Draft ruling shows Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade: report

[Seight]

3 hours ago, katt_goddess said:

There was no vote here.

It was just straight up bills signed and a bunch of dudes mentally high fiving each other. 

Here you can add to this "plus the future female Governor of the state, and by that I mean the Lieutenant Governor but you have the powers of the Governor when they leave the state, and the woman running for actual Governor has campaigned pretty much more in other states for other candidates than here, and yes I did remember all this as I was reading Katt's comment fuck me running

[katt_goddess]

Made it to the protest rally today.

And yes, those are scorch marks on my fingers. I don't do well in sunlight. I think chunks of my face might pull off tomorrow. -.-;

[discolé monade]

On 7/7/2022 at 1:35 PM, 1pooh4u said:

People saying dumb shit like “the question is just brought to the state” answer me this, how many of these states that have trigger laws or are in the process of writing restrictive legislation, when were the people asked their opinion? When was there a vote?  Or is it that you’re just ok with state legislatures restricting healthcare without asking you for a vote?

fuckin asshole people that support this scotus decision 

i shared a post  of exactly this. let me go find it. 

it's in here somewhere *tosses paper, shoves books, pulls open desk draweres....*

**FOUND IT!!!**

June 26, 2022 (Sunday)

Defenders of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade insist that Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health does not outlaw abortion but simply returns the decision about reproductive rights to the states.

“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote. He quoted the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote: “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” This, Alito wrote, “is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.”

The idea that state voters are the centerpiece of American democracy has its roots in the 1820s, when southern leaders convinced poorer Americans that the nation was drifting toward an aristocracy that ignored the needs of ordinary people. The election of 1824, when established politicians overrode the popular vote to put John Quincy Adams into the presidency, seemed to illustrate that drift. Supporters of Adams’s chief rival, Andrew Jackson, complained that a wealthy elite was taking over the country and, once in charge, would use the power of the federal government to cement their control over the country’s capital, crushing ordinary Americans.

The rough, uneducated Andrew Jackson, who promised to break the hold of northeastern elites on the government and return democracy to the people, began to articulate a new vision of American government. He insisted that democratic government should actually look like a democracy: it should be formed by the votes of local people, not those from some far-off capital, and it should be made up of those same ordinary voters, not eastern elites like Adams, whose wealthy president father, John, had reared his son to follow in his footsteps.

Jackson’s new vision made ordinary Americans central to the democratic system. Democratic government put the power into the hands of individual voters. Local and state government was the most important stage of this system; the federal government always ran the risk of being taken over by an elite cabal that could override the will of the people. It must always be kept as small as possible.

But there was a power play in this argument. By the time Jackson was elected president in 1828, white southerners already knew they were badly outnumbered in the nation as a whole. In that year, quite dramatically, a congressional fight over tariffs ended up with a strong bill that hurt the South in favor of northern manufacturing. Outraged, southern leaders with Vice President John C. Calhoun of South Carolina at their head claimed the right to “nullify” federal laws. (Jackson later said that one of the two regrets he had at the end of his term was that he “was unable to…hang John C. Calhoun.")

Congress lowered the tariff and the southerners backed down, but the idea that states were superior to the federal government only gained strength among southern enslavers as they felt the heat of a growing movement to abolish slavery. When it became clear that the U.S. might well acquire territory in Latin America, Democrats sympathetic to the South pushed back against the national majority that wanted to stop the spread of slavery into those lands by insisting on the doctrine of “popular sovereignty”: permitting the people who lived in a territory to decide for themselves whether or not to permit enslavement in it (although Mexico had outlawed enslavement in 1829). The U.S. acquired the vast territory of the American West in 1848, and two years later, Congress turned to popular sovereignty to try to avoid a fight about enslavement there.

