sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Didn't the Dems recently eliminate the filibuster in their attempt to pass the abortion bill? IIRC they were thwarted by the WV senator, who believed their bill went far beyond Roe.

---

I don't understand the question. Didn't Dems eliminate the filibuster, only they were thwarted by a Senator who is also a Dem? That means they didn't do it.

To be clear, I'm fine with eliminating the filibuster (or returning it to what it used to be, an actual talking filibuster). Conservatives may get short-term gains from it now but in the long run that will benefit progressives. The filibuster is a conservative tool used to prevent change.

---

It was a rhetorical question to demonstrate this point: the implications that only evil Republicans would resort to such nefarious actions is incorrect. Democrats just tried it themselves.

Dem's DID eliminate the filibuster rule to achieve their political objective. They failed to take advantage of the changed rule to pass their legislation because they couldn't manage their caucus and/or are too extreme and/or don't want the legislative success now.

FWIW I am 100% in favor of the filibuster because it works to promote moderation and compromise, things our country sorely needs.

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Didn't the Dems recently eliminate the filibuster in their attempt to pass the abortion bill? IIRC they were thwarted by the WV senator, who believed their bill went far beyond Roe.

---

I don't understand the question. Didn't Dems eliminate the filibuster, only they were thwarted by a Senator who is also a Dem? That means they didn't do it.

To be clear, I'm fine with eliminating the filibuster (or returning it to what it used to be, an actual talking filibuster). Conservatives may get short-term gains from it now but in the long run that will benefit progressives. The filibuster is a conservative tool used to prevent change.

---

It was a rhetorical question to demonstrate this point: the implications that only evil Republicans would resort to such nefarious actions is incorrect. Democrats just tried it themselves.

Dem's DID eliminate the filibuster rule to achieve their political objective. They failed to take advantage of the changed rule to pass their legislation because they couldn't manage their caucus and/or are too extreme and/or don't want the legislative success now.

FWIW I am 100% in favor of the filibuster because it works to promote moderation and compromise, things our country sorely needs.

---

The way it's abused right now, it does not promote compromise. It promotes never bringing contentious issues to the floor.

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

In terms of the nationwide ban, I suspect we will start finding a lot of liberal federalists. I think any congressional law banning or affirming a nationwide abortion right is quite possibly unconstitutional. Any such law is also unlikely to ever defeat a filibuster (assuming the dems do not foolishly eliminate it).

---

1. If Republicans have the votes (say they win a trifecta in 2024), they will eliminate the filibuster to get their nationwide ban through. Guaranteed.

2. This radical right-wing Court will then get to decide what's constitutional. Want to take bets on how they'll rule?

---

Didn't the Dems recently eliminate the filibuster in their attempt to pass the abortion bill? IIRC they were thwarted by the WV senator, who believed their bill went far beyond Roe. That bill died because Dem's wouldn't caucus to find a more moderate version of the bill that they could pass; they preferred to have the political issue for November. So let's not pretend that one side is evil and the other side is pure. Both sides have extremists. Both sides game the system for political gain.

---

I think Mancin (and possibly Sinema) are on record as opposing the elimination of the filibuster in all cases - including abortion.

I think you are correct in saying the reason the dems have never presented an abortion rights bill is that the can't agree on the specifics. Some dems want abortion through third trimester and are unwilling to settle for anything but that. Many dems are not that extreme, so they can't agree.

I think the republicans would have similar problems in presenting an abortion ban bill (which wasn't even a possibility until yesterday). There is not agreement on things like exemptions for rape/incest and whether the ban should be absolute or after a specific time (e.g., 15 weeks).

All of this is further support for the idea the issues are best addressed at the state or local level.

AunBear89 said:

---

To be fair, people like BearFarce are easily manipulated. They practically beg for it.

---

I noticed that he posted 47 times yesterday in a 5 hour span that ended around 5:30pm..... He seemed quite agitated and was still posting (with no supporting links) that the 2020 election was stolen.

100% agree that R's would have the same issues.

Roe served a useful purpose for both parties. They could fundraise for or against it and never have to do anything about it. I don't think either party nationally was interested in change but southern states and the court was.

I don't think the Republicans are interested in a ban because that would cause massive disruption and protest and, frankly, would be ignored and not enforced. Likewise the Dems passing some "right" to abortion would have similar results. So unless thre Democrats can actually gain a foothold in the South and mobilize voters (unlikely), abortion will remain a right in half the states and a criminal act in the other half.

What is going to happen is that blue states will not cooperate with red in identifying and prosecuting abortion refugees. There will also be an underground railway in providing abortion pills in banned states both after the fact and in advance. It will be interesting to see if the Southern patriarchy survives since most cities in the South including Jackson Ms are blue, 74% Biden.

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I don't think Roberts overruled Casey, but did give a thumbs-up to allowing the law in question. At this juncture, it is meaningless point of law.

The no exceptions part is rather disturbing. Normally, with the price of gas at whatever, no one who would vote GOP cares that much. Women with means will just go to another state, and the really poor who want an abortion don't vote GOP much. But the health risk to the mother may have to be an immediate decision. I guess doctors will do what they need to do to save the mom and doctor the paperwork to make it work. You would think the rights of someone to live would be rather fundamental.

---

This ruling is what you voted for in 2016. One would think an attorney would have known the lives of women were at stake.

---

Agreed 100%

And Furd appears to be totally unaware of states like Mississippi where legislators have "trigger laws" on the books in which all abortions will be banned with the exception of rape (incest is "ok"). Never mind that the rape exception would require criminal charges to be filed, which is clearly problematic in and of itself. And even if found guilty of a rape charge enabling a woman to receive an abortion, there wont be any clinics around to perform that abortion.

The 12 other states with some form of trigger law are Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

---

Going back my original comment was about where the mother's health was at risk. You misrepresented that the court held that the court's decision would allow restricting abortions in that situation. It did not, which you would have know if you read the 4 decisions, which I finally did. Here is a hint: 5 is a bigger number than 4. You are a firm believer in financial literacy, yet you don't seem to have gotten there on legal literacy. Can you name the states that have a trigger law that doesn't make an exception of abortions where the mother's health is at risk?

