Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

[Wedgy]

Exactly as it should be and was once interpreted.

Unfortunately Alito and the other four justices take the exact opposite position. That the government has power over all and the only rights, liberties and expectation for privacy the individual has are those explicitly outlined in text in the Constitution. All other rights are reserved to the government to regulate as they see fit.

An unfortunate interpretation for sure as it greatly expands the ability for the government to further expand their control over the individual.

Exactly as it should be and was once interpreted.

Unfortunately Alito and the other four justices take the exact opposite position. That the government has power over all and the only rights, liberties and expectation for privacy the individual has are those explicitly outlined in text in the Constitution. All other rights are reserved to the government to regulate as they see fit.

An unfortunate interpretation for sure as it greatly expands the ability for the government to further expand their control over the individual.

If, As it was, so shall it be again, no one is taking away anything. Reserved to the States. Freedoms. Vote with your feet. Legal? Self evident.

As per the Rule of Law, indications are, Justices take the position that Federal power over a Birthing Individuals Privacy is limited in regards to another human beings Right to Life. Liberty and Justice for All.

Speaking of the Federal Rule of Law. Must be selectively enforced in the greater DC area, not just the Capitol building. Supreme Court's fair game, Justices' homes are encouraged to be protested due to a leaked draft opinion too. Elected officials threatening Justices, to include the President.

As per the Federal criminal code: 18 U.S.C.A. subsection 1507 Crime punishable by a $1000 fine and a year in Jail. Intimidation. Coercion, any activity to influence an outcome, is against the law. As opposed to the Rabid insane Angry Beaver persecution of the J6 defendants, guilty until not allowed to prove their innocence, to the current Carte Blanche block intimidation party at the SC Justices houses. No arrests. Not a single one.

Lament away...

 

[snowhammer]

Exactly as it should be and was once interpreted.

Unfortunately Alito and the other four justices take the exact opposite position. That the government has power over all and the only rights, liberties and expectation for privacy the individual has are those explicitly outlined in text in the Constitution. All other rights are reserved to the government to regulate as they see fit.

An unfortunate interpretation for sure as it greatly expands the ability for the government to further expand their control over the individual.

How about the statement "endowed by their Creator"? That is explicitly stated, does not need interpretation.

 

[JUSTWANNARACE]

A true conservative would say that, setting up an abortion clinic and selling the aborted fetus for a profit, it true capitalism! -530

 

[94Nautique]

Ok, so the rabbid leftists have said men should have no say in women's reproductive "rights."

This raises just a few questions, such as why? Why does the sex of a person matter, when it comes to matters of jurisprudence and legislative issues? I thought the whole goal of femminism was to bring women on par with men? I thought sex was not supposed to matter?

We also know gender was made up in order to replace the word sex. Not sure why, but I would suppose the word sex was offensive to some people when asking kids what sex they were, so they substituted the word gender. Now whackos are saying gender is just a man made construct. No shit, Sherlock. But if gender is a made up construct, does that mean that men and women are made up, so why cant one have a say in the made up notion of women's reproductive rights?

Now, the really crazy thing is, women make up over 50% of pregnancy (actually its a few percentage points higher than the general male/female population split but thats Nature's way of having ample supply of women to carry on the species) so ending women's life in the womb is different from ending a women's life because of a dangerous pregnancy? Or her having a crappy life because she had a kid? What about the women that never had the chance to make the choice of having sex?

And why are gay people allowed to enter into the conversation on anything pregnancy related? They dont naturally create babies when they screw each other, so why do they get a seat at the table?

And why is it only militant, leftist women that think they are the arbiters of life in the womb?

fuck me, this issue does nothing but point out how fucking stupid the left really is, and also how devoid they are of logic. Hell, even the most logical and most conservative bot on the board cant even understand that a body inside another body is not the same body.

Its as though the world has drank a gallon of stupid and shit out leftists...

 

[530RL]

How about the statement "endowed by their Creator"? That is explicitly stated, does not need interpretation.

It is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence.

Unfortunately based upon the interpretation of Alito and the four others, such statement has no bearing on any rights, liberty or expectations of privacy for the individual as such statement is not explicitly in the Constitution.