The issue turned volatile in 1854 when Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas pushed through Congress a law overturning the 1820 Missouri Compromise and organizing two super-states out of the remaining land of the 1803 Louisiana Purchase. Rather than being free as the Missouri Compromise had promised, those huge states of Kansas and Nebraska would have enslavement or not based on the votes of those who lived there. This, Douglas insisted in his debates with Illinois lawyer Abraham Lincoln in 1858, was the true meaning of democracy:

“I deny the right of Congress to force a slaveholding State upon an unwilling people,” he said, “I deny their right to force a free State upon an unwilling people…. The great principle is the right of every community to judge and decide for itself, whether a thing is right or wrong, whether it would be good or evil for them to adopt it…. It is no answer to this argument to say that slavery is an evil, and hence should not be tolerated. You must allow the people to decide for themselves whether it is a good or an evil….” “Uniformity in local and domestic affairs,” he said, “would be destructive of State rights, of State sovereignty, of personal liberty and personal freedom.”

A strong majority in the U.S. opposed the extension of enslavement, but Douglas’s reasoning overrode that majority by carving the voting population into small groups the Democrats could dominate by whipping up voters with viciously racist speeches. Then, in the 1857 Dred Scott decision, a stacked Supreme Court blessed this plan by announcing that Congress had no power to legislate in the territories. In our system, this would mean that states taken over by pro-slavery zealots would eventually win enough power at the federal level to make enslavement national.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand," Lincoln warned Americans. “I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new—North as well as South.”

After the Civil War had proved the power of the federal government to defend the will of the majority from the tyranny of the minority, Congress found itself once again forced to override the will of state governments. When state legislatures put in place the Black Codes, which created a second-class status in the South for Black Americans, Congress passed and the states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, overriding the Dred Scott decision to make Black Americans citizens, and establishing that “[n]o state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Almost 80 years later, it was this amendment—the Fourteenth—to which the Supreme Court turned to protect the rights of Black and Brown Americans, women, LGBTQ, and so on, from state laws that threatened their health and safety or treated them as second-class citizens. In using the power of the federal government to guarantee “the equal protection of the laws,” it made sure that a small pool of voters couldn’t strip rights from their neighbors. It is this effort today’s Supreme Court is gutting.

When today’s jurists talk of sending decisions about civil rights back to the states, they are echoing Stephen Douglas. “Citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting” is indeed precisely how democracy is supposed to work. But choosing your voters to make sure the results will be what you want is a different kettle of fish altogether. 

Edited July 10, 2022 by discolé monade

[Top Gun]

Funny how almost every single shitty thing in our nation's history always comes back to people wanting to own other people as property.

[Sawdy]

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-health-reproductive-rights-government-and-politics-bfab2bd6604229d7b2bcad630037c4e8?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP&utm_campaign=SocialFlow

possible floating abortion clinic in the gulf

[1pooh4u]

The Biden admin says states can’t ban abortion where the women’s life or well being is endangered. Can someone tell me how any medical professional can safely gauge this when they’re going to have a fear of prison on their shoulders?  

[scoobdog]

2 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

The Biden admin says states can’t ban abortion where the women’s life or well being is endangered. Can someone tell me how any medical professional can safely gauge this when they’re going to have a fear of prison on their shoulders?  

Considering the DOJ doesn't have much standing to determine it, I don't think they can.  What I want to know is how or even if a state like California will comply with potential extradition requests.

[katt_goddess]

52 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

The Biden admin says states can’t ban abortion where the women’s life or well being is endangered. Can someone tell me how any medical professional can safely gauge this when they’re going to have a fear of prison on their shoulders?  

There are two hospitals in my area.

One has a zero abortion policy already in place because they are majority owned by religious numbnuts. 

The other is having to re-evaluate everything they might be asked to do even if it's to save the life of the already born because the laws around here are shit-tier push-throughs. As it stands, someone could launch a shitfit if they removed a stillborn / miscarriage because 'baby' . And if the fetus turns out to have a fatal disease / genetic defect that would cause them to suffer horribly right before dying, you can't abort that in ND. You have to carry the not-complete thing to term and then give birth to something that's just going to scream, seize up and die. 

[1pooh4u]

1 hour ago, scoobdog said:

Considering the DOJ doesn't have much standing to determine it, I don't think they can.  What I want to know is how or even if a state like California will comply with potential extradition requests.

I thought your Governor already said he wasn’t?  

[1pooh4u]

32 minutes ago, katt_goddess said:

There are two hospitals in my area.