I get that lightweights like Dajo shout things about people dying, and other emotional over statements and exaggerations. But the substance of the decision, at least if you believe the NT Times is:

"The ruling may have a less dramatic effect on overall abortion rates. Some experts estimate that overturning Roe could reduce the number of legal abortions in the U.S. by as little as 13 percent. That's because abortion was already heavily restricted in red states and more people living in them oppose the practice."

Decision to have an abortion for any reason is always fraught with ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities. But in cases where it's a matter of mom's life are not part of the discussion here at it turns out due to the Courts different opinions and the state trigger laws making exceptions. But the reality is those ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities in most other cases are part of a democratic process where people vote. I think the better social policy is to allow abortions in most cases, thought there are far more important issues for me.

The court didn't say voters of each state. It said: "The authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives." The Democrats have a slim majority in Congress and the Presidency. They had a Vice-President sitting there ready to break a Senate tie, and yet the did not pass legislation that would have permitted most abortions rights in all states. The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President. And if the idiotic concept that the voting record of one individual causes everything that happens (which sounds like something you would hear out of four year old), then it is Dajo's fault, my fault and your fault if you voted for Biden. Apparently having the abortion issue alive at election time is more important than protection of women rights, or to take the more shrill hyperbole point of view, women dying.

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I don't think Roberts overruled Casey, but did give a thumbs-up to allowing the law in question. At this juncture, it is meaningless point of law.

The no exceptions part is rather disturbing. Normally, with the price of gas at whatever, no one who would vote GOP cares that much. Women with means will just go to another state, and the really poor who want an abortion don't vote GOP much. But the health risk to the mother may have to be an immediate decision. I guess doctors will do what they need to do to save the mom and doctor the paperwork to make it work. You would think the rights of someone to live would be rather fundamental.

---

This ruling is what you voted for in 2016. One would think an attorney would have known the lives of women were at stake.

---

Agreed 100%

And Furd appears to be totally unaware of states like Mississippi where legislators have "trigger laws" on the books in which all abortions will be banned with the exception of rape (incest is "ok"). Never mind that the rape exception would require criminal charges to be filed, which is clearly problematic in and of itself. And even if found guilty of a rape charge enabling a woman to receive an abortion, there wont be any clinics around to perform that abortion.

The 12 other states with some form of trigger law are Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

---

Going back my original comment was about where the mother's health was at risk. You misrepresented that the court held that the court's decision would allow restricting abortions in that situation. It did not, which you would have know if you read the 4 decisions, which I finally did. Here is a hint: 5 is a bigger number than 4. You are a firm believer in financial literacy, yet you don't seem to have gotten there on legal literacy. Can you name the states that have a trigger law that doesn't make an exception of abortions where the mother's health is at risk?

I get that lightweights like Dajo shout things about people dying, and other emotional over statements and exaggerations. But the substance of the decision, at least if you believe the NT Times is:

"The ruling may have a less dramatic effect on overall abortion rates. Some experts estimate that overturning Roe could reduce the number of legal abortions in the U.S. by as little as 13 percent. That's because abortion was already heavily restricted in red states and more people living in them oppose the practice."

Decision to have an abortion for any reason is always fraught with ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities. But in cases where it's a matter of mom's life are not part of the discussion here at it turns out due to the Courts different opinions and the state trigger laws making exceptions. But the reality is those ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities in most other cases are part of a democratic process where people vote. I think the better social policy is to allow abortions in most cases, thought there are far more important issues for me.

The court didn't say voters of each state. It said: "The authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives." The Democrats have a slim majority in Congress and the Presidency. They had a Vice-President sitting there ready to break a Senate tie, and yet the did not pass legislation that would have permitted most abortions rights in all states. The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President. And if the idiotic concept that the voting record of one individual causes everything that happens (which sounds like something you would hear out of four year old), then it is Dajo's fault, my fault and your fault if you voted for Biden. Apparently having the abortion issue alive at election time is more important than protection of women rights, or to take the more shrill hyperbole point of view, women dying.

---

Re the final sentence, I think Anarchist has it right above when he said "Roe served a useful purpose for both parties. They could fundraise for or against it and never have to do anything about it."

Roe allowed people on both sides to take extreme positions (helpful to fundraising and primary victories) without any real consequences. That is over and I think over time that will produce more moderate results in many places.

Anarchistbear said:

---

So unless thre Democrats can actually gain a foothold in the South and mobilize voters (unlikely), abortion will remain a right in half the states and a criminal act in the other half.

What is going to happen is that blue states will not cooperate with red in identifying and prosecuting abortion refugees. There will also be an underground railway in providing abortion pills in banned states both after the fact and in advance. It will be interesting to see if the Southern patriarchy survives since most cities in the South including Jackson Ms are blue, 74% Biden.

---

Having "free" states and "not free" states seems like an inherently unstable state of affairs.

There's some major historical precedent for this, not sure what.

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

So unless thre Democrats can actually gain a foothold in the South and mobilize voters (unlikely), abortion will remain a right in half the states and a criminal act in the other half.

What is going to happen is that blue states will not cooperate with red in identifying and prosecuting abortion refugees. There will also be an underground railway in providing abortion pills in banned states both after the fact and in advance. It will be interesting to see if the Southern patriarchy survives since most cities in the South including Jackson Ms are blue, 74% Biden.

---

Having "free" states and "not free" states seems like an inherently unstable state of affairs.

There's some major historical precedent for this, not sure what.

---

When the court says let the people decide there is an inherent problem. It's the people's representative that decide and in many states local gerrymandering and money make them captive of a minority of voters. I'd have no problem if each state had a referendum on this- ban or allow with stated restrictions. Then the people would truly decide but that's not going to happen.

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

So unless thre Democrats can actually gain a foothold in the South and mobilize voters (unlikely), abortion will remain a right in half the states and a criminal act in the other half.

What is going to happen is that blue states will not cooperate with red in identifying and prosecuting abortion refugees. There will also be an underground railway in providing abortion pills in banned states both after the fact and in advance. It will be interesting to see if the Southern patriarchy survives since most cities in the South including Jackson Ms are blue, 74% Biden.

---

Having "free" states and "not free" states seems like an inherently unstable state of affairs.

There's some major historical precedent for this, not sure what.

---

When the court says let the people decide there is an inherent problem. It's the people's representative that decide and in many states local gerrymandering and money make them captive of a minority of voters. I'd have no problem if each state had a referendum on this- ban or allow with stated restrictions. Then the people would truly decide but that's not going to happen.

