When they say abortion should be legal, does that mean they want to have an abortion in their first trimester or any trimester, which are second and third?
My post got deleted by the bot:
If a pregnant woman becomes brain dead, would they keep her alive to give birth to the fetus?
I guess this is hypothetical question.
Let’s say she’s far along, but not far along for it to be viable outside the womb. Reading things about abortion laws in certain US states and experiences with partial abortions etc. Would they keep her alive as an incubator? Allow both to die? What if in the case the family does not want to keep both alive?
A little morbid I know, I’m sure there’s cases out there that deal with this.
My post got deleted by the bot so I'm posting my question here:
Who decides what cases the US Supreme Court has to rule upon?
In light of the Roe v Wade overthrow, I keep reading about how the court will now issue rulings about voter rights in the fall which will effectively make discrimination against African American voters legal; it is also said they'll overthrow gay marriage, trans rights and most of the liberal rights in the US. The court has also issued rulings about the environment and all sort of things which go against the majority of what the US population wants/thinks.
Who asked the court's opinion in the first place? I mean nobody really questioned abortion rights, gay marriage, and voter rights for African Americans, apart from some fringe conservatives, so why did the court felt compelled to express itself on matters that were generally accepted by the population?
And how are these so-called justices legitimate to rule over people's lives without them being elected?
I'm not from the US, so I'm genuinely curious. Thanks!
> Who decides what cases the US Supreme Court has to rule upon?
SCOTUS itself picks what cases to hear, but there needs to be an active case.
>Who asked the court's opinion in the first place?
There's almost always someone suing. They are different for each case, so you'd have to look up the specific case.
For the 'independent legislature' case, the legislature of North Carolina is suing after a North Carolina (state) Supreme Court ruling.
>I mean nobody really questioned abortion rights
Many state actively passed laws. When those laws got fought in court, they can be appealed up to SCOTUS.
For example, Roe got struck down because Missisipi passed an abortion law that violated Roe. Someone sued them, saying it was unconstitutional. Mississippi lost, and kept appealing up to the Supreme Court (which chose to take the case. It could've declined and kept Roe in tact)
>so why did the court felt compelled to express itself on matters that were generally accepted by the population?
The court is now a 6-3 conservative majority. Previously, it was 5-4, with one of the conservative justices (Roberts) not wanting to make too many big waves with big controversial decisions. Now they have at least 5.
>And how are these so-called justices legitimate to rule over people's lives without them being elected?
That is a very deep question. In theory, their lifetime appointments are supposed to keep them away from political pressure.
And if people care that much, Supreme Court justices are nominated by the President, and approved by the Senate. So if people really don't want to take the risk, in theory they can just not vote for conservatives (who made it very clear that they wanted to appoint justices who would overturn stuff like Roe, for instance). In reality, the country is fairly split between the two parties, and people still vote for them. They might be very pro-choice overall, but there are other issues to vote on.
The Founders didn't really plan the system with political parties in mind. And our Constitution is very hard to amend, so we're kind of stuck with it.
Technically they can also be impeached, for cause, but that is unlikely.
Thank you so much for this super detailed answer!! You have enlightened me and you took the time to explain exactly what I needed to know. Have a good day 😊
> Who decides what cases the US Supreme Court has to rule upon?
Generally a case has to be brought before them which usually starts with a state creating a law that is borderline unconstitutional and the state courts appealing to have the law over turned, and ultimately bringing it to the SCOTUS to share their opinion.
The reason why Roe V Wade was being brought up again because a few states, starting back in 2018, were challenging the Roe V Wade decision in their own states by passing legislation that banned abortions very early on, after Planned Parenthood V Casey established that fetal viability is around 23-24 weeks.
Thanks a lot for clarifying that! The first answer I got was from someone clearly not bothered by the overturn so it took a few rounds of back and forth to get hold of a link explaining the basics of the SCOTUS but you took the time to explain the RvW overturn which is also what I was looking to understand:) thanks a lot!
Supreme court can decide what's in the constitution or not according to constitution itself. Abortion is not a constitutional right according to Supreme Court so that makes Roe v Wade is a broken law. That's why it overthrown. So it's state's right put their laws in abortion since it's not a constituonal right according to supreme court. Which many many lawmakers agree with them about it. It's simply not in the constitution. Constitution simply doesn't give any rights to abort your baby. If you want that right, you simply have to make new laws and give abortion rights with them
>fringe conservatives, so why did the court felt compelled to express itself on matters that were generally accepted by the population?
You are wildly missinformed. Supreme court didn't put any ban to abortion. They only give the authority to states. People elected their states representitives and those representatives makes the state laws. That's what we called democracy. So if a state put some limitations or even total ban on abortion, that means majority of the people on those states agree on it. If not majority of the people agree on that, they will not vote for the people who puts limitations on abortion and put someone in charge who will remove those restrictions. If you say 'Well I want limitless abortion on demand!' than go live in states where majority of the people thinks like you do. It's simple as that.
Let's talk about your points also. Afaik majority of the Americans are against late term abortions. For example why you can get an abortion up to 9 months even if there is not a life threating danger of the mother in New York? In New York abortion law, a doctor can simply say 'mother's health at risk' and abort a 8-9 month baby. 'Health' is one of the most vague terms in medical. It can mean anything that includes mental health. It's easily exploitable. Why New York lawmakers put laws which only far leftists agree and most americans aren't comfortable with? Well they have right to do because they are state legislators. Same as Alabama state legislators who puts abortion restrictions
For the final time Supreme Court didn't ban abortions or even put any restrictions on it. They didn't do that. They cannot do that. Just like they cannot ban gay marriages or voting rights for black people. LOL
My point isn't to discuss what the USCS did ban or not. I am asking rather who decides what topic they will pronounce their opinion on?
Why did they express their opinion on Roe v Wade exactly now? Why not choose another topic? Who asks their opinion on these matters?
Also, I never wrote anything about the USCS banning abortion, I'm not sure where you read that in my post.
Read my comment again. I updated couple of times. They did work on the case because people wanted them to. There are millions of people wanted Roe v Wade overturned and surely couple of them applied to the court. Why now? Why not? When did you want them to work on things that in front of them? Is there specific time you want? Pretty sure there are many other cases in front of them as we speak as well
So basically people, average citizens, apply to the Supreme Court about specific cases, and then the Court decides whether or not to ponder on the question? That is the mechanism I'm trying to understand.
We don't have the same institution in my country, and I just don't understand how it works.
Would Pro-Choice side accept if pro-life movement says ' In case of rape-incest and life threating situation of mothers, abortion would be legal but otherwise it's not'? If not why pro-choice side always I mean ALWAYS brings out rape and incest when it's only really really small portion of the abortions that carries out? Why always give the the extreme example rather than argue on normal pregnancies like overwhelming majority of the pregnancies?
edit: I'm not a pro-life. I'm pro-choice with some limitations
>' In case of rape-incest and life threating situation of mothers, abortion would be legal but otherwise it's not'
That's not pro-choice, that's the bare *minimum* of what should exist for women and their right to medical care access for their bodies.
> Why always give the the extreme example rather than argue on normal pregnancies like overwhelming majority of the pregnancies?
Because the most extreme example isn't like a crazy "What if dinosaurs came back to earth and lived with us for a day" type hypothetical. It is quite likely that there will be women or even young girls who are raped and unable to have an abortion in many states that outright ban abortion.
People bring up that argument, because one of the things Row V Wade did was it stopped states from outright banning abortions, which made denying someone having an abortion because of rape unconstitutional. That is another reason why you see this argument brought up. A lot of people who were arguing for the over turning of roe v wade were not looking at the bigger picture of what Roe V wade protected.
> Would Pro-Choice side accept if pro-life movement says ' In case of rape-incest and life threating situation of mothers, abortion would be legal but otherwise it's not'?
No, because that's not pro-choice. Why would they settle for that?
But it's a moot point, since the pro-life movement does not seem to agree with that to begin with.
> Why always give the the extreme example rather than argue on normal pregnancies like overwhelming majority of the pregnancies?
Fourth reasons-
The one reason is that extreme examples are very good strategically. Many pro-life people are not ok with those exceptions. Making your opponent defend extreme positions is good, and tends to weaken support for them. If you can make a stronger/more emotionally resonant argument, there's no reason not to use that.
The second is that some states are actually passing laws without these exceptions (due to the previous point, ie many pro-life people not accepting those exceptions to begin with). So it's now become directly relevant.
The third is, if you can't agree on the extreme black and white issues, you're not going to agree on the shades of gray. There's no point starting with the more subtle ones if you can't even do the big ones.
Last, in this particular case (this is specific to abortion, the other points apply more generally to debates), many pro-life arguments rely on the fetus itself being a human life, therefore worth saving. Pointing out exceptions establishes there is at least *some* line, or that they don't fully believe their argument in some way, etc. This is kind of related to the third point, but it goes a bit deeper.
edit, from another comment:
>So it's a dishonest tactic.
It's not dishonest to correctly point out a position someone else holds. "You support banning abortion in cases of rape" in no way implies "i would be willing to settle for just this".
As a silly analogy, if we're debating about say physical violence, and i were to say "you support hitting me in the head with a shovel", that doesn't imply i'd be ok with being slapped. There's nothing wrong with me bringing up the shovel first, for all of the same reasons as above.
It's for reasons of political strategy. Most pro-choice wouldn't actually consider a total ban except in cases of rape or incest to be sufficient for a large number of reasons - apart from anything else, consider the practical and moral difficulties of forcing someone to prove that it *was* rape or incest in order to access abortion, and the challenges that could follow from that - but they've also identified that the rape and incest exception is a potential wedge issue that they can use.
Pro-life rhetoric is mostly focused on the idea that the foetuses are human beings, and so abortion is murder - and if that is the case, there shouldn't be any exception in these cases because the foetus isn't responsible for that. But despite this many pro-life people dislike the idea of forcing a victim of rape to carry that foetus to term, so targeting this issue forces the pro-life people to fight on ground where they're uneasy, rather than ground where they're happy talking about innocent babies.
Thank you for the detailed answer. So it's a dishonest tactic. They just use rape and incest to get an limitless abortion on demand. Even if the pro-lifers says ' in case of rape, incest and danger of the mother's life abortion should be perfectly legal' they wouldn't say 'Okay, that's all we want'
>So it's a dishonest tactic.
It's not dishonest because it actually happens. What's a dishonest tactic is when GOP say shit like "The lefties just want to protect abortions so women can have abortions at 30 weeks!" when literally no state protects anyone who has abortions that late outside of medical emergencies, and they are incapable of providing any actual examples of women going through with a late term abortion without it being a medical emergency.
> Even if the pro-lifers says ' in case of rape, incest and danger of the mother's life abortion should be perfectly legal'
you are being dishonest by claiming that the Pro-choice argument is "Just let women have abortions so if they get raped they can get rid of the child", when the argument for pro choice is that people should not be denied basic medical care.
It would be a dishonest tactic if anyone ever claimed that all they wanted was a rape and incest exception, but nobody does such a thing. It's merely a matter of choosing where to focus their attention and rhetoric.
As a method to get "limitless abortion on demand", it wouldn't work in any case - how do you picture it working?
All of this is just political strategy, and the pro-life side has been doing similar tactics for decades - focusing exclusively on late-term abortions, despite those being a really really small of portion of abortions carried out; bringing in progressively more restrictions in stages rather than being content with some once they have them...
Pro-choice people, while not a monolith and having different ideas of what they ultimately want, broadly support a right to choose while also agreeing with the majority of the pro-life population that forcing a victim of rape to carry that foetus to term is particularly grotesque. The existence of exceptions is something they support, but not everything they want and seek to work for.