One has a zero abortion policy already in place because they are majority owned by religious numbnuts. 

The other is having to re-evaluate everything they might be asked to do even if it's to save the life of the already born because the laws around here are shit-tier push-throughs. As it stands, someone could launch a shitfit if they removed a stillborn / miscarriage because 'baby' . And if the fetus turns out to have a fatal disease / genetic defect that would cause them to suffer horribly right before dying, you can't abort that in ND. You have to carry the not-complete thing to term and then give birth to something that's just going to scream, seize up and die. 

Now he’s saying your state can’t do that but how does a doctor determine well being?  Surely making someone give birth to baby that won’t have a brain is detrimental to their well being?  If it’s the mother’s life at risk what doctor won’t hesitate to say so if prison is a possibility?  This vagueness bullshit needs to stop. 

[scoobdog]

3 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

I thought your Governor already said he wasn’t?  

I don’t know if he has explicitly.  I don’t think so only because it hasn’t come up, and currently only health care providers are liable. 

[1pooh4u]

Just now, scoobdog said:

I don’t know if he has explicitly.  I don’t think so only because it hasn’t come up, and currently only health care providers are liable. 

See everyone is vague just saying shit that sounds good but beyond that?  Cricket farts 

[scoobdog]

2 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

See everyone is vague just saying shit that sounds good but beyond that?  Cricket farts 

To be fair, he’s probably  more concerned with getting the California amendment passed and, frankly, getting people to move to California.  

[rpgamer]

50 minutes ago, katt_goddess said:

because they are majority owned by religious numbnuts.

I've always hated that this is a thing at all in the first place.

[1pooh4u]

20 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

To be fair, he’s probably  more concerned with getting the California amendment passed and, frankly, getting people to move to California.  

Nah. I don’t think I’m gonna be fair about it. 

[discolé monade]

 looks like currently a WOMAN (yes i emphasized that) can still seek an abortion up to 22 weeks. 

 

[stilgar]

36 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

WOMAN (yes i emphasized that)

 

Why though?

[katt_goddess]

58 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

Now he’s saying your state can’t do that but how does a doctor determine well being?  Surely making someone give birth to baby that won’t have a brain is detrimental to their well being?  If it’s the mother’s life at risk what doctor won’t hesitate to say so if prison is a possibility?  This vagueness bullshit needs to stop. 

The religious nuts will argue that forcing their hospital to comply would be a violation of their personal religious convictions and the current collection of trumplicans here with their embracing of the cheap and cruel will find in favor of the religious nuts or at least drag things out long enough that whoever is dying slowly in the hospital from an unexpelled dead thing will either die or force-birth dead thing. Just because there's a rule out that says you have to doesn't mean there aren't those who would drag things out past the point. 

As for 'well being', like I said it'll only take one shitbag to scream about how procedure x for person y was an illegal abortion regardless of the actual reason and procedure for the ND trumplicans to demand shackles. 

52 minutes ago, rpgamer said:

I've always hated that this is a thing at all in the first place.

The reasons for it have been perverted by time and power. 

It was once 'okay' because the church was supposed to be the one to help house and cloth the poor, heal the sick and all that and the funds they received from the area were to go towards things like that. Unfortunately, most of those church organizations have turned to hoarding wealth, hiding predators, and pushing anti-health agendas under the guise of 'religious belief'. 

[1pooh4u]

I’m watching The Janes on HBOmax, they were a group of women that hooked women up with abortions. Holy shit highly recommend. What women went through prior to roe v Wade was a disgrace. People that weren’t doctors were performing abortions and in some cases assaulting the women after by forcing them to suck the abortionists cock.  One gynecologist was like “we had women dying in a full septic abortion ward in a daily basis”

That’s why I think people taking pride in this issue returning to the states need to stfu and take several thousand seats 

[1pooh4u]

Not only were abortions illegal mostly everywhere but women couldn’t get contraception unless they were married 

[mthor]

1 hour ago, 1pooh4u said:

Not only were abortions illegal mostly everywhere but women couldn’t get contraception unless they were married 

Of course, one had to have consent from one's husband first.

[1pooh4u]

2 minutes ago, mthor said:

Of course, one had to have consent from one's husband first.

