|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion |
| 1-4 of 4 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 06-24-22 08:28am - 869 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
LKLK (0)
Active User Posts: 1,583 Registered: Jun 26, '19 Location: CA |
Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion Associated Press MARK SHERMAN June 24, 2022, 8:14 AM ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years in a decision by its conservative majority to overturn Roe v. Wade. Friday's outcome is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states. The decision, unthinkable just a few years ago, was the culmination of decades of efforts by abortion opponents, made possible by an emboldened right side of the court that has been fortified by three appointees of former President Donald Trump. The ruling came more than a month after the stunning leak of a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito indicating the court was prepared to take this momentous step. It puts the court at odds with a majority of Americans who favored preserving Roe, according to opinion polls. | |
|
||
| 06-24-22 08:49am - 869 days | #2 | |
|
LKLK (0)
Active User Posts: 1,583 Registered: Jun 26, '19 Location: CA |
Although the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, making it easier for states to make abortions illegal, they have come down on the right to bear handguns in public. However, a man with a gun and knife was arrested near Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh's house recently. The man said that he had a gun in his suitcase. He said the gun was unloaded and in a locked case. Officials said the man is from Simi Valley, CA. Since the gun was unloaded, and in a locked case, what was the harm? The problem might be that the man was carrying a gun (in his suitcase) before the Supreme Court made it's ruling that handguns are allowed in public. Maybe Brett Kavanaugh can represent the arrested man, or at least suggest a good lawyer to get the man out of jail? | |
|
||
| 06-24-22 04:26pm - 869 days | #3 | |
|
LKLK (0)
Active User Posts: 1,583 Registered: Jun 26, '19 Location: CA |
The US Supreme Court upholds the right of rapists to have women bear their children. US Supreme Court also upholds the doctrine that women are second class citizens. Will The US Supreme Court bring back slavery and indentured servants, since slaves and indentured servants were legal when the US Constitution was created? Enquiring minds want to know: does Brett Kavanaugh still drink beer? Does a bear shit in the woods? ----- ----- 'A woman will have to bear her rapist's child': The liberal SCOTUS justices' blunt dissent to opinion overturning Roe Yahoo News Ben Adler June 24, 2022, 10:24 AM On Friday, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision establishing a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, the three Democratic appointees — Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — wrote a forthright response casting the majority’s decision as a blow to women’s civil rights. “With sorrow — for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection — we dissent,” they wrote. “Today, the Court … says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of,” they continued. “A State can force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the steepest personal and familial costs.” Citing laws that have already been passed in more conservative states and would now take effect, they warned of dire consequences in states that will now be free to ban abortion without exceptions for rape or incest, or when bringing a pregnancy to term risks the mother’s health. They also suggested that the reversal of Roe may lead to the revocation of additional constitutional rights that have come from the same line of legal reasoning, including the right to contraception found in Griswold v. Connecticut. “Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat,” they wrote. Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor in 2021. (Photo illustratioin: Yahoo News; photos: Erin Schaff/The New York Times via AP, Pool) Here are five key passages from the dissenting opinion: 1. Some states will — in fact, some already have — ban abortion without exceptions. “[States] have passed laws without any exceptions for when the woman is the victim of rape or incest. Under those laws, a woman will have to bear her rapist’s child or a young girl her father’s — no matter if doing so will destroy her life. So too, after today’s ruling, some States may compel women to carry to term a fetus with severe physical anomalies — for example, one afflicted with Tay-Sachs disease, sure to die within a few years of birth. States may even argue that a prohibition on abortion need make no provision for protecting a woman from risk of death or physical harm. Across a vast array of circumstances, a State will be able to impose its moral choice on a woman and coerce her to give birth to a child.” 