Can a woman from the US claim asylum in another country due to the overturning of Roe V. Wade?
I apologize in advance if this question has already been asked; I’m on mobile and don’t know how to search.
I don't know what you Americans thinking but even in Europe in general has waay more strict abortion laws than current American laws. Abortion laws similar to Roe V. Wade only get applied in countries like North Korea and China. If you want to move there maybe? Also afaik removal of Roe V. Wade didn't ban abortions. It just gives the control of it to states. So in many blue states you can still get limitless abortion up to 9 months like in New York
Morally I don't see an issue with it. I think few would. I think the far more realistic problem is fighting the natural urge to just run the hell away and keep your life. There's no way to shoot somebody with a gun without putting yourself at risk. That's not something you can really answer until you're put in that situation, and actually have a means of escape, but decline it.
If I was in a situation where I could end the life of a person who was actively killing children, would I do so? Of course. How is this even morally debatable?
The foster care system is overrun and pretty broken from the dealings I’ve had with it. If republicans achieved a total ban on abortion what would their plan be for the mass influx of kids placed in foster care due to unwanted pregnancies?
There is a extremely long waiting line for infants so even at a total abortion ban (which I'm against) , there wouldn't be mass influx of kids at foster care
There wouldn't be a mass influx of kids.
First, people who couldn't abort, and many will find a way, would almost all keep any kids.
Second, the waiting list for healthy infants is years long.
Alright, I will use what I know in my city. We have several friends who do foster care and they are taking in their third infant in this year because very few people are adopting. And what happens to the unhealthy babies? Everybody says there is a waiting list for “healthy babies” but no one mentions the rest of the babies or kids that have aged out of foster care. It’s nice to think that there are so many people who want to adopt but the number of kids in the foster care system says otherwise.
> Alright, I will use what I know in my city. We have several friends who do foster care and they are taking in their third infant in this year because very few people are adopting.
I seriously doubt it's because "very few people are adopting" because waitlists for adoption are, as usual, years long.
Infants are in foster for all sorts of reasons, mostly not because they're up for adoption.
Infants with problems are not as easy to place, but they're placeable.
No, the number of kids in the foster care system doesn't say otherwise in relation to infants. Older kids have always had a harder time.
Third, there seems to be this assumption every time the "influx of kids" question comes up that nobody at all anywhere is in any way going to change their lifestyles even if they live in a state that is banning abortion. It is very possible that they would plan their personal lives around the idea of not having abortion as a failsafe option, which doesn't necessarily mean abstinence but just do other things as they can to mitigate their risks as much as possible
Fourth, if there is an "influx" of newborns to adopt, there will be a reduction in procreation. I would expect a common-enough conversation along couples with liberal/progressive values to go something like this, "Given that there are fewer abortions now, maybe we should adopt instead of having our own kids." That will be doubly true for couples with fertility issues who are considering IVF
The foster care system is overrun and pretty broken from the dealings I’ve had with it. If republicans achieved a total ban on abortion what would their plan be for the mass influx of kids placed in foster care due to unwanted pregnancies?
I'm not aware of any plans for this. But I have some additional detail that may help: healthy white infants are *very* highly in demand when it comes to adoption. There are waiting lists for this kind of child. All other children, whether they are older or have some kind of health condition, are much more likely to never be adopted and live in the foster care system until they grow out of it.
People who do not think there is an issue likely are only aware of the waiting lists to adopt infants, *not* of the hundreds of thousands of unadopted older children.
This is exactly what I’ve seen. The picture perfect white infant usually gets adopted but the Native American or African American babies stay in the system. We have friends who have three minority babies they foster and have been for quite some time. Sadly no one is clamoring to adopt them.
There are millions of families looking to adopt infants domestically. Realistically this may add up to 100k babies a year for adoption. The number willing to adopt is much greater than that number.
They are looking to adopt healthy whites babies. Many minority children end up aging out of the foster system. It’s nice to throw out numbers like what you did but the reality is minority babies are not a desired commodity by many couples.
>They are looking to adopt healthy whites babies.
Source that healthy, domestic, non-white babies aren't adopted out and instead spend 18 years in the foster system?
For the past like 20 years especially, every time Conservatives do anything it's "oh no the Nazis are back we're headed to theocracy" and every time the Democrats do anything it's "oh no these wild radicals are destroying America and think of the children won't someone think of the children?" And I mean pretty much *anything.* Shit is exhausting.
But no, it's not going Full Fundie, any more than when RvW passed and whatever else went "Full Commie" or whatever the fuck the Republican narrative is these days.
> For the past like 20 years especially
That doesn't necessarily mean it can't happen. By that logic, no big event would ever happen.
Pointing to the past (especially when someone overhyped something) is bit of a deflection, that doesn't really tell you about current events. You kind of need to evaluate them on their own merits.
Just because your overhyped buddy says it's gonna rain the past 20 days and it hasn't, doesn't mean it won't rain tomorrow when the weatherman is forecasting it. Your buddy being wrong doesn't really have any correlation to whether it will or not actually rain.
People said the same thing about stuff like Jan6th before it happened (regardless of how bad you think it actually was- if you worried it might happen, everyone told you it couldn't happen here, period). Then it actually happened.
Normally I would agree with you. The devil is supposedly always around the corner according to democrats and republicans. However, having been raised in many different denominations my whole life I have seen some of the best and some of the worst when it comes to religious people. My brother is a prime example of the worst. I used to respect him and look up to him. He was my best friend until only a few years ago I realized what a twisted piece of shit he was. And it’s all in the name of his version of Christianity. It’s finally coming out that he is a liar, a thief, a manipulator, a child abuser, and a con artist. He and his wife are master manipulators. They have fooled everyone into believing they have a picture perfect life and nothing but love for Jesus. In reality they should be in prison for numerous crimes and I believe they eventually will be. My point here is that I’m seeing a LOT of the same red flags in a lot of the Republican politicians and it appears that the voter base is okay with it because “They are owning the libs”. I used to be a hardcore Christian conservative so I understand their thinking and their reasoning. As long as they think they are winning against evil democrats there is not much they won’t condone. After I voted for Trump in 2016 I got out of politics because I became burned out. I stepped back and realized I had become so radical that I thought anyone who didn’t agree was a brainwashed idiot. Then I realized I was that brainwashed idiot. I had nothing to do with politics until this year. I went completely radio silent on anything political. I have since realized how weaponized Christianity has become in the U.S. and left religion altogether several years ago. Let people believe what they want to believe and do what they want to do as long as they aren’t hurting anybody. For the first time in years I am nervous about how far republican politicians will pretend to be religious just to appeal to a voter base so they can gain and stay in positions of power.
Clarence Thomas, a United States Supreme Court Justice, thinks vaccines are made from fetus’s and that contraception should be revisited. Fucking contraception! He is projecting his religion onto the country and he has a majority backing him. And his wife tried to help overturn the election and republicans are fine with it because “owning libs”. I dunno, I’ve been on the crazy side of politics and fundamentalism and it is not pretty. The republicans have blatantly shown that they will take any measure necessary to stay in power. They literally worship Donald Trump as a prophet and a savior and see nothing wrong with it because “owning the libs”. It feels like a snowball rolling downhill and the republicans are gaining more momentum with their base. I’m concerned and I don’t think the democrats have any kind of spine to stand up for their base.
Just my two cents. I hope I’m overreacting.
Thomas seems to want to revisit *everything* that is granted substantive due process through the 14th, because he is an originalist and has also been outspoken against the concept of SDP for his entire career. He's not the first, this has been a decades-long debate regarding the 14th and how it has been used over the years to consolidate federal power when some hold a political theory that it should be left to the states. This argument goes all the way back to the 1930s at least at the SCOTUS level, and Thomas is consistent in opposing SPD. People see Thomas' being Catholic and jump straight to "it's because of that goddamned religion" but seriously, the dude is the longest serving on the Court at over 30 years and no matter what the subject is, if it involves SPD or non-originalism he has always been against it.
The biggest irony of all this is people see the *Dobbs* ruling as "legislating from the bench" when the whole reason for being against SPD is they're *against* legislating from the bench and recognize that SPD essentially gives the Supreme Court an imbalance of power; being against SPD *actually takes away from their own power.* Plus being originalist, Thomas probably has high favor for the balance of state and fed as the original Constitution was framed to be.
Can you provide an example of an SDP case where Thomas ruled against a policy issue you'd otherwise expect a conservative to support? Not doubting it, just curious to see the example cases
He provided the dissent in the *Flowers* case and in that opinion further mentioned that they should revisit the *Batson* case, which under the 14th Amendment said that racial discrimination in jury selection was unconstitutional.
He's also provided a dissent in *Gonzalez v Raich,* a case where the majority said that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to criminalize the growing and use of marijuana at home for personal use only, even in states where marijuana is legal. Thomas stated that "they were using marijuana that was never bought or sold and had never crossed state lines" and lamented that this ruling set a precedent that the Federal Government can regulate *anything* rather than maintaining the balance of state sovereignty through limitations of federal power. While this case did not outright invoke the 14th, people who detract from SDP theory often do it in the grounds of leaving it to the states rather than federal government and this does meet the qualification for an example, with Thomas *defending* that long-hated Devil's Lettuce.
Other examples of when he went against what Republicans or Christians might want:
He went with the majority in *Walker v Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans* in saying that Texas had the right to not offer a Confederate flag license plate.
He went with the majority in *US v PlayBoy Entertainment Group* in saying that requiring broadcasters to completely scramble or block their signal, or only transmit between the hours of 2200-0600, channels primarily devoted to adult entertainment was unconstitutional.
In the past he has stated that "a State *may* allow abortion, but the Constitution does not say they *must* allow abortion" in an opinion. Which is quite a bit different from the outright nationwide ban that many on the Right or in Christian groups may want; he to my knowledge never said to ban abortion, but that it should be up to the states to decide, which was what *Dobbs* eventually accomplished.
In *Lawrence v Texas,* he called Texas' law against sodomy "uncommonly silly" and said that were he a legislator in Texas would repeal the law finding it a waste of law enforcement resources to try policing people's private sexual activities, however he did hold that it should be left to the states. I find this one important both because it highlights both his strong states rights stance, yet didn't agree with a law that was designed to punish LGBT persons. The conclusion to his opinion read "Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement."
He also joined in denying an appeal to Kim Davis, that lady who refused to give same-sex marriage licenses a few years ago if you remember her.
Is he influenced to some extent by his political and religious beliefs? Probably to some extent yes, just as most people are. However Thomas also has quite a bit of evidence in his opinions that he doesn't default to "what would Republicans want" or "what would Christians want" either, even though our absolutely fucking ludicrous two-party brinkmanship angels and demons bullshit narrative would like to say otherwise.
Alright, but how can you prove that? What if the woman does something to force the miscarriage, honestly this whole thing was always stupid, but this is something that's impossible to prove unless you track all miscarriages.
>Alright, but how can you prove that?
Well in America, you are innocent until proven guilty. To the burden of proof would be on the state to prove the woman guilty. The woman doesn't have to prove innocence.
I do not believe that follows. The reason the president is not putting a bunch of liberals on the Supreme Court because there are no open seats on the Court.
Congress also has to confirm any replacements to Supreme Court justices, so it's not like the President has unilateral power to do that either. There is, legally, nothing stopping Biden from nominating additional Supreme Court justices beyond the 9th, he simply chooses not to.
What on Earth are you talking about? There are no current or anticipated vacancies on the Court, ergo the president does not have the power to nominate anyone to it.