---

Is the solution to have 9 unelected judges decide?

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

So unless thre Democrats can actually gain a foothold in the South and mobilize voters (unlikely), abortion will remain a right in half the states and a criminal act in the other half.

What is going to happen is that blue states will not cooperate with red in identifying and prosecuting abortion refugees. There will also be an underground railway in providing abortion pills in banned states both after the fact and in advance. It will be interesting to see if the Southern patriarchy survives since most cities in the South including Jackson Ms are blue, 74% Biden.

---

Having "free" states and "not free" states seems like an inherently unstable state of affairs.

There's some major historical precedent for this, not sure what.

---

Some examples:

We have some states that are right to work; others are not.

We have some states that are sanctuary states for immigration purposes; most not.

We have some states were marijuana and other drugs are legal; others not.

Some states allow felons to vote; others do not.

Even before Roe was overturned, there was a wide variation of abortion laws in various states.

BearGoggles said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

So unless thre Democrats can actually gain a foothold in the South and mobilize voters (unlikely), abortion will remain a right in half the states and a criminal act in the other half.

What is going to happen is that blue states will not cooperate with red in identifying and prosecuting abortion refugees. There will also be an underground railway in providing abortion pills in banned states both after the fact and in advance. It will be interesting to see if the Southern patriarchy survives since most cities in the South including Jackson Ms are blue, 74% Biden.

---

Having "free" states and "not free" states seems like an inherently unstable state of affairs.

There's some major historical precedent for this, not sure what.

---

When the court says let the people decide there is an inherent problem. It's the people's representative that decide and in many states local gerrymandering and money make them captive of a minority of voters. I'd have no problem if each state had a referendum on this- ban or allow with stated restrictions. Then the people would truly decide but that's not going to happen.

---

Is the solution to have 9 unelected judges decide?

---

No. The solution is representation- the lack of it explains a lot about cynicism and non engagement in politics.

BearGoggles said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

So unless thre Democrats can actually gain a foothold in the South and mobilize voters (unlikely), abortion will remain a right in half the states and a criminal act in the other half.

What is going to happen is that blue states will not cooperate with red in identifying and prosecuting abortion refugees. There will also be an underground railway in providing abortion pills in banned states both after the fact and in advance. It will be interesting to see if the Southern patriarchy survives since most cities in the South including Jackson Ms are blue, 74% Biden.

---

Having "free" states and "not free" states seems like an inherently unstable state of affairs.

There's some major historical precedent for this, not sure what.

---

When the court says let the people decide there is an inherent problem. It's the people's representative that decide and in many states local gerrymandering and money make them captive of a minority of voters. I'd have no problem if each state had a referendum on this- ban or allow with stated restrictions. Then the people would truly decide but that's not going to happen.

---

Is the solution to have 9 unelected judges decide?

---

A panel of AI judges.



…the only drawback being that they don't take criticism well.

bearister said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

So unless thre Democrats can actually gain a foothold in the South and mobilize voters (unlikely), abortion will remain a right in half the states and a criminal act in the other half.

What is going to happen is that blue states will not cooperate with red in identifying and prosecuting abortion refugees. There will also be an underground railway in providing abortion pills in banned states both after the fact and in advance. It will be interesting to see if the Southern patriarchy survives since most cities in the South including Jackson Ms are blue, 74% Biden.

---

Having "free" states and "not free" states seems like an inherently unstable state of affairs.

There's some major historical precedent for this, not sure what.

---

When the court says let the people decide there is an inherent problem. It's the people's representative that decide and in many states local gerrymandering and money make them captive of a minority of voters. I'd have no problem if each state had a referendum on this- ban or allow with stated restrictions. Then the people would truly decide but that's not going to happen.

---

Is the solution to have 9 unelected judges decide?

---

A panel of AI judges.



…the only drawback being that they don't take criticism well.

---

Given the court's view on gun control, how about this guy:

wifeisafurd said:

---

The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President.

---

Disingenuous, or laughable ignorance? Which republican senator was prepared to terminate the filibuster to restore Roe v Wade? Or were there ten of them ready to impose cloture? I would love to see that list.

Go!Bears said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President.

---

Disingenuous, or laughable ignorance? Which republican senator was prepared to terminate the filibuster to restore Roe v Wade? Or were there ten of them ready to impose cloture? I would love to see that list.

---

I believe he's referring to convincing Mancin to eliminate the filibuster for the abortion rights bill only, which would have made it a 50-50 which Kamala could tiebreak. As it turns out, it was both Sinema and Mancin who opposed that approach.

But you're correct - I don't think there were 10 republican senators willing to vote for such a bill. Probably not any.

https://www.axios.com/2022/05/03/manchin-sinema-filibuster-abortion-scotus

BearGoggles said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President.

---

Disingenuous, or laughable ignorance? Which republican senator was prepared to terminate the filibuster to restore Roe v Wade? Or were there ten of them ready to impose cloture? I would love to see that list.

---

I believe he's referring to convincing Mancin to eliminate the filibuster for the abortion rights bill only, which would have made it a 50-50 which Kamala could tiebreak. As it turns out, it was both Sinema and Mancin who opposed that approach.

But you're correct - I don't think there were 10 republican senators willing to vote for such a bill. Probably not any.

https://www.axios.com/2022/05/03/manchin-sinema-filibuster-abortion-scotus

---

There are neither 60 votes in the Senate to codify abortion rights nor 50 votes to break a filibuster to do so.

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President.

---

Disingenuous, or laughable ignorance? Which republican senator was prepared to terminate the filibuster to restore Roe v Wade? Or were there ten of them ready to impose cloture? I would love to see that list.

---

I believe he's referring to convincing Mancin to eliminate the filibuster for the abortion rights bill only, which would have made it a 50-50 which Kamala could tiebreak. As it turns out, it was both Sinema and Mancin who opposed that approach.

But you're correct - I don't think there were 10 republican senators willing to vote for such a bill. Probably not any.

https://www.axios.com/2022/05/03/manchin-sinema-filibuster-abortion-scotus

---

There are neither 60 votes in the Senate to codify abortion rights nor 50 votes to break a filibuster to do so.

---

I think that's what I said. I would add there very likely wasn't an agreed abortion bill that 50 dem senators would sign off on.

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President.

---

Disingenuous, or laughable ignorance? Which republican senator was prepared to terminate the filibuster to restore Roe v Wade? Or were there ten of them ready to impose cloture? I would love to see that list.

