Someone should send these women a postcard to let them know that compassionate conservatives say that laws will eventually be required to protect them. I'm sure it will make them feel better for having to suffer during this transitional theocracy.

In Wisconsin, a woman bled for more than 10 days from an incomplete miscarriage after emergency room staff would not remove the fetal tissue https://t.co/YuJysFI90C

— Fenit Nirappil (@FenitN) July 16, 2022

A woman with a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy sought emergency care at the University of Michigan Hospital after a doctor in her home state worried that the presence of a fetal heartbeat meant treating her might run afoul of new abortion restrictions. https://t.co/YuJysFI90C

— Fenit Nirappil (@FenitN) July 16, 2022

This is barbaric. Fallout from the end of Roe has, predictably, been catastrophic. https://t.co/LbINEhv1XC pic.twitter.com/f0EbvyqzHQ

— Sahar Fatima (@sahar_fatima) July 17, 2022

So who leaked Dobbs or does the media not care anymore for fear of embarrassing the Dems?

BearForce2 said:

---

So who leaked Dobbs or does the media not care anymore for fear of embarrassing the Dems?

---

Shut up until you have anything of value to share. This is a serious conversation between adults. Your petty whining is out of place here.

AunBear89 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

So who leaked Dobbs or does the media not care anymore for fear of embarrassing the Dems?

---

Shut up until you have anything of value to share. This is a serious conversation between adults. Your petty whining is out of place here.

---

Isn't this past your bedtime? Were you secretly looking at your Trump/Ivanka pictures again?

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

The good news is this bat **** crazy stuff is easily remedied at the ballot box, if not the courts.

---

I wouldn't say it's easily done. A lot of these states are gerrymandered to hell.

---

So are the states that allow abortion on demand into the third trimester, which is unpopular when polled. On demand abortion of a viable fetus is no less reprehensible (and extreme) than an outright ban on abortion.

---

"on demand" abortion is what we need so that these women can obtain a reasonable level of healthcare. The laws in place now that SCOTUS ruled in favor of the theocracy is creating reprehensible (and extreme) outcomes. I'm sure everyone agrees that the women below should be able to make their own personal healthcare decisions but the new laws don't care about that.

Twenty-eight similar cases at two Texas hospitals, and 60 percent of them developed severe complications. pic.twitter.com/wZm5Md1O3x

— Liam Martin (@LiamWBZ) July 17, 2022

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

The good news is this bat **** crazy stuff is easily remedied at the ballot box, if not the courts.

---

I wouldn't say it's easily done. A lot of these states are gerrymandered to hell.

---

So are the states that allow abortion on demand into the third trimester, which is unpopular when polled. On demand abortion of a viable fetus is no less reprehensible (and extreme) than an outright ban on abortion.

Abortion is an issue, like many others, where the extremes (on both sides) set the policy and discourse. This is an outgrowth of 50 years of Roe.

Polling shows that a solid majority support unfettered abortion early term (often described as 15-16 weeks). A solid majority oppose abortion on demand in the final semester. I think there is probably majority support for abortion in cases of incest, rape, and of course the health of the mother. Less consensus outside these parameters.

It is going to take a while, but eventually a consensus will evolve. People who are pro-choice (I'm generally in that camp along the parameters described above) will need to vote and persuade and in some cases pursue state court remedies. No more strong arming the entire country with the federal courts. Pro choice people can also establish networks for helping women get abortions (out of state if necessary), encouraging companies/insurance to pay for travel expenses, etc.

And yes I understand that some states are enacting laws threatening to punish people who travel for abortions. Those laws - which are awful - will be found unconstitutional in short order.

---

The furthest extreme of the pro-choice position is not popular, true, but the difference is that if that policy is in place it doesn't stop anyone from doing anything they want to do. Don't want a late-term abortion? Don't get one. The furthest extreme of the pro-life position is the government telling you what you can't do.

And of course I'm sure you know that in practice, it's extremely rare for a mother who gets a late-term abortion to actually WANT it. Those abortions pretty much always happen because there are major medical risks to her health or because the fetus is non-viable. In practice, we pretty much already had your preferred balance in place.

---

You seem to be overlooking that in the context of late term abortions, a viable baby is also killed. It is pretty common for the government to "tell" people not to kill other living things.

---

Except I already explained that in practice this doesn't really happen. Late term abortions are almost always because there's a medical issue, like there's a danger to the baby or the mother. So no, I'm not overlooking it. I'm considering all context.

---

That may be true, but that is not what some existing laws provide (i.e., late term abortions are not restricted to to medical reasons) and that is not what the current pro-abortion extremists seek to impose. Those people want abortion on demand, not just late term abortions for for medical reasons.

And you're dodging the question. Should a mother without real health concerns be permitted to abort a healthy fetus in the third trimester? In your mind, in that scenario, does the unborn viable baby have any rights where the "government can tell you what to do"? If the fetus does have rights, then a state has a legitimate interest to protect that.

And in fact, in many states and under federal law, killing an unborn fetus is a separate crime. So existing law recognizes a governmental interest to intervene.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

Telling me its rare does not answer the actual question when the laws in some states permit it. It is a dodge.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

The good news is this bat **** crazy stuff is easily remedied at the ballot box, if not the courts.

---

I wouldn't say it's easily done. A lot of these states are gerrymandered to hell.

---

So are the states that allow abortion on demand into the third trimester, which is unpopular when polled. On demand abortion of a viable fetus is no less reprehensible (and extreme) than an outright ban on abortion.

