Roe vs. Wade overturned

Chew Toy McCoy

Pleb
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
5,560
Reaction score
8,417
I heard this theory recently. It’s such a hot button platform staple for Republicans that they wouldn’t want it to go away. It’s one of the few remaining “party of” statements they can make with any semblance of integrity. The pro fetus appearance holds a lot of voter value for them. But if Trump gets a second term I’m sure he’ll smash that one into the dirt too, along with all the other traditional Republican values he pisses on.
 

lizkat

Melting Down
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
5,470
Reaction score
11,682
Location
Catskill Mountains
I can believe it's a desirable issue for the Rs to hang onto for reasons you noted.

But... Roe v Wade is steadily becoming irrelevant. Women don't choose abortions because that's actually their preferred method of choice to avoid bringing a dependent into the world. Especially now that one may have to travel hundreds of miles in the USA even to reach a clinic that still provides abortions.

Women would rather have a way of preventing conception that's safe and convenient. There are now contraceptives one can even have implanted in the arm for up to three years. That of course is why the Rs have started to bear down on those choices too: trying to make it a matter of religious freedom for a clinician or pharmacist to decline to fill birth control prescriptions or to implement measures like insertion of IUDs or the in-arm birth control measures. And it's why Republicans also oppose workplace health insurance coverage of contraception.

It's not about protecting a fetus from conception forward to birth (when the Republicans figure a delivered child is on its own and is the sole responsibility of the woman who bore it). It's about undoing gender equality and suppressing a woman's autonomy.

The results of being kept "barefoot and pregnant" are pretty effective at keeping a woman in what Republicans imagine is her place: dependent throughout all her childbearing years on others legally empowered to define the boundaries and terms of her existence.

Well it's time to throw all those mofos the heck out of office. If men could be impregnated, abortions would be free by appointment in sterile rooms off the side of barbershops all over the USA. Not a states' rights issue, either. Federal mandate, fully funded by the good ol' boys of House and Senate. Believe it.

Seems to me a better idea is let a woman implant a contraceptive in her arm if she doesn't want to bring a child into the world until and unless she's prepared to focus on raising a family. Her right of the choice can only be beneficial to our public health, economy and so our national security. Look at the effort and money it takes to try in vain to subjugate women in American society. And for what, really? For what purpose? And how's it working out for the nation overall?
 

Chew Toy McCoy

Pleb
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
5,560
Reaction score
8,417
I can believe it's a desirable issue for the Rs to hang onto for reasons you noted.

But... Roe v Wade is steadily becoming irrelevant. Women don't choose abortions because that's actually their preferred method of choice to avoid bringing a dependent into the world. Especially now that one may have to travel hundreds of miles in the USA even to reach a clinic that still provides abortions.

Women would rather have a way of preventing conception that's safe and convenient. There are now contraceptives one can even have implanted in the arm for up to three years. That of course is why the Rs have started to bear down on those choices too: trying to make it a matter of religious freedom for a clinician or pharmacist to decline to fill birth control prescriptions or to implement measures like insertion of IUDs or the in-arm birth control measures. And it's why Republicans also oppose workplace health insurance coverage of contraception.

It's not about protecting a fetus from conception forward to birth (when the Republicans figure a delivered child is on its own and is the sole responsibility of the woman who bore it). It's about undoing gender equality and suppressing a woman's autonomy.

The results of being kept "barefoot and pregnant" are pretty effective at keeping a woman in what Republicans imagine is her place: dependent throughout all her childbearing years on others legally empowered to define the boundaries and terms of her existence.

Well it's time to throw all those mofos the heck out of office. If men could be impregnated, abortions would be free by appointment in sterile rooms off the side of barbershops all over the USA. Not a states' rights issue, either. Federal mandate, fully funded by the good ol' boys of House and Senate. Believe it.