---

I believe he's referring to convincing Mancin to eliminate the filibuster for the abortion rights bill only, which would have made it a 50-50 which Kamala could tiebreak. As it turns out, it was both Sinema and Mancin who opposed that approach.

But you're correct - I don't think there were 10 republican senators willing to vote for such a bill. Probably not any.

https://www.axios.com/2022/05/03/manchin-sinema-filibuster-abortion-scotus

---

There are neither 60 votes in the Senate to codify abortion rights nor 50 votes to break a filibuster to do so.

---

At least the Dems tried. Biden used the unprecedented leak to call on Congress to codify Roe into law.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

In terms of the nationwide ban, I suspect we will start finding a lot of liberal federalists. I think any congressional law banning or affirming a nationwide abortion right is quite possibly unconstitutional. Any such law is also unlikely to ever defeat a filibuster (assuming the dems do not foolishly eliminate it).

---

1. If Republicans have the votes (say they win a trifecta in 2024), they will eliminate the filibuster to get their nationwide ban through. Guaranteed.

2. This radical right-wing Court will then get to decide what's constitutional. Want to take bets on how they'll rule?

---

1. McConnell has opposed the elimination of the filibuster repeatedly for legislation - in opposition to Trump and others. He opposed Reid doing it for judges but when Reid made that change, McConnell did expand it to SC judges. Anything is possible - and McConnell won't be around for ever - so who knows. But there are widespread democrat demands to eliminate it now - that was not the case for Trump.

---

McConnell seems like a trustworthy politician. I'm sure he wouldn't act inconsistently in order to advance conservatives' causes.

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

In terms of the nationwide ban, I suspect we will start finding a lot of liberal federalists. I think any congressional law banning or affirming a nationwide abortion right is quite possibly unconstitutional. Any such law is also unlikely to ever defeat a filibuster (assuming the dems do not foolishly eliminate it).

---

1. If Republicans have the votes (say they win a trifecta in 2024), they will eliminate the filibuster to get their nationwide ban through. Guaranteed.

2. This radical right-wing Court will then get to decide what's constitutional. Want to take bets on how they'll rule?

---

Didn't the Dems recently eliminate the filibuster in their attempt to pass the abortion bill? IIRC they were thwarted by the WV senator, who believed their bill went far beyond Roe. That bill died because Dem's wouldn't caucus to find a more moderate version of the bill that they could pass; they preferred to have the political issue for November. So let's not pretend that one side is evil and the other side is pure. Both sides have extremists. Both sides game the system for political gain.

---

Ah, yes: Both sides have extremists so both sides deserve equal blame. We might as well throw our hands up in the air and not vote. Being fair with our perspective is what's truly important now.

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I don't think Roberts overruled Casey, but did give a thumbs-up to allowing the law in question. At this juncture, it is meaningless point of law.

The no exceptions part is rather disturbing. Normally, with the price of gas at whatever, no one who would vote GOP cares that much. Women with means will just go to another state, and the really poor who want an abortion don't vote GOP much. But the health risk to the mother may have to be an immediate decision. I guess doctors will do what they need to do to save the mom and doctor the paperwork to make it work. You would think the rights of someone to live would be rather fundamental.

---

This ruling is what you voted for in 2016. One would think an attorney would have known the lives of women were at stake.

---

Agreed 100%

And Furd appears to be totally unaware of states like Mississippi where legislators have "trigger laws" on the books in which all abortions will be banned with the exception of rape (incest is "ok"). Never mind that the rape exception would require criminal charges to be filed, which is clearly problematic in and of itself. And even if found guilty of a rape charge enabling a woman to receive an abortion, there wont be any clinics around to perform that abortion.

The 12 other states with some form of trigger law are Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

---

Going back my original comment was about where the mother's health was at risk. You misrepresented that the court held that the court's decision would allow restricting abortions in that situation. It did not, which you would have know if you read the 4 decisions, which I finally did. Here is a hint: 5 is a bigger number than 4. You are a firm believer in financial literacy, yet you don't seem to have gotten there on legal literacy. Can you name the states that have a trigger law that doesn't make an exception of abortions where the mother's health is at risk?

I get that lightweights like Dajo shout things about people dying, and other emotional over statements and exaggerations. But the substance of the decision, at least if you believe the NT Times is:

"The ruling may have a less dramatic effect on overall abortion rates. Some experts estimate that overturning Roe could reduce the number of legal abortions in the U.S. by as little as 13 percent. That's because abortion was already heavily restricted in red states and more people living in them oppose the practice."

Decision to have an abortion for any reason is always fraught with ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities. But in cases where it's a matter of mom's life are not part of the discussion here at it turns out due to the Courts different opinions and the state trigger laws making exceptions. But the reality is those ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities in most other cases are part of a democratic process where people vote. I think the better social policy is to allow abortions in most cases, thought there are far more important issues for me.

The court didn't say voters of each state. It said: "The authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives." The Democrats have a slim majority in Congress and the Presidency. They had a Vice-President sitting there ready to break a Senate tie, and yet the did not pass legislation that would have permitted most abortions rights in all states. The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President. And if the idiotic concept that the voting record of one individual causes everything that happens (which sounds like something you would hear out of four year old), then it is Dajo's fault, my fault and your fault if you voted for Biden. Apparently having the abortion issue alive at election time is more important than protection of women rights, or to take the more shrill hyperbole point of view, women dying.

---

It's nice to know that me pointing out that wifeisafurd voted for this in 2016 has left an indelible mark in his brain. Also typically laughable that lawyer's think everything is a court matter. How about getting government out of people's lives?

I said to my wife "Do you think anyone will commit suicide because they could not get an abortion?"
She instantly replied "yes."
Then she added "there will be all those boyfriends and husbands that murder them because they couldn't get one too" and that shook my fucking world.

— ScottyJohns (@highroadsaloon) June 25, 2022

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

We have a radical right-wing Court well out of step with the mainstream of the American public, and there can be no doubt about this now.

---

I disagree. We have a SCOTUS a with a different approach to interpreting the Constitution. It's just as easy - arguably more valid - to say the activist court starting with Warren (?) - was the aberration, and our current state is a return to a more normal approach.

I would argue either judicial approach (activist vs originalist) is entirely valid.

