Three items of note This doesn't bode well for the integrity of the Supreme Court or the clerks. I would venture the person who leaked the draft has a vested interest and a political agenda. This is certainly a person I would not want sitting on the Supreme Court. From the perspective of the media / press Politico's decision to publish the Justice Alito's opinion is debatable. Given the atmosphere of a contentious issue I can certainly understand a point of view that would point out had they not some other news outlet certainly would. It is interesting that the person who leaked the opinion chose Politico to publish it. I assume that was the first choice as no news agency has come forward to state they were approached with the opinion. The argument concerning this is a woman's body and should be a woman's a choice clearly excludes men from the issue of abortion. Since this is the prevailing argument from a woman's perspective perhaps on women should be allowed to vote on the issue at a State level. (Just a thought) It that were to happen now we get into the definition of a woman which is clearly at odds with current trends and culture. Finally I don't know of any circumstance where women are excluded from something that could clearly be defined as a man's issue such as abortion is for women. If anyone can identify such a circumstance I'd like to hear it.
Anyone that says "what about men" when discussing abortion is more or less affirming my view that it is about men's reproductive control of women
Your point is valid if a private company decided it only wanted vaccinated workers or patrons. I’d have no problem with that The government was forcing private companies to only allow vaccinated patrons or employ vaccinated workers. That would be similar to the government making abortion clinics too expensive to operate. You certainly wouldn’t be in favor of increased hurdles for a clinic to operate. My counterpoint was to those speaking about the right to bodily autonomy. Posters here believe that we had that right and it’s going away. I was just pointing out that we haven’t had that right. Your examples apply as well. There are dozens we can come up with And abortion isn’t that cut and dry about bodily autonomy since you are dealing with a 2nd life. Not worth debating the 2nd life point here but we all can agree something like a motorcycle helmet (as you pointed out) is very straight forward
The interesting thing as he drops of footnote citing approvingly Justice Thomas’ debunked argument that abortion was secretly designed to be a tool of eugenics against blacks. Another words, a policy which is a race neutral On its face is really part of a power structure to subconsciously preserve power. There is another term for that - critical race theory.
You can elect officials that can legalize abortion as early through as late as the populace wants. That’s the point of elected officials And you can also amend the Constitution
Just so you know, most in here would have been in favor of putting you in jail and your kids taken away for not getting vaccinated.
I wonder going forward if SCOTUS is going to reverse itself on abortion every time the vote count changes.
The reality is most people don’t know what Roe is. They think overturning it bans abortion. Overturning it simply says the decision on abortion exists with the people.
Like much else in polling, it depends how you ask the question. A recent WSJ poll showed US support for an abortion ban at 15 weeks. (49-44.) Which was the original Mississippi law. I believe much of Europe is at 12 weeks?
False. All the vaccine mandates put forward included exemptions for medical or religious reasons, and allowed for companies' own interpretation and acceptance of religious exemptions with very lenient guidelines, including allowing exemption on the basis of, ironically, being anti-abortion, as the vaccine R&D process included use of fetal stem cells.
Saw a video that asked an interesting question. Abortion is in the Bible. On cheating wives. Against their will - basically drank a poison where if she wasn't guilty of adultery her baby would be fine. But if guilty the baby would be killed. So. When a man wants to force a woman to have an abortion, that's gospel. When a woman wants an abortion it's evil, murder, & needs to be illegal. For all the anti abortion folks using religion as their shield... Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 5:11-31 - New International Version (Excerpt) "The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children. 29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”"
It’s a sarcastic reply based upon the gender wars. We have a new scotus judge not knowing what a woman is and an emoji of a pregnant man. The point is you can’t have it both ways.
