[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Sherry8bal

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.

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.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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?"

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

[Djean1981]

Originally Posted by Wyseguy

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.

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).

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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.

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...

[George Page]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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

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.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

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.

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

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

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

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

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

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Djean1981

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).

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.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by George Page

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.

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.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

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...

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

[George Page]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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

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.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

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.

Anecdotal evidence at best...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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

There is a HUGE difference...

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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.

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.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by George Page

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.

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.