---

Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right to own guns feee of regulation, and overturning previous precedent on Roe, is an activist approach.

chazzed said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

In terms of the nationwide ban, I suspect we will start finding a lot of liberal federalists. I think any congressional law banning or affirming a nationwide abortion right is quite possibly unconstitutional. Any such law is also unlikely to ever defeat a filibuster (assuming the dems do not foolishly eliminate it).

---

1. If Republicans have the votes (say they win a trifecta in 2024), they will eliminate the filibuster to get their nationwide ban through. Guaranteed.

2. This radical right-wing Court will then get to decide what's constitutional. Want to take bets on how they'll rule?

---

1. McConnell has opposed the elimination of the filibuster repeatedly for legislation - in opposition to Trump and others. He opposed Reid doing it for judges but when Reid made that change, McConnell did expand it to SC judges. Anything is possible - and McConnell won't be around for ever - so who knows. But there are widespread democrat demands to eliminate it now - that was not the case for Trump.

---

McConnell seems like a trustworthy politician. I'm sure he wouldn't act inconsistently in order to advance conservatives' causes.

---

Joe Biden says he's honorable and trustworthy and who would know better


In a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday, President Joe Biden had kind words for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who he called his friend.

"Mitch, I don't want to hurt your reputation, but we really are friends," Biden said, addressing McConnell. "And that is not an epiphany we're having at the moment. You're a man of your word, you're a man of honor. Thank you for being my friend."

Go!Bears said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President.

---

Disingenuous, or laughable ignorance? Which republican senator was prepared to terminate the filibuster to restore Roe v Wade? Or were there ten of them ready to impose cloture? I would love to see that list.

---

Collins for one said she was if they had simply followed what was then current law/. Murkowski is another.

Senate fails to pass abortion rights bill again - Politicohttps://www.politico.com news 2022/05/11 senate...[url=http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/twitter/offer?pco=tbx32nj-1.0&url=https://politi.co/3FQdFn3&text=Senate+fails+to+pass+abortion+rights+bill+%E2%80%94+again&pubid=politico.com&via=politico][/url]

Caputo has identified herself as pro choice, but has not indicated if she would have voted for the bill. Then again no one asked, Both Collins and Murskowsi have said they told the Dems were interested and knew that Manchin would object (and apparently Joe is now saying he was protecting others in his party and that he was fooled by two judicial candidates - guess he didn't get Dajo's post)). So you tell me who is being disingenuous? The Dems literally had Harris sitting there like a puppet in front of the Senate for optics, ready to break the tie and Shummer said he was prepared to call to change the rules to allow a vote. Coillins and Murskowski would have offset Manchin and the Arizona Senator. So you tell me who is being disingenuous again?

This is the ultimate F/U to Congress by SCOTUS. Congress no longer has cover. Their turn to jump on to the third rail.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President.

---

Disingenuous, or laughable ignorance? Which republican senator was prepared to terminate the filibuster to restore Roe v Wade? Or were there ten of them ready to impose cloture? I would love to see that list.

---

Collins for one said she was if they had simply followed what was then current law/. Murkowski is another.

Senate fails to pass abortion rights bill again - Politicohttps://www.politico.com news 2022/05/11 senate...[url=http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/twitter/offer?pco=tbx32nj-1.0&url=https://politi.co/3FQdFn3&text=Senate+fails+to+pass+abortion+rights+bill+%E2%80%94+again&pubid=politico.com&via=politico][/url]

Caputo has identified herself as pro choice, but has not indicated if she would have voted for the bill. Then again no one asked, Both Collins and Murskowsi have said they told the Dems were interested and knew that Manchin would object (and apparently Joe is now saying he was protecting others in his party and that he was fooled by two judicial candidates - guess he didn't get Dajo's post)). So you tell me who is being disingenuous? The Dems literally had Harris sitting there like a puppet in front of the Senate for optics, ready to break the tie and Shummer said he was prepared to call to change the rules to allow a vote. Coillins and Murskowski would have offset Manchin and the Arizona Senator. So you tell me who is being disingenuous again?

This is the ultimate F/U to Congress by SCOTUS. Congress no longer has cover. Their turn to jump on to the third rail.

---

Collins for one. She is the most disingenuous person in the Senate. I wouldn't believe a word she says. Manchin has also shown to be a bad faith negotiator. Are we really going to continue to take these politicians at face value who always say, "I would have done what the Democrats wanted if only the Democrats had done X?" The legislation you linked to failed 49-51, just like everybody here, except apparently you, would have predicted.

Face it wife, you called Hillary Clinton a *****. It's no surprise you cast your 2016 vote with no concern towards how it would impact women. The end of abortion rights means death for women. Believe women when they tell you that.

calumnus said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

We have a radical right-wing Court well out of step with the mainstream of the American public, and there can be no doubt about this now.

---

I disagree. We have a SCOTUS a with a different approach to interpreting the Constitution. It's just as easy - arguably more valid - to say the activist court starting with Warren (?) - was the aberration, and our current state is a return to a more normal approach.

I would argue either judicial approach (activist vs originalist) is entirely valid.

---

Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right to own guns feee of regulation, and overturning previous precedent on Roe, is an activist approach.

---

You misrepresent the holding ("free of regulation") and effect ("overturning precedent") of Heller.

chazzed said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

In terms of the nationwide ban, I suspect we will start finding a lot of liberal federalists. I think any congressional law banning or affirming a nationwide abortion right is quite possibly unconstitutional. Any such law is also unlikely to ever defeat a filibuster (assuming the dems do not foolishly eliminate it).

---

1. If Republicans have the votes (say they win a trifecta in 2024), they will eliminate the filibuster to get their nationwide ban through. Guaranteed.

2. This radical right-wing Court will then get to decide what's constitutional. Want to take bets on how they'll rule?

---

Didn't the Dems recently eliminate the filibuster in their attempt to pass the abortion bill? IIRC they were thwarted by the WV senator, who believed their bill went far beyond Roe. That bill died because Dem's wouldn't caucus to find a more moderate version of the bill that they could pass; they preferred to have the political issue for November. So let's not pretend that one side is evil and the other side is pure. Both sides have extremists. Both sides game the system for political gain.

---

Ah, yes: Both sides have extremists so both sides deserve equal blame. We might as well throw our hands up in the air and not vote. Being fair with our perspective is what's truly important now.