2. Some states will — in fact, some already have — pass laws that punish women who get abortions, or others who get involved in a woman’s pregnancy. “Perhaps, in the wake of today’s decision, a state law will criminalize the woman’s conduct too, incarcerating or fining her for daring to seek or obtain an abortion. And as Texas has recently shown, a State can turn neighbor against neighbor, enlisting fellow citizens in the effort to root out anyone who tries to get an abortion, or to assist another in doing so.” 3. Women’s rights are being curtailed, especially those of poorer women. Abortion rights protesters at a rally in New York City’s Washington Square Park. Abortion rights protesters at a rally earlier this month in New York City’s Washington Square Park in anticipation of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. (Jeenah Moon/Reuters) “Whatever the exact scope of the coming laws, one result of today’s decision is certain: the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens. Yesterday, the Constitution guaranteed that a woman confronted with an unplanned pregnancy could (within reasonable limits) make her own decision about whether to bear a child, with all the life-transforming consequences that act involves. ... As of today, this Court holds, a State can always force a woman to give birth, prohibiting even the earliest abortions. A State can thus transform what, when freely undertaken, is a wonder into what, when forced, may be a nightmare. Some women, especially women of means, will find ways around the State’s assertion of power. Others — those without money or childcare or the ability to take time off from work — will not be so fortunate. Maybe they will try an unsafe method of abortion, and come to physical harm, or even die. Maybe they will undergo pregnancy and have a child, but at significant personal or familial cost. At the least, they will incur the cost of losing control of their lives. The Constitution will, today’s majority holds, provide no shield, despite its guarantees of liberty and equality for all.” 4. This may be just the first in a series of decisions that roll back the right to privacy and gender equality. Demonstrators outside the Supreme Court. Demonstrators outside the Supreme Court on Thursday. (Valerie Plesch/Bloomberg via Getty Images) “And no one should be confident that this majority is done with its work. The right Roe and Casey recognized does not stand alone. To the contrary, the Court has linked it for decades to other settled freedoms involving bodily integrity, familial relationships, and procreation. ... The lone rationale for what the majority does today is that the right to elect an abortion is not ‘deeply rooted in history’: Not until Roe, the majority argues, did people think abortion fell within the Constitution’s guarantee of liberty. ... The same could be said, though, of most of the rights the majority claims it is not tampering with. The majority could write just as long an opinion showing, for example, that until the mid-20th century, ‘there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain [contraceptives].’ ... So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.” 5. The majority argues that women’s rights today should be limited by what the Constitution’s authors thought in a more sexist time. Abortion rights activists march in Washington, D.C., on June 13. Abortion rights activists march in Washington, D.C., on June 13. (Valerie Plesch/Bloomberg via Getty Images) “The majority’s core legal postulate, then, is that we in the 21st century must read the Fourteenth Amendment just as its ratifiers did. And that is indeed what the majority emphasizes over and over again. ... If the ratifiers did not understand something as central to freedom, then neither can we. Or said more particularly: If those people did not understand reproductive rights as part of the guarantee of liberty conferred in the Fourteenth Amendment, then those rights do not exist. As an initial matter, note a mistake in the just preceding sentence. We referred there to the ‘people’ who ratified the Fourteenth Amendment: What rights did those ‘people’ have in their heads at the time? But, of course, ‘people’ did not ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. Men did. So it is perhaps not so surprising that the ratifiers were not perfectly attuned to the importance of reproductive rights for women’s liberty, or for their capacity to participate as equal members of our Nation. ... Those responsible for the original Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment, did not perceive women as equals, and did not recognize women’s rights. When the majority says that we must read our foundational charter as viewed at the time of ratification (except that we may also check it against the Dark Ages), it consigns women to second-class citizenship.” | |
|
||
| 06-24-22 04:29pm - 869 days | #4 | |
|
LKLK (0)
Active User Posts: 1,583 Registered: Jun 26, '19 Location: CA |