Abortion is an issue, like many others, where the extremes (on both sides) set the policy and discourse. This is an outgrowth of 50 years of Roe.

Polling shows that a solid majority support unfettered abortion early term (often described as 15-16 weeks). A solid majority oppose abortion on demand in the final semester. I think there is probably majority support for abortion in cases of incest, rape, and of course the health of the mother. Less consensus outside these parameters.

It is going to take a while, but eventually a consensus will evolve. People who are pro-choice (I'm generally in that camp along the parameters described above) will need to vote and persuade and in some cases pursue state court remedies. No more strong arming the entire country with the federal courts. Pro choice people can also establish networks for helping women get abortions (out of state if necessary), encouraging companies/insurance to pay for travel expenses, etc.

And yes I understand that some states are enacting laws threatening to punish people who travel for abortions. Those laws - which are awful - will be found unconstitutional in short order.

---

The furthest extreme of the pro-choice position is not popular, true, but the difference is that if that policy is in place it doesn't stop anyone from doing anything they want to do. Don't want a late-term abortion? Don't get one. The furthest extreme of the pro-life position is the government telling you what you can't do.

And of course I'm sure you know that in practice, it's extremely rare for a mother who gets a late-term abortion to actually WANT it. Those abortions pretty much always happen because there are major medical risks to her health or because the fetus is non-viable. In practice, we pretty much already had your preferred balance in place.

---

You seem to be overlooking that in the context of late term abortions, a viable baby is also killed. It is pretty common for the government to "tell" people not to kill other living things.

---

Except I already explained that in practice this doesn't really happen. Late term abortions are almost always because there's a medical issue, like there's a danger to the baby or the mother. So no, I'm not overlooking it. I'm considering all context.

---

That may be true, but that is not what some existing laws provide (i.e., late term abortions are not restricted to to medical reasons) and that is not what the current pro-abortion extremists seek to impose. Those people want abortion on demand, not just late term abortions for for medical reasons.

And you're dodging the question. Should a mother without real health concerns be permitted to abort a healthy fetus in the third trimester? In your mind, in that scenario, does the unborn viable baby have any rights where the "government can tell you what to do"? If the fetus does have rights, then a state has a legitimate interest to protect that.

And in fact, in many states and under federal law, killing an unborn fetus is a separate crime. So existing law recognizes a governmental interest to intervene.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

Telling me its rare does not answer the actual question when the laws in some states permit it. It is a dodge.

---

Is "on demand" healthcare part of the repeal and replace plant hat Republicans are always two weeks away from unveiling?

The idea that women could just go and get an abortion at 35 weeks is a theocratic fever dream. Read up on the healthcare shortfall in this country and in particular how few ob-gyns we have. It recently took me over a month to get an appointment with a doctor after I sprained my foot! Many ****hole states only have one abortion provider.

I think we are pretty damn far from on demand late term abortions of healthy fetuses by healthy mothers. I don't trust the government to enforce any stupid standards that theocrats come up wirh and we are already seeing the results. If you did any research you would learn that late term abortions are costly, difficult medical procedures that no one has as their first choice. If they bother you so much, make it easy for women to terminate pregnancies earlier. Problem solved. Otherwise, let the government stay the hell out of these decisions.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

The good news is this bat **** crazy stuff is easily remedied at the ballot box, if not the courts.

---

I wouldn't say it's easily done. A lot of these states are gerrymandered to hell.

---

So are the states that allow abortion on demand into the third trimester, which is unpopular when polled. On demand abortion of a viable fetus is no less reprehensible (and extreme) than an outright ban on abortion.

Abortion is an issue, like many others, where the extremes (on both sides) set the policy and discourse. This is an outgrowth of 50 years of Roe.

Polling shows that a solid majority support unfettered abortion early term (often described as 15-16 weeks). A solid majority oppose abortion on demand in the final semester. I think there is probably majority support for abortion in cases of incest, rape, and of course the health of the mother. Less consensus outside these parameters.

It is going to take a while, but eventually a consensus will evolve. People who are pro-choice (I'm generally in that camp along the parameters described above) will need to vote and persuade and in some cases pursue state court remedies. No more strong arming the entire country with the federal courts. Pro choice people can also establish networks for helping women get abortions (out of state if necessary), encouraging companies/insurance to pay for travel expenses, etc.

And yes I understand that some states are enacting laws threatening to punish people who travel for abortions. Those laws - which are awful - will be found unconstitutional in short order.

---

The furthest extreme of the pro-choice position is not popular, true, but the difference is that if that policy is in place it doesn't stop anyone from doing anything they want to do. Don't want a late-term abortion? Don't get one. The furthest extreme of the pro-life position is the government telling you what you can't do.

And of course I'm sure you know that in practice, it's extremely rare for a mother who gets a late-term abortion to actually WANT it. Those abortions pretty much always happen because there are major medical risks to her health or because the fetus is non-viable. In practice, we pretty much already had your preferred balance in place.

---

You seem to be overlooking that in the context of late term abortions, a viable baby is also killed. It is pretty common for the government to "tell" people not to kill other living things.

---

Except I already explained that in practice this doesn't really happen. Late term abortions are almost always because there's a medical issue, like there's a danger to the baby or the mother. So no, I'm not overlooking it. I'm considering all context.

---

That may be true, but that is not what some existing laws provide (i.e., late term abortions are not restricted to to medical reasons) and that is not what the current pro-abortion extremists seek to impose. Those people want abortion on demand, not just late term abortions for for medical reasons.

