Doesn't this decision basically go after every right not in the Constitution specifically? Does that mean for example women don't have the right to own property? Because that's not in there. How many "rights" could now theoretically not exist because they're not specifically outlined in the Constitution?
It's the exact opposite. People generally like Roe v. Wade not because of the legal rationale, but because they like the idea of having another safeguard protecting abortion. Overturning Roe v. Wade is an inconvenient decision, it's one that may change the lives of many pregnant women all over the country, and that will likely result in a ton of political blowback for Republicans... yet it is the correct legal decision. There is no Constitutional right to an abortion. If you want abortions to be available, contact your state legislature. This may legitimately cost Republicans some seats, but the Court is doing the right thing.
The role of the Constitution is not to solve all of society's problems. It provides a basic structure and basic rights for the people. The state and federal government through Congress and the state legislatures fill in quite a bit of those gaps. The reason a whole lot of people are uncomfortable right now is because the Supreme Court has been stretching its authority too broadly for a long time now, and people don't have faith in Congress or legislatures to get anything done. Well, this sure will force their hand.
"All who hate me love death." -Proverbs 8:36 This is really going to show people's hearts as the dark sacrament of the secular state is under threat. We'll see how this plays out. The pressure is going to be immense, and the opposition Alito and those who intend to vote with him are going to face will be tremendous. The people they are up against are truly fanatics about how much they love death. I would not be surprised if their lives, their families, their estates, their businesses, any dirty secrets they have (or fabricated ones)...threats against all of these things are probably coming to these men. Hopefully these men are willing to pay the ultimate price for what they believe in.
So… if I replace my girlfriend’s birth control pills with sugar pills she has to have my baby? Um. Ok.
Can you stop taking shots at my comments and admit that maybe we are just saying two different things? "A high chance using a timeframe" isn't how this works. You have the exact same chance regardless of the timeline. Again, if the timeline reference held water then we would all have multiple unexpected children in the backseat. Most of us have zero because the percentage doesnt work based on timelines.it works based on the individual instance. Also when properly using the pill women have less than a 1% chance of getting pregnant in a YEAR of multiple unnumbered instances, (not per instance). This means on average (timeline based as you choose) A woman would get pregnant once in 100 years. That info is from Planned Parenthood by the way. So i'm not misrepresenting you. I disagree with you. Your data isn't really accurate. No one claims that 1 out of 100 sexual encounters has a failed contraception. There is no such data. The data says that 1 out of 100 woman will get pregnant with a year of activity. So lets say each woman has sex 20 times as you suggested that it would be along the lines of 1/2000 failure rate. I
I had a similar thought. This gives all those states wanting to push out new prohibitive abortion laws the green light to immediately proceed.
The rule of law? You're kidding, right? What rule of law is at issue here? Outside, of course, the five Republican extremists stripping women of a constitutional right that has been the "rule of law" for decades. You can't give a fetus up for adoption.
I agree with everything you just said. My post was made because of the argument this Justice made about abortion not being listed in the Constitution as a right.
It's not that the fetus isn't living. It's that it's not its own life. My finger is living. It is human. But it's not an independent life.
There is a constitutional right to control one's own body. "We're not deciding these cases that are not before us that we just wrote an opinion saying the rationale on which they're decided is not valid, so you shouldn't worry." Total nonsense. Just like the decision in the Texas anti-abortion case from a few months ago foreshadowed Roe being overturned, anybody with half a brain can see what they're planning next.
