Originally Posted by YeOldeCurmudgeon (Post 2114921)

Can we please stop allowing someone else's religion to rule our lives? And that means you, SCOTUS

This is an example of the insanity now rupturing the fabric of our nation.

Originally Posted by George Page (Post 2114795)

We have. The unintentional consequences of overturning R vs W are minuscule compared to the intended consequences of abortion.
In this case, let’s compare a traffic violation to millions of terminated lives.
It is an easy decision for intelligent people, but apparently not for many who are uneducated or educated beyond their intelligence.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2114728)

Young woman is suing Texas because she got s ticket for driving alone in the HOV. She is pregnant and claims she was not alone, her fetus is a person according to Texas law.

Pregnant woman says her fetus should count as a passenger in HOV lanes. She got a ticket

Originally Posted by Wyseguy (Post 2114889)

Respectfully many people need to read the SC decision. It does not give "people" status; it does not even address the topic. Simply stated, it said that there is not a constitutional right to abortion. It was sent to 8the states to decide.
On a separate note, any argument that says abortion should be legal because the child's life would be difficult is on dangerous ground. Not only are people fighting for abortions in cases where the baby will be born with some deformity, but now the child's financial status growing up is reason to abort? In my opinion the only reasonable difference of opinion among people would be when does life begin. Arguments that use fetal imperfection, or financial abilities of the parent(s) run the risk of becoming racist.

Originally Posted by billethkid (Post 2114739)

Another indicator of the day we live in.

One person in the car....give her a ticket and send her packing....instead the "incident" (trying to remain polite) is presented as worthy news hence validating the charade.

Complete/utter BS!

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe (Post 2114797)

Then she should get ticketed for not having the child in an approved car seat?, assuming Texas has that law

Originally Posted by Worldseries27 (Post 2114808)

texas will simply amend the law to say the second passenger must be in a seperate, buckled up seat.

Originally Posted by Ptmckiou (Post 2114862)

It’s only just begun. “Miscarriage prosecution” is going to become a big money maker for lawyers. Women will have to prove it was no fault of their own that they actually had a natural miscarriage. Otherwise, they can be charged with manslaughter now, because the Supreme Court has essentially given “people” status to fetuses and people are ALL governed by constitutional rights. This ruling has women’s lives a potential horror show, along with monetary hardships of having to defend themselves and their doctors. Abortion may be viewed by many has horrendous, but many also believe a bigger horrendous act is bringing thousands of children into this world that are not wanted. We have enough unwanted children in the world as it is, and we can’t take care of many of them adequately. Especially minority children. Before abortion was legal in many places, I remember having an orphanage in our town. Are we going to be forced to go back to that? It can be daily mental torture to a child growing up unwanted. I wish that life for no one. Being pro-life does NOT stop at birth.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2114955)

Then Texas must provide the opportunity for the woman to - remove her child from her womb and place it in an approved car seat.

Since they have refused to do that, the only other possible intention of the law is to prevent pregnant women from driving.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2114905)

Did you mean Texas? Because this post is about Texas.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2114911)

Two more things, it did not just say there is no right to abortion it says there is no right to anything not explicitly stated in the constitution. For example, interracial marriage, or maybe putting cream in your coffee.

I recall many here arguing that anything not explicitly denied is implicitly allowed. Apparently that applies to abortion, same sex marriage, et Al, abut not to guns.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2114917)

Because until this year the right to an abortion was established law.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2114955)

Then Texas must provide the opportunity for the woman to - remove her child from her womb and place it in an approved car seat.

Since they have refused to do that, the only other possible intention of the law is to prevent pregnant women from driving.

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2114989)

Except it wasn't... No law was ever codified... They had 50 years to do it, but they either failed or refused to do it.

The skeptic in me believes it was not codified on purpose so that the issue could be used as a political weapon...

Originally Posted by Sherry8bal (Post 2114945)

This crap is what this country is coming to - pure nonsense and B.S. Every Veteran who died for this country has to be rolling over in their grave that they sacrificed their life for this stupidity and selfishness. It keeps getting worse everyday these idiots keep trying to beat the system instead of just obeying the laws.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2114956)

And that will result in pregnant women being prohibited from being in a moving vehicle at all.