And you're dodging the question. Should a mother without real health concerns be permitted to abort a healthy fetus in the third trimester? In your mind, in that scenario, does the unborn viable baby have any rights where the "government can tell you what to do"? If the fetus does have rights, then a state has a legitimate interest to protect that.

And in fact, in many states and under federal law, killing an unborn fetus is a separate crime. So existing law recognizes a governmental interest to intervene.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

Telling me its rare does not answer the actual question when the laws in some states permit it. It is a dodge.

---

Unit2 kind of said it all above.

For me personally, I subscribe to the idea that a human life truly begins upon "first breath" (one of the ancient Biblical concepts) and until then a fetus cannot be expected to have the same rights as a fully born human. So I, personally, am okay with abortions pretty much up to that point and am generally against laws that treat the unborn as another "person." I can see the logic behind a criminal who also terminated a pregnancy in the course of committing said crime getting extra penalties, and that is not inconsistent with a "pro choice" position on abortion. Indeed, that's the whole problem: by doing so, the criminal removed the mother's CHOICE to do what she intended with her pregnancy.

Anyway, all of that said I recognize that my morality is not going to be shared by everyone so I can also potentially live with laws that prevent late-term abortions. The problem is what Unit2 describes: our country definitely does not have decent and equitable access to health care, so can we be sure that someone who intended to have an abortion earlier in their term actually had a reasonable chance to access said abortion? A lot of conservatives have enjoyed referencing the abortion laws in France, but in France everyone has easy access to health care and thus would have ample opportunity to get a first-trimester abortion. Not so in the US if you have to travel long distances, save up for hotel stays and child care, etc. Fix those things and you might get me on board with a late-term ban. I also think you need to have pretty liberal descriptions of what would constitute a "health & safety exception" for when late-term abortions might need to happen, so that doctors don't fail to act for fear of legal action.

Again, I have zero faith that today's conservative politicians have considered any of that.

More kudos to the theocracy. So glad they are here to save us from barbarism. Women really should be thankful the supreme court decided the government should be able to make these decisions for them.

"She was screaming--not from pain, but from the emotional trauma she was experiencing," the doctor wrote. After delivering the fetus, she hemorrhaged and lost close to a liter of blood.

"There is absolutely no medical basis...to experience anything like this"

— Sam Karlin (@samkarlin) July 18, 2022

A Texas woman was miscarrying & couldn't get care. She weighed the risks and decided to travel out of state. Her doctor told her, “If you labor on the plane, leave the placenta inside of you. You’re going to have to deal with a 19-week fetus outside of your body until you land.” pic.twitter.com/AKtQrDyjon

— Jill Filipovic (@JillFilipovic) July 18, 2022

Republicans are ghouls

Are they not?

NC Bill 158 would make it legal to murder a pregnant woman who intends to get an abortion if you are “defending the life of a baby”. pic.twitter.com/JwVnzkoSL1

— Musclesandnursing (@musclesnnursing) July 17, 2022

I am surprised more of these doctors aren't taking a stand.

I personally would do whatever was medically ethical and let the courts sort it out.

dajo9 said:

---

Are they not?

NC Bill 158 would make it legal to murder a pregnant woman who intends to get an abortion if you are “defending the life of a baby”. pic.twitter.com/JwVnzkoSL1

— Musclesandnursing (@musclesnnursing) July 17, 2022

---

So they want it to be legal to defend the life of the fetus by killing the mother and the fetus?

Okkkkkkaaayy…..

Stuff like this makes my brane hurt. I suspect legalized honor killing bills are just over the horizon.

sycasey said:

---

For me personally, I subscribe to the idea that a human life truly begins upon "first breath" (one of the ancient Biblical concepts) and until then a fetus cannot be expected to have the same rights as a fully born human. So I, personally, am okay with abortions pretty much up to that point and am generally against laws that treat the unborn as another "person." I can see the logic behind a criminal who also terminated a pregnancy in the course of committing said crime getting extra penalties, and that is not inconsistent with a "pro choice" position on abortion. Indeed, that's the whole problem: by doing so, the criminal removed the mother's CHOICE to do what she intended with her pregnancy

---

This is also my take. A fetus has no rights.

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

For me personally, I subscribe to the idea that a human life truly begins upon "first breath" (one of the ancient Biblical concepts) and until then a fetus cannot be expected to have the same rights as a fully born human. So I, personally, am okay with abortions pretty much up to that point and am generally against laws that treat the unborn as another "person." I can see the logic behind a criminal who also terminated a pregnancy in the course of committing said crime getting extra penalties, and that is not inconsistent with a "pro choice" position on abortion. Indeed, that's the whole problem: by doing so, the criminal removed the mother's CHOICE to do what she intended with her pregnancy

---

This is also my take. A fetus has no rights.

---

The fetus is a living human. Something nonhuman does not become human by getting older and bigger; whatever is human must be human from the beginning.

AunBear89 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

So who leaked Dobbs or does the media not care anymore for fear of embarrassing the Dems?

---

Shut up until you have anything of value to share. This is a serious conversation between adults. Your petty whining is out of place here.

---

dimitrig said:

---

I am surprised more of these doctors aren't taking a stand.

I personally would do whatever was medically ethical and let the courts sort it out.

---

Not when letting the court sort it out means the court deciding whether you go to prison.

dajo9 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

I am surprised more of these doctors aren't taking a stand.

I personally would do whatever was medically ethical and let the courts sort it out.

---

Not when letting the court sort it out means the court deciding whether you go to prison.