---

Both sides do have extremists.
Both sides do resort to shenanigans.
Only idiots believe their side is pure and the other side is evil
We should all vote, always
Being fair with our perspective is always important

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I don't think Roberts overruled Casey, but did give a thumbs-up to allowing the law in question. At this juncture, it is meaningless point of law.

The no exceptions part is rather disturbing. Normally, with the price of gas at whatever, no one who would vote GOP cares that much. Women with means will just go to another state, and the really poor who want an abortion don't vote GOP much. But the health risk to the mother may have to be an immediate decision. I guess doctors will do what they need to do to save the mom and doctor the paperwork to make it work. You would think the rights of someone to live would be rather fundamental.

---

This ruling is what you voted for in 2016. One would think an attorney would have known the lives of women were at stake.

---

Agreed 100%

And Furd appears to be totally unaware of states like Mississippi where legislators have "trigger laws" on the books in which all abortions will be banned with the exception of rape (incest is "ok"). Never mind that the rape exception would require criminal charges to be filed, which is clearly problematic in and of itself. And even if found guilty of a rape charge enabling a woman to receive an abortion, there wont be any clinics around to perform that abortion.

The 12 other states with some form of trigger law are Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

---

Going back my original comment was about where the mother's health was at risk. You misrepresented that the court held that the court's decision would allow restricting abortions in that situation. It did not, which you would have know if you read the 4 decisions, which I finally did. Here is a hint: 5 is a bigger number than 4. You are a firm believer in financial literacy, yet you don't seem to have gotten there on legal literacy. Can you name the states that have a trigger law that doesn't make an exception of abortions where the mother's health is at risk?

I get that lightweights like Dajo shout things about people dying, and other emotional over statements and exaggerations. But the substance of the decision, at least if you believe the NT Times is:

"The ruling may have a less dramatic effect on overall abortion rates. Some experts estimate that overturning Roe could reduce the number of legal abortions in the U.S. by as little as 13 percent. That's because abortion was already heavily restricted in red states and more people living in them oppose the practice."

Decision to have an abortion for any reason is always fraught with ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities. But in cases where it's a matter of mom's life are not part of the discussion here at it turns out due to the Courts different opinions and the state trigger laws making exceptions. But the reality is those ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities in most other cases are part of a democratic process where people vote. I think the better social policy is to allow abortions in most cases, thought there are far more important issues for me.

The court didn't say voters of each state. It said: "The authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives." The Democrats have a slim majority in Congress and the Presidency. They had a Vice-President sitting there ready to break a Senate tie, and yet the did not pass legislation that would have permitted most abortions rights in all states. The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President. And if the idiotic concept that the voting record of one individual causes everything that happens (which sounds like something you would hear out of four year old), then it is Dajo's fault, my fault and your fault if you voted for Biden. Apparently having the abortion issue alive at election time is more important than protection of women rights, or to take the more shrill hyperbole point of view, women dying.

---

It's nice to know that me pointing out that wifeisafurd voted for this in 2016 has left an indelible mark in his brain. Also typically laughable that lawyer's think everything is a court matter. How about getting government out of people's lives?

I said to my wife "Do you think anyone will commit suicide because they could not get an abortion?"
She instantly replied "yes."
Then she added "there will be all those boyfriends and husbands that murder them because they couldn't get one too" and that shook my fucking world.

— ScottyJohns (@highroadsaloon) June 25, 2022

---

You cite some random jackass on Twitter who quotes his wife for the truth and correctness of the wife's prediction?

Everyone wants the government out of their lives until they don't. Guns and abortion prove this both ways for both sides.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President.

---

Disingenuous, or laughable ignorance? Which republican senator was prepared to terminate the filibuster to restore Roe v Wade? Or were there ten of them ready to impose cloture? I would love to see that list.

---

Collins for one said she was if they had simply followed what was then current law/. Murkowski is another.

Senate fails to pass abortion rights bill again - Politicohttps://www.politico.com news 2022/05/11 senate...[url=http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/twitter/offer?pco=tbx32nj-1.0&url=https://politi.co/3FQdFn3&text=Senate+fails+to+pass+abortion+rights+bill+%E2%80%94+again&pubid=politico.com&via=politico][/url]

Caputo has identified herself as pro choice, but has not indicated if she would have voted for the bill. Then again no one asked, Both Collins and Murskowsi have said they told the Dems were interested and knew that Manchin would object (and apparently Joe is now saying he was protecting others in his party and that he was fooled by two judicial candidates - guess he didn't get Dajo's post)). So you tell me who is being disingenuous? The Dems literally had Harris sitting there like a puppet in front of the Senate for optics, ready to break the tie and Shummer said he was prepared to call to change the rules to allow a vote. Coillins and Murskowski would have offset Manchin and the Arizona Senator. So you tell me who is being disingenuous again?

This is the ultimate F/U to Congress by SCOTUS. Congress no longer has cover. Their turn to jump on to the third rail.

---

Willing to vote to codify Roe and willing to terminate the filibuster are not the same thing. Like you did not know…. I will be believe Collins after she does it. 49 Ds vote for something 50 Rs vote against and it is the President's fault.

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I don't think Roberts overruled Casey, but did give a thumbs-up to allowing the law in question. At this juncture, it is meaningless point of law.

The no exceptions part is rather disturbing. Normally, with the price of gas at whatever, no one who would vote GOP cares that much. Women with means will just go to another state, and the really poor who want an abortion don't vote GOP much. But the health risk to the mother may have to be an immediate decision. I guess doctors will do what they need to do to save the mom and doctor the paperwork to make it work. You would think the rights of someone to live would be rather fundamental.

---

This ruling is what you voted for in 2016. One would think an attorney would have known the lives of women were at stake.

---

Agreed 100%

And Furd appears to be totally unaware of states like Mississippi where legislators have "trigger laws" on the books in which all abortions will be banned with the exception of rape (incest is "ok"). Never mind that the rape exception would require criminal charges to be filed, which is clearly problematic in and of itself. And even if found guilty of a rape charge enabling a woman to receive an abortion, there wont be any clinics around to perform that abortion.

The 12 other states with some form of trigger law are Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

---

Going back my original comment was about where the mother's health was at risk. You misrepresented that the court held that the court's decision would allow restricting abortions in that situation. It did not, which you would have know if you read the 4 decisions, which I finally did. Here is a hint: 5 is a bigger number than 4. You are a firm believer in financial literacy, yet you don't seem to have gotten there on legal literacy. Can you name the states that have a trigger law that doesn't make an exception of abortions where the mother's health is at risk?

