US supreme court backs a handmaid’s tale

@earl-of-trumps said
How's this one:

Clarence Thomas Signals Same-Sex Marriage and Contraception Rights at Risk After Overturning Roe v. Wade

Something to think about,



https://time.com/6191044/clarence-thomas-same-sex-marriage-contraception-abortion/

@techsouth said
You're stating my exact opinion as if I'm the one who doesn't get it.

I'll mention again and perhaps you can explain it to me. Why do prominent Democrats keep mentioning that this goes against the will of the majority of Americans?

I see no evidence the SC decided on the merits of what the general public prefers.

@techsouth said
You're stating my exact opinion as if I'm the one who doesn't get it.

I'll mention again and perhaps you can explain it to me. Why do prominent Democrats keep mentioning that this goes against the will of the majority of Americans?

I see no evidence the SC decided on the merits of what the general public prefers.

@no1marauder said
Why are you dwelling on such a legal irrelevancy?

Some Democrats are probably discussing the unpopularity of the decision because they are politicians and there's an important midterm election in a little more than 4 months. None that I have heard have insisted that the case should have been decided based on popular views, however.

@suzianne said
Does legal precedent have any leg to stand on here?

@suzianne said
No one's saying that.

What I'm saying is that if you support everyone having a gun, then have a decent argument. Saying that people are coming to murder you and your family is BS. How many enemies do you have? The only argument for guns is this: I like guns, don't take away my gun. Granted, it's not a great argument, but it's really the only one you have. Just stop ...[text shortened]... to state that allows it. Isn't that what you guys are saying about knocking down Roe v. Wade?

@no1marauder said
Arguing that Roe should be kept because of precedent, rather than because it was correct, was a mistake in my view (to the extent anybody made that argument).

@averagejoe1 said
How do you know no one is going to kill someone in my family? Did you hear about the TX massacre ? And, One of our posters told us last week that someone of his family was murdered.
Hey. Are you saying that I should consider, that because I am not likely to get attacked, that I should not Carry a Gun??, Moreover, are you saying that I should Not Be Allowed to c ...[text shortened]... it is quite irrelevant. I would ask Marauder this question, but a weekend of links would do me in!!

I hadn't read the dissent when I started posting here but it neatly states the point I have raised at pp. 26-27:

" The majority’s departure from Roe and Casey rests instead—and only—on whether a woman’s decision to end a pregnancy involves any Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest (against which Roe and
Casey balanced the state interest in preserving fetal life).7

According to the majority, no liberty interest is present—
because (and only because) the law offered no protection to
the woman’s choice in the 19th century. But here is the rub.
The law also did not then (and would not for ages) protect a
wealth of other things. It did not protect the rights recognized in Lawrence and Obergefell to same-sex intimacy and marriage. It did not protect the right recognized in Loving to marry across racial lines. It did not protect the right recognized in Griswold to contraceptive use. For that matter, it did not protect the right recognized in Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535 (1942), not to be sterilized without consent. So if the majority is right in its legal analysis, all those decisions were wrong, and all those matters properly belong to the States too—whatever the particular state interests involved."

Add to that Footnote 7:

"7 Indulge a few more words about this point. The majority had a choice of two different ways to overrule Roe and Casey. It could claim that those cases underrated the State’s interest in fetal life. Or it could claim that they overrated a woman’s constitutional liberty interest in choosing an abortion. (Or both.) The majority here rejects the first path, and we can see why. Taking that route would have prevented the majority from claiming that it means only to leave this issue to the democratic process—that it does not have a dog in the fight. See ante, at 38–39, 65.
And indeed, doing so might have suggested a revolutionary proposition: that the fetus is itself a constitutionally protected “person,” such that an abortion ban is constitutionally mandated. The majority therefore chooses the second path, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment does not conceive of the abortion decision as implicating liberty, because the
law in the 19th century gave that choice no protection. The trouble is that the chosen path—which is, again, the solitary rationale for the Court’s decision—provides no way to distinguish between the right to choose an abortion and a range of other rights, including contraception."

@techsouth said
I see no evidence the SC decided on the merits of what the general public prefers.

@mghrn55 said
To divert this conversation slightly...........
Been reading that "artificial wombs" may be about 20-25 years away.
Women may never have to worry about unplanned or accidental pregnancies again.
But I don't think the evangelicals will like this development too much.
Their main fight against abortion is driven by their perceived notion that abortion leads to sexual promisc ...[text shortened]... artificial wombs will do.

Meanwhile, in the nearer term, we will have to see how this plays out.

@suzianne said
Well, after we see Mitch McConnell and others deferring their confirmation jobs "to the people", you ask what place public opinion has?

The public has their will given importance in the election of those who control the confirmation process. Only to have those duly-elected politicians shirk their responsibility back to the people?

Of course the SC didn't base their de ...[text shortened]... blic wants. They based it on whet they want, and why they were nominated for their position.

@vivify said
The conservative Justices did much worse that that; they ruled based on the wishes of their own party rather than the majority of Americans.

@earl-of-trumps said
How's this one:

Clarence Thomas Signals Same-Sex Marriage and Contraception Rights at Risk After Overturning Roe v. Wade

Something to think about,



https://time.com/6191044/clarence-thomas-same-sex-marriage-contraception-abortion/

@no1marauder said
Arguing that Roe should be kept because of precedent, rather than because it was correct, was a mistake in my view (to the extent anybody made that argument).