Roe v Wade Overturned?

[commonsense]

Time we fixed the headline here. It's nonsense.

If the issue is jurisdiction, then there’s no reason that abortion should be singled out for review.

Well, for the very obvious reason that the Feds didn't overstep in all areas...or even in so many. So not everything was up for review. And it was just R v. W's turn...they had since 1973, so they can hardly complain.

But now that you mention it, the thing they did immediately afterward is block Biden on the EPA. He's out of his juridiction there, too. But Leftists were so busy screaming about R v. W, they barely noticed that.

I guess that the conservatives on the Court would not have been interested in re-deciding Roe if the Federal Government had indeed banned abortion. So it looks to me like the conservative justices primarily wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade—else why re-deliberate it, I.e. if satisfied with the precedent, why look into it?

So, I think Roe was reviewed because the desire was to permit States to ban abortion. Jurisdiction was the lever that was used to pry abortion away from its protected status. Jurisdiction was the means, abortion was always the end. I still suspect that this is the case, despite what you’ve said here and elsewhere in this thread.

However, when you mentioned that EPA situation, you convinced me that jurisdiction could have been the basis for reviewing Roe.

But one thing that brings me back is that Justice Alito said in effect that the States ought to have jurisdiction over abortion because the people’s elected representatives are the appropriate ones to legislate abortion. That reasoning won’t hold water, because the President, Senators and Congressional Representatives are also the people’s elected representatives.

[Immanuel Can]

...if the Federal Government had indeed banned abortion...

We'll never know.

They didn't.

If they had, I'd have cheered. But it still wouldn't have been constitutional. That's a separate question.

[Gary Childress]

Although, it still suggests that R v. W was legit in the first place, which now, of course, we know it wasn't...because it's on that basis that the Supreme Court "overturned," or really, "corrected" that bad decision. There simply wasn't a constitutional basis for R v. W. in the first place.

Some still think R v. W was legit.

Not constitutional. That's the issue.

If it was an attack on abortion, per se, the court would have ruled to ban it. They didn't. They just kicked it back to the proper jurisdictional authority, as the constitution has things.

Why was R v. W "unconstitutional?"

[godelian]

Does your mother know what a hardcore misogynist you are?

Ha ha ah!

That is imbecile shaming language!

Kevin Samuels has an interesting definition for the term "worthless woman".

One is the use of shaming language. Two is the need to always be right. There are a few more characterics that he describes in his analysis, but those are the most important ones.

We can safely conclude that you cannot keep a man, because no man can stand you for any relevant length of time. You will die alone. Have fun looking after your cats!

[godelian]

Oh I see you are a Muslim - that explains everything.

I had no other choice than to switch from Christianity to Islam.

I do not want any advice from modern Christianity because it is no longer a religion. I reject any opinion from that origin as heretical.

If modern Christians have very similar views and behaviors as atheists, it means that modern Christianity is in reality an insidiously deceptive form of atheism.

[Gary Childress]

Oh I see you are a Muslim - that explains everything.

I had no other choice than to switch from Christianity to Islam.

I do not want any advice from modern Christianity because it is no longer a religion. I reject any opinion from that origin as heretical.

If modern Christians have very similar views and behaviors as atheists, it means that modern Christianity is in reality an insidiously deceptive form of atheism.

Interesting. Many Christians seem to look at Islam in a similar manner. But I guess you can all agree on the abortion thing.

[Walker]

Why was R v. W "unconstitutional?"

Why ask others to do your research?

The reasoning:
https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/ ... h5wja9I/v0

"JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court. Abortion presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views. Some believe fervently that a human person comes into being at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. Others feel just as strongly that any regulation of abortion invades a woman’s right to control her own body and prevents women from achieving full equality. Still others in a third group think that abortion should be allowed under some but not all circumstances, and those within this group hold a variety of views about the particular restrictions that should be imposed.

"For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113. Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one. It did not claim that American law or the common law had ever recognized such a right, and its survey of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant (e.g., its discussion of abortion in antiquity) to the plainly incorrect (e.g., its assertion that abortion was probably never a crime under the common law)."

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Oh I see you are a Muslim - that explains everything.

I had no other choice than to switch from Christianity to Islam.

I do not want any advice from modern Christianity because it is no longer a religion. I reject any opinion from that origin as heretical.

If modern Christians have very similar views and behaviors as atheists, it means that modern Christianity is in reality an insidiously deceptive form of atheism.

Fuck off you religous nut. Think for yourself for once.

[Gary Childress]

Why ask others to do your research?

Because it's not something I'm passionate about and I see little reason to reinvent the wheel if someone else knows the answer.

Thank you for your reply.

[godelian]

Interesting. Many Christians seem to look at Islam in a similar manner.

My local friends, mostly of European origin, also go to the mosque with me. They wouldn't go to a church, though.

Anybody I speak to about the matter, agrees that modern Christianity is of absolutely no use as a religion. The last time I went to a church, they started the session with a blasphemous rock concert performed by a lesbian Filipina singer with colored hair and massive tattoos. I will never set foot there again.

But I guess you can all agree on the abortion thing.

Islam and abortion

According to Sherman Jackson, "while abortion, even during the first trimester, is forbidden according to a minority of jurists, it is not held to be an offense for which there are criminal or even civil sanctions."

I can confirm that in my knowledge, abortion is generally not a matter of Statist intervention in SE Asia. As a staunch anti-Statist, I believe that there is no problem in the world that the government won't make worse.