Seems to me a better idea is let a woman implant a contraceptive in her arm if she doesn't want to bring a child into the world until and unless she's prepared to focus on raising a family. Her right of the choice can only be beneficial to our public health, economy and so our national security. Look at the effort and money it takes to try in vain to subjugate women in American society. And for what, really? For what purpose? And how's it working out for the nation overall?

I have a more simplistic view of it. Aside from possible religious reasons, I don’t think the average politician gives a shit either way. It's all about show for their constituents, and that issue is a big one for some single issue voters. I think it’s probably more the constituents that have the viewpoints you mentioned that are the driving factor. Obviously another big single issue voter issue is gun control. That and reproductive rights will gladly be put in center stage in an election campaign, but I’m willing to bet more times than not a lot less energy is put into either of those things once the person is in office.

I think these issues also take passionate center stage from politicians because neither effects Capitalism. So they can just go at it with each other and nobody’s really losing large sums of money over it.
 

Scepticalscribe

Site Master
Vaccinated
Posts
6,302
Reaction score
9,023
I can believe it's a desirable issue for the Rs to hang onto for reasons you noted.

But... Roe v Wade is steadily becoming irrelevant. Women don't choose abortions because that's actually their preferred method of choice to avoid bringing a dependent into the world. Especially now that one may have to travel hundreds of miles in the USA even to reach a clinic that still provides abortions.

Women would rather have a way of preventing conception that's safe and convenient. There are now contraceptives one can even have implanted in the arm for up to three years. That of course is why the Rs have started to bear down on those choices too: trying to make it a matter of religious freedom for a clinician or pharmacist to decline to fill birth control prescriptions or to implement measures like insertion of IUDs or the in-arm birth control measures. And it's why Republicans also oppose workplace health insurance coverage of contraception.

It's not about protecting a fetus from conception forward to birth (when the Republicans figure a delivered child is on its own and is the sole responsibility of the woman who bore it). It's about undoing gender equality and suppressing a woman's autonomy.

The results of being kept "barefoot and pregnant" are pretty effective at keeping a woman in what Republicans imagine is her place: dependent throughout all her childbearing years on others legally empowered to define the boundaries and terms of her existence.

Well it's time to throw all those mofos the heck out of office. If men could be impregnated, abortions would be free by appointment in sterile rooms off the side of barbershops all over the USA. Not a states' rights issue, either. Federal mandate, fully funded by the good ol' boys of House and Senate. Believe it.

Seems to me a better idea is let a woman implant a contraceptive in her arm if she doesn't want to bring a child into the world until and unless she's prepared to focus on raising a family. Her right of the choice can only be beneficial to our public health, economy and so our national security. Look at the effort and money it takes to try in vain to subjugate women in American society. And for what, really? For what purpose? And how's it working out for the nation overall?

Terrific post, and I agree with every single syllable.

In my experience, most of those who class themselves as "pro-life" - or, pro the foetus (naturally, at the expense of the mother), have very little interest in that selfsame foetus once it has been born.

Then, it is the mother's problem, and instead, she is berated for her "lack of responsibility" in getting pregnant in the first place.

Their stance would be a great deal more logical, not to mention compassionate, if they sought to support the women who give birth, with the provision of state financial supports, healthcare, maternity leave, and so on; but, they don't.

This is not about protecting the foetus; this is about controlling, condemning - and punishing - women who are sexually active, especially if they are sexually active outside of the structure of the "formal" family, people such as single mothers, divorcees, and so on. The recent attempts to roll back access to terminations for children - and others - who have been raped, tells its own story.

As @lizkat points out, if they were truly serious about ensuring that abortion is not something that desperate women reach for, safe, affordable and reliable birth control, contraception, would be made readily available and easily accessed.

But the very fact that those who seek to deny access to abortion, also seek to deny women access to safe, affordable and reliable birth control makes abundantly clear that this is not about abortion, but about punishing and condemning and controlling women for daring to think (or dream) that they can attempt to exercise a degree of autonomy in their sex lives, and hope to do so without negative consequences, a happy state of affairs which has been the lot of men since the dawn of recorded time.
 