 

[snowhammer]

It is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence.

Unfortunately based upon the interpretation of Alito and the four others, such statement has no bearing on any rights, liberty or expectations of privacy for the individual as such statement is not explicitly in the Constitution.

The individual baby?

 

[94Nautique]

Nick Freitas on Instagram: "If you’re not ready to be a daddy, don’t do daddy things."

26K likes, 815 comments - nickjfreitas on May 11, 2022: "If you’re not ready to be a daddy, don’t do daddy things.".

www.instagram.com

This. Is. Truth.

Feminist women are being taken advantage by feminist men when it comes to abortion, yet both sets of them are so fucking ignorant they can’t see it.

 

[530RL]

The individual baby?

According to the draft opinion, such statement does not apply to anyone as it is not explicitly in the Constitution.

People keep getting hung up on whether or not Roe was rightly decided when the court ruled fifty years ago that an individual has the right to an abortion up to viability of the child, at which time the child has rights. They are missing the bigger theme in the legal rationale behind this draft opinion.

What some are failing to see is how Alito and the four justices are doing it in a way that changes the fundamental interpretation of the Constitution from a document that limits the power of the government over the individual, to a document that protects the governments right to regulate and determine for the individual all rights, liberties and expectations of privacy, unless such right, liberty or expectation of privacy is explicitly protected in the written words of the Constitution.

It is interpreting the Constitution to mean that government has the right to pass any regulation over anything an individual may want to do, unless it is specifically protected in the written word of the Constitution.

 

[94Nautique]

According to the draft opinion, such statement does not apply to anyone as it is not explicitly in the Constitution.

People keep getting hung up on whether or not Roe was rightly decided when the court ruled fifty years ago that an individual has the right to an abortion up to viability of the child, at which time the child has rights. They are missing the bigger theme in the legal rationale behind this draft opinion.

What some are failing to see is how Alito and the four justices are doing it in a way that changes the fundamental interpretation of the Constitution from a document that limits the power of the government over the individual, to a document that protects the governments right to regulate and determine for the individual all rights, liberties and expectations of privacy, unless such right, liberty or expectation of privacy is explicitly protected in the written words of the Constitution.

It is interpreting the Constitution to mean that government has the right to pass any regulation over anything an individual may want to do, unless it is specifically protected in the written word of the Constitution.

logic

 

[snowhammer]

According to the draft opinion, such statement does not apply to anyone as it is not explicitly in the Constitution.

People keep getting hung up on whether or not Roe was rightly decided when the court ruled fifty years ago that an individual has the right to an abortion up to viability of the child, at which time the child has rights. They are missing the bigger theme in the legal rationale behind this draft opinion.

What some are failing to see is how Alito and the four justices are doing it in a way that changes the fundamental interpretation of the Constitution from a document that limits the power of the government over the individual, to a document that protects the governments right to regulate and determine for the individual all rights, liberties and expectations of privacy, unless such right, liberty or expectation of privacy is explicitly protected in the written words of the Constitution.

It is interpreting the Constitution to mean that government has the right to pass any regulation over anything an individual may want to do, unless it is specifically protected in the written word of the Constitution.

Not even close, but a half point for not mentioning DJT.

 

[Danger Dave]

Senate Fails to Pass Democrat Abortion Bill

Senate Democrats on Wednesday failed to pass legislation that would prohibit local, state, and federal governments from preventing abortions.

www.breitbart.com

 

[was thatguy]

logic

He’s a little worked up about his tightrope act in Asia.
He’s gotta buddy up more with China now since they will be who he was to “satiate” to maintain his pan-pacific sweat shop operations.

 

[Danger Dave]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1524443934092455936

 

[94Nautique]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1524443934092455936

LOL, not sure that logic comports with Margret Sangers vision of killing all black babies, but leftists aren’t too smart.

 

[was thatguy]

LOL, not sure that logic comports with Margret Sangers vision of killing all black babies, but leftists aren’t too smart.

She’s an idiot.
She just said that black women are too poor to travel. How fucking racist can she be?