I get that lightweights like Dajo shout things about people dying, and other emotional over statements and exaggerations. But the substance of the decision, at least if you believe the NT Times is:

"The ruling may have a less dramatic effect on overall abortion rates. Some experts estimate that overturning Roe could reduce the number of legal abortions in the U.S. by as little as 13 percent. That's because abortion was already heavily restricted in red states and more people living in them oppose the practice."

Decision to have an abortion for any reason is always fraught with ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities. But in cases where it's a matter of mom's life are not part of the discussion here at it turns out due to the Courts different opinions and the state trigger laws making exceptions. But the reality is those ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities in most other cases are part of a democratic process where people vote. I think the better social policy is to allow abortions in most cases, thought there are far more important issues for me.

The court didn't say voters of each state. It said: "The authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives." The Democrats have a slim majority in Congress and the Presidency. They had a Vice-President sitting there ready to break a Senate tie, and yet the did not pass legislation that would have permitted most abortions rights in all states. The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President. And if the idiotic concept that the voting record of one individual causes everything that happens (which sounds like something you would hear out of four year old), then it is Dajo's fault, my fault and your fault if you voted for Biden. Apparently having the abortion issue alive at election time is more important than protection of women rights, or to take the more shrill hyperbole point of view, women dying.

---

It's nice to know that me pointing out that wifeisafurd voted for this in 2016 has left an indelible mark in his brain. Also typically laughable that lawyer's think everything is a court matter. How about getting government out of people's lives?

I said to my wife "Do you think anyone will commit suicide because they could not get an abortion?"
She instantly replied "yes."
Then she added "there will be all those boyfriends and husbands that murder them because they couldn't get one too" and that shook my fucking world.

— ScottyJohns (@highroadsaloon) June 25, 2022

---

You cite some random jackass on Twitter who quotes his wife for the truth and correctness of the wife's prediction?

Everyone wants the government out of their lives until they don't. Guns and abortion prove this both ways for both sides.

---

💯👇 pic.twitter.com/Mp1hWMmBBs

— Wu-Tang Is For The Children (@WUTangKids) June 25, 2022

Our court of extremist religious clerics has put us in a new small group of peer nations. Can't wait to see what the clerics do next to turn us into a catholic theocracy at odds with the will of the people. Minority rule without majority rights is not what the framers intended despite mistreatment of everyone not a white male being "deeply rooted" in our history.

The U.S. joins only 3 other countries that have restricted abortion access since 1994: Poland, Nicaragua & El Salvador.

Over the same period, 50+ nations have made it easier to get an abortion, including Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Ireland, Thailand & S. Korea.

— Ben Schamisso (@schamisso) June 24, 2022

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I don't think Roberts overruled Casey, but did give a thumbs-up to allowing the law in question. At this juncture, it is meaningless point of law.

The no exceptions part is rather disturbing. Normally, with the price of gas at whatever, no one who would vote GOP cares that much. Women with means will just go to another state, and the really poor who want an abortion don't vote GOP much. But the health risk to the mother may have to be an immediate decision. I guess doctors will do what they need to do to save the mom and doctor the paperwork to make it work. You would think the rights of someone to live would be rather fundamental.

---

This ruling is what you voted for in 2016. One would think an attorney would have known the lives of women were at stake.

---

Agreed 100%

And Furd appears to be totally unaware of states like Mississippi where legislators have "trigger laws" on the books in which all abortions will be banned with the exception of rape (incest is "ok"). Never mind that the rape exception would require criminal charges to be filed, which is clearly problematic in and of itself. And even if found guilty of a rape charge enabling a woman to receive an abortion, there wont be any clinics around to perform that abortion.

The 12 other states with some form of trigger law are Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

---

Going back my original comment was about where the mother's health was at risk. You misrepresented that the court held that the court's decision would allow restricting abortions in that situation. It did not, which you would have know if you read the 4 decisions, which I finally did. Here is a hint: 5 is a bigger number than 4. You are a firm believer in financial literacy, yet you don't seem to have gotten there on legal literacy. Can you name the states that have a trigger law that doesn't make an exception of abortions where the mother's health is at risk?

I get that lightweights like Dajo shout things about people dying, and other emotional over statements and exaggerations. But the substance of the decision, at least if you believe the NT Times is:

"The ruling may have a less dramatic effect on overall abortion rates. Some experts estimate that overturning Roe could reduce the number of legal abortions in the U.S. by as little as 13 percent. That's because abortion was already heavily restricted in red states and more people living in them oppose the practice."

Decision to have an abortion for any reason is always fraught with ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities. But in cases where it's a matter of mom's life are not part of the discussion here at it turns out due to the Courts different opinions and the state trigger laws making exceptions. But the reality is those ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities in most other cases are part of a democratic process where people vote. I think the better social policy is to allow abortions in most cases, thought there are far more important issues for me.

The court didn't say voters of each state. It said: "The authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives." The Democrats have a slim majority in Congress and the Presidency. They had a Vice-President sitting there ready to break a Senate tie, and yet the did not pass legislation that would have permitted most abortions rights in all states. The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President. And if the idiotic concept that the voting record of one individual causes everything that happens (which sounds like something you would hear out of four year old), then it is Dajo's fault, my fault and your fault if you voted for Biden. Apparently having the abortion issue alive at election time is more important than protection of women rights, or to take the more shrill hyperbole point of view, women dying.

---

It's nice to know that me pointing out that wifeisafurd voted for this in 2016 has left an indelible mark in his brain. Also typically laughable that lawyer's think everything is a court matter. How about getting government out of people's lives?

I said to my wife "Do you think anyone will commit suicide because they could not get an abortion?"
She instantly replied "yes."
Then she added "there will be all those boyfriends and husbands that murder them because they couldn't get one too" and that shook my fucking world.

— ScottyJohns (@highroadsaloon) June 25, 2022

---

You cite some random jackass on Twitter who quotes his wife for the truth and correctness of the wife's prediction?

Everyone wants the government out of their lives until they don't. Guns and abortion prove this both ways for both sides.