---

That's always been one of the best ways to change anything in this country.

dimitrig said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

I am surprised more of these doctors aren't taking a stand.

I personally would do whatever was medically ethical and let the courts sort it out.

---

Not when letting the court sort it out means the court deciding whether you go to prison.

---

That's always been one of the best ways to change anything in this country.

---

Getting hauled off to jail for civil disobedience is one thing. Looking at a murder rap is another.

dajo9 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

I am surprised more of these doctors aren't taking a stand.

I personally would do whatever was medically ethical and let the courts sort it out.

---

Not when letting the court sort it out means the court deciding whether you go to prison.

---

That's always been one of the best ways to change anything in this country.

---

Getting hauled off to jail for civil disobedience is one thing. Looking at a murder rap is another.

---

tequila4kapp would note that in years or decades, SCOTUS will apply the rational basis standard. The fact that some women have to die or go to jail before then may be regrettable but should be ignored because reasons.

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

For me personally, I subscribe to the idea that a human life truly begins upon "first breath" (one of the ancient Biblical concepts) and until then a fetus cannot be expected to have the same rights as a fully born human. So I, personally, am okay with abortions pretty much up to that point and am generally against laws that treat the unborn as another "person." I can see the logic behind a criminal who also terminated a pregnancy in the course of committing said crime getting extra penalties, and that is not inconsistent with a "pro choice" position on abortion. Indeed, that's the whole problem: by doing so, the criminal removed the mother's CHOICE to do what she intended with her pregnancy

---

This is also my take. A fetus has no rights.

---

That is fine, different people have different views (obviously). I am aligned with Roe - there is a point (somewhere) where the state's interest in the future life / fetus is legitimate; the women's right to an abortion is not absolute.

Roe was flawed, but it got the competing interests right. Casey was wrong and bad IMO in that it diminished / eliminated this concept.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

I am surprised more of these doctors aren't taking a stand.

I personally would do whatever was medically ethical and let the courts sort it out.

---

Not when letting the court sort it out means the court deciding whether you go to prison.

---

That's always been one of the best ways to change anything in this country.

Getting hauled off to jail for civil disobedience is one thing. Looking at a murder rap is another.

---

---

tequila4kapp would note that in years or decades, SCOTUS will apply the rational basis standard. The fact that some women have to die or go to jail before then may be regrettable but should be ignored because reasons.

---

You are right that I have said this (and people with more knowledge of the law have said I was wrong so my opinion has evolved to the same concept but it happening at the ballot box instead of the courts). You are off-base in implying I think that is okay/good. I have commented in the thread that it is bad that some number of women will suffer or die until then.

I appreciate that you answered the question. I disagree with your perspective but that's okay. The only way to get past this as a society is to understand where the middle common ground is and legislate from that space. For people on the left, what limitations (if any) are acceptable? For people on the right, when (if ever) is an abortion acceptable? Otherwise we just keep yelling at each other and nothing changes.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

I am surprised more of these doctors aren't taking a stand.

I personally would do whatever was medically ethical and let the courts sort it out.

---

Not when letting the court sort it out means the court deciding whether you go to prison.

---

That's always been one of the best ways to change anything in this country.

Getting hauled off to jail for civil disobedience is one thing. Looking at a murder rap is another.

---

---

tequila4kapp would note that in years or decades, SCOTUS will apply the rational basis standard. The fact that some women have to die or go to jail before then may be regrettable but should be ignored because reasons.

---

You are right that I have said this (and people with more knowledge of the law have said I was wrong so my opinion has evolved to the same concept but it happening at the ballot box instead of the courts). You are off-base in implying I think that is okay/good. I have commented in the thread that it is bad that some number of women will suffer or die until then.

---

Thank you for acknowledging that even if we eventually get to a reasonable place, the unreasonable transition period will cause irreparable harm for many people.

a texas woman was forced to carry her dead fetus for two weeks after miscarrying because of state abortion laws. pic.twitter.com/7FCUVN6Af7

— Marisa Kabas (@MarisaKabas) July 19, 2022

I think Pete does a pretty good job describing why I don't think the government should interfere with abortion. I trust women to draw the line for themselves, not a bunch of theocrats.

Watching @PeteButtigieg refuse to step into traps laid for him by standard shallow media framing of complex issues is a beautiful thing. [via @LadyRaynbow] pic.twitter.com/UtwRY2JnZd

— Steve Silberman (@stevesilberman) July 2, 2022

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

I am surprised more of these doctors aren't taking a stand.

I personally would do whatever was medically ethical and let the courts sort it out.

---

Not when letting the court sort it out means the court deciding whether you go to prison.

---

That's always been one of the best ways to change anything in this country.

Getting hauled off to jail for civil disobedience is one thing. Looking at a murder rap is another.

---

---

tequila4kapp would note that in years or decades, SCOTUS will apply the rational basis standard. The fact that some women have to die or go to jail before then may be regrettable but should be ignored because reasons.

---

You are right that I have said this (and people with more knowledge of the law have said I was wrong so my opinion has evolved to the same concept but it happening at the ballot box instead of the courts). You are off-base in implying I think that is okay/good. I have commented in the thread that it is bad that some number of women will suffer or die until then.

---

Thank you for acknowledging that even if we eventually get to a reasonable place, the unreasonable transition period will cause irreparable harm for many people.

---

That's always been a dilemma. Does the Supreme Court step into the void created by the refusal of congress to do its job or does it limit itself knowing it will create societal harm.