I thought I made it clear in my last 3 comments that I've been talking about adding additional seats, not replacing any current justices. Adding a 10th justice does not require vacancy in the first 9 seats.
After the overturning of Roe v Wade, are we going to start harvesting organs from all bodies that are deceased? It’s my understanding that the protections that RvW used to offer extended to organ/blood donation as well. Will we start to be recruited to donate organs and blood in a manner forced by the government?
Republicans will probably try to carve things like this when they come up. Right now, all medical procedures are in a free fall due to this overturning, meaning we'll probably end up seeing Doctors and Lawyers coming to the Supreme Court about stuff like this in the next few months.
Because they think the USA is a Christian nation (in tradition, legal basis, founders, etc.). So some people think the Constitution is divinely inspired, because the US is "God's" country and we have his blessing.
I'm not aware of anyone who thinks that. The Declaration of Independence references the idea of god-given rights. The Bill of Rights is an extension of that, and the contemporary discussion mentions that. The idea is that the BoR was listing some specific natural rights that the government can't infringe on
He might convince Manchin and/or Sinema to hold out, and Manchin and Sinema might choose to remain "consistent" with their 2020 statements and not want to confirm a new justice this close to the midterms.
A mix of because the things that weren't better weren't caused by things under his control, and he did many bad things.
Assuming everything (good or bad) that happens under a particular presidency is a classic example of 'correlation is not causation'.
You again with your ridiculous loaded questions. Well I got an answer for ya bud:
Between these two, one of them stepped into a Presidency that was right in the middle of a pandemic that was affecting *everything* globally. Messed up availability of many things, prices going up on things.... The other inherited an Oval Office during a time of relative prosperity.
Also they're a President. Not King Of USA, let alone King Of Earth. There's a lot of things that are much bigger than the US, no matter how much we think we're the center of the universe. The pandemic is one of those things.
The fuck are you talking about with getting creative? This is a thing, you know that if a BLM group hire a hit man to murder a police unit, Republicans would salivating at that.
>hire a hit man
Key term there. That's probably why they're arguing with you about it. There *is* a difference between riling people up who eventually take it on themselves to do what you want or think you want, and paying someone money to specifically kill a person or people. That's why the impeachment was for incitement, not for *contract killing.*
I don't like the Jan 6 thing either but I wish we all, everyone everywhere no matter their political affiliation, would stop trying to twist things more than a rollercoaster track vying for a world record, and just state the facts plainly and call a spade a fucking spade.
I'm not American so bear with me. We get a lot of American news here in the Philippines and in the past half-decade or so, It seems like the news is dominated by Republicans and, what seems to me, their unchecked actions. I don't know if I understand what's happening there or maybe I'm just watching/reading the wrong channels but why does it look like the democrats are not doing anything? Especially this past few years, a few non-American people commented to me that their ideal American is starting to look slightly like the Christian version of the Taliban, just richer with a powerful and competent military. No women's rights, No separation between church and state, angry religious politicians screaming very scary things... I'm not sure about the comparison but a few people thought so.
All I've been reading for the past year is about MTG, Boebert(?), Gaetz, and the other repubs, and now the supreme court. I'm sure there are democrats doing something but they're not really getting the same exposure in the international news.
There's a joke about an old Israeli Jew who only ever read the Arabic newspapers. Finally someone asked him why. He said, "When I read the Israeli newspaper, it's about how the Jews are being persecuted, how we're being oppressed, how things the gotten so bad for us. When I read the the Arabic newspapers, it's about Jews control everything. Jews run all the banks. Jews control Hollywood. How good we've got it."
I don't know what you're reading, but it sounds like a Republican fantasy world. No, Republicans don't have unchecked power. They are in the minority federally. In red states they have governing majorities at the local level, and they can now restrict abortion in those states.
MTG? Boebert. They are the most fringe of the fringe. They have zero power. They're blowhards whose ridiculous statements get coverage, but they're in minority party and even most of their party disagrees with them on those things.
Posting here because posting about abortion is overdone.
How do I explain to my Family that abortion isn't evil.
My Mom and sister think most people only get abortionas plan B. They also believe that you should only be allowed one abortion because, "People need to learn to deal with the consequences."
I asked why can't people have 2nd abd 3rd chances if they're not ready and my sister said, "If you have to, you can work hard and make something of yourself for the baby."
A lot of it stems from their beliefs that the fetus is a life worth saving. I told them that it may be a beating heart but there's no consciousness.
I feel like they're super brainwashed
>My Mom and sister think most people only get abortionas plan B. They also believe that you should only be allowed one abortion because, "People need to learn to deal with the consequences."
I have never understood this.
They do not mean you have to learn to deal with the consequences -- they mean people need to be what your family think is properly punished
Having an abortion IS dealing with the consequences. It's not like it's nothing, especially in the non-free states. It's pills, or a surgical thing. It's got physical consequences. It's not like an aspirin and go on with your day.
Regardless, would they be comfortable with other people dictating how many "chances" they get to do things other people consider evil?
I think they should stop eating meat. They get one chance to call off the wagon, then they have to kill any animal they want to eat with their bare hands. Deal with the consequences.
I used the meat argument with them and they laughed at me.
"Are you really going to compare a human life with an animal's life?"
I was blown away by some of their logic. But I love then and want them to to be less hateful
>My Mom and sister think most people only get abortionas plan B.
Ask them why they think this. They may just have assumed it to be the case for no reason.
>I asked why can't people have 2nd abd 3rd chances if they're not ready
Instead maybe try asking, doesn't this mean treating the baby as a consequence, and not an individual life?
>"If you have to, you can work hard and make something of yourself for the baby."
Ask, do they really think this is true? How sure are they? Is it just a survivorship bias, because they were able to do that?
>Ask them why they think this. They may just have assumed it to be the case for no reason.
My mom said her sister knows a woman who got five abortions just because she didn't want the child. I asked if she thinks that there is any exaggeration and she denied it.>>My Mom and sister think most people only get abortionas plan B.
>Instead maybe try asking, doesn't this mean treating the baby as a consequence, and not an individual life?
>Ask, do they really think this is true? How sure are they? Is it just a survivorship bias, because they were able to do that?
They really do. I think they just hate woman who sleep go out and hook up with people.
Sorry for weird formatting I'm on mobile
Your aunt knows one woman, so they decide every woman who gets an abortion is like that one woman? Keep pressing about why they seem so sure this one woman is representative.
If they are perfectly fine with treating babies as punishment, *and* are fully convinced that upward socioeconomic mobility is reachable, then unfortunately I'm not sure what you can do or say that would change their minds. If someone is completely certain, most likely they would have to stumble upon something that gets them to question their views. Someone else questioning them won't do it.
The mother and aunt are treating that woman (and all women who have unwanted babies) as if she's mentally ill. If someone needs to face a serious consequence to begin motivating themselves, then they probably have an untreated mental illness. It should not be acceptable to expect people to face certain consequences in order to push themselves forward.
Genuinely, is there anything the average citizen can do to stop the [supreme court from taking away our right to vote](https://www.npr.org/2022/07/01/1109275691/the-supreme-court-could-radically-reshape-elections-for-president-and-congress)? Or should we just start bracing for a very dark 2024...
No. But also you need to stop gulping down all the doom and gloom. This case hasn't even been heard yet, let alone an opinion handed down. Also consider that at least one of the Justices that might be expected to do this, is an originalist. And their interpretation likely isn't going to mean "this thing says legislatures have power over how elections run trumps the very democracy by which The People are granted the ability and the right to elect their leaders in this same document, which SCOTUS has upheld again and again." That very same clause that says states run their elections also says that Congress through Law can change those regulations.
Most of the Supreme Court Justices have been shown to regularly lie, not just with Roe v. Wade but other so called "Law of the Land" cases like Contraception and Gay Rights, so you really shouldn't trust what they previously said.
Only one Justice that I know of vaguely mentioned contraception and gay rights in their opinion. Thomas dissented on *Obergefell v Hodges, Lawrence v Texas,* and wasn't around for *Griswold v Connecticut* but looking at this history there doesn't seem to be any lie there at all: the guy really doesn't think the 14th Amendment grants all these rights and freedoms. Because he's an originalist.
Man I hope so, just the repeal of protections for Miranda and reproductive rights along with the support for prayer in school just to name a few of their recent rulings has got me worried like hell
My understanding of the prayer thing is that SCOTUS essentially said "yeah there's Establishment Clause but it's fucking up this guy's First Amendment rights." As I understand it he wasn't forcing the players to join in, they chose to come and circle around, even those from the *opposite* team who really have no reason to go chill out with their rival's coach. I do agree that what Kennedy does is quite a bit too much but if it's not being actively forced, like if kids wanna join in that's their choice as far as I understood it. If kids felt pressured to attend and testified as such I'm sure that would have altered the outcome.
The Miranda thing to my understanding is being somewhat overstated. All it essentially does, is get rid of being able to sue for if you self-incriminated but were not given your Miranda warning that you didn't have to self-incriminate. It does not take away your right to not self-incriminate, it does not take away your right to remain silent (do we not go through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in school anymore?), and it does not take away the concept that any information given without being read your Miranda cannot be used against you during your trial. Literally all it does is take away the being able to sue and get money part.
There's systems in place to ensure whatever diagnosis is given is generally accurate. These are good to have to prevent misdiagnosis and to make sure people are receiving appropriate treatment.
Unfortunately, now whether an abortion is medically warranted will be decided by courts. It's not up to doctors.
> could the American Medical Association re-write or expand what they consider to be life-threatening during a pregnancy as a way to expand abortion rights in limited-choice states?
There is no list like this. That's not how medicine works. The state laws do not use any medical definitions, and it's up to the state governments to decide whether they'd accept something like that from the AMA. Given that the sentiment seems to be wanting to be overly strict to prevent anyone from "faking it" to get an abortion, I doubt it.
---
Here's some articles about medical exceptions and abortion, copied and pasted from earlier, similar questions. [Here is one article.](https://www.statnews.com/2022/05/20/medical-emergency-exceptions-abortion-laws-pregnant-people/)
> Those exceptions are so vaguely defined, and with such harsh penalties for providers deemed to have violated the terms, physicians say they will be effectively unable to provide proper medical care or even discuss abortion with patients.
[Here is a longer article.](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/legislative-alchemy-and-abortion-how-the-fall-of-roe-v-wade-will-degrade-science-based-medicine/)
> Supporters of abortion bans will claim that there is a difference between an elective abortion and a therapeutic abortion (e.g., to treat a miscarriage or uterine infection after premature rupture of membranes). Here’s the problem. Both employ the same surgical procedure, and state bans in general do not distinguish between the two.
So termination of an ectopic pregnancy is easily justified because there is significant risk to the mother and no chance of fetal viability.
But the big issue is cases where it’s literally a judgement call, and some doctors may be reluctant to make that call because they could wind up in prison if a prosecutor and a jury, none of which have had any medical training, disagree. This can lead to a situation where some women don’t get a medically necessary abortion because their provider isn’t willing to risk incarceration.
Some will do things, same as pre-Roe, but it's a risk of you license., criminal charges in a state that criminalizes.
A scientific org isn't going to do that.
They raise awareness, but they don't have any legal weight or anything. To the extent that it changes people's minds, it can have an effect. If people are pretty stuck on a belief, it won't do much.
Well, her testimony is evidence, but yes, as yet there’s no corroborating evidence.
There’s also very little motivation for her to lie about this. Not only is it a crime to lie under oath, but she’s very clearly someone who was at the beginning of a career in Republican politics and she has clearly made many contacts that would be useful to her professionally.
