Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

[Diogenes]

Roe v. Wade has been overturned today.
This subtopic specifically does not invite debate on the prohibition of abortion.

The question for debate is whether this sweeping decision allowing the States to outlaw abortion will lead to civil unrest and disrespect for the Court. My guess is, it will do both and will lead to women traveling from their homes in the South and much of the heartland of the United States to States that protect the 'right' for 50 years.

The 'abortion pill' will be banned in many States and the 'pro-choice' advocates will try to get the pill into those States where it will be a felony to possess it. I can envision armed militias at borders and around airports.
When the 18th Amendment prohibited Alcohol in 1919 it produced a new, illegal industry and related violence that lead to the passage of the 21st Amendment in 1933, repealing that Amendment.

[Miles]

I was stunned by Rusty Bowers, there I was watching him express highly principled opinions about refusing to abuse his oath and uphold the constitution despite vile coercion from Giuliani and gun toting nutjobs, only to learn later that he would STILL vote for Trump if he were running. Things really are insane in this country just now.

My exact same impression. What is it about Trump that's so attractive?

.

[Diogenes]

As bad as this ruling is, Justice Thomas' concurring opinion makes one thing clear....this court is just getting started. The court has already expanded gun access and chipped away at the separation of church and state. I won't be surprised if, in the Kennedy v Bremerton School Dist case, this court declares that there is no separation of church and state.

Next up, bans on contraception, same-sex marriage, criminalization of homosexuality, and possibly even interracial marriage (as one Republican politician advocated).

As one commenter noted, this is a SCOTUS with a majority that was appointed by two Presidents who lost the popular vote and confirmed by a Senate that provides disproportionate representation to a minority of voters.

This is only going to get worse.

Yes! Another gift from White Christian Nationalism, a plague that has NOTHING to do with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.
The only good I see coming from this is the further undermining of the Republican Party.

Kennedy v Bremerton School District is an interesting case, tho' with an honest and principled Supreme Court this would be a slam dunk for the school district. This court will not be so candid as to find there is "no separation of church and state." No, instead the Supreme Court of the Roman Catholics will follow the petitioner's lead and accept the dishonest statement of facts from the Coach and the amici in their briefs. Putting prayer back in the public schools is only the 2d step.

In Carson v. Makin they have already ruled that taxpayer funds can be used to support private religious schools. This court will never admit to striking down the separation clause. They will just do it de facto.

[Diogenes]

I was stunned by Rusty Bowers, there I was watching him express highly principled opinions about refusing to abuse his oath and uphold the constitution despite vile coercion from Giuliani and gun toting nutjobs, only to learn later that he would STILL vote for Trump if he were running. Things really are insane in this country just now.

My exact same impression. What is it about Trump that's so attractive?

.

Nothing. Some Christian nationalists/ support him because he's claimed the mantle of 'Christian' despite his obvious contempt all the teachings of Jesus. Some of them know he is odious, but hold their noses and support him for his political agenda. White supremacists see him as one of them. And of course there are hoards of Reaganites who have ignorantly bought in to 'trickle down' economics and the rest of the dopey right wing policies.

[Jose Fly]

Kennedy v Bremerton School District is an interesting case, tho' with an honest and principled Supreme Court this would be a slam dunk for the school district. This court will not be so candid as to find there is "no separation of church and state." No, instead the Supreme Court of the Roman Catholics will follow the petitioner's lead and accept the dishonest statement of facts from the Coach and the amici in their briefs. Putting prayer back in the public schools is only the 2d step.

In Carson v. Makin they have already ruled that taxpayer funds can be used to support private religious schools. This court will never admit to striking down the separation clause. They will just do it de facto.

I'm not so sure. Obviously they're not going to strike down the Separation Clause itself, but I can definitely see them declaring that the interpretation that it requires the government to be neutral on religion is a recent imposition and an interpretation that's not "rooted in our nation's history" (as they said in today's ruling).

IIRC, the dispute in the Kennedy case isn't really about the facts of the matter. Both sides agree that the coach prayed in front of students while he was on the clock as a public official, he was offered a way to pray in private but refused, and his contract was not renewed. The main dispute is over whether the Separation Clause requires government officials to be neutral on religious matters while on the job.

So them pointing to the US's history of public schools teaching from the Bible as justification for today's teachers to be allowed to promote/display/exercise their religion in front of students would not surprise me at all.