There would be less debate about activist judges if legislators actually legislated.

An interesting read on the radical decisions handed down by this Supreme Court:
https://www.alternet.org/2022/07/legal-expert-lays-out-the-flaws-of-deeply-unprincipled-supreme-court-originalists/

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

I am surprised more of these doctors aren't taking a stand.

I personally would do whatever was medically ethical and let the courts sort it out.

---

Not when letting the court sort it out means the court deciding whether you go to prison.

---

That's always been one of the best ways to change anything in this country.

Getting hauled off to jail for civil disobedience is one thing. Looking at a murder rap is another.

---

---

tequila4kapp would note that in years or decades, SCOTUS will apply the rational basis standard. The fact that some women have to die or go to jail before then may be regrettable but should be ignored because reasons.

---

You are right that I have said this (and people with more knowledge of the law have said I was wrong so my opinion has evolved to the same concept but it happening at the ballot box instead of the courts). You are off-base in implying I think that is okay/good. I have commented in the thread that it is bad that some number of women will suffer or die until then.

---

Thank you for acknowledging that even if we eventually get to a reasonable place, the unreasonable transition period will cause irreparable harm for many people.

---

That's always been a dilemma. Does the Supreme Court step into the void created by the refusal of congress to do its job or does it limit itself knowing it will create societal harm.

There would be less debate about activist judges if legislators actually legislated.

---

I agree with you in theory but in practice this SCOTUS has not shied away from rejecting precedent and I wouldn't be surprised if they struck down a federal law guaranteeing pregnant people the right to terminate their pregnancies. Would you be surprised if that happened?

Reading about how heavily lobbied SCOTUS was and how closely the language in Alito's opinion seemed to match the language of lobbyists, makes me very skeptical that this is about judges carefully evaluating constitutional merits and that we're really just dealing with unelected legislators, the way that conservatives have always claimed the court has been when it comes to liberal decisions.

Excerpts from the article linked above:

Quote:

---

A former leader of the religious right contends that an effort he helped lead to influence conservative Supreme Court justices through prayer sessions, private dinners and other social events contributed to the stridency of the court's opinion last month striking down Roe v. Wade.

Rev. Rob Schenck said on a religion-focused podcast released last week that the behind-the-scenes lobbying effort led by his former group Faith and Action to encourage the conservative justices to "be bolder and far more assertive in their opinions" on social issues like abortion contributed to the sweeping nature of the five-justice majority's decision to roll back abortion rights.

"I can say with a certain level of certainty I don't think we would have gotten the decision as it is worded from Justice Alito without the work we did," Schenck said during an interview with another prominent Washington-area religious leader, Rabbi Jack Moline, on a podcast sponsored by the left-leaning Interfaith Alliance.

POLITICO reported earlier this month that the Supreme Court-focused campaign Schenck mounted, known as "Operation Higher Court," sought to use social interactions with a slew of religiously-conservative couples to coax justices to be more vocal about defending and promoting conservative religious views and values in their opinions.

The couples built relationships with the justices through dinners at private homes, vacation getaways and swanky restaurants and subtly offered suggestions that the justices were the nation's last line of defense against surging liberalism, said Schenck, who pointed to Justices Alito, Clarence Thomas and the late Antonin Scalia as the most frequent targets of Faith and Action's overtures.

"We coined a phrase that we called in those years the ministry of emboldenment. And what we meant by that was shoring up the sympathetic justices so that they would use stronger language," the ordained former Assemblies of God minister said in the podcast. "We were there to bolster their courage."

---

To me this is disgusting corruption. People talk about wanting to protect SCOTUS from protesters, but who is protecting us from undue influence? SCOTUS has become the most effective ROI on activist money and there is no stopping it now. Our constitution did not prepare us for this and I don't see the court self-policing any time soon.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

I am surprised more of these doctors aren't taking a stand.

I personally would do whatever was medically ethical and let the courts sort it out.

---

Not when letting the court sort it out means the court deciding whether you go to prison.

---

That's always been one of the best ways to change anything in this country.

Getting hauled off to jail for civil disobedience is one thing. Looking at a murder rap is another.

---

---

tequila4kapp would note that in years or decades, SCOTUS will apply the rational basis standard. The fact that some women have to die or go to jail before then may be regrettable but should be ignored because reasons.

---

You are right that I have said this (and people with more knowledge of the law have said I was wrong so my opinion has evolved to the same concept but it happening at the ballot box instead of the courts). You are off-base in implying I think that is okay/good. I have commented in the thread that it is bad that some number of women will suffer or die until then.

---

Thank you for acknowledging that even if we eventually get to a reasonable place, the unreasonable transition period will cause irreparable harm for many people.

---

That's always been a dilemma. Does the Supreme Court step into the void created by the refusal of congress to do its job or does it limit itself knowing it will create societal harm.

There would be less debate about activist judges if legislators actually legislated.

---

I agree with you in theory but in practice this SCOTUS has not shied away from rejecting precedent and I wouldn't be surprised if they struck down a federal law guaranteeing pregnant people the right to terminate their pregnancies. Would you be surprised if that happened?

Reading about how heavily lobbied SCOTUS was and how closely the language in Alito's opinion seemed to match the language of lobbyists, makes me very skeptical that this is about judges carefully evaluating constitutional merits and that we're really just dealing with unelected legislators, the way that conservatives have always claimed the court has been when it comes to liberal decisions.