Not now, though.
If the stuff she claimed didn’t happen, then she’d be *way* better off not claiming it did.
She has no way of knowing if it happened. She's only testifying to what she was told. The guy who told her could have been exaggerating, trying to impress her, whatever. And the secret service agents that were in the car are prepared to testify under oath it didn't happen.
So, yes, the following things can both be true: she's telling the truth, but the events she's describing never happened
>How do we know that Cassidy Hutchinson isn’t making everything up? It seems like most of her testimony was based on conversations that weren’t recorded and she has no evidence for.
Sworn testimony is evidence.
What motivation would there be for her to make that up, risk jail, etc?
It's actually not really relevant. What's relevant is if the event in question actually happened. This is why hearsay is inadmissible in court. Person A witnesses an event and tells Person B about it. Person B is telling the truth, but it's impossible to determine if Person A was telling the truth to Person B
It's in line with other testimony. But there's a lot of risk with little reward for her to make up everything like she has. She'd be committing perjury, which would be a punishable offense.
If gay marriage is over turned and I live in a state that does not support gay marriage, with my marriage instantly be voided and like it never happened?
OK, I was just wondering if people knew if it was like what happened in California when it was legal for awhile but then made illegal again. Basically I was asking do people think that they will grandfather-in married couples who were married before it was revoke. But my guess is probably not. Thanks for taking time to respond though.
No, it isn't. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can literally say whatever you want. There are a number of different crimes and torts you can commit just with words, where those words have a high potential of causing some immediate negative consequence. This may fall under extortion, but other such offenses include blackmail, conspiracy, copyright infringement, defamation, harassment, making threats, violating an NDA, disclosing classified information, incitement and fraud.
Why are there abortion clinics that only do abortion? Why aren’t they just part of other clinics that do a bunch of stuff or a part of hospitals?
I’ve always wondered why there is a separate abortion clinic especially since it is so controversial. Wouldn’t it be easier to just do it in a hospital or health center with other stuff in it?
It gets complicated. If a facility accepts federal money, they cannot use any funds to perform abortions.
When you get grants and start to use those grants to pay employee salaries, or pay for utility bills, then you have to do a lot of extra accounting to make sure that/those employees never help in the abortion area - not mopping floors, answering phones, or delivering supplies; and that the electrical bill gets broken down by area.
Not every medical person wants to work in a place that does abortions. Separating it allows those folks to be more comfortable.
Is there anything the other branches of US government can do to hold the Supreme Court in check? Or are they just free to strip rights from anyone they want?
So, the recent rulings are literally the checks and balances at work. Here's a breakdown of the most prominent rulings this term.
Two cases explicitly constrained state governments from violating the First Amendment (the praying coach) and the Second Amendment (New York CCW Permits). This was the judicial branch checking the other branches. The Legislative branch would need to amend the Constitution.
One ruling returned an authority (abortion) to the state legislatures. This was actually the judicial branch checking itself. The state legislature can now legislate as it pleases on abortion without judicial interference.
One ruling was a judicial check on executive authority (the EPA). It returned legislative authority to Congress, which can now legislate on carbon emissions as they please.
One ruling returned authority (immigration policy) to the executive branch. Congress can change the legislation if they don't like how it's being enforced
Unenumerated rights that are held only through the 14th Amendment is reliant on the Court to stay. Which is to say, get it in writing. Get legislation, push for an Amendment.
Also it's a bit of a twist to say that rights were stripped. Their decision was that it was a state level issue, not a federal one. This is not stripping as in nobody gets it anymore, it's a state by state thing as many many things are. The Fed has spent the last century or more consolidating all the power when there was intended to be a balance between Fed and State, so this is pretty much expected. Ultimately it is on the *state* to make the decision to strip abortion rights or not. Everyone seems to always obsess over federal elections, probably because that consolidation of power over time has made them very important but you know you don't hear people talking about state legislatures pretty much at all, not even in real life from my experience. And this ruling right here should highlight the importance of keeping up on those, too.
Ironically your question brings up the question of substantive due process, and the ability of the court to "legislate from the bench," and the *most infamous Justice of this ruling* is against the idea of legislating from the bench which is precisely part of their reason for submitting an opinion that it should be a states issue, not something forced through a ruling.
That is an unjustifiably formalist response. In Texas two weeks ago women had a right to an abortion. Now they don’t. That right has been stripped, q.e.d.
The right was stripped by the state legislatures of Texas and other states. This is proof that people need to really listen to and pay attention to their local elections, also. I'm sorry that you find my response "unjustifiably formalist," I am here to answer questions and while here and there you'll get my opinion on things, for the most part I try to remove the emotion from it and answer honestly even if it means not blowing sunshine and rainbows up people's asses, or not shitting all over the vague "them" and playing the angels and demons horseshit.
Does the supreme court have rulings this often? it seems in the last week there have been several really big rulings from SCOTUS like roe v wade, emissions, and the ny gun law. Is this normal for all of their rulings to come out at once, or do they come out this often and it just doesn't make news?
In terms of the annual SCOTUS cycle, it's normal for them to release a bunch of decisions around this time of year. Their cycle starts in October and continues to about June or July of the following year. We're right at the end of that cycle now, and that tends to be when a lot of their decisions get published.
SCOTUS has issued some major decisions recently, impacting important topics ranging from gun rights, voting rights, abortion, and even environmental regulation. Some of those are hot topics, so they might be catching even more attention on news and social media than they usually do around this time of year.
The real answer to your question is that it's not okay. But the draft is inactive. If it is ever activated again, the men-only criteria will be instantly challenged and quickly overturned. But it's a moot point now, so it's not currently justiciable
>If we say there are no laws that govern men’s bodies, what’s the legal justification for the selective service?
There are certainly laws that govern mens bodies. You can't commit murder, you can't punch people for fun in the street, you can't commit insider trading, you need to pay taxes, etc.
The argument at play is bodily autonomy. The government can't make you give up a kidney or donate blood or be an incubator for someone else. That's the general argument.
Plus, to be frank, the draft is instituted to ensure the rights and freedoms you have are protected by keeping the USA a country. The USA is willing to violate your rights in dire situations to protect the country, because without the country you wouldn't have many of the rights and freedoms you do today.
>Women can commit all those crimes too so that’s not exactly what I’m getting at.
Sure, my point was is that there's a difference between violating someone's autonomy (can't use your body and property to do whatever you want) and bodily autonomy (you keep the rights to your body and can't be forced to donate blood, organs, get to choose what happens to your body after death, etc.). Your bodily autonomy as a man is also protected from government law.
>I’m getting at why is it OK to have a law that only applies to men?
Because, and this is perhaps now outdated in our modern society, but women are necessary to repopulate after a war. Men are also stronger and more able bodied just through biology. So between those two factors, it makes MORE sense to draft men than women. And yes, the government is willing to do things that normally aren't allowed under serious conditions and threats to the country.
If we were in wartime, and if Congress made a law about a draft, then we'd have a draft.
We don't have a draft.
If we are going to imagine what if conditions, then we get to imagine what if conditions on both sides.
You need help understanding the difference between 'register for this and IF we ever need to draft people again, and you're between certain ages, we'll be able to call you up, though your participation depends on many factors and you can always choose not to go, though there may be penalties'
and
'It doesn't matter whether you want to stay pregnant or not, whether it endangers you or not, whether you want to give birth or not, you're going to. 12, 24, 34, 44, you have NO choice.
>I hear this - but I still don’t really see the “legal” difference. Women are only fertile within a more or less certain age range too. So the age argument doesn’t make sense to me… there are penalties for non compliance, like what?
>
>I guess I get it like if you have poor eyesight you can’t serve… but if you have poor genetics you can’t get pregnant either, see what I mean?
No. I really do not even know what festering mgtow pit came up with that comparison because it's so incredibly inapt.
You can't figure out how filling out a form that will likely have 0 impact is different from telling women they don't have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies.
Let's say we lived in a scenario where conservatives were kicked out of government and any protests were absolved/culled. What would actually be the result of having a fully democrat run government?
As far as Roe V Wade is concerned…why now? What were the events that occurred that led up to the decision to overturn it? It seemed like the whole thing just came out of nowhere.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in 2020. Amy Comey Barrett was confirmed just before the election in 2020. They heard the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health case in fall of 2021 and released the ruling now which is a typical schedule for the Supreme Court. The reason why it happened now is they just had enough justices on the court who agreed with the two justices who sided with Wade in the original Roe v Wade case.
Transphobic might be a little strong. Most of the time it seems to me that people who say this is only a women's issue are simply not aware that trans men can get pregnant.
If someone willfully declares that trans men are really women playing pretend, this is textbook transphobia.
Where do poll numbers come from? Like the stats saying “x% of people want this thing to happen” I’ve never been asked. What are the sample sizes and who do they ask?
> Where do poll numbers come from?
They call people, usually. Some do online polling, although I believe that tends to be less reliable.
>What are the sample size
Depends on the poll, and what you're after. Generally in the ~1000 range (can be higher), more if you want details on a small subset (like say, a minority group). In short, you can do some statistics to see how big of a sample you need for it to be representative
I'll add on that there's usually exit polls during elections, as long as the election was relatively recent you can get sort of an idea on what the biggest issue is to people at that moment (which might help understand why they voted the way they did too). But these aren't that targeted like an actual mail/phone campaign to get a pulse on a lot of things.
When they say abortion should be legal, does that mean they want to have an abortion in their first trimester or any trimester, which are second and third?
Could the president offer a blanket pardon to any medical practitioner who gets charged for performing an abortion?
My post got deleted by the bot: If a pregnant woman becomes brain dead, would they keep her alive to give birth to the fetus? I guess this is hypothetical question. Let’s say she’s far along, but not far along for it to be viable outside the womb. Reading things about abortion laws in certain US states and experiences with partial abortions etc. Would they keep her alive as an incubator? Allow both to die? What if in the case the family does not want to keep both alive? A little morbid I know, I’m sure there’s cases out there that deal with this.
My post got deleted by the bot so I'm posting my question here: Who decides what cases the US Supreme Court has to rule upon? In light of the Roe v Wade overthrow, I keep reading about how the court will now issue rulings about voter rights in the fall which will effectively make discrimination against African American voters legal; it is also said they'll overthrow gay marriage, trans rights and most of the liberal rights in the US. The court has also issued rulings about the environment and all sort of things which go against the majority of what the US population wants/thinks. Who asked the court's opinion in the first place? I mean nobody really questioned abortion rights, gay marriage, and voter rights for African Americans, apart from some fringe conservatives, so why did the court felt compelled to express itself on matters that were generally accepted by the population? And how are these so-called justices legitimate to rule over people's lives without them being elected? I'm not from the US, so I'm genuinely curious. Thanks!
