Is a reversal of Roe v Wade decision next?

Actually I am short sighted lol but its absurd to me that your losing sleep when you guys are safe and well cared for in your country oh i mean the better one. The one that works at the moment. I never expect the gov to take care of me or mine why would I plan on letting another do it.

Like @Rurumo said in some other thread more eloquently then I can this is about constitutional rights more than abortion for me. It scares the crap out of me honestly. It undermines the SCOTUS and women all at the same time cause now, if you have the politics aligned, there is no precedence that is not at risk. That knife cuts both ways and degrades this country at the core. My wife feels like she is not equal and trust me, we aren’t having any more children.

bam0813 said:

Actually I am short sighted lol but its absurd to me that your losing sleep when you guys are safe and well cared for in your country oh i mean the better one. The one that works at the moment. I never expect the gov to take care of me or mine why would I plan on letting another do it.

Click to expand...

Seriously?

What if my daughter is offered a scholarship and decides to go to school in the US? What if after school she gets offered a good job in a state that has banned abortions?

Watching what’s going on in your country has made me nervous about Canada’s future, too. Your country was once a beacon but has unfortunately now become a cautionary tale.

bam0813 said:

Maybe in Australia I’ve lived in America for 48 yrs never heard anyone on either side say never

Click to expand...

No, not in Australia. We don't have this Abortion debate over and over and over again. Sure there's always a small background noise from the religious nutters but the majority of Aussies don't consider themselves religious and we do have a majority system of gov.

schuylaar said:

Would you prefer it's name, Plan B?

Click to expand...

that in all likelihood wont be available soon.

Lucky Luke said:

that in all likelihood wont be available soon.

Click to expand...

Most all drug stores just announced they have plenty..come and get 'em!

schuylaar said:

Most all drug stores just announced they have plenty..come and get 'em!

Click to expand...

They do atm. They wont when its legislated to not supply. The Supreme court is going after contraception and same sex marriage next. Women now have no Constitutional rights- None.
This is from someone earlier in the thead (my apologies for not remembering who):

"Women don't have Constitutionally protected rights, unlike white men. What rights women have came from the right to "privacy" which is the same for virtually every achievement of the Civil Rights movement. They have now been stripped of those rights. This decision has less to do with abortion, than it has to do with equal rights. People are still focused on the abortion aspect, but soon they will realize that the Supreme Court just returned the USA to the status of an Apartheid state. We are now the only developed nation without Constitutionally guaranteed equal rights. I just hope it's enough of shock to push the states into adopting a fresh Equal Rights Amendment or else this country is done. The mullahs on the Supreme Sharia Court have spoken, the choice is either to follow the Republicans into creating their Megachurch Afghanistan or to fix the glaring flaws that the Founders had to compromise on in order to keep the Southern slave-owning states onboard with the new "country.""




I'm surprised you can get the morning after pill from a chemist (drug store)without a prescription. Here I'm pretty sure you have to book a Dr appointment and get a prescription. Luckily the dr is free here and the pill is extremely cheap as its on the Pharmaceutical benefits scheme. But it is very hard to get in to see a Dr within a week let alone the day after. Very hard for those who live in rural areas who live nowhere close to a dr, especially if they don't drive or are not free to leave.

First they want to pull out, now they want you to not even put it in. I am getting to think they are against all of the forms of the original sin.

Texas AG says he would back law banning sodomy if Supreme Court reconsiders landmark case
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) said last week he would back a law banning the act of sodomy if the U.S. Supreme Court were to overrule a case deeming it unconstitutional.

Paxton said during a Friday interview with NewsNation he would defend the law banning sodomy because the Supreme Court in the past has “stepped into issues that I don’t think there was any constitutional provision dealing with.”

“They were legislative issues,” Paxton said. “This was one of those issues, and there may be more. It would depend on the issue and it would depend on the state law.”

When asked if he would have a personal issue with defending a law banning sodomy, Paxton said he would not.

“My job is to defend state law and I’ll continue to do that, that is my job,” the Texas attorney general said.

The Supreme Court ruled a Texas law banning two persons of the same sex from having sexual intercourse was unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

The justices said the law violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects an individual’s right to life and liberty without interference from the government.

The 2003 ruling overturned Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which allowed a similar Georgia statue banning sodomy to stay in effect. The landmark Lawrence v. Texas case eventually paved the way for Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which legalized same-sex marriage.