😑 one of the Janes told how she was told to wear a fake ring from Walgreens and just tell them your name is Mrs. Something or another. So at least in Chicago they weren’t looking for verbal confirmation from the husband 

[1pooh4u]

AAAND they did this while avoiding the mob because illegal abortions was their terf in Illinois. The dude that used to do the abortions got found out and the mob wanted him to work for them.  His solution. Teach some of the Janes how to perform abortions and then quit. 
 

now imagine this happening in 21st century Alabama or Mississippi 

[PenguinBoss]

Then there's this douche

 

[Sawdy]

8 hours ago, PenguinBoss said:

Then there's this douche

 

He’s probably referring to the rats he fucks

[1pooh4u]

I’m sick and tired of this distraction of “who’s rights are these” it’s human rights it’s also women’s rights both can be true. Total distraction to get caught up on that conversation because it changes nothing and idgas it’s not transphobic to say “yeah women are gonna be impacted the most here” you can say “women and other individuals that give birth” and then call it a day cuz this isn’t about that. Jfc 

[Sawdy]

Saw someone on Reddit post this about Clarence Thomas….. I laughed.

 

[Sawdy]

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/pregnant-women-cant-get-divorced-in-missouri-38092512

im putting this here because “fuck women and their rights” because of religious bullshit

Edited July 13, 2022 by Sawdy

[discolé monade]

On 7/11/2022 at 7:35 PM, stilgar said:

Why though?

this article conveys it a lot better than i can. 

Given all the effort feminists have invested in making language more equitable, you might expect that they would welcome use of the term pregnant people. But some, including me, are concerned that it obscures the social dynamics at work in laws surrounding contraception, abortion, and maternal health.

[stilgar]

I stopped reading when it got to the black lives matter part.

[discolé monade]

12 minutes ago, stilgar said:

I stopped reading when it got to the black lives matter part.

ok?

 

[Insipid]

8 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

ok?

 

lol, he's just trying to accuse you of being anti-trans.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Insipid

[André Toulon]

No one wants to be inclusive because we're all trying too hard to be special.

[discolé monade]

1 hour ago, Insipid said:

lol, he's just trying to accuse you of being anti-trans.

wouldn't be the first time someone from this garbage heap accused me of that.

i'm not, but whatevs. 

*shrugs*

[scoobdog]

22 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

wouldn't be the first time someone from this garbage heap accused me of that.

i'm not, but whatevs. 

*shrugs*

I don't know if that was stilgar's point, but the "black lives matter" part of the discussion was kind of reductive and mostly unnecessary to her point.

That being said, I'm not entirely sure if this is a valid debate, as in I don't know if any women have been specifically accused of TERFism just by saying pregnant women.  The Hawley debate is more about him grandstanding to sidetrack the discussion than it is any concerted effort to make the term inclusive .

[stilgar]

2 hours ago, Insipid said:

lol, he's just trying to accuse you of being anti-trans.

If I was doing that I would just say that.

[cyberbully]

😒

[Top Gun]

 

[PenguinBoss]

 

[PenguinBoss]

@GinguyYour boy's out here pussing out on social media. Maybe you can use your connections and tell him to nut up, take some responsibility, and apologize instead of deleting tweets and pretending he never said it.

 

[Sawdy]

[Sawdy]

How fucked is this?

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/local/2022/07/14/indiana-attorney-general-todd-rokita-says-he-is-looking-into-ob-gyn-caitlin-bernard/65373487007/

[katt_goddess]

I'll see that and add this - 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-block-bill-protecting-women-travel-states-abortion-rcna38301

Basically, a bill that would protect women from legal charges for daring to travel over state lines for reproductive health care they are denied in their own state was blocked by republicans because 'the baby has the right to travel in the future' . 

[stilgar]

Just now, katt_goddess said:

I'll see that and add this - 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-block-bill-protecting-women-travel-states-abortion-rcna38301

Basically, a bill that would protect women from legal charges for daring to travel over state lines for reproductive health care they are denied in their own state was blocked by republicans because 'the baby has the right to travel in the future' . 