Excerpts from the article linked above:

Quote:

---

A former leader of the religious right contends that an effort he helped lead to influence conservative Supreme Court justices through prayer sessions, private dinners and other social events contributed to the stridency of the court's opinion last month striking down Roe v. Wade.

Rev. Rob Schenck said on a religion-focused podcast released last week that the behind-the-scenes lobbying effort led by his former group Faith and Action to encourage the conservative justices to "be bolder and far more assertive in their opinions" on social issues like abortion contributed to the sweeping nature of the five-justice majority's decision to roll back abortion rights.

"I can say with a certain level of certainty I don't think we would have gotten the decision as it is worded from Justice Alito without the work we did," Schenck said during an interview with another prominent Washington-area religious leader, Rabbi Jack Moline, on a podcast sponsored by the left-leaning Interfaith Alliance.

POLITICO reported earlier this month that the Supreme Court-focused campaign Schenck mounted, known as "Operation Higher Court," sought to use social interactions with a slew of religiously-conservative couples to coax justices to be more vocal about defending and promoting conservative religious views and values in their opinions.

The couples built relationships with the justices through dinners at private homes, vacation getaways and swanky restaurants and subtly offered suggestions that the justices were the nation's last line of defense against surging liberalism, said Schenck, who pointed to Justices Alito, Clarence Thomas and the late Antonin Scalia as the most frequent targets of Faith and Action's overtures.

"We coined a phrase that we called in those years the ministry of emboldenment. And what we meant by that was shoring up the sympathetic justices so that they would use stronger language," the ordained former Assemblies of God minister said in the podcast. "We were there to bolster their courage."

---

To me this is disgusting corruption. People talk about wanting to protect SCOTUS from protesters, but who is protecting us from undue influence? SCOTUS has become the most effective ROI on activist money and there is no stopping it now. Our constitution did not prepare us for this and I don't see the court self-policing any time soon.

---

I think you already know how I feel about Justices Thomas and Alito since I view them as political and activists. I don't like activist judges no matter the political leaning. However, I don't think I agree with the corruption angle. There is always social events liberal and conservative justices will attend but it isn't as if they are getting a free trip, promise of a cushy job or cash under the table. They are invited to attend events. Some are just highly Catholic, conservative individuals whose views impact the events that attract them and interest them. Same with the liberal judges. Unlike senators, they are not looking for contribution to their election fund, next job or payment for speaking.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

I am surprised more of these doctors aren't taking a stand.

I personally would do whatever was medically ethical and let the courts sort it out.

---

Not when letting the court sort it out means the court deciding whether you go to prison.

---

That's always been one of the best ways to change anything in this country.

Getting hauled off to jail for civil disobedience is one thing. Looking at a murder rap is another.

---

---

tequila4kapp would note that in years or decades, SCOTUS will apply the rational basis standard. The fact that some women have to die or go to jail before then may be regrettable but should be ignored because reasons.

---

You are right that I have said this (and people with more knowledge of the law have said I was wrong so my opinion has evolved to the same concept but it happening at the ballot box instead of the courts). You are off-base in implying I think that is okay/good. I have commented in the thread that it is bad that some number of women will suffer or die until then.

---

Thank you for acknowledging that even if we eventually get to a reasonable place, the unreasonable transition period will cause irreparable harm for many people.

---

That's always been a dilemma. Does the Supreme Court step into the void created by the refusal of congress to do its job or does it limit itself knowing it will create societal harm.

There would be less debate about activist judges if legislators actually legislated.

---

I agree with you in theory but in practice this SCOTUS has not shied away from rejecting precedent and I wouldn't be surprised if they struck down a federal law guaranteeing pregnant people the right to terminate their pregnancies. Would you be surprised if that happened?

Reading about how heavily lobbied SCOTUS was and how closely the language in Alito's opinion seemed to match the language of lobbyists, makes me very skeptical that this is about judges carefully evaluating constitutional merits and that we're really just dealing with unelected legislators, the way that conservatives have always claimed the court has been when it comes to liberal decisions.

Excerpts from the article linked above:

Quote:

---

A former leader of the religious right contends that an effort he helped lead to influence conservative Supreme Court justices through prayer sessions, private dinners and other social events contributed to the stridency of the court's opinion last month striking down Roe v. Wade.

Rev. Rob Schenck said on a religion-focused podcast released last week that the behind-the-scenes lobbying effort led by his former group Faith and Action to encourage the conservative justices to "be bolder and far more assertive in their opinions" on social issues like abortion contributed to the sweeping nature of the five-justice majority's decision to roll back abortion rights.

"I can say with a certain level of certainty I don't think we would have gotten the decision as it is worded from Justice Alito without the work we did," Schenck said during an interview with another prominent Washington-area religious leader, Rabbi Jack Moline, on a podcast sponsored by the left-leaning Interfaith Alliance.

POLITICO reported earlier this month that the Supreme Court-focused campaign Schenck mounted, known as "Operation Higher Court," sought to use social interactions with a slew of religiously-conservative couples to coax justices to be more vocal about defending and promoting conservative religious views and values in their opinions.

The couples built relationships with the justices through dinners at private homes, vacation getaways and swanky restaurants and subtly offered suggestions that the justices were the nation's last line of defense against surging liberalism, said Schenck, who pointed to Justices Alito, Clarence Thomas and the late Antonin Scalia as the most frequent targets of Faith and Action's overtures.

"We coined a phrase that we called in those years the ministry of emboldenment. And what we meant by that was shoring up the sympathetic justices so that they would use stronger language," the ordained former Assemblies of God minister said in the podcast. "We were there to bolster their courage."