 

[pronstar]

The bigotry of low expectations…

 

[94Nautique]

She’s an idiot.
She just said that black women are too poor to travel. How fucking racist can she be?

anyone that participates in racial politics is by definition racist. in this case, how racist can she be? VERY

 

[spectra3279]

Men have the all the power here, they just don't know it. If every man vowed with every pregnancy to carry their babies full term to birth, that would send a powerful message the left could not even begin to deal with. Only Lady Baby killers.
No intercourse? Fine. No mercy. "My Penis, my Choice!" Suk it. That's all you get. It all boils down to thinking outside the "Box."
Game over.

My thinking is. All the free birth control out there why are abortions even a concern?

 

[spectra3279]

The whole abortion issue is not as interesting here as is the reasoning in the draft opinion written by Alito and concurred by the other 4 justices.

In it like in Obergefell v. Hodges, Alito argues and the other judges agree, that the only rights, liberties and privacy that any individual has are those that are explicitly outlined in the Constitution, all other control and allowance of an individuals access to any other right, liberty or privacy not explicitly outlined in the Constitution belongs not to the individual but to the Government.

That is an interesting Constitutional interpretation of the balance between whether the individual or the government controls our rights, liberties and privacy, one that will be greatly exploited by those that wish to further limit individual freedoms.

Sometimes people get what they asked for, without even knowing they asked for it.

That is basically exact opposite of the founding fathers. The constitution limits the powers of the government not the people

 

[spectra3279]

"Objection. Reaching." "Sustained..."

Amber Heard has a better defense.

Regardless of where anyone stands on the issue. Miracles, are. Life will find a way.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So shitting in the bed makes her happy?

 

[spectra3279]

A fuckup's no longer a fuckup after you fix it...

That depends on who's paying to clean up said fuck up.

The government or the people involved in said fuckup

 

[spectra3279]

According to the draft opinion, such statement does not apply to anyone as it is not explicitly in the Constitution.

People keep getting hung up on whether or not Roe was rightly decided when the court ruled fifty years ago that an individual has the right to an abortion up to viability of the child, at which time the child has rights. They are missing the bigger theme in the legal rationale behind this draft opinion.

What some are failing to see is how Alito and the four justices are doing it in a way that changes the fundamental interpretation of the Constitution from a document that limits the power of the government over the individual, to a document that protects the governments right to regulate and determine for the individual all rights, liberties and expectations of privacy, unless such right, liberty or expectation of privacy is explicitly protected in the written words of the Constitution.

It is interpreting the Constitution to mean that government has the right to pass any regulation over anything an individual may want to do, unless it is specifically protected in the written word of the Constitution.

If you read some of the statements in the brief then you can see what you posted is correct.





What the fuck? I scare myself sometimes, I'm actually agreeing with 5turdy

 

[94Nautique]

That is basically exact opposite of the founding fathers. The constitution limits the powers of the government not the people

Ugh, now you’ve done it. He’s read the US Constitution dozens of times. In those hundreds of times he’s found thousands of items that support his assertions. And of those millions of pieces of evidence he’s constructed billions of reasons why he’s correct.

Hahaha, just kidding. He’s so full of shit it leaks out of his eyes.

 

[Wedgy]

That depends on who's paying to clean up said fuck up.

The government or the people involved in said fuckup

If Government? We the People pay. Un-Craftsmanlike Union Craftsmanship? You the People.

 

[SNiC Jet]

Anyone who says this is a just an unfeeling mass of cells, and not a human, isn’t being genuine.

 

[Christopher Lucero]

I didn't read the entire thread here...has anyone asked: How far will SCOTUS reverse any number of rights that have been granted that were not specifically mentioned in the Constitution?
Also: When the republic has gravitated to fewer civil rights in common, and to a Balkanized kind of 'pick your venue' for civil rights, does it make any sense to remain United? What does "United" even mean at that point? Like the EU? trying to envision far down this road.

 

[Christopher Lucero]

View attachment 1115690

Question: IVF. a person in a test tube? 100 IVF are ready for implant. 3 chosen, 97 are...?