Last edited:

thekev

Elite Member
Posts
1,074
Reaction score
1,613
Well it's time to throw all those mofos the heck out of office. If men could be impregnated, abortions would be free by appointment in sterile rooms off the side of barbershops all over the USA. Not a states' rights issue, either. Federal mandate, fully funded by the good ol' boys of House and Senate. Believe it.

I don't think it would go that way. I think it would stop being such a politically charged issue, and I think you would no longer see pressure on clinics that provide abortion services. You would not see religious views used as a basis of objection toward alternative methods of contraception.

I think the model of who pays for it and what it costs probably would probably remain mostly unchanged though. There are too many counter-examples in other areas when applied to men for me to think that this would somehow be a subsidized thing.

We don't subsidize urology, condoms, or ED medications. According to google, many insurers do not cover ED medications at all. Men are jailed for non-payment of child support. Men can be assigned child support without actual paternity in some states if their spouse is the mother.

I suspect it would be treated as elective care. In that case, you have clinics that are largely fee for service. No one judges or cares. No one politicizes government contracts with companies that perform such procedures.

That wouldn't actually be a bad outcome.
 

lizkat

Melting Down
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
5,470
Reaction score
11,682
Location
Catskill Mountains
I don't think it would go that way. I think it would stop being such a politically charged issue, and I think you would no longer see pressure on clinics that provide abortion services. You would not see religious views used as a basis of objection toward alternative methods of contraception.

I think the model of who pays for it and what it costs probably would probably remain mostly unchanged though. There are too many counter-examples in other areas when applied to men for me to think that this would somehow be a subsidized thing.

We don't subsidize urology, condoms, or ED medications. According to google, many insurers do not cover ED medications at all. Men are jailed for non-payment of child support. Men can be assigned child support without actual paternity in some states if their spouse is the mother.

I suspect it would be treated as elective care. In that case, you have clinics that are largely fee for service. No one judges or cares. No one politicizes government contracts with companies that perform such procedures.

That wouldn't actually be a bad outcome.

You make some valid points in that post but let's not forget my hypothetical: what I said was based on "... if" men could get pregnant. I am not at all convinced that a still largely male House and Senate would not mandate that health insurance cover not only birth control but termination of men's unwanted pregnancies and make access far easier than how all that is for women in actuality today in the USA.
 

Scepticalscribe

Site Master
Vaccinated
Posts
6,302
Reaction score
9,023
You make some valid points in that post but let's not forget my hypothetical: what I said was based on "... if" men could get pregnant. I am not at all convinced that a still largely male House and Senate would not mandate that health insurance cover not only birth control but termination of men's unwanted pregnancies and make access far easier than how all that is for women in actuality today in the USA.

Agree completely.

My mother - who had been raised as a Catholic - used to joke that if men could get pregnant, contraception and abortion would have been sacraments, not sins.
 
U

User.45

Guest
What amazes me about the GOP is this:
they are against abortion, but back policies that actually increase them:

"Using the most recent national data (2005) from all U.S. states with information on sex education laws or policies (N = 48), we show that increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates. This trend remains significant after accounting for socioeconomic status, teen educational attainment, ethnic composition of the teen population, and availability of Medicaid waivers for family planning services in each state. These data show clearly that abstinence-only education as a state policy is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy and may actually be contributing to the high teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S"
Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S

One major thing we cannot talk enough about:
the primary cause of women not achieving their education potential is teen pregnancy.

Wanna make your nation smarter? Educate the women. Wanna make it twice as smart? Start actually listening to them.
 

Huntn

Whatwerewe talk'n about?
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
4,078
Reaction score
4,111
Location
The Misty Mountains
They are debating RoeVWade in the SCOTUS right now (listening on NPR and MSNBC). Justice Sotomayor Is impressive. She asked the Solicitor General Mississippi what part of his argument is not a religious view. She also asked him about crossing the viability standard, woman having control of their bodies, and the Supreme Court becoming a political entity.

