there a point short of the actual delivery that a "fetus" is a baby, a human being ??

[Bill14564]

It's not a complex subject. My body, my decision. That's it.

There's a fetus. There's a baby. There is no fetus/baby. A fetus is merely a collection of cells. It has no rights.

Yep, those are the simplistic answers.

At 38 weeks it was my body too. In fact, it was my body earlier than that, perhaps as early as 23 weeks. It is outrageous to argue that you can do damage at 38 weeks that would be illegal at 42 weeks. It is ridiculous to ignore the difference between 38 weeks and 6 weeks. Making a moral and legal argument for the right number of weeks is much more complicated than "my body, my choice."

[Taurus510]

This event does NOT prove that vaccines are ineffective as some are trying to say. Vaccine effectiveness is BEYOND question at this point in medical experience. What this DOES prove is that no medical professional ever said that ANY VACCINE is 100% perfect at preventing disease. At this point caution and commonsense still need to be utilized. This is a VERY contagious disease that is still dangerous.
........It was NOT a good idea to even HAVE this event. A big crowd INDOORS, not wearing MASKS - someone HAD to catch the virus. Probably loud laughing spreads the virus droplets around more violently and the dinner lasted a long time. Therefore, more exposure than say a trip to Walmart.
.......The important take-away from this is be vaccinated and boosted and also AVOID indoor crowds. Africa and even parts of the US is having increasing Covid cases. There are 2 NEW variants of Omicron now in Africa. And China has an economic downturn because of Covid. So, the takeaway is .....don't knock the vaccines which are good, but NOT
perfect. And DO use common sense and older people should NOT stop wearing their masks indoors.

The Branch Covidians just continue buying into the narrative. Enjoy.

[dewilson58]

There's a fetus. There's a baby. There is no fetus/baby. A fetus is merely a collection of cells. It has no rights.

Not very intelligent.................you are a collection of cells as well. :ohdear::ohdear:

A fetus IS alive.

[dewilson58]

It's not a complex subject. My body, my decision. That's it.

Lovely.........................a couple days before full term, you think you have a right to kill the baby. Wow.

[fdpaq0580]

Not very intelligent.................you are a collection of cells as well. :ohdear::ohdear:

A fetus IS alive.

(These arguments and logic leaps are getting really crazy. Try this as your answer )
My cells. Living and growing, replicating in my body. Is it a baby or a fetus? Its neither. It is cancer.
Most of the arguments seem simplistic with bizarre leaps of logic that trivialize the true nature of what decisions each woman faces when she has to face life altering situations. HER life. HER body. HER pregnancy. HER decision. What ever she finally decides to do, " let he without sin cast the first stone".

[MDLNB]

It still isn't about women's rights. If the SC decide it is not Constitutional then they can kick it back to the States. Whether or not it has any repercussions, is a moot point. If you get pulled over by the cops and they search your car without a warrant or your permission and find arms or drugs, it is an illegal search no matter how guilty you are and it will be thrown out of court. Why? Because it did not fit within the law, not because a judge decided they liked you. Just because you wish for something such as superman defend your position on abortion, the law is the law and the Constitution is the Constitution. Arguing about when a fetus is a baby or when a pregnant woman is carrying a life form will do you no good because that has no baring on the procedure of the Supremes.

[dewilson58]

(These arguments and logic leaps are getting really crazy. Try this as your answer )
My cells. Living and growing, replicating in my body. Is it a baby or a fetus? Its neither. It is cancer.
Most of the arguments seem simplistic with bizarre leaps of logic that trivialize the true nature of what decisions each woman faces when she has to face life altering situations. HER life. HER body. HER pregnancy. HER decision. What ever she finally decides to do, " let he without sin cast the first stone".

Not sure what your gobbledygook has to do with my post.
The poster was using "A fetus is merely a collection of cells" as justification.
My point was, he/she is also a collection of cells.
Sorry you have cancer.