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.

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

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).

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...

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.

What "hundreds of years" of decided law has been overturned?

And "idiots cheering"? Not a good way to make your point...

So, by your reasoning, when a pregnant woman is shot, and the fetus dies, no murder/manslaughter charges can brought against the assailant?

Anecdotal evidence at best. There are troves of evidence that growing up poor is almost insurmountable. Yes, some do overcome it, but the vast majority - MILLIONS - do not.

But, I know of NO ONE that is arguing being poor is a reason to get an abortion. But, a lot of people say it can be a contributing factor.

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.

But, that is not even important, what is, is the court deciding when life begins.

This is more like a court deciding that people and their doctor should not be able to decide on surgery, because God doesn't believe in blood transfusions. Or any diseased organs have to be given a proper funeral since, they used to be part of a person.

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.

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

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.

Anecdotal evidence at best...

There is a HUGE difference...

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.

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.