This is a matter of individual women‘s liberty. And the standard of viability means that a fetus before viability is viewed as a potential human being and does not have personhood rights. And if you want to be religious the Bible refers to first breath as a life standard.
 
Last edited:

Joe

Elite Member
Posts
1,460
Reaction score
2,559
Location
Gilead
When I was in HS one of my best friends was 1 of 10 siblings because her parents were hardcore catholic and didn't believe in contraception and of course abortion. Her parents were busy lol

Their entire voting history was based on abortion. That is the only reason they voted Republican. And it probably is to this day. I'm not sure. I only still communicate with my friend, not her crazy catholic judgmental family members. She always said she was the rebel of the family because she wasn't brainwashed catholic. It's why we got along so well in HS :)

But yeah, I agree with the OP.
 

Huntn

Whatwerewe talk'n about?
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
4,078
Reaction score
4,111
Location
The Misty Mountains
When I was in HS one of my best friends was 1 of 10 siblings because her parents were hardcore catholic and didn't believe in contraception and of course abortion. Her parents were busy lol

Their entire voting history was based on abortion. That is the only reason they voted Republican. And it probably is to this day. I'm not sure. I only still communicate with my friend, not her crazy catholic judgmental family members. She always said she was the rebel of the family because she wasn't brainwashed catholic. It's why we got along so well in HS :)

But yeah, I agree with the OP.
I hope RvW is not over turned, but these days I am a pessimist and imo rightfully so. If it is overturned we are a confirmed christian theocracy. With all of the staggering issues we face as a species, it is completely mind boggling we waste so much energy on this issue.
 

Herdfan

Resident Redneck
Vaccinated
Posts
2,771
Reaction score
2,054
Even as a conservative, I have always been pro-choice. I guess that is because I have never been overly religious. But my support for it has limits.

I think you should be able to decide by the end of the second trimester. Which is actually a bit more liberal than some of Europe and other developed countries.

Now this is only for On Request abortions and not for medical reasons such as the mother's life. At that point the decision should be a medical one, not based on choice.

Now some states allow up to 28 weeks or fetus viability, but 7 allow for late term with no restrictions. I am not OK with that.

What limits, if any, do you think should be on abortion.
 

Renzatic

Egg Nog King of the Eastern Seaboard
Vaccinated
Posts
3,410
Reaction score
5,889
Location
Dinosaurs
Now some states allow up to 28 weeks or fetus viability, but 7 allow for late term with no restrictions. I am not OK with that.

Very, very few people are okay with late term abortions in all but the most extreme of circumstances.
 

JayMysteri0

What the F?!!!
Vaccinated
Posts
6,610
Reaction score
13,735
Location
Not HERE.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Wednesday suggested the Supreme Court would not “survive the stench” if the court were to uphold Mississippi’s controversial 15-week abortion ban.

Sotomayor, while grilling the attorney backing the Mississippi law during oral arguments, suggested the court would be perceived as highly politicized were it to undermine the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade and related rulings, and that such a decision would be viewed as merely a reflection of the court’s new lopsided 6-3 conservative majority composition.

“Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” she asked. “I don't see how it is possible.”

The liberal justice’s comments came Wednesday as the court considered the constitutionality of Mississippi 15-week ban, which is among scores of state abortion restrictions that have passed just as the Supreme Court began skewing more conservative with the addition of former President Trump’s three nominees to the bench.

This is a fair question when you consider earlier the group of judges likely to lean into this for partisan / personal reasons, was out earlier in the year whining about how the court is perceived as becoming more political. Forgetting what will happen if Roe Vs Wade is overturned, and consider what this will empower extremist conservatives to push for with the current makeup. Bear in mind, when this case first made the rounds MS didn't push for this to over turn Roe Vs Wade, it was only after the the Court's makeup was so altered that they wanted to be in front of the Supreme Court. That can be for only reason.