---

To me this is disgusting corruption. People talk about wanting to protect SCOTUS from protesters, but who is protecting us from undue influence? SCOTUS has become the most effective ROI on activist money and there is no stopping it now. Our constitution did not prepare us for this and I don't see the court self-policing any time soon.

---

I think you already know how I feel about Justices Thomas and Alito since I view them as political and activists. I don't like activist judges no matter the political leaning. However, I don't think I agree with the corruption angle. There is always social events liberal and conservative justices will attend but it isn't as if they are getting a free trip, promise of a cushy job or cash under the table. They are invited to attend events. Some are just highly Catholic, conservative individuals whose views impact the events that attract them and interest them. Same with the liberal judges. Unlike senators, they are not looking for contribution to their election fund, next job or payment for speaking.

---

They are allowed to get payments for speaking. There are other perks that don't show up on their personal financial disclosures like cushy jobs for their kids (see Kennedy and Scalia). Also who knows how much Ginny Thomas is doing to take advantage of her husband's position on the court. The reality is that they have a ton of power and are heavily lobbied/influenced by outside forces. And there is almost nothing that anyone else can do about it. People love to complain about unelected bureacrats but they have nothing on SCOTUS in terms of unaccountably wielding power in this country.

To me it's all very unseemly and I would like to see far more regulation around what they can and can't do.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

I am surprised more of these doctors aren't taking a stand.

I personally would do whatever was medically ethical and let the courts sort it out.

---

Not when letting the court sort it out means the court deciding whether you go to prison.

---

That's always been one of the best ways to change anything in this country.

Getting hauled off to jail for civil disobedience is one thing. Looking at a murder rap is another.

---

---

tequila4kapp would note that in years or decades, SCOTUS will apply the rational basis standard. The fact that some women have to die or go to jail before then may be regrettable but should be ignored because reasons.

---

You are right that I have said this (and people with more knowledge of the law have said I was wrong so my opinion has evolved to the same concept but it happening at the ballot box instead of the courts). You are off-base in implying I think that is okay/good. I have commented in the thread that it is bad that some number of women will suffer or die until then.

---

Thank you for acknowledging that even if we eventually get to a reasonable place, the unreasonable transition period will cause irreparable harm for many people.

---

That's always been a dilemma. Does the Supreme Court step into the void created by the refusal of congress to do its job or does it limit itself knowing it will create societal harm.

There would be less debate about activist judges if legislators actually legislated.

---

I agree with you in theory but in practice this SCOTUS has not shied away from rejecting precedent and I wouldn't be surprised if they struck down a federal law guaranteeing pregnant people the right to terminate their pregnancies. Would you be surprised if that happened?

Reading about how heavily lobbied SCOTUS was and how closely the language in Alito's opinion seemed to match the language of lobbyists, makes me very skeptical that this is about judges carefully evaluating constitutional merits and that we're really just dealing with unelected legislators, the way that conservatives have always claimed the court has been when it comes to liberal decisions.

Excerpts from the article linked above:

Quote:

---

A former leader of the religious right contends that an effort he helped lead to influence conservative Supreme Court justices through prayer sessions, private dinners and other social events contributed to the stridency of the court's opinion last month striking down Roe v. Wade.

Rev. Rob Schenck said on a religion-focused podcast released last week that the behind-the-scenes lobbying effort led by his former group Faith and Action to encourage the conservative justices to "be bolder and far more assertive in their opinions" on social issues like abortion contributed to the sweeping nature of the five-justice majority's decision to roll back abortion rights.

"I can say with a certain level of certainty I don't think we would have gotten the decision as it is worded from Justice Alito without the work we did," Schenck said during an interview with another prominent Washington-area religious leader, Rabbi Jack Moline, on a podcast sponsored by the left-leaning Interfaith Alliance.

POLITICO reported earlier this month that the Supreme Court-focused campaign Schenck mounted, known as "Operation Higher Court," sought to use social interactions with a slew of religiously-conservative couples to coax justices to be more vocal about defending and promoting conservative religious views and values in their opinions.

The couples built relationships with the justices through dinners at private homes, vacation getaways and swanky restaurants and subtly offered suggestions that the justices were the nation's last line of defense against surging liberalism, said Schenck, who pointed to Justices Alito, Clarence Thomas and the late Antonin Scalia as the most frequent targets of Faith and Action's overtures.

"We coined a phrase that we called in those years the ministry of emboldenment. And what we meant by that was shoring up the sympathetic justices so that they would use stronger language," the ordained former Assemblies of God minister said in the podcast. "We were there to bolster their courage."

---

To me this is disgusting corruption. People talk about wanting to protect SCOTUS from protesters, but who is protecting us from undue influence? SCOTUS has become the most effective ROI on activist money and there is no stopping it now. Our constitution did not prepare us for this and I don't see the court self-policing any time soon.

---

I think you already know how I feel about Justices Thomas and Alito since I view them as political and activists. I don't like activist judges no matter the political leaning. However, I don't think I agree with the corruption angle. There is always social events liberal and conservative justices will attend but it isn't as if they are getting a free trip, promise of a cushy job or cash under the table. They are invited to attend events. Some are just highly Catholic, conservative individuals whose views impact the events that attract them and interest them. Same with the liberal judges. Unlike senators, they are not looking for contribution to their election fund, next job or payment for speaking.