---

💯👇 pic.twitter.com/Mp1hWMmBBs

— Wu-Tang Is For The Children (@WUTangKids) June 25, 2022

Our court of extremist religious clerics has put us in a new small group of peer nations. Can't wait to see what the clerics do next to turn us into a catholic theocracy at odds with the will of the people. Minority rule without majority rights is not what the framers intended despite mistreatment of everyone not a white male being "deeply rooted" in our history.

The U.S. joins only 3 other countries that have restricted abortion access since 1994: Poland, Nicaragua & El Salvador.

Over the same period, 50+ nations have made it easier to get an abortion, including Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Ireland, Thailand & S. Korea.

— Ben Schamisso (@schamisso) June 24, 2022

---

Dobbs does NOT make abortion more restrictive. It leaves the issue to the states which concurrently makes it more restrictive in some places, less restrictive in other places and likely means no changes in many places

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I don't think Roberts overruled Casey, but did give a thumbs-up to allowing the law in question. At this juncture, it is meaningless point of law.

The no exceptions part is rather disturbing. Normally, with the price of gas at whatever, no one who would vote GOP cares that much. Women with means will just go to another state, and the really poor who want an abortion don't vote GOP much. But the health risk to the mother may have to be an immediate decision. I guess doctors will do what they need to do to save the mom and doctor the paperwork to make it work. You would think the rights of someone to live would be rather fundamental.

---

This ruling is what you voted for in 2016. One would think an attorney would have known the lives of women were at stake.

---

Agreed 100%

And Furd appears to be totally unaware of states like Mississippi where legislators have "trigger laws" on the books in which all abortions will be banned with the exception of rape (incest is "ok"). Never mind that the rape exception would require criminal charges to be filed, which is clearly problematic in and of itself. And even if found guilty of a rape charge enabling a woman to receive an abortion, there wont be any clinics around to perform that abortion.

The 12 other states with some form of trigger law are Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

---

Going back my original comment was about where the mother's health was at risk. You misrepresented that the court held that the court's decision would allow restricting abortions in that situation. It did not, which you would have know if you read the 4 decisions, which I finally did. Here is a hint: 5 is a bigger number than 4. You are a firm believer in financial literacy, yet you don't seem to have gotten there on legal literacy. Can you name the states that have a trigger law that doesn't make an exception of abortions where the mother's health is at risk?

I get that lightweights like Dajo shout things about people dying, and other emotional over statements and exaggerations. But the substance of the decision, at least if you believe the NT Times is:

"The ruling may have a less dramatic effect on overall abortion rates. Some experts estimate that overturning Roe could reduce the number of legal abortions in the U.S. by as little as 13 percent. That's because abortion was already heavily restricted in red states and more people living in them oppose the practice."

Decision to have an abortion for any reason is always fraught with ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities. But in cases where it's a matter of mom's life are not part of the discussion here at it turns out due to the Courts different opinions and the state trigger laws making exceptions. But the reality is those ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities in most other cases are part of a democratic process where people vote. I think the better social policy is to allow abortions in most cases, thought there are far more important issues for me.

The court didn't say voters of each state. It said: "The authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives." The Democrats have a slim majority in Congress and the Presidency. They had a Vice-President sitting there ready to break a Senate tie, and yet the did not pass legislation that would have permitted most abortions rights in all states. The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President. And if the idiotic concept that the voting record of one individual causes everything that happens (which sounds like something you would hear out of four year old), then it is Dajo's fault, my fault and your fault if you voted for Biden. Apparently having the abortion issue alive at election time is more important than protection of women rights, or to take the more shrill hyperbole point of view, women dying.

---

It's nice to know that me pointing out that wifeisafurd voted for this in 2016 has left an indelible mark in his brain. Also typically laughable that lawyer's think everything is a court matter. How about getting government out of people's lives?

I said to my wife "Do you think anyone will commit suicide because they could not get an abortion?"
She instantly replied "yes."
Then she added "there will be all those boyfriends and husbands that murder them because they couldn't get one too" and that shook my fucking world.

— ScottyJohns (@highroadsaloon) June 25, 2022

---

You cite some random jackass on Twitter who quotes his wife for the truth and correctness of the wife's prediction?

Everyone wants the government out of their lives until they don't. Guns and abortion prove this both ways for both sides.

---

When women tell you abortion saves lives, believe them.

My grandmother's story was that when she was a teen another teenage couple in town committed suicide together. The girl was pregnant.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President.

---

Disingenuous, or laughable ignorance? Which republican senator was prepared to terminate the filibuster to restore Roe v Wade? Or were there ten of them ready to impose cloture? I would love to see that list.

---

Collins for one said she was if they had simply followed what was then current law/. Murkowski is another.

Senate fails to pass abortion rights bill again - Politicohttps://www.politico.com news 2022/05/11 senate...[url=http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/twitter/offer?pco=tbx32nj-1.0&url=https://politi.co/3FQdFn3&text=Senate+fails+to+pass+abortion+rights+bill+%E2%80%94+again&pubid=politico.com&via=politico][/url]

Caputo has identified herself as pro choice, but has not indicated if she would have voted for the bill. Then again no one asked, Both Collins and Murskowsi have said they told the Dems were interested and knew that Manchin would object (and apparently Joe is now saying he was protecting others in his party and that he was fooled by two judicial candidates - guess he didn't get Dajo's post)). So you tell me who is being disingenuous? The Dems literally had Harris sitting there like a puppet in front of the Senate for optics, ready to break the tie and Shummer said he was prepared to call to change the rules to allow a vote. Coillins and Murskowski would have offset Manchin and the Arizona Senator. So you tell me who is being disingenuous again?

This is the ultimate F/U to Congress by SCOTUS. Congress no longer has cover. Their turn to jump on to the third rail.

---

Collins for one. She is the most disingenuous person in the Senate. I wouldn't believe a word she says. Manchin has also shown to be a bad faith negotiator. Are we really going to continue to take these politicians at face value who always say, "I would have done what the Democrats wanted if only the Democrats had done X?" The legislation you linked to failed 49-51, just like everybody here, except apparently you, would have predicted.

Face it wife, you called Hillary Clinton a *****. It's no surprise you cast your 2016 vote with no concern towards how it would impact women. The end of abortion rights means death for women. Believe women when they tell you that.

---

Any you voted for a President that would rather have abortion right as a fund raising and vote puling devise for the masses of women who will die traveling to a nearby state. It's on you buddy., and you're four your old thought concepts of blame.