I personally do not like the practice of abortion because a so-called "accidental" pregnancy is extensively used by modern women to coerce a man into committing, during their deceptive and manipulative strategy of handing out free samples of sex to the next target. If the scam does not work, they proceed to an abortion instead.

Either a woman demands commitment upfront before proceeding to sexual intercourse, or else, she will sooner or later resort to scamming tactics in one way or another.

Men obviously know this. That is why they increasingly pump, dump, and ghost. At that point, the scammer is herself scammed.

[Immanuel Can]

Some still think R v. W was legit.

Not constitutional. That's the issue.

If it was an attack on abortion, per se, the court would have ruled to ban it. They didn't. They just kicked it back to the proper jurisdictional authority, as the constitution has things.

Why was R v. W "unconstitutional?"

Well, as I understand it, there's no provision in the US constitution for the Federal government to impose regulations on such things.

You'll remember that the "United States" (notice the name) was formed by individual "states" agreeing to "federate" into a single national system. But there never was any thought of making every state the same, nor would many states have joined the Union if they had been told they would have to have all the same laws, policies and lifestyles as, say, Maine or Rhode Island in Kentucky or Texas. A "federation" is a free and voluntary asssociation of different states for limited, common purposes, not an authoritarian imposition of sameness from a tyrannical, central government.

The goal of the Federal Republican system is to limit the power of the national government to only those matters over which it has justifiable control (such as, say, national defense, borders and interstate affairs) and otherwise leave matters that have to do with private life to the judgment of the individual states, or even to the local governments, rather than trying to impose some vision of national uniformity.

The constitution contains no rights associated with reproduction or prevention thereof. So it's not a matter of Federal jurisdiction. That means R v. W. was always an unconstitutional decision, and the Federal government never had any right to impose a national policy regarding it. So now that's been fixed.

[Walker]

Why ask others to do your research?

Because it's not something I'm passionate about and I see little reason to reinvent the wheel if someone else knows the answer.

Thank you for your reply.

Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right (to abortion) was entirely unknown in American law. Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy. The abortion right is also critically different from any other right that this Court has held to fall within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of “liberty.” Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called “fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an “unborn human being.”
- Justice Alito, from the same public source.

[Walker]

It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of
abortion to the people’s elected representatives. “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to
be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then
voting.” Casey, 505 U. S., at 979 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.

[Gary Childress]

Interesting. Many Christians seem to look at Islam in a similar manner.

My local friends, mostly of European origin, also go to the mosque with me. They wouldn't go to a church, though.

Anybody I speak to about the matter, agrees that modern Christianity is of absolutely no use as a religion. The last time I went to a church, they started the session with a blasphemous rock concert performed by a lesbian Filipina singer with colored hair and massive tattoos. I will never set foot there again.

But I guess you can all agree on the abortion thing.

Islam and abortion

According to Sherman Jackson, "while abortion, even during the first trimester, is forbidden according to a minority of jurists, it is not held to be an offense for which there are criminal or even civil sanctions."

I can confirm that in my knowledge, abortion is generally not a matter of Statist intervention in SE Asia. As a staunch anti-Statist, I believe that there is no problem in the world that the government won't make worse.

I personally do not like the practice of abortion because a so-called "accidental" pregnancy is extensively used by modern women to coerce a man into committing, during their deceptive and manipulative strategy of handing out free samples of sex to the next target. If the scam does not work, they proceed to an abortion instead.

Either a woman demands commitment upfront before proceeding to sexual intercourse, or else, she will sooner or later resort to scamming tactics in one way or another.

Men obviously know this. That is why they increasingly pump, dump, and ghost. At that point, the scammer is herself scammed.

Good to know. I have to admit it's a bit surprising to me, though. I generally think of Islam as being very illiberal toward females, perhaps due to bias existing in Western media these days concerning Islam. I never would have thought that Islam would be more liberal toward it than Christianity.

[godelian]

Good to know. I have to admit it's a bit surprising to me, though. I generally think of Islam as being very illiberal toward females, perhaps due to bias existing in Western media these days concerning Islam.

Islam says: commitment first, and only then sex. The reverse is banned but mostly by the family. It is not really a government thing.

By the way, "commitment first and only then sex" was also an important rule in Christianity. It became tremendously watered down and then completely abolished through the practice of dating.

Everybody with half a brain could see it coming that the practice of dating would eventually degenerate into the joystick carousel and the hookup culture.

Dating is forbidden in Islam. You make your offer, and that's it. No dating allowed.

As far as I am concerned, dating is an utmost despicable depravity.

Once a woman has checked into the Hotel California of the hookup culture -- you can check in any time but you can never leave -- she has no other option than to try to ambush a man into committing, in any way possible, including a fake "accidental" pregnancy.

I never would have thought that Islam would be more liberal toward it than Christianity.

Islam is not more liberal. Islam solves the problem where it is best solved: in the family. It is pointless to belatedly come up with Statist interventionism when the family has completely failed already.

Furthermore, it is by removing the father out of the family unit that authority disappears, and that these girls end up in the hookup culture.

Muslims clearly understand that it is preferable to attack and destroy the State before the State attacks and destroys the family.

The West still tries to impose its feminist and other "woke" views onto the rest of the world, that are destructive of the family, and many of whom also disturb the Russians. As Lukashenko of Belarus already clarified, the Russian Federation is now sick and tired of the western bullshit. One more serious provocation, and they will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons to address the problem.

Someone has to do something about the problem, and I would be most grateful to Putin if he decisively eradicates it. The West is walking on eggshells now.