Last week, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade (1971), which ruled that abortion was a constitutional right based on the Due Process Clause.

In his concurring opinion, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas drew national headlines when he suggested the court reconsider other cases based on the Due Process Clause, including Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges.

Paxton on Friday said he would have to “take a look” at any statute Texas were to pass if the high court overturned Lawrence v. Texas.

“This is all new territory for us. I’d have to see how the legislation was laid out and if we thought we could defend it,” Paxton said. “If it’s constitutional, we’re going to defend it.”

printer said:

First they want to pull out, now they want you to not even put it in. I am getting to think they are against all of the forms of the original sin.

Texas AG says he would back law banning sodomy if Supreme Court reconsiders landmark case
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) said last week he would back a law banning the act of sodomy if the U.S. Supreme Court were to overrule a case deeming it unconstitutional.

Paxton said during a Friday interview with NewsNation he would defend the law banning sodomy because the Supreme Court in the past has “stepped into issues that I don’t think there was any constitutional provision dealing with.”

“They were legislative issues,” Paxton said. “This was one of those issues, and there may be more. It would depend on the issue and it would depend on the state law.”

When asked if he would have a personal issue with defending a law banning sodomy, Paxton said he would not.

“My job is to defend state law and I’ll continue to do that, that is my job,” the Texas attorney general said.

The Supreme Court ruled a Texas law banning two persons of the same sex from having sexual intercourse was unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

The justices said the law violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects an individual’s right to life and liberty without interference from the government.

The 2003 ruling overturned Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which allowed a similar Georgia statue banning sodomy to stay in effect. The landmark Lawrence v. Texas case eventually paved the way for Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which legalized same-sex marriage.

Last week, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade (1971), which ruled that abortion was a constitutional right based on the Due Process Clause.

In his concurring opinion, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas drew national headlines when he suggested the court reconsider other cases based on the Due Process Clause, including Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges.

Paxton on Friday said he would have to “take a look” at any statute Texas were to pass if the high court overturned Lawrence v. Texas.

“This is all new territory for us. I’d have to see how the legislation was laid out and if we thought we could defend it,” Paxton said. “If it’s constitutional, we’re going to defend it.”

Texas AG says he would back law banning sodomy if Supreme Court reconsiders landmark case

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) said last week he would back a law banning the act of sodomy if the U.S. Supreme Court were to overrule a case deeming it unconstitutional. Paxton said during …

thehill.com

Click to expand...

I’ll bet Paxton was a navy man.

More Republican hypocrisy.

Lucky Luke said:

They do atm. They wont when its legislated to not supply. The Supreme court is going after contraception and same sex marriage next. Women now have no Constitutional rights- None.
This is from someone earlier in the thead (my apologies for not remembering who):

"Women don't have Constitutionally protected rights, unlike white men. What rights women have came from the right to "privacy" which is the same for virtually every achievement of the Civil Rights movement. They have now been stripped of those rights. This decision has less to do with abortion, than it has to do with equal rights. People are still focused on the abortion aspect, but soon they will realize that the Supreme Court just returned the USA to the status of an Apartheid state. We are now the only developed nation without Constitutionally guaranteed equal rights. I just hope it's enough of shock to push the states into adopting a fresh Equal Rights Amendment or else this country is done. The mullahs on the Supreme Sharia Court have spoken, the choice is either to follow the Republicans into creating their Megachurch Afghanistan or to fix the glaring flaws that the Founders had to compromise on in order to keep the Southern slave-owning states onboard with the new "country.""




I'm surprised you can get the morning after pill from a chemist (drug store)without a prescription. Here I'm pretty sure you have to book a Dr appointment and get a prescription. Luckily the dr is free here and the pill is extremely cheap as its on the Pharmaceutical benefits scheme. But it is very hard to get in to see a Dr within a week let alone the day after. Very hard for those who live in rural areas who live nowhere close to a dr, especially if they don't drive or are not free to leave.

Click to expand...

Telehealth is popular here and easy to book right away. I heard a Dutch company set up a Telehealth for us too.

schuylaar said:

Telehealth is popular here and easy to book right away. I heard a Dutch company set up a Telehealth for us too.

Click to expand...