Clarence Thomas calls for Supreme Court to 'reconsider' gay marriage, contraception after Roe v. Wade falls USA TODAY John Fritze and Marina Pitofsky, USA TODAY June 24, 2022, 3:33 PM WASHINGTON – Associate Justice Clarence Thomas said Friday that the Supreme Court should "reconsider" other rights established by the high court in the wake of its decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, including access to contraception and gay marriage. Thomas' concurring opinion – which no other member of the court joined – tracks with an argument abortion rights groups had made for months leading up to the court's blockbuster abortion decision: a ruling that the Constitution doesn't protect a right to an abortion would jeopardize other rights the court established under the 14th Amendment. "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," Thomas wrote, referring to landmark opinions that blocked states from banning contraception, sex by same-sex couples and gay marriage. "After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated." Background: Could rights to same-sex marriage, contraception be next? Explainer: What is the 14th Amendment, and what does it have to do with Roe? Thomas: Justice Thomas celebrates 30 years on a court moving in his direction The Constitution doesn’t explicitly guarantee a right to abortion, but a 7-2 majority in Roe v. Wade held that the 14th Amendment’s protection of "liberty" includes the right to terminate a pregnancy. Several of the justices in Roe drew on another landmark opinion decided eight years earlier that legalized contraception for married couples. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas Associate Justice Clarence Thomas The court overturned Roe v. Wade on Friday, a major decision that will allow individual states to decide whether to ban the procedure. The court ruled that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. Abortion rights advocates have noted that the same is true for many other rights that millions of Americans take for granted today. In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court invalidated a law that forbid contraception, finding the Bill of Rights created "zones of privacy" for married couples. Decades later, in 2015, the court relied on a similar theory in Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized same-sex marriage nationally and a 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas that invalidated state prohibitions on sodomy. Those rights were based on a similar approach to the Constitution, that the 14th Amendment provides for some rights – such as privacy – that are not explicitly stated in the founding document. What about Loving v. Virginia? Thomas didn't mention another major decision based on the same approach, a landmark civil rights ruling in 1967 that invalidated laws banning interracial marriage. Though Thomas didn't cite that case, several others did. Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who joined the majority's opinion, listed it among the precedents he said were not jeopardized by the court's abortion decision. "I emphasize what the court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents," Kavanaugh wrote. But the court's liberals drew attention to that decision in a dissent, noting that the Fourteenth Amendment's drafters did not likely think it would give "Black and white people a right to marry each other. To the contrary, contemporaneous practice deemed that act quite as unprotected as abortion." The Constitution, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court's liberal wing, "does not freeze for all time the original view of what those rights guarantee, or how they apply." Obergefell: 'Our right to privacy' Jim Obergefell, who was a plaintiff in Obergefell v. Hodges and is running for the Ohio House, told the Cincinnati Enquirer, part of the USA TODAY Network, that the ruling calls on opponents of same-sex marriage to "start their engines and to come after those rights." "This very clearly paints a target on our right to privacy, our right to commit to the person we love and to form our families," he said. It's notable that Thomas, perhaps the court's most conservative justice, wrote alone to argue for revisiting other rights. The court's majority opinion, written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito, another conservative, also shot down the idea. Alito draws a distinction between abortion and other rights because, he says, abortion involves the life or potential life of a fetus or embryo. "And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right," Alito wrote. "Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion." Contraception at risk? Still, advocates say such challenges are likely to arrive in federal courts in the coming years. The Supreme Court often tries to limit the impact of its decisions with such language, but that rarely prevents lawyers from trying to test those limits. The potential for a legal fight over contraception in a post-Roe world may be particularly high, experts have said. That’s because contraception was at the heart of the 2014 Hobby Lobby case in which the court ruled companies with religious objections cannot be forced to offer insurance for certain birth control methods they equate with abortion. The Human Rights Campaign said Thomas "had some alarming things to say about Obergefell v. Hodges and Lawrence v. Texas," but the LGBTQ civil rights organization acknowledged that the justice spoke only for himself." "Our fight right now is centered on ensuring people still have access to the abortion and reproductive services they need, but make no mistake: We will not back down from defending the progress we have made and keeping the fight for full LGBTQ+ equality going," the group posted on Twitter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Clarence Thomas: Gay marriage should be revisited as Roe v. Wade falls | |
|
||
| 1-4 of 4 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