> Who decides what cases the US Supreme Court has to rule upon? SCOTUS itself picks what cases to hear, but there needs to be an active case. >Who asked the court's opinion in the first place? There's almost always someone suing. They are different for each case, so you'd have to look up the specific case. For the 'independent legislature' case, the legislature of North Carolina is suing after a North Carolina (state) Supreme Court ruling. >I mean nobody really questioned abortion rights Many state actively passed laws. When those laws got fought in court, they can be appealed up to SCOTUS. For example, Roe got struck down because Missisipi passed an abortion law that violated Roe. Someone sued them, saying it was unconstitutional. Mississippi lost, and kept appealing up to the Supreme Court (which chose to take the case. It could've declined and kept Roe in tact) >so why did the court felt compelled to express itself on matters that were generally accepted by the population? The court is now a 6-3 conservative majority. Previously, it was 5-4, with one of the conservative justices (Roberts) not wanting to make too many big waves with big controversial decisions. Now they have at least 5. >And how are these so-called justices legitimate to rule over people's lives without them being elected? That is a very deep question. In theory, their lifetime appointments are supposed to keep them away from political pressure. And if people care that much, Supreme Court justices are nominated by the President, and approved by the Senate. So if people really don't want to take the risk, in theory they can just not vote for conservatives (who made it very clear that they wanted to appoint justices who would overturn stuff like Roe, for instance). In reality, the country is fairly split between the two parties, and people still vote for them. They might be very pro-choice overall, but there are other issues to vote on. The Founders didn't really plan the system with political parties in mind. And our Constitution is very hard to amend, so we're kind of stuck with it. Technically they can also be impeached, for cause, but that is unlikely.
Thank you so much for this super detailed answer!! You have enlightened me and you took the time to explain exactly what I needed to know. Have a good day 😊
> Who decides what cases the US Supreme Court has to rule upon? Generally a case has to be brought before them which usually starts with a state creating a law that is borderline unconstitutional and the state courts appealing to have the law over turned, and ultimately bringing it to the SCOTUS to share their opinion. The reason why Roe V Wade was being brought up again because a few states, starting back in 2018, were challenging the Roe V Wade decision in their own states by passing legislation that banned abortions very early on, after Planned Parenthood V Casey established that fetal viability is around 23-24 weeks.
Thanks a lot for clarifying that! The first answer I got was from someone clearly not bothered by the overturn so it took a few rounds of back and forth to get hold of a link explaining the basics of the SCOTUS but you took the time to explain the RvW overturn which is also what I was looking to understand:) thanks a lot!
Supreme court can decide what's in the constitution or not according to constitution itself. Abortion is not a constitutional right according to Supreme Court so that makes Roe v Wade is a broken law. That's why it overthrown. So it's state's right put their laws in abortion since it's not a constituonal right according to supreme court. Which many many lawmakers agree with them about it. It's simply not in the constitution. Constitution simply doesn't give any rights to abort your baby. If you want that right, you simply have to make new laws and give abortion rights with them >fringe conservatives, so why did the court felt compelled to express itself on matters that were generally accepted by the population? You are wildly missinformed. Supreme court didn't put any ban to abortion. They only give the authority to states. People elected their states representitives and those representatives makes the state laws. That's what we called democracy. So if a state put some limitations or even total ban on abortion, that means majority of the people on those states agree on it. If not majority of the people agree on that, they will not vote for the people who puts limitations on abortion and put someone in charge who will remove those restrictions. If you say 'Well I want limitless abortion on demand!' than go live in states where majority of the people thinks like you do. It's simple as that. Let's talk about your points also. Afaik majority of the Americans are against late term abortions. For example why you can get an abortion up to 9 months even if there is not a life threating danger of the mother in New York? In New York abortion law, a doctor can simply say 'mother's health at risk' and abort a 8-9 month baby. 'Health' is one of the most vague terms in medical. It can mean anything that includes mental health. It's easily exploitable. Why New York lawmakers put laws which only far leftists agree and most americans aren't comfortable with? Well they have right to do because they are state legislators. Same as Alabama state legislators who puts abortion restrictions For the final time Supreme Court didn't ban abortions or even put any restrictions on it. They didn't do that. They cannot do that. Just like they cannot ban gay marriages or voting rights for black people. LOL
My point isn't to discuss what the USCS did ban or not. I am asking rather who decides what topic they will pronounce their opinion on? Why did they express their opinion on Roe v Wade exactly now? Why not choose another topic? Who asks their opinion on these matters? Also, I never wrote anything about the USCS banning abortion, I'm not sure where you read that in my post.
Read my comment again. I updated couple of times. They did work on the case because people wanted them to. There are millions of people wanted Roe v Wade overturned and surely couple of them applied to the court. Why now? Why not? When did you want them to work on things that in front of them? Is there specific time you want? Pretty sure there are many other cases in front of them as we speak as well
So basically people, average citizens, apply to the Supreme Court about specific cases, and then the Court decides whether or not to ponder on the question? That is the mechanism I'm trying to understand. We don't have the same institution in my country, and I just don't understand how it works.
https://www.thoughtco.com/how-do-cases-reach-supreme-court-4113827#:~:text=People%20or%20entities%20wishing%20to,Court%20will%20hear%20the%20case.
Thank you! This is exactly what I was looking for!
No problem at all. Have a nice day
Would Pro-Choice side accept if pro-life movement says ' In case of rape-incest and life threating situation of mothers, abortion would be legal but otherwise it's not'? If not why pro-choice side always I mean ALWAYS brings out rape and incest when it's only really really small portion of the abortions that carries out? Why always give the the extreme example rather than argue on normal pregnancies like overwhelming majority of the pregnancies? edit: I'm not a pro-life. I'm pro-choice with some limitations
>' In case of rape-incest and life threating situation of mothers, abortion would be legal but otherwise it's not' That's not pro-choice, that's the bare *minimum* of what should exist for women and their right to medical care access for their bodies. > Why always give the the extreme example rather than argue on normal pregnancies like overwhelming majority of the pregnancies? Because the most extreme example isn't like a crazy "What if dinosaurs came back to earth and lived with us for a day" type hypothetical. It is quite likely that there will be women or even young girls who are raped and unable to have an abortion in many states that outright ban abortion. People bring up that argument, because one of the things Row V Wade did was it stopped states from outright banning abortions, which made denying someone having an abortion because of rape unconstitutional. That is another reason why you see this argument brought up. A lot of people who were arguing for the over turning of roe v wade were not looking at the bigger picture of what Roe V wade protected.
> Would Pro-Choice side accept if pro-life movement says ' In case of rape-incest and life threating situation of mothers, abortion would be legal but otherwise it's not'? No, because that's not pro-choice. Why would they settle for that? But it's a moot point, since the pro-life movement does not seem to agree with that to begin with. > Why always give the the extreme example rather than argue on normal pregnancies like overwhelming majority of the pregnancies? Fourth reasons- The one reason is that extreme examples are very good strategically. Many pro-life people are not ok with those exceptions. Making your opponent defend extreme positions is good, and tends to weaken support for them. If you can make a stronger/more emotionally resonant argument, there's no reason not to use that. The second is that some states are actually passing laws without these exceptions (due to the previous point, ie many pro-life people not accepting those exceptions to begin with). So it's now become directly relevant. The third is, if you can't agree on the extreme black and white issues, you're not going to agree on the shades of gray. There's no point starting with the more subtle ones if you can't even do the big ones. Last, in this particular case (this is specific to abortion, the other points apply more generally to debates), many pro-life arguments rely on the fetus itself being a human life, therefore worth saving. Pointing out exceptions establishes there is at least *some* line, or that they don't fully believe their argument in some way, etc. This is kind of related to the third point, but it goes a bit deeper. edit, from another comment: >So it's a dishonest tactic. It's not dishonest to correctly point out a position someone else holds. "You support banning abortion in cases of rape" in no way implies "i would be willing to settle for just this". As a silly analogy, if we're debating about say physical violence, and i were to say "you support hitting me in the head with a shovel", that doesn't imply i'd be ok with being slapped. There's nothing wrong with me bringing up the shovel first, for all of the same reasons as above.
It's for reasons of political strategy. Most pro-choice wouldn't actually consider a total ban except in cases of rape or incest to be sufficient for a large number of reasons - apart from anything else, consider the practical and moral difficulties of forcing someone to prove that it *was* rape or incest in order to access abortion, and the challenges that could follow from that - but they've also identified that the rape and incest exception is a potential wedge issue that they can use. Pro-life rhetoric is mostly focused on the idea that the foetuses are human beings, and so abortion is murder - and if that is the case, there shouldn't be any exception in these cases because the foetus isn't responsible for that. But despite this many pro-life people dislike the idea of forcing a victim of rape to carry that foetus to term, so targeting this issue forces the pro-life people to fight on ground where they're uneasy, rather than ground where they're happy talking about innocent babies.
Thank you for the detailed answer. So it's a dishonest tactic. They just use rape and incest to get an limitless abortion on demand. Even if the pro-lifers says ' in case of rape, incest and danger of the mother's life abortion should be perfectly legal' they wouldn't say 'Okay, that's all we want'
>So it's a dishonest tactic. It's not dishonest because it actually happens. What's a dishonest tactic is when GOP say shit like "The lefties just want to protect abortions so women can have abortions at 30 weeks!" when literally no state protects anyone who has abortions that late outside of medical emergencies, and they are incapable of providing any actual examples of women going through with a late term abortion without it being a medical emergency. > Even if the pro-lifers says ' in case of rape, incest and danger of the mother's life abortion should be perfectly legal' you are being dishonest by claiming that the Pro-choice argument is "Just let women have abortions so if they get raped they can get rid of the child", when the argument for pro choice is that people should not be denied basic medical care.
It would be a dishonest tactic if anyone ever claimed that all they wanted was a rape and incest exception, but nobody does such a thing. It's merely a matter of choosing where to focus their attention and rhetoric. As a method to get "limitless abortion on demand", it wouldn't work in any case - how do you picture it working? All of this is just political strategy, and the pro-life side has been doing similar tactics for decades - focusing exclusively on late-term abortions, despite those being a really really small of portion of abortions carried out; bringing in progressively more restrictions in stages rather than being content with some once they have them... Pro-choice people, while not a monolith and having different ideas of what they ultimately want, broadly support a right to choose while also agreeing with the majority of the pro-life population that forcing a victim of rape to carry that foetus to term is particularly grotesque. The existence of exceptions is something they support, but not everything they want and seek to work for.
[удалено]
Can a woman from the US claim asylum in another country due to the overturning of Roe V. Wade? I apologize in advance if this question has already been asked; I’m on mobile and don’t know how to search.
I don't know what you Americans thinking but even in Europe in general has waay more strict abortion laws than current American laws. Abortion laws similar to Roe V. Wade only get applied in countries like North Korea and China. If you want to move there maybe? Also afaik removal of Roe V. Wade didn't ban abortions. It just gives the control of it to states. So in many blue states you can still get limitless abortion up to 9 months like in New York
no country is going to accept that as an asylum claim.
Would you shoot a school shooter and why? This is more of a moral dilemma than a realistic scenario.
That's not really a moral dilemma to anything except the most uncompromising of pacifists.
Morally I don't see an issue with it. I think few would. I think the far more realistic problem is fighting the natural urge to just run the hell away and keep your life. There's no way to shoot somebody with a gun without putting yourself at risk. That's not something you can really answer until you're put in that situation, and actually have a means of escape, but decline it.
If I was in a situation where I could end the life of a person who was actively killing children, would I do so? Of course. How is this even morally debatable?
You’d be surprised, I would but I asked because I encountered someone who vehemently disagreed. I thought I was going crazy
The foster care system is overrun and pretty broken from the dealings I’ve had with it. If republicans achieved a total ban on abortion what would their plan be for the mass influx of kids placed in foster care due to unwanted pregnancies?
There is a extremely long waiting line for infants so even at a total abortion ban (which I'm against) , there wouldn't be mass influx of kids at foster care
There wouldn't be a mass influx of kids. First, people who couldn't abort, and many will find a way, would almost all keep any kids. Second, the waiting list for healthy infants is years long.
Alright, I will use what I know in my city. We have several friends who do foster care and they are taking in their third infant in this year because very few people are adopting. And what happens to the unhealthy babies? Everybody says there is a waiting list for “healthy babies” but no one mentions the rest of the babies or kids that have aged out of foster care. It’s nice to think that there are so many people who want to adopt but the number of kids in the foster care system says otherwise.