 

[Christopher Lucero]

'nuther question:
Age of majority varies from state to state. Likewise age of consent. In the 1880's it was as low as 7 to 10 years old, which still was on the books up until 1965.
With state by state rules for zygote/embryo/fetus age of protection, we rule - somewhat randomly - when or why something acquires personhood, independence, and the ability to 'decide for or even speak for one's self'.
Minors - those who are not past the Age of majority - are not responsible for nor can they claim independence without an emancipation from their parents.
Is the random age assignment just kind of being done by cultural judgements of the day? like when it was OK to do it with 7 to 10 year olds up to 1965?

 

[Christopher Lucero]

I don't think that Congress has that ability, to pass a law legalizing all, or any, abortion. The pesky 10th Amendment states that:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Dude. Those last four words are 'Congress'. not certain if anyone else pointed that out to you.

 

[94Nautique]

I didn't read the entire thread here...has anyone asked: How far will SCOTUS reverse any number of rights that have been granted that were not specifically mentioned in the Constitution?
Also: When the republic has gravitated to fewer civil rights in common, and to a Balkanized kind of 'pick your venue' for civil rights, does it make any sense to remain United? What does "United" even mean at that point? Like the EU? trying to envision far down this road.

Please show me where killing a baby is a “right”

 

[HTTP404]

I didn't read the entire thread here...has anyone asked: How far will SCOTUS reverse any number of rights that have been granted that were not specifically mentioned in the Constitution?
Also: When the republic has gravitated to fewer civil rights in common, and to a Balkanized kind of 'pick your venue' for civil rights, does it make any sense to remain United? What does "United" even mean at that point? Like the EU? trying to envision far down this road.

Give us an example.

 

[Christopher Lucero]

Please show me where killing a baby is a “right”

Its ok. No problem. What - exactly - is the word you would use for the existing situation? Substitute that word. If you can make it past the semantics, then I wonder if you could take a whack at answering the questions I posed?

 

[Christopher Lucero]

Give us an example.

maybe the 'well regulated' phrase in 2A.

 

[regor]

Lucy’s back and she’s not happy!!!!

We missed you!!!

 

[was thatguy]

Short answer:
There is no perfect “solution”, as the “problem” defies non ambiguity.
Therefore no matter what decision is made there are many “sides” that will be furious and righteous.
The wording does raise questions about the specifics concerning inalienable rights.
But the actual decision does support states rights.
So there is really no good answer.

 

[530RL]

If you read some of the statements in the brief then you can see what you posted is correct.





What the fuck? I scare myself sometimes, I'm actually agreeing with 5turdy

Now you’ve done it. You actually read the draft opinion and can clearly see how the underlying logic supporting the decision is very scary for individual rights becoming subservient to the government.

 

[rmarion]

the bigger picture that NO ONE understands is...
what do the liberals do with their Kill....

the Killers prefer a developed KILL, more to Harvest..

"THE TRUTH HURTS"

Way too many people are asleep of our SICK DEVIL WORSHIP ELITES..

to use as contraception.... a pill has been developed for that reason

majority of abortion clients are within walking distance of low income 13% ers. RESEARCH - TRUTH HURTS

Guess what - OPEN YOUR F.ING EYES.. who are they after NOW

WAKE UP PEOPLE


530 do you DRINK from the fountain of youth with your Government friends..

 

[SNiC Jet]

Question: IVF. a person in a test tube? 100 IVF are ready for implant. 3 chosen, 97 are...?

Are you really trying to compare this scenario to "abortion"? Does this help ease your conscience?

Let's talk about the rights of the 3 that are attached and thriving in their mother's womb. Do you believe it's OK to rip them out the womb and kill them?

 

[Wedgy]

Sick individuals, are they who fight so hard to justify killing Babies. IMO.
WTF is next, you 2 sickos get together, ditch the pom poms, form a promotional media company, and charge for pay per view?
Sick, Sick, sick AF.
No redeeming social value whatsoever.
Again. IMO. Prove me wrong.

 

[Behbutton353]

View attachment 1115690

Don’t they harvest organs from pigs too? And dead people? And Petri dishes of cultured cells?