---

They are allowed to get payments for speaking. There are other perks that don't show up on their personal financial disclosures like cushy jobs for their kids (see Kennedy and Scalia). Also who knows how much Ginny Thomas is doing to take advantage of her husband's position on the court. The reality is that they have a ton of power and are heavily lobbied/influenced by outside forces. And there is almost nothing that anyone else can do about it. People love to complain about unelected bureacrats but they have nothing on SCOTUS in terms of unaccountably wielding power in this country.

To me it's all very unseemly and I would like to see far more regulation around what they can and can't do.

---

They can be impeached by the House with a trial in the Senate to follow.

dimitrig said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

I am surprised more of these doctors aren't taking a stand.

I personally would do whatever was medically ethical and let the courts sort it out.

---

Not when letting the court sort it out means the court deciding whether you go to prison.

---

That's always been one of the best ways to change anything in this country.

Getting hauled off to jail for civil disobedience is one thing. Looking at a murder rap is another.

---

---

tequila4kapp would note that in years or decades, SCOTUS will apply the rational basis standard. The fact that some women have to die or go to jail before then may be regrettable but should be ignored because reasons.

---

You are right that I have said this (and people with more knowledge of the law have said I was wrong so my opinion has evolved to the same concept but it happening at the ballot box instead of the courts). You are off-base in implying I think that is okay/good. I have commented in the thread that it is bad that some number of women will suffer or die until then.

---

Thank you for acknowledging that even if we eventually get to a reasonable place, the unreasonable transition period will cause irreparable harm for many people.

---

That's always been a dilemma. Does the Supreme Court step into the void created by the refusal of congress to do its job or does it limit itself knowing it will create societal harm.

There would be less debate about activist judges if legislators actually legislated.

---

I agree with you in theory but in practice this SCOTUS has not shied away from rejecting precedent and I wouldn't be surprised if they struck down a federal law guaranteeing pregnant people the right to terminate their pregnancies. Would you be surprised if that happened?

Reading about how heavily lobbied SCOTUS was and how closely the language in Alito's opinion seemed to match the language of lobbyists, makes me very skeptical that this is about judges carefully evaluating constitutional merits and that we're really just dealing with unelected legislators, the way that conservatives have always claimed the court has been when it comes to liberal decisions.

Excerpts from the article linked above:

Quote:

---

A former leader of the religious right contends that an effort he helped lead to influence conservative Supreme Court justices through prayer sessions, private dinners and other social events contributed to the stridency of the court's opinion last month striking down Roe v. Wade.

Rev. Rob Schenck said on a religion-focused podcast released last week that the behind-the-scenes lobbying effort led by his former group Faith and Action to encourage the conservative justices to "be bolder and far more assertive in their opinions" on social issues like abortion contributed to the sweeping nature of the five-justice majority's decision to roll back abortion rights.

"I can say with a certain level of certainty I don't think we would have gotten the decision as it is worded from Justice Alito without the work we did," Schenck said during an interview with another prominent Washington-area religious leader, Rabbi Jack Moline, on a podcast sponsored by the left-leaning Interfaith Alliance.

POLITICO reported earlier this month that the Supreme Court-focused campaign Schenck mounted, known as "Operation Higher Court," sought to use social interactions with a slew of religiously-conservative couples to coax justices to be more vocal about defending and promoting conservative religious views and values in their opinions.

The couples built relationships with the justices through dinners at private homes, vacation getaways and swanky restaurants and subtly offered suggestions that the justices were the nation's last line of defense against surging liberalism, said Schenck, who pointed to Justices Alito, Clarence Thomas and the late Antonin Scalia as the most frequent targets of Faith and Action's overtures.

"We coined a phrase that we called in those years the ministry of emboldenment. And what we meant by that was shoring up the sympathetic justices so that they would use stronger language," the ordained former Assemblies of God minister said in the podcast. "We were there to bolster their courage."

---

To me this is disgusting corruption. People talk about wanting to protect SCOTUS from protesters, but who is protecting us from undue influence? SCOTUS has become the most effective ROI on activist money and there is no stopping it now. Our constitution did not prepare us for this and I don't see the court self-policing any time soon.

---

I think you already know how I feel about Justices Thomas and Alito since I view them as political and activists. I don't like activist judges no matter the political leaning. However, I don't think I agree with the corruption angle. There is always social events liberal and conservative justices will attend but it isn't as if they are getting a free trip, promise of a cushy job or cash under the table. They are invited to attend events. Some are just highly Catholic, conservative individuals whose views impact the events that attract them and interest them. Same with the liberal judges. Unlike senators, they are not looking for contribution to their election fund, next job or payment for speaking.

---

They are allowed to get payments for speaking. There are other perks that don't show up on their personal financial disclosures like cushy jobs for their kids (see Kennedy and Scalia). Also who knows how much Ginny Thomas is doing to take advantage of her husband's position on the court. The reality is that they have a ton of power and are heavily lobbied/influenced by outside forces. And there is almost nothing that anyone else can do about it. People love to complain about unelected bureacrats but they have nothing on SCOTUS in terms of unaccountably wielding power in this country.

To me it's all very unseemly and I would like to see far more regulation around what they can and can't do.

---

They can be impeached by the House with a trial in the Senate to follow.

---

Treason wouldn't be enough to get 60 votes. Let's not pretend impeachment is a realistic threat.

Planned Parenthood Kills 247 Black Babies Every Day, But the Media Calls White Pro-Lifers Racist https://t.co/qw5PR6zLvO pic.twitter.com/2iHTVX7UHW

— LifeNews.com (@LifeNewsHQ) June 3, 2020