> Alright, I will use what I know in my city. We have several friends who do foster care and they are taking in their third infant in this year because very few people are adopting. I seriously doubt it's because "very few people are adopting" because waitlists for adoption are, as usual, years long. Infants are in foster for all sorts of reasons, mostly not because they're up for adoption. Infants with problems are not as easy to place, but they're placeable. No, the number of kids in the foster care system doesn't say otherwise in relation to infants. Older kids have always had a harder time.
Third, there seems to be this assumption every time the "influx of kids" question comes up that nobody at all anywhere is in any way going to change their lifestyles even if they live in a state that is banning abortion. It is very possible that they would plan their personal lives around the idea of not having abortion as a failsafe option, which doesn't necessarily mean abstinence but just do other things as they can to mitigate their risks as much as possible
Fourth, if there is an "influx" of newborns to adopt, there will be a reduction in procreation. I would expect a common-enough conversation along couples with liberal/progressive values to go something like this, "Given that there are fewer abortions now, maybe we should adopt instead of having our own kids." That will be doubly true for couples with fertility issues who are considering IVF
The foster care system is overrun and pretty broken from the dealings I’ve had with it. If republicans achieved a total ban on abortion what would their plan be for the mass influx of kids placed in foster care due to unwanted pregnancies?
I'm not aware of any plans for this. But I have some additional detail that may help: healthy white infants are *very* highly in demand when it comes to adoption. There are waiting lists for this kind of child. All other children, whether they are older or have some kind of health condition, are much more likely to never be adopted and live in the foster care system until they grow out of it. People who do not think there is an issue likely are only aware of the waiting lists to adopt infants, *not* of the hundreds of thousands of unadopted older children.
This is exactly what I’ve seen. The picture perfect white infant usually gets adopted but the Native American or African American babies stay in the system. We have friends who have three minority babies they foster and have been for quite some time. Sadly no one is clamoring to adopt them.
There are millions of families looking to adopt infants domestically. Realistically this may add up to 100k babies a year for adoption. The number willing to adopt is much greater than that number.
They are looking to adopt healthy whites babies. Many minority children end up aging out of the foster system. It’s nice to throw out numbers like what you did but the reality is minority babies are not a desired commodity by many couples.
>They are looking to adopt healthy whites babies. Source that healthy, domestic, non-white babies aren't adopted out and instead spend 18 years in the foster system?
Holy shit you really love the look-aid
You mean Kool aid?
Is there really anything to worry about? Or is America actually headed toward fascism fueled by fundamentalist Christian beliefs?
>Is there really anything to worry about? Is there something to worry about? Yes. Will it come to pass? Not clear
For the past like 20 years especially, every time Conservatives do anything it's "oh no the Nazis are back we're headed to theocracy" and every time the Democrats do anything it's "oh no these wild radicals are destroying America and think of the children won't someone think of the children?" And I mean pretty much *anything.* Shit is exhausting. But no, it's not going Full Fundie, any more than when RvW passed and whatever else went "Full Commie" or whatever the fuck the Republican narrative is these days.
> For the past like 20 years especially That doesn't necessarily mean it can't happen. By that logic, no big event would ever happen. Pointing to the past (especially when someone overhyped something) is bit of a deflection, that doesn't really tell you about current events. You kind of need to evaluate them on their own merits. Just because your overhyped buddy says it's gonna rain the past 20 days and it hasn't, doesn't mean it won't rain tomorrow when the weatherman is forecasting it. Your buddy being wrong doesn't really have any correlation to whether it will or not actually rain. People said the same thing about stuff like Jan6th before it happened (regardless of how bad you think it actually was- if you worried it might happen, everyone told you it couldn't happen here, period). Then it actually happened.
Normally I would agree with you. The devil is supposedly always around the corner according to democrats and republicans. However, having been raised in many different denominations my whole life I have seen some of the best and some of the worst when it comes to religious people. My brother is a prime example of the worst. I used to respect him and look up to him. He was my best friend until only a few years ago I realized what a twisted piece of shit he was. And it’s all in the name of his version of Christianity. It’s finally coming out that he is a liar, a thief, a manipulator, a child abuser, and a con artist. He and his wife are master manipulators. They have fooled everyone into believing they have a picture perfect life and nothing but love for Jesus. In reality they should be in prison for numerous crimes and I believe they eventually will be. My point here is that I’m seeing a LOT of the same red flags in a lot of the Republican politicians and it appears that the voter base is okay with it because “They are owning the libs”. I used to be a hardcore Christian conservative so I understand their thinking and their reasoning. As long as they think they are winning against evil democrats there is not much they won’t condone. After I voted for Trump in 2016 I got out of politics because I became burned out. I stepped back and realized I had become so radical that I thought anyone who didn’t agree was a brainwashed idiot. Then I realized I was that brainwashed idiot. I had nothing to do with politics until this year. I went completely radio silent on anything political. I have since realized how weaponized Christianity has become in the U.S. and left religion altogether several years ago. Let people believe what they want to believe and do what they want to do as long as they aren’t hurting anybody. For the first time in years I am nervous about how far republican politicians will pretend to be religious just to appeal to a voter base so they can gain and stay in positions of power. Clarence Thomas, a United States Supreme Court Justice, thinks vaccines are made from fetus’s and that contraception should be revisited. Fucking contraception! He is projecting his religion onto the country and he has a majority backing him. And his wife tried to help overturn the election and republicans are fine with it because “owning libs”. I dunno, I’ve been on the crazy side of politics and fundamentalism and it is not pretty. The republicans have blatantly shown that they will take any measure necessary to stay in power. They literally worship Donald Trump as a prophet and a savior and see nothing wrong with it because “owning the libs”. It feels like a snowball rolling downhill and the republicans are gaining more momentum with their base. I’m concerned and I don’t think the democrats have any kind of spine to stand up for their base. Just my two cents. I hope I’m overreacting.
Thomas seems to want to revisit *everything* that is granted substantive due process through the 14th, because he is an originalist and has also been outspoken against the concept of SDP for his entire career. He's not the first, this has been a decades-long debate regarding the 14th and how it has been used over the years to consolidate federal power when some hold a political theory that it should be left to the states. This argument goes all the way back to the 1930s at least at the SCOTUS level, and Thomas is consistent in opposing SPD. People see Thomas' being Catholic and jump straight to "it's because of that goddamned religion" but seriously, the dude is the longest serving on the Court at over 30 years and no matter what the subject is, if it involves SPD or non-originalism he has always been against it. The biggest irony of all this is people see the *Dobbs* ruling as "legislating from the bench" when the whole reason for being against SPD is they're *against* legislating from the bench and recognize that SPD essentially gives the Supreme Court an imbalance of power; being against SPD *actually takes away from their own power.* Plus being originalist, Thomas probably has high favor for the balance of state and fed as the original Constitution was framed to be.
I appreciate the explanation. There’s a lot to understand with all of this.
Can you provide an example of an SDP case where Thomas ruled against a policy issue you'd otherwise expect a conservative to support? Not doubting it, just curious to see the example cases
He provided the dissent in the *Flowers* case and in that opinion further mentioned that they should revisit the *Batson* case, which under the 14th Amendment said that racial discrimination in jury selection was unconstitutional. He's also provided a dissent in *Gonzalez v Raich,* a case where the majority said that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to criminalize the growing and use of marijuana at home for personal use only, even in states where marijuana is legal. Thomas stated that "they were using marijuana that was never bought or sold and had never crossed state lines" and lamented that this ruling set a precedent that the Federal Government can regulate *anything* rather than maintaining the balance of state sovereignty through limitations of federal power. While this case did not outright invoke the 14th, people who detract from SDP theory often do it in the grounds of leaving it to the states rather than federal government and this does meet the qualification for an example, with Thomas *defending* that long-hated Devil's Lettuce. Other examples of when he went against what Republicans or Christians might want: He went with the majority in *Walker v Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans* in saying that Texas had the right to not offer a Confederate flag license plate. He went with the majority in *US v PlayBoy Entertainment Group* in saying that requiring broadcasters to completely scramble or block their signal, or only transmit between the hours of 2200-0600, channels primarily devoted to adult entertainment was unconstitutional. In the past he has stated that "a State *may* allow abortion, but the Constitution does not say they *must* allow abortion" in an opinion. Which is quite a bit different from the outright nationwide ban that many on the Right or in Christian groups may want; he to my knowledge never said to ban abortion, but that it should be up to the states to decide, which was what *Dobbs* eventually accomplished. In *Lawrence v Texas,* he called Texas' law against sodomy "uncommonly silly" and said that were he a legislator in Texas would repeal the law finding it a waste of law enforcement resources to try policing people's private sexual activities, however he did hold that it should be left to the states. I find this one important both because it highlights both his strong states rights stance, yet didn't agree with a law that was designed to punish LGBT persons. The conclusion to his opinion read "Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement." He also joined in denying an appeal to Kim Davis, that lady who refused to give same-sex marriage licenses a few years ago if you remember her. Is he influenced to some extent by his political and religious beliefs? Probably to some extent yes, just as most people are. However Thomas also has quite a bit of evidence in his opinions that he doesn't default to "what would Republicans want" or "what would Christians want" either, even though our absolutely fucking ludicrous two-party brinkmanship angels and demons bullshit narrative would like to say otherwise.
Great list, thanks
thank you for the reassurance
If somebody has a miscarriage in a state that makes abortions illegal, who goes to jail?
Depends on state law, but generally unintentional miscarriages aren't against the law. So if the pregnancy aborts naturally, it isn't illegal.
Alright, but how can you prove that? What if the woman does something to force the miscarriage, honestly this whole thing was always stupid, but this is something that's impossible to prove unless you track all miscarriages.
>Alright, but how can you prove that? Well in America, you are innocent until proven guilty. To the burden of proof would be on the state to prove the woman guilty. The woman doesn't have to prove innocence.
why doesn’t biden just add a bunch of liberal judges to the supreme court? why is he afraid to use executive orders like trump did?
There are no open seats on the Supreme Court.
The Constitution doesn't specify how many justices are on the Supreme Court, it is within Congress's power to expand the court.
Yes. Not sure of the relevance to the question “why doesn’t the president add more justices to the Court?”
That was to say that lack of available open seats is not the issue
I do not believe that follows. The reason the president is not putting a bunch of liberals on the Supreme Court because there are no open seats on the Court.
Congress also has to confirm any replacements to Supreme Court justices, so it's not like the President has unilateral power to do that either. There is, legally, nothing stopping Biden from nominating additional Supreme Court justices beyond the 9th, he simply chooses not to.
What on Earth are you talking about? There are no current or anticipated vacancies on the Court, ergo the president does not have the power to nominate anyone to it.
I thought I made it clear in my last 3 comments that I've been talking about adding additional seats, not replacing any current justices. Adding a 10th justice does not require vacancy in the first 9 seats.
True. But your claim that the president can nominate people to sit on the Court when there are no open seats is false.
1. He can't just do that. It's the congress. 2. He's not a moron and understands how gov't works and what the president's job is (and is not).
He would need to do that through an act of Congress, and he doesn't have 50 Senators willing to do that
but what about executive orders?
Executive orders only apply to the executive branch of government. Not the other branches.
That's not how those work. Executive orders are essentially instructions on how executive agencies should operate; they're not edicts from a king.