The fetus gets to travel to a state that allows abortion and then the fetus gets to travel to hell because it never got baptized.

[katt_goddess]

1 minute ago, stilgar said:

The fetus gets to travel to a state that allows abortion and then the fetus gets to travel to hell because it never got baptized.

It should have plenty of company with all those bloody tapeworms that got purged from covidiots downing animal de-wormer.

All those poor defenseless republican butt-babies. Aborted before they could fully mature and visit the stage three syphilis hanging out in the empty skulls. 

[naraku360]

Anyone ever wonder how we survived once we evolved to the point where our babies began screaming for literally no reason? Like imagine you're the first monkey that pops out this baby that starts crying hysterically because it wants to shove its face in a fire after already realizing it doesn't like touching it, calling to all the monkey-eating creatures.

Fucking dumbass babies were trying to abort themselves.

[André Toulon]

7 hours ago, naraku360 said:

Anyone ever wonder how we survived once we evolved to the point where our babies began screaming for literally no reason? Like imagine you're the first monkey that pops out this baby that starts crying hysterically because it wants to shove its face in a fire after already realizing it doesn't like touching it, calling to all the monkey-eating creatures.

Fucking dumbass babies were trying to abort themselves.

This is only semi....ok, this is pretty unrelated, but my cousin called me and said her lizard was laying eggs in her water dish, trying to kill them 

I'm thinking they can't drown in an egg but I don't actually know so I tried to deflect and asked is there a male lizard in there with her, she said no....I asked how long she had it, she said about a year. 

It's dawning on me that these aren't eggs and all this time she hasn't realized they shit white pellets.

 

[rpgamer]

1 hour ago, André Toulon said:

This is only semi....ok, this is pretty unrelated, but my cousin called me and said her lizard was laying eggs in her water dish, trying to kill them 

I'm thinking they can't drown in an egg but I don't actually know so I tried to deflect and asked is there a male lizard in there with her, she said no....I asked how long she had it, she said about a year.

While your conclusion might be correct, this part is almost entirely wrong. Eggs can in fact drown (is why sea turtles still lay their eggs on the beach), and several lizards are capable of producing clonal daughters without need for fertilization via parthenogenesis.

Bit of dirty googling shows it's also not uncommon for some lizards to be dumb and lay eggs in a water dish. And also some do just lay infertile eggs. And most pet lizards don't poo white pellets.

[André Toulon]

2 minutes ago, rpgamer said:

While your conclusion might be correct, this part is almost entirely wrong. Eggs can in fact drown (is why sea turtles still lay their eggs on the beach), and several lizards are capable of producing clonal daughters without need for fertilization via parthenogenesis.

Bit of dirty googling shows it's also not uncommon for some lizards to be dumb and lay eggs in a water dish. And also some do just lay infertile eggs. And most pet lizards don't poo white pellets.

I already said I didn't know if they could drown in eggs and we had awhile Jurassic park convo when I asked was there a male in there.... which is when I found out she didn't even know if the one she had was male or female.

I'm no lizard Dr, but the 2 i had both shit white pellets....they were geckos...now my friends iguana shat brownish green shit but he ate a variety of fruits and shit...my guys just eat insects. Whether or not this dictates their poop, I can't say but I'm sure you're already googling for me so you can pull up with more of your shit so I won't bother finding out

[discolé monade]

On 7/13/2022 at 3:11 PM, scoobdog said:

I don't know if that was stilgar's point, but the "black lives matter" part of the discussion was kind of reductive and mostly unnecessary to her point.

That being said, I'm not entirely sure if this is a valid debate, as in I don't know if any women have been specifically accused of TERFism just by saying pregnant women.  The Hawley debate is more about him grandstanding to sidetrack the discussion than it is any concerted effort to make the term inclusive .

so..you, a man, are saying that women need to just adjust to being called pregnant people. menstruating people, menopausal people. lacating people. 

cool cool. 

and for the record i'm not TERF, i'm just really disgusted that now woman can't even just be women without getting some sort of backlash for saying their peace about this whole thing. 

WOMAN literally have less rights than guns, this is just salt to the wound in my opinion. 

 

 

Edited July 15, 2022 by discolé monade