See how messy it gets when you decide that an unborn fetus is legally a "person?"

Originally Posted by Wyseguy (Post 2114889)

Respectfully many people need to read the SC decision. It does not give "people" status; it does not even address the topic. Simply stated, it said that there is not a constitutional right to abortion. It was sent to the states to decide.
On a separate note, any argument that says abortion should be legal because the child's life would be difficult is on dangerous ground. Not only are people fighting for abortions in cases where the baby will be born with some deformity, but now the child's financial status growing up is reason to abort? In my opinion the only reasonable difference of opinion among people would be when does life begin. Arguments that use fetal imperfection, or financial abilities of the parent(s) run the risk of becoming racist.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2114993)

Two Supreme Court cases said the right was already recognized in the Constitution. There was no need for a separate law to codify what the Constitution already provided. I would have argued against a separate law as redundant and as an attempt to improve on what was already there.

Remember, several Justice candidates stated their belief that this was settled law as well.

And then it wasn't settled at all.

Trying to wrap my head around how it could be used for a weapon. Not doubting that it's a possibility these days, just can't see how that would work.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2114917)

Because until this year the right to an abortion was established law.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2114997)

I for one a Vet from VN era agree, every time the new SCOTUS rules I feel like I die a little.

Maybe the idiots are those that are cheering this court over turning hundreds of years of decided law. Sadly at least 3 of them lied under oath to congress and NOTHING can be done about it, other than mainly. unpacking the court and that doesn't solve anything, it just kicks it down the road.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2114998)

Let's recall that the decision to declare fetuses and embryos as human was not a scientific decision, it was a religious decision.

Originally Posted by Djean1981 (Post 2115006)

Yes. The decision is just remanded to the states.

Growing up poor is not a disability, or even a disadvantage. It can be argued that growing up rich and spoiled causes harm. I grew up in a house so dilapidated that most walls were gone. We often didn't have water or electric. All five of us are productive adults (not in jail or on government aid). I didn't realize I was poor until 7th grade when I overheard the school teachers divvying up donated uniforms and my name was mentioned. Many great people, including presidents, grew up poor (they weren't aborted).

Originally Posted by George Page (Post 2115034)

WRONG!
Only congress can create laws. Attempts to enact legislation through the courts without the vote of the people is fundamentally inconsistent
with the Republic we live in.

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2115033)

No, they stated it was "settled precedent", which is not the same as "settled law"... There never was a codified law...

Even RBG said it was a bad decision. Not because she disagreed w/a woman's right to choose, but because the SCOTUS screwed the pooch in their decision...

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2114993)

There was no need for a separate law to codify what the Constitution already provided.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2115038)

Just one of many possible examples, a poor single mother of 3 working 2 jobs gets pregnant and finds via testing that the child will only survive with a specific medication taken daily the medication costs $1000/month and if it is not taken they child will live a couple months in pure agony.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2115044)

A distinction without a difference. What is settled should need no redundant filing in 50 States to affirm.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2115042)

Exactly which law grants freedom of speech and freedom of religion?

The courts did not create law, they affirmed that the right was granted by the Constitution. Then a later court changes its mind.

Originally Posted by George Page (Post 2115046)

WRONG
If the Constitution, or a law enacted by Congress, provided the right to abortion, the Supreme Court could not undo it. The Court can, however, overturn its previous decisions which it has done over 300 times.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2115042)

Exactly which law grants freedom of speech and freedom of religion?

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2115052)

And the THREE judges just expeditiously appointed all lied under oath and in private conversations and said it was not an issue, then immediately overturned hundreds of years of precedent. This is exactly a case of do anything to get into power, and then change things based on politics or religion.

Originally Posted by George Page (Post 2115046)

WRONG
If the Constitution, or a law enacted by Congress, provided the right to abortion, the Supreme Court could not undo it. The Court can, however, overturn its previous decisions which it has done over 300 times.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2115054)

The question is not that they can, it is that they gave no good legal reason for doing it. Almost everything in the majority opinion was wrong.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2115042)

Exactly which law grants freedom of speech and freedom of religion?

The courts did not create law, they affirmed that the right was granted by the Constitution. Then a later court changes its mind.