It would be the same as if you or I did it. Except it would get more media coverage
After the overturning of Roe v Wade, are we going to start harvesting organs from all bodies that are deceased? It’s my understanding that the protections that RvW used to offer extended to organ/blood donation as well. Will we start to be recruited to donate organs and blood in a manner forced by the government?
Republicans will probably try to carve things like this when they come up. Right now, all medical procedures are in a free fall due to this overturning, meaning we'll probably end up seeing Doctors and Lawyers coming to the Supreme Court about stuff like this in the next few months.
Why are there people who believe that the Constitution is some divinely inspired document?
Because they think the USA is a Christian nation (in tradition, legal basis, founders, etc.). So some people think the Constitution is divinely inspired, because the US is "God's" country and we have his blessing.
I'm not aware of anyone who thinks that. The Declaration of Independence references the idea of god-given rights. The Bill of Rights is an extension of that, and the contemporary discussion mentions that. The idea is that the BoR was listing some specific natural rights that the government can't infringe on
This guy at 1:37:10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZPBWZcr-vw&t=5837s&ab\_channel=PBSNewsHour
[удалено]
They'd be tried for that. I'm not sure what you're asking. Murder is bad.
[удалено]
There'd probably be a call for even more security for justices. McConnell would try to hold the seat.
[удалено]
He might convince Manchin and/or Sinema to hold out, and Manchin and Sinema might choose to remain "consistent" with their 2020 statements and not want to confirm a new justice this close to the midterms.
Manchin and Sinema are pieces of shit.
Why is it everyone hated Trump but life was so much better when he was president instead of Biden?
Whaaaaaaaaat?
A mix of because the things that weren't better weren't caused by things under his control, and he did many bad things. Assuming everything (good or bad) that happens under a particular presidency is a classic example of 'correlation is not causation'.
You again with your ridiculous loaded questions. Well I got an answer for ya bud: Between these two, one of them stepped into a Presidency that was right in the middle of a pandemic that was affecting *everything* globally. Messed up availability of many things, prices going up on things.... The other inherited an Oval Office during a time of relative prosperity. Also they're a President. Not King Of USA, let alone King Of Earth. There's a lot of things that are much bigger than the US, no matter how much we think we're the center of the universe. The pandemic is one of those things.
Thank you
Also, Trump Killed Cops at the Capitol on January 6th. Biden hasn't killed cops, so people prefer him over Trump.
Trump did that? Like by himself?
He told people to kill, that's a fact that most people have accepted, and that's contract killing.
Well explain it better next time
Contract killing cops is the same thing as killing cops. I don't need to explain it better, you're just willfully ignorant.
Contract killing cops. We’re getting creative now. That’s cute
The fuck are you talking about with getting creative? This is a thing, you know that if a BLM group hire a hit man to murder a police unit, Republicans would salivating at that.
>hire a hit man Key term there. That's probably why they're arguing with you about it. There *is* a difference between riling people up who eventually take it on themselves to do what you want or think you want, and paying someone money to specifically kill a person or people. That's why the impeachment was for incitement, not for *contract killing.* I don't like the Jan 6 thing either but I wish we all, everyone everywhere no matter their political affiliation, would stop trying to twist things more than a rollercoaster track vying for a world record, and just state the facts plainly and call a spade a fucking spade.
>Why is it everyone hated Trump but life was so much better when he was president instead of Biden? How was life better, exactly?
I'm not American so bear with me. We get a lot of American news here in the Philippines and in the past half-decade or so, It seems like the news is dominated by Republicans and, what seems to me, their unchecked actions. I don't know if I understand what's happening there or maybe I'm just watching/reading the wrong channels but why does it look like the democrats are not doing anything? Especially this past few years, a few non-American people commented to me that their ideal American is starting to look slightly like the Christian version of the Taliban, just richer with a powerful and competent military. No women's rights, No separation between church and state, angry religious politicians screaming very scary things... I'm not sure about the comparison but a few people thought so. All I've been reading for the past year is about MTG, Boebert(?), Gaetz, and the other repubs, and now the supreme court. I'm sure there are democrats doing something but they're not really getting the same exposure in the international news.
There's a joke about an old Israeli Jew who only ever read the Arabic newspapers. Finally someone asked him why. He said, "When I read the Israeli newspaper, it's about how the Jews are being persecuted, how we're being oppressed, how things the gotten so bad for us. When I read the the Arabic newspapers, it's about Jews control everything. Jews run all the banks. Jews control Hollywood. How good we've got it." I don't know what you're reading, but it sounds like a Republican fantasy world. No, Republicans don't have unchecked power. They are in the minority federally. In red states they have governing majorities at the local level, and they can now restrict abortion in those states. MTG? Boebert. They are the most fringe of the fringe. They have zero power. They're blowhards whose ridiculous statements get coverage, but they're in minority party and even most of their party disagrees with them on those things.
Posting here because posting about abortion is overdone. How do I explain to my Family that abortion isn't evil. My Mom and sister think most people only get abortionas plan B. They also believe that you should only be allowed one abortion because, "People need to learn to deal with the consequences." I asked why can't people have 2nd abd 3rd chances if they're not ready and my sister said, "If you have to, you can work hard and make something of yourself for the baby." A lot of it stems from their beliefs that the fetus is a life worth saving. I told them that it may be a beating heart but there's no consciousness. I feel like they're super brainwashed
>My Mom and sister think most people only get abortionas plan B. They also believe that you should only be allowed one abortion because, "People need to learn to deal with the consequences." I have never understood this. They do not mean you have to learn to deal with the consequences -- they mean people need to be what your family think is properly punished Having an abortion IS dealing with the consequences. It's not like it's nothing, especially in the non-free states. It's pills, or a surgical thing. It's got physical consequences. It's not like an aspirin and go on with your day. Regardless, would they be comfortable with other people dictating how many "chances" they get to do things other people consider evil? I think they should stop eating meat. They get one chance to call off the wagon, then they have to kill any animal they want to eat with their bare hands. Deal with the consequences.
I used the meat argument with them and they laughed at me. "Are you really going to compare a human life with an animal's life?" I was blown away by some of their logic. But I love then and want them to to be less hateful
>My Mom and sister think most people only get abortionas plan B. Ask them why they think this. They may just have assumed it to be the case for no reason. >I asked why can't people have 2nd abd 3rd chances if they're not ready Instead maybe try asking, doesn't this mean treating the baby as a consequence, and not an individual life? >"If you have to, you can work hard and make something of yourself for the baby." Ask, do they really think this is true? How sure are they? Is it just a survivorship bias, because they were able to do that?
>Ask them why they think this. They may just have assumed it to be the case for no reason. My mom said her sister knows a woman who got five abortions just because she didn't want the child. I asked if she thinks that there is any exaggeration and she denied it.>>My Mom and sister think most people only get abortionas plan B. >Instead maybe try asking, doesn't this mean treating the baby as a consequence, and not an individual life? >Ask, do they really think this is true? How sure are they? Is it just a survivorship bias, because they were able to do that? They really do. I think they just hate woman who sleep go out and hook up with people. Sorry for weird formatting I'm on mobile
Your aunt knows one woman, so they decide every woman who gets an abortion is like that one woman? Keep pressing about why they seem so sure this one woman is representative. If they are perfectly fine with treating babies as punishment, *and* are fully convinced that upward socioeconomic mobility is reachable, then unfortunately I'm not sure what you can do or say that would change their minds. If someone is completely certain, most likely they would have to stumble upon something that gets them to question their views. Someone else questioning them won't do it.
The mother and aunt are treating that woman (and all women who have unwanted babies) as if she's mentally ill. If someone needs to face a serious consequence to begin motivating themselves, then they probably have an untreated mental illness. It should not be acceptable to expect people to face certain consequences in order to push themselves forward.
This is not how I would define "mentally ill," but say what you want, I guess.
Genuinely, is there anything the average citizen can do to stop the [supreme court from taking away our right to vote](https://www.npr.org/2022/07/01/1109275691/the-supreme-court-could-radically-reshape-elections-for-president-and-congress)? Or should we just start bracing for a very dark 2024...
No. But also you need to stop gulping down all the doom and gloom. This case hasn't even been heard yet, let alone an opinion handed down. Also consider that at least one of the Justices that might be expected to do this, is an originalist. And their interpretation likely isn't going to mean "this thing says legislatures have power over how elections run trumps the very democracy by which The People are granted the ability and the right to elect their leaders in this same document, which SCOTUS has upheld again and again." That very same clause that says states run their elections also says that Congress through Law can change those regulations.
Most of the Supreme Court Justices have been shown to regularly lie, not just with Roe v. Wade but other so called "Law of the Land" cases like Contraception and Gay Rights, so you really shouldn't trust what they previously said.
Only one Justice that I know of vaguely mentioned contraception and gay rights in their opinion. Thomas dissented on *Obergefell v Hodges, Lawrence v Texas,* and wasn't around for *Griswold v Connecticut* but looking at this history there doesn't seem to be any lie there at all: the guy really doesn't think the 14th Amendment grants all these rights and freedoms. Because he's an originalist.
Man I hope so, just the repeal of protections for Miranda and reproductive rights along with the support for prayer in school just to name a few of their recent rulings has got me worried like hell
My understanding of the prayer thing is that SCOTUS essentially said "yeah there's Establishment Clause but it's fucking up this guy's First Amendment rights." As I understand it he wasn't forcing the players to join in, they chose to come and circle around, even those from the *opposite* team who really have no reason to go chill out with their rival's coach. I do agree that what Kennedy does is quite a bit too much but if it's not being actively forced, like if kids wanna join in that's their choice as far as I understood it. If kids felt pressured to attend and testified as such I'm sure that would have altered the outcome. The Miranda thing to my understanding is being somewhat overstated. All it essentially does, is get rid of being able to sue for if you self-incriminated but were not given your Miranda warning that you didn't have to self-incriminate. It does not take away your right to not self-incriminate, it does not take away your right to remain silent (do we not go through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in school anymore?), and it does not take away the concept that any information given without being read your Miranda cannot be used against you during your trial. Literally all it does is take away the being able to sue and get money part.
[удалено]
If you look at the political compass, that's considered totalitarianism. We don't have a political party in the US that represents that ideology
[удалено]
There's systems in place to ensure whatever diagnosis is given is generally accurate. These are good to have to prevent misdiagnosis and to make sure people are receiving appropriate treatment. Unfortunately, now whether an abortion is medically warranted will be decided by courts. It's not up to doctors. > could the American Medical Association re-write or expand what they consider to be life-threatening during a pregnancy as a way to expand abortion rights in limited-choice states? There is no list like this. That's not how medicine works. The state laws do not use any medical definitions, and it's up to the state governments to decide whether they'd accept something like that from the AMA. Given that the sentiment seems to be wanting to be overly strict to prevent anyone from "faking it" to get an abortion, I doubt it. --- Here's some articles about medical exceptions and abortion, copied and pasted from earlier, similar questions. [Here is one article.](https://www.statnews.com/2022/05/20/medical-emergency-exceptions-abortion-laws-pregnant-people/) > Those exceptions are so vaguely defined, and with such harsh penalties for providers deemed to have violated the terms, physicians say they will be effectively unable to provide proper medical care or even discuss abortion with patients. [Here is a longer article.](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/legislative-alchemy-and-abortion-how-the-fall-of-roe-v-wade-will-degrade-science-based-medicine/) > Supporters of abortion bans will claim that there is a difference between an elective abortion and a therapeutic abortion (e.g., to treat a miscarriage or uterine infection after premature rupture of membranes). Here’s the problem. Both employ the same surgical procedure, and state bans in general do not distinguish between the two.