[Diogenes]

I'm not so sure. Obviously they're not going to strike down the Separation Clause itself, but I can definitely see them declaring that the interpretation that it requires the government to be neutral on religion is a recent imposition and an interpretation that's not "rooted in our nation's history" (as they said in today's ruling).

IIRC, the dispute in the Kennedy case isn't really about the facts of the matter. Both sides agree that the coach prayed in front of students while he was on the clock as a public official, he was offered a way to pray in private but refused, and his contract was not renewed. The main dispute is over whether the Separation Clause requires government officials to be neutral on religious matters while on the job.

So them pointing to the US's history of public schools teaching from the Bible as justification for today's teachers to be allowed to promote/display/exercise their religion in front of students would not surprise me at all.

The reason I think the Court will fudge the facts is apparent from this summary from Cornell Law School:

Praying at midfield necessarily meant that Kennedy was in full view of all students, parents, and other community members attending the game. At first, when Kennedy began this practice in 2008, he prayed alone. Eventually, however, his players would join him. The level of participation varied over time, sometimes involving no players at all, and sometimes including most of the team, and even players from the opposing team. Over the years, Kennedy’s religious practice evolved from reciting short prayers to conducting lengthier, more involved rituals that included holding up helmets from each team and delivering speeches that combined religious prayers with motivational content.

The coach likes to cast his prayer as a private, personal prayer where he just went to a private place and prayed alone and personally with no intent to make a public statement. This crapola is typical of the flagrant dishonesty practiced frequently by folk who claim to follow the 'Ten Commandments.'

The coach obviously performed his prayer for an audience, in a public place at the 50 yard line of a public school stadium in full view of his players and the public. Kennedy likes to cast this as if he went into a private grotto in the forest and offered up a personal prayer of thanks with no thought of promoting his faith; that he had 'no idea' student athletes would join him in his 'private' moment.
This, of course (and obviously) is typical of the rubbish the religious right uses (ironically) to 'get around' the Constitution while using their public, taxpayer paid, forum to preach 'the gospel.'

I do not know of another large voter block that is more consistently disingenuous than the political arm of the Christian right.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Miles in post #11]

What is it about Trump that's so attractive?

Precisely this ^. That he got it done – he got Supreme Court justices in that recognized the faulty reasoning behind Roe V. Wade and understand abortion for what it is – the greatest human rights violation we face today.

Most people I know who voted for Trump do not like Trump as a person. Just hearing him speak I cringe. In politics, it almost always comes down to the lesser of two evils. I knew a vote for Trump would mean more of the programs, policies, and legislation that are more in line with my values and what I think would be better for our country would more likely occur under Trump then Clinton or Biden and so far, I’d say that gamble has paid out.

This is truly a day to celebrate.

[benchwarmer]

... posted an image saying "Imaging being upset that babies will live..."

Imagine NOT being upset that young rape victims will have to carry their rapists children to term because they don't have access to modern medical options to prevent ovulation via a "morning after pill" or if that doesn't work, an early term abortion.

Sorry to the OP, but ridiculous blanket statements like the above have to be countered.

As to the OP question: I believe there will definitely be violence. Women's rights are being trampled upon and that's not going to go unanswered when the majority of people would rather not be dragged back into the past. Especially when the charge seems to be led by clearly religious ideologies rather than any sound reasoning or facts.

[RightReason]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #17]

Imagine NOT being upset that young rape victims will have to carry their rapists children to term because they don't have access to modern medical options to prevent ovulation via a "morning after pill" or if that doesn't work, an early term abortion.

I can imagine just that. Imagine thinking or believing just because a child was conceived in rape he/she is less than or inferior and doesn’t deserve to live.
No mother, even who was raped, ever regretted bringing her child to life. Do you think a woman who was married to an abusive jerk with whom she had a child should be able to kill the toddler because every time she looks at the child it reminds her of her jack@ss ex?

As to the OP question: I believe there will definitely be violence. Women's rights are being trampled upon

One woman’s rights end where another woman’s rights begin. What about the woman in the womb?

Also, one could argue studies show most women regret their abortion and say they felt pressured or forced to have an abortion, when they actually wanted to keep their baby. So, I couldn’t agree more – women’s rights are absolutely being trampled on with such oppressive things like legalized abortion. Women deserve better. Who the heck is someone to tell a woman she can’t handle a baby? She can’t afford a baby? A baby will ruin her career? Society shouldn’t have to support her mistake – if she goes thru with this she’s on her own? If she has this baby, the father will leave? She should do the “responsible” thing? Trampled upon indeed!

and that's not going to go unanswered when the majority of people would rather not be dragged back into the past. Especially when the charge seems to be led by clearly religious ideologies rather than any sound reasoning or facts.

