Roe v Wade overturned????? Draft says so

Do you agree wt the draft majority opinion

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 20.0%

  • No

    Votes: 28 80.0%

  • Not sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    35




Let's all be grown ups, here. Every Trump (and likely Bush) SC nominee came from a list of candidates most likely to overturn Roe vs. Wade.  Just like Democrat nominees, they were coached to sound as neutral and open-minded as possible in their confirmation hearings. Susan Collins claimed they also assured her in private that they had no intention of overturning Roe vs. Wade, but its anyone's call whether Collins believed it, or now feels obliged to act shocked.

Of course claiming perjury is a ludicrous reach,  as their review of precedents was perfectly scholarly. 

But of course they lied. A dismantling of RvW was already in the works, and they knew exactly how they'd vote when this inevitable opinion was drafted.

 
JJ Husker said:
So you’ve read each individual state’s laws that ban or propose to ban abortion and you know for a fact that they have clearly detailed which specific cases abortions will be allowed as exceptions to the law?

I know you haven’t and I’m also quite certain many of the places that ban or propose to ban abortions don’t really care about those little details. So much for hyperbole.
Click to expand...
If anyone wants to show those cases not being covered I’m all ears.   Otherwise, yes it’s hyperbole.  

 
Archy1221 said:
No one is in danger of not being treated for those conditions in the near future or later.  That’s pure hyperbole.

as far as coat hangers and vacuums go, what about is that don’t own a vacuum.   
Click to expand...
Lol... that's what you said about voter suppression laws, that no one was having their voting rights denied.  Then Texas happened.  

 
As usual the devil is in the details.

This lady explains that her previous heart conditions would put her at a very high risk of death if she were to carry a pregnancy fullterm.  Yet, as the definition of risk to the mother becomes more nebulous and up for interpretation she would have had to carry the pregnancy fullterm under many current or predictably, future laws, which in doing so would have been "tantamount to suicide" in her words.

When abortion providers are run out of a state and doctors can be charged with a crime for performing an abortion intended to save the mother's life, even if that doesn't yet meet a narrow definition defined by anti-abortion zealots, where will someone find a safe provider?   

But here’s the thing: I wasn’t in the same immediate, actively dying, distress that my grandmother endured all those years before — the kind often associated with the “life of the mother” exception to abortion restrictions, called the “life-or-health” exception in legal circles. To look at me, having healed from the damage caused by the heart attacks, I was healthy and ambulatory. And yet a team of medical professionals — from cardiologists to cardiac geneticists, high-risk OB-GYNs, endocrinologists, rheumatologists and medical ethicists — all said that carrying this pregnancy would be tantamount to suicide.
Click to expand...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/04/28/the-new-abortion-restriction-no-one-is-talking-about-00028171%3f_amp=true

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Scarlet said:
As usual the devil is in the details.

This lady explains that her previous heart conditions would put her at a very high risk of death if she were to carry a pregnancy fullterm.  Yet, as the definition of risk to the mother becomes more nebulous and up for interpretation she would have had to carry the pregnancy fullterm under many current or predictably, future laws, which in doing so would have been "tantamount to suicide" in her words.

When abortion providers are run out of a state and doctors can be charged with a crime for performing an abortion intended to save the mother's life, even if that doesn't yet meet a narrow definition defined by anti-abortion zealots, where will someone find a safe provider?   

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/04/28/the-new-abortion-restriction-no-one-is-talking-about-00028171%3f_amp=true
Click to expand...
So this lady is making a really big deal about “imminent” and “immediate”.  
 

Yet as I read the article, the “immediate” she is taking about isn’t Immediate danger to the mother, it’s immediate abortion once the danger to the mother is found out.  She’s playing word games that don’t match up.   
 

Mississippi’s contentious abortion law defines medical emergencies as “a condition that in the physician’s good-faith medical judgment, based upon the facts known to the physician at that time, so endangers the life of the pregnant woman or a major bodily function of the pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate performance or inducement of an abortion.” The problem is that not all conditions that threaten a pregnant person’s life are active emergencies when they are known, treated, and managed — as my own situation shows.

 
BigRedBuster said:
I would love to have someone explain to me how someone can be "over educated".  Really?  Sorry....you just have too much information and are too smart.

Yep...I should have told my daughter, who is graduating tomorrow with her doctorate in dentistry (humblebrag).....or my daughter who is graduating in August with a masters in Language and speech pathology (double humblebrag), that they should have never pursued that much education because...then you will just be over educated.

What an idiot.
Click to expand...
No doubt they are brains.  I always knew you were super smart tho.  Congrats!

 
Back
Top