7 Body Parts Scientists Can Grow in a Petri Dish

Bioengineered brains, limbs, and organs are being grown in the lab.

www.mentalfloss.com

 

[Behbutton353]

Are you really trying to compare this scenario to "abortion"? Does this help ease your conscience?

Let's talk about the rights of the 3 that are attached and thriving in their mother's womb. Do you believe it's OK to rip them out the womb and kill them?

Do you support fertilizing embryos which will not be implanted in a woman? If not, that is the end of IVF which relies on producing fertilized embryos in bulk in hopes of one “sticking”.

 

[rmarion]

Don’t they harvest organs from pigs too? And dead people? And Petri dishes of cultured cells?

7 Body Parts Scientists Can Grow in a Petri Dish

Bioengineered brains, limbs, and organs are being grown in the lab.

www.mentalfloss.com

Wake UP!!!

NO BLOOD MAN..NO BLOOD ...
no Fountain of Youth

 

[Wedgy]

Do you support fertilizing embryos which will not be implanted in a woman? If not, that is the end of IVF which relies on producing fertilized embryos in bulk in hopes of one “sticking”.

Since you are such an expert.
Any personal experience with IVF?
Start to finish, simple terms. Eggzactly.

Are you really, " I'm your Huckleberry..."

 

[SNiC Jet]

Don’t they harvest organs from pigs too? And dead people? And Petri dishes of cultured cells?

7 Body Parts Scientists Can Grow in a Petri Dish

Bioengineered brains, limbs, and organs are being grown in the lab.

www.mentalfloss.com

Do you support fertilizing embryos which will not be implanted in a woman? If not, that is the end of IVF which relies on producing fertilized embryos in bulk in hopes of one “sticking”.

Sorry, I but I don't waste my time with chicken shit trolls who find it necessary to hide behind various screen names....you are a nobody.
If you want to have a discussion with me, your gonna have to "man up", ......if that is possible........otherwise, Fuck Off!

 

[Wedgy]

Thank you Sir. Very well said.
BB353 unmasked over in the Memes thread.

 

[Christopher Lucero]

Are you really trying to compare this scenario to "abortion"? Does this help ease your conscience?

Let's talk about the rights of the 3 that are attached and thriving in their mother's womb. Do you believe it's OK to rip them out the womb and kill them?

welll...comparison is not to your image of 'attached and thriving'...it is to the idea of 'inalienable at conception'.
Logically, if the zygote has rights, then it should have them no matter where the cells exist.
So, what of those other 97? Does IVF procedure and process now become impossible to deliver without incurring responsibility for 97 'people'?

 

[Christopher Lucero]

Lucy’s back and she’s not happy!!!!

View attachment 1115729

We missed you!!!

You never fail to deliver.
What's been the big ruckus, now that masking is a past tense rhetoric?
how about that Rich Hillbilly and his 'elegy'? (Technically, not an elegy, since the hillbillies are very much alive, but, you know, 'vocabulary')

 

[94Nautique]

Its ok. No problem. What - exactly - is the word you would use for the existing situation? Substitute that word. If you can make it past the semantics, then I wonder if you could take a whack at answering the questions I posed?

Murder?

 

[Christopher Lucero]

Murder?

that is a question. I can tell because of that squiggly thing at the end. I was hoping for an answer.
Here's the list once more:
How far will SCOTUS reverse any number of ???? that have been granted that were not specifically mentioned in the Constitution?
When the republic has gravitated to fewer civil rights in common, and to a Balkanized kind of 'pick your venue' for civil rights, does it make any sense to remain United? What does "United" even mean at that point? (USA becomes) like the EU?

 

[94Nautique]

that is a question. I can tell because of that squiggly thing at the end. I was hoping for an answer.
Here's the list once more:
How far will SCOTUS reverse any number of ???? that have been granted that were not specifically mentioned in the Constitution?
When the republic has gravitated to fewer civil rights in common, and to a Balkanized kind of 'pick your venue' for civil rights, does it make any sense to remain United? What does "United" even mean at that point? (USA becomes) like the EU?

You asked me what one word describes the current situation. It is murder.

Final answer: murder!

murder