The Supreme Court will carry this stench from this point on, because the picks of a two time impeached former president who fomented an insurrection to stay in power tilted the balance.
 

quagmire

Site Champ
Vaccinated
Posts
268
Reaction score
346
One of the pro-choice people testifying that if you let states set their own limits then using the current precedent of viability is that you will have states constantly look to reduce the limit is absolutely right. Proof is in the other case the SC is dealing with.... The Texas Law.
 

SuperMatt

Suspended
Posts
7,690
Reaction score
14,508
Roe v Wade is toast. They might not kill it completely - they could just change it from 24 weeks to 16 or something, or require that laws have protections for rape and incest, but the questions from the right-wing justices definitely telegraphed their hands. Their prior statements about stare decisis were 100% the BS we all knew they were at the time.


Both Alito and Kavanaugh went full speed ahead with fetal rights... which are complete nonsense and are an example of putting their personal religious beliefs before the Constitution.

But Justice Alito opined that "the fetus has an interest in having a life, and that doesn't change does it?"
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who replaced Justice Anthony Kennedy, a more centrist Justice on abortion questions, signaled that he may well be willing to reverse Roe. While nodding to the court's precedents, he said that when it comes to abortion there are two interests--the woman's right to terminate a pregnancy and the interest of fetal life. "The problem is you can't accommodate both interests. You have to pick," he said. "Why should this court be the arbiter rather than Congress, state legislatures, state supreme court's and the people being able to resolve this."

I hope this kills the GOP once and for all. Almost 3/4 of Americans do NOT want abortion banned. If this happens, we’ll need a constitutional amendment to allow it, and to do that, we need people to kick the GOP to the curb and get a 2/3 majority in both chambers, then many states to ratify it. When mothers start dying because they couldn’t get an abortion, it’s going to get ugly.
 

Thomas Veil

Suspended
Posts
3,450
Reaction score
6,795
Well, if I recall correctly the decision isn't supposed to come down until next summer. That would be interesting, because if there was ever an issue to drive women, liberals and young people to the polls, it's gonna be a 6-3 decision to overturn Roe.

You'd think that would minimize any chance the GOP has of a typical midterm takeover of the House and/or Senate. But I don't know. The gerrymandering that's going on around the country looks, I'm sorry to say, almost foolproof. I hope I'm wrong about that.
 

JayMysteri0

What the F?!!!
Vaccinated
Posts
6,610
Reaction score
13,735
Location
Not HERE.
Rachel Maddow had one of her 20 minute openings that makes you just shake your head in disbelief. Usually it involves her telling a story and you have no idea where it's going. This time, because of what was the big news of the day, you have a pretty good idea, only it's hard to believe how she gets from her opening story, to today's news with Supreme Court.

If you have the time, I suggest you give her opening a try playing in the background, because if I explained it you wouldn't believe me. Instead you'd tell me that I'm trying to make real life sound like an interconnected Marvel Cinematic Universe & I was making up Easter eggs.


Also for Ms. Coney Barrett

 
Last edited:

Huntn

Whatwerewe talk'n about?
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
4,078
Reaction score
4,111
Location
The Misty Mountains
Even as a conservative, I have always been pro-choice. I guess that is because I have never been overly religious. But my support for it has limits.

I think you should be able to decide by the end of the second trimester. Which is actually a bit more liberal than some of Europe and other developed countries.

Now this is only for On Request abortions and not for medical reasons such as the mother's life. At that point the decision should be a medical one, not based on choice.

Now some states allow up to 28 weeks or fetus viability, but 7 allow for late term with no restrictions. I am not OK with that.

What limits, if any, do you think should be on abortion.
As far as a woman‘s choice I’m good with the tradional viability standard which does not rely on technology.
 
Top Bottom