Ha, ha, ha . . . follow the science. What exactly do you think is developing in a woman’s womb when she is pregnant? A houseplant? We all started out as a developing fetus. A 3 week old looks much different than a 3 month old, who looks much different than a 3 year old, who looks much different than a 30 year old, who looks much different than a 3 month old in utero. But they are all a human being just at different stages of development. That’s what we call sound reasoning and fact!

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #17]

Imagine NOT being upset that young rape victims will have to carry their rapists children to term because they don't have access to modern medical options to prevent ovulation via a "morning after pill" or if that doesn't work, an early term abortion.

I can imagine just that.

Well, that's sad, but you are free to your own feelings.

Imagine thinking or believing just because a child was conceived in rape he/she is less than or inferior and doesn’t deserve to live.

Once the child is born, sure. The morning after pill stops ovulation, it does not terminate a pregnancy. However, even if the victim gets pregnant, the rights of the zygote should not supersede that of the mother to be. Once the fetus has developed to the point where it can survive on it's own I can agree that things get into a grey area. Ideally, the pregnancy is terminated (if the victim wishes it) as early as possible.

No mother, even who was raped, ever regretted bringing her child to life.

I see, so you've talked to all rape victims then? Have you talked to any? The following study suggests otherwise, but you keep making stuff up...

Bad Blood or My Blood: A Qualitative Study into the Dimensions of Interventions for Mothers with Children Born of Sexual Violence
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6926844/

Do you think a woman who was married to an abusive jerk with whom she had a child should be able to kill the toddler because every time she looks at the child it reminds her of her jack@ss ex?

Now you're just building strawmen to knock over. Who said anything about toddlers?

As to the OP question: I believe there will definitely be violence. Women's rights are being trampled upon

One woman’s rights end where another woman’s rights begin. What about the woman in the womb?

There are no women in wombs. A woman is an adult female human being.

Also, one could argue studies show most women regret their abortion and say they felt pressured or forced to have an abortion, when they actually wanted to keep their baby.

It might help your case if you actually cited some of these. Or is this just more pulling stuff out of thin air?

So, I couldn’t agree more – women’s rights are absolutely being trampled on with such oppressive things like legalized abortion. Women deserve better. Who the heck is someone to tell a woman she can’t handle a baby? She can’t afford a baby? A baby will ruin her career? Society shouldn’t have to support her mistake – if she goes thru with this she’s on her own? If she has this baby, the father will leave? She should do the “responsible” thing? Trampled upon indeed!

Well, that's a lot of straw. How does providing access to legal abortion tell women they can't handle a baby? Just wow. It's actually kind of the opposite. By making it illegal, you are telling women they have to handle having a baby (whether they are able or not), have to afford it (whether the can or not), juggle their career (whether they can/want to or not). Sounds like you are the one supporting forcing the issue.

and that's not going to go unanswered when the majority of people would rather not be dragged back into the past. Especially when the charge seems to be led by clearly religious ideologies rather than any sound reasoning or facts.

Ha, ha, ha . . . follow the science. What exactly do you think is developing in a woman’s womb when she is pregnant? A houseplant? We all started out as a developing fetus. A 3 week old looks much different than a 3 month old, who looks much different than a 3 year old, who looks much different than a 30 year old, who looks much different than a 3 month old in utero. But they are all a human being just at different stages of development. That’s what we call sound reasoning and fact!

More straw, you must own a farm. We all started as a sperm and an egg. Do you decry menstruation and involuntary emissions as well? Perhaps we should make those illegal too...

[Diogenes]

[Replying to RightReason in post #18]

Also, one could argue studies show most women regret their abortion and say they felt pressured or forced to have an abortion, when they actually wanted to keep their baby.

Sounds like total horsepucky. Please cite facts to support your baloney.
Of course, this is one of the differences between the religious rubbish spewers and those who support their claims with facts.

Five years after having an abortion, over 95 percent of women... said it was the right decision for them.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/41642 ... sion-study
* * *
Meanwhile, the violence has started.
https://www.businessinsider.com/watch-a ... owa-2022-6