Thats free here to but now covids kinda in the past its not something local Drs like doing for safety.
In the foreseeable future i can see a women seeing a dr or telehealth only available with your father's or husband's permission. The Dutch have been very good at getting drugs into America but its getting harder and harder and like Assange with free press once they take out a well known player the rest won't bother.
I have a female friend who lives in Louisville Kentucky and if she was married (she is divorced) and wanted her tubes tied she would have to get her husband's permission. That's so medieval and things are going to get worse.

As women no longer have rights will they be allowed to vote soon? Guessing that will get cancelled after the gay marraige and sodemy is finanalised. How long until they cannot own property and work do you think?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/30/politics/supreme-court-climate-change-epa-regulations/index.html

they aren't wasting any time turning the country into a shithole, are they? guess god is in favor of corporate profits, and against the human race surviving it's own ignorance and stupidity...and breaking down the wall between church and state. funny, you'd have thought that if god was against the separation of church and state he could have made it known in a way that didn't fuck over 3/4th of the country..

i am being completely serious. if something like unpacking the court can't be accomplished in the next couple of weeks, then we need to just shut it down. the country has lost faith in them as an institution, and deservedly so. they've proven that they are untrustworthy liars with an agenda that goes against the will of the large majority. they HAVE to go, one way or another. if it requires violence, then there should be violence...it would just be their just rewards for perjuring themselve to gain the appointments they would have never gotten if they hadn't lied through their teeth.
fuck each and every one of the five, they have to GTFO

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/30/biden-calls-on-congress-to-ease-senate-rules-to-codify-roe-v-wade.html

"Moderate Democrats Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have said they are against edits to the filibuster rules."

well isn't that a surprise? i wonder how rich they're getting, selling out their party, their country, their honor?...they both make me sick.

Roger A. Shrubber said:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/30/politics/supreme-court-climate-change-epa-regulations/index.html

they aren't wasting any time turning the country into a shithole, are they? guess god is in favor of corporate profits, and against the human race surviving it's own ignorance and stupidity...and breaking down the wall between church and state. funny, you'd have thought that if god was against the separation of church and state he could have made it known in a way that didn't fuck over 3/4th of the country..

Click to expand...

Just came from my yearly physical and just caught the SC decision. I heard about the case before and thought posting it in this thread made sense, seems you beat me to it. (seems I am healthy but need to get my bad cholesterol down) The SC wants to bring government back into the 1800's, not too much climate change concern then. Basically the SC is writing the rules of the land over top of government. So forget about taxation without representation, might as well carve the republican SC judges next to Trump at Mount Rushmore. That is if there is enough room left over after Trump's head is carved to scale in relation to how important he thinks he is.

Most voters concerned over climate impact of Supreme Court EPA ruling: poll
Polling conducted before the Court ruled on West Virginia v. EPA shows the majority of Americans are concerned about removing protections under the Clean Air Act.

In a Supreme Court ruling issued Thursday, the justices limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) power by imposing limits on the agency’s ability to curb power plant emissions.

In West Virginia v. EPA, justices ruled, “Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan.”

Polling carried out by the progressive organizations Data For Progress and Evergreen Action earlier in June showed many American voters concerned with such a decision curbing the EPA’s power.

According to a survey among 1,320 likely voters June 10-14, 63 percent of respondents said they were concerned about the court removing protections established by the Clean Air Act, first introduced in 1970. The polling results were published nine days before the court released its decision.

Plaintiffs in the case included 19 mostly Republican attorneys general and coal companies who argued these powers should fall on Congress rather than the EPA.

Among those polled, 74 percent reported they were concerned with air and water pollution in their communities — a total that consists of 79 percent Independents and 57 percent Republicans.

Another large sum of voters agreed the EPA should be able to regulate air pollution that contributed to climate change, with an overwhelming majority of this total identifying as Democrats.

“West Virginia v. EPA is the culmination of a years-long effort by the fossil fuel industry and right wing activists to turn back the clock on decades of legal and administrative precedent to put more power in the hands of corporations,” said Evergreen Action in a statement issued before the ruling.

“This extreme step would defy legal precedent and the will of the American people, and would further erode the legitimacy of an already historically controversial court.”

Harmful emissions from power plants contribute to respiratory problems, cancer and immune system damage, while minority and underserved populations bear a disproportionate health burden from these pollutants.

They lied under oath impeach.

That will not work. It will be the same as when they did trump. Woopty do.

Somebody should probably just shoot them. Open carry on the way there if you feel compelled.