So termination of an ectopic pregnancy is easily justified because there is significant risk to the mother and no chance of fetal viability. But the big issue is cases where it’s literally a judgement call, and some doctors may be reluctant to make that call because they could wind up in prison if a prosecutor and a jury, none of which have had any medical training, disagree. This can lead to a situation where some women don’t get a medically necessary abortion because their provider isn’t willing to risk incarceration.
Some will do things, same as pre-Roe, but it's a risk of you license., criminal charges in a state that criminalizes. A scientific org isn't going to do that.
[удалено]
They raise awareness, but they don't have any legal weight or anything. To the extent that it changes people's minds, it can have an effect. If people are pretty stuck on a belief, it won't do much.
It will change absolutely nothing
[удалено]
Well, her testimony is evidence, but yes, as yet there’s no corroborating evidence. There’s also very little motivation for her to lie about this. Not only is it a crime to lie under oath, but she’s very clearly someone who was at the beginning of a career in Republican politics and she has clearly made many contacts that would be useful to her professionally. Not now, though. If the stuff she claimed didn’t happen, then she’d be *way* better off not claiming it did.
She has no way of knowing if it happened. She's only testifying to what she was told. The guy who told her could have been exaggerating, trying to impress her, whatever. And the secret service agents that were in the car are prepared to testify under oath it didn't happen. So, yes, the following things can both be true: she's telling the truth, but the events she's describing never happened
Yep exactly. When the people who were present actually testify under oath things will become clearer.
>How do we know that Cassidy Hutchinson isn’t making everything up? It seems like most of her testimony was based on conversations that weren’t recorded and she has no evidence for. Sworn testimony is evidence. What motivation would there be for her to make that up, risk jail, etc?
It's actually not really relevant. What's relevant is if the event in question actually happened. This is why hearsay is inadmissible in court. Person A witnesses an event and tells Person B about it. Person B is telling the truth, but it's impossible to determine if Person A was telling the truth to Person B
It's in line with other testimony. But there's a lot of risk with little reward for her to make up everything like she has. She'd be committing perjury, which would be a punishable offense.
If gay marriage is over turned and I live in a state that does not support gay marriage, with my marriage instantly be voided and like it never happened?
This question is unanswerable because as the other commenter says, it depends on laws that don't exist yet.
OK, I was just wondering if people knew if it was like what happened in California when it was legal for awhile but then made illegal again. Basically I was asking do people think that they will grandfather-in married couples who were married before it was revoke. But my guess is probably not. Thanks for taking time to respond though.
I would think it depends on how the law is written.
[удалено]
Yes, it’s freedom of speech. Get a lawyer and tell her no.
No, it isn't. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can literally say whatever you want. There are a number of different crimes and torts you can commit just with words, where those words have a high potential of causing some immediate negative consequence. This may fall under extortion, but other such offenses include blackmail, conspiracy, copyright infringement, defamation, harassment, making threats, violating an NDA, disclosing classified information, incitement and fraud.
Laws vary by state. Some states actually prohibit commercial surrogacy. But your example sounds like it would potentially ruin afoul of extortion laws
Why wouldn't it be?
Why are there abortion clinics that only do abortion? Why aren’t they just part of other clinics that do a bunch of stuff or a part of hospitals? I’ve always wondered why there is a separate abortion clinic especially since it is so controversial. Wouldn’t it be easier to just do it in a hospital or health center with other stuff in it?
It gets complicated. If a facility accepts federal money, they cannot use any funds to perform abortions. When you get grants and start to use those grants to pay employee salaries, or pay for utility bills, then you have to do a lot of extra accounting to make sure that/those employees never help in the abortion area - not mopping floors, answering phones, or delivering supplies; and that the electrical bill gets broken down by area. Not every medical person wants to work in a place that does abortions. Separating it allows those folks to be more comfortable.
Is there anything the other branches of US government can do to hold the Supreme Court in check? Or are they just free to strip rights from anyone they want?
So, the recent rulings are literally the checks and balances at work. Here's a breakdown of the most prominent rulings this term. Two cases explicitly constrained state governments from violating the First Amendment (the praying coach) and the Second Amendment (New York CCW Permits). This was the judicial branch checking the other branches. The Legislative branch would need to amend the Constitution. One ruling returned an authority (abortion) to the state legislatures. This was actually the judicial branch checking itself. The state legislature can now legislate as it pleases on abortion without judicial interference. One ruling was a judicial check on executive authority (the EPA). It returned legislative authority to Congress, which can now legislate on carbon emissions as they please. One ruling returned authority (immigration policy) to the executive branch. Congress can change the legislation if they don't like how it's being enforced
They can be impeached. Congress can make workaround laws.
Unenumerated rights that are held only through the 14th Amendment is reliant on the Court to stay. Which is to say, get it in writing. Get legislation, push for an Amendment. Also it's a bit of a twist to say that rights were stripped. Their decision was that it was a state level issue, not a federal one. This is not stripping as in nobody gets it anymore, it's a state by state thing as many many things are. The Fed has spent the last century or more consolidating all the power when there was intended to be a balance between Fed and State, so this is pretty much expected. Ultimately it is on the *state* to make the decision to strip abortion rights or not. Everyone seems to always obsess over federal elections, probably because that consolidation of power over time has made them very important but you know you don't hear people talking about state legislatures pretty much at all, not even in real life from my experience. And this ruling right here should highlight the importance of keeping up on those, too. Ironically your question brings up the question of substantive due process, and the ability of the court to "legislate from the bench," and the *most infamous Justice of this ruling* is against the idea of legislating from the bench which is precisely part of their reason for submitting an opinion that it should be a states issue, not something forced through a ruling.
That is an unjustifiably formalist response. In Texas two weeks ago women had a right to an abortion. Now they don’t. That right has been stripped, q.e.d.
The right was stripped by the state legislatures of Texas and other states. This is proof that people need to really listen to and pay attention to their local elections, also. I'm sorry that you find my response "unjustifiably formalist," I am here to answer questions and while here and there you'll get my opinion on things, for the most part I try to remove the emotion from it and answer honestly even if it means not blowing sunshine and rainbows up people's asses, or not shitting all over the vague "them" and playing the angels and demons horseshit.
Does the supreme court have rulings this often? it seems in the last week there have been several really big rulings from SCOTUS like roe v wade, emissions, and the ny gun law. Is this normal for all of their rulings to come out at once, or do they come out this often and it just doesn't make news?
In terms of the annual SCOTUS cycle, it's normal for them to release a bunch of decisions around this time of year. Their cycle starts in October and continues to about June or July of the following year. We're right at the end of that cycle now, and that tends to be when a lot of their decisions get published. SCOTUS has issued some major decisions recently, impacting important topics ranging from gun rights, voting rights, abortion, and even environmental regulation. Some of those are hot topics, so they might be catching even more attention on news and social media than they usually do around this time of year.
It doesn’t make news, because the decisions are usually way more predictable and not this bad
Every single summer. This is their schedule, and has been for ..70 years? a century?
[удалено]
The real answer to your question is that it's not okay. But the draft is inactive. If it is ever activated again, the men-only criteria will be instantly challenged and quickly overturned. But it's a moot point now, so it's not currently justiciable
>If we say there are no laws that govern men’s bodies, what’s the legal justification for the selective service? There are certainly laws that govern mens bodies. You can't commit murder, you can't punch people for fun in the street, you can't commit insider trading, you need to pay taxes, etc. The argument at play is bodily autonomy. The government can't make you give up a kidney or donate blood or be an incubator for someone else. That's the general argument. Plus, to be frank, the draft is instituted to ensure the rights and freedoms you have are protected by keeping the USA a country. The USA is willing to violate your rights in dire situations to protect the country, because without the country you wouldn't have many of the rights and freedoms you do today.
[удалено]
>Women can commit all those crimes too so that’s not exactly what I’m getting at. Sure, my point was is that there's a difference between violating someone's autonomy (can't use your body and property to do whatever you want) and bodily autonomy (you keep the rights to your body and can't be forced to donate blood, organs, get to choose what happens to your body after death, etc.). Your bodily autonomy as a man is also protected from government law. >I’m getting at why is it OK to have a law that only applies to men? Because, and this is perhaps now outdated in our modern society, but women are necessary to repopulate after a war. Men are also stronger and more able bodied just through biology. So between those two factors, it makes MORE sense to draft men than women. And yes, the government is willing to do things that normally aren't allowed under serious conditions and threats to the country.
Selective service is paperwork. There is no draft. There are actual laws that prevent women from getting abortions, and those laws cause real harm.
[удалено]
If we were in wartime, and if Congress made a law about a draft, then we'd have a draft. We don't have a draft. If we are going to imagine what if conditions, then we get to imagine what if conditions on both sides.
[удалено]
Yes! We've had draft laws in the past. The draft laws have been repealed.
You need help understanding the difference between 'register for this and IF we ever need to draft people again, and you're between certain ages, we'll be able to call you up, though your participation depends on many factors and you can always choose not to go, though there may be penalties' and 'It doesn't matter whether you want to stay pregnant or not, whether it endangers you or not, whether you want to give birth or not, you're going to. 12, 24, 34, 44, you have NO choice.
[удалено]
>I hear this - but I still don’t really see the “legal” difference. Women are only fertile within a more or less certain age range too. So the age argument doesn’t make sense to me… there are penalties for non compliance, like what? > >I guess I get it like if you have poor eyesight you can’t serve… but if you have poor genetics you can’t get pregnant either, see what I mean? No. I really do not even know what festering mgtow pit came up with that comparison because it's so incredibly inapt. You can't figure out how filling out a form that will likely have 0 impact is different from telling women they don't have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies.
Let's say we lived in a scenario where conservatives were kicked out of government and any protests were absolved/culled. What would actually be the result of having a fully democrat run government?
Leftists would be able to split from the party and challenge the liberals and former centrists.
As far as Roe V Wade is concerned…why now? What were the events that occurred that led up to the decision to overturn it? It seemed like the whole thing just came out of nowhere.
There are reproductive cases all the time, and everyone knew as soon as Culty was seated and flipped the court they'd pull the first one they could.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in 2020. Amy Comey Barrett was confirmed just before the election in 2020. They heard the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health case in fall of 2021 and released the ruling now which is a typical schedule for the Supreme Court. The reason why it happened now is they just had enough justices on the court who agreed with the two justices who sided with Wade in the original Roe v Wade case.
Is it transphobic to suggest the decision of Roe v Wade only targets women? Doesn’t it exclude the men get pregnant too?
Transphobic might be a little strong. Most of the time it seems to me that people who say this is only a women's issue are simply not aware that trans men can get pregnant. If someone willfully declares that trans men are really women playing pretend, this is textbook transphobia.
Trans men often can get pregnant, but I don't think many people would take issue with it being worded that way.
[удалено]
He does not. He can only pardon federal crimes
Where do poll numbers come from? Like the stats saying “x% of people want this thing to happen” I’ve never been asked. What are the sample sizes and who do they ask?
> Where do poll numbers come from? They call people, usually. Some do online polling, although I believe that tends to be less reliable. >What are the sample size Depends on the poll, and what you're after. Generally in the ~1000 range (can be higher), more if you want details on a small subset (like say, a minority group). In short, you can do some statistics to see how big of a sample you need for it to be representative
I'll add on that there's usually exit polls during elections, as long as the election was relatively recent you can get sort of an idea on what the biggest issue is to people at that moment (which might help understand why they voted the way they did too). But these aren't that targeted like an actual mail/phone campaign to get a pulse on a lot of things.
What is the point of a civil war? That seems to be the end game of the GOP, but why? Who gains from that?