SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
Big RR
Posts: 14097
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Big RR »

Could we propose a law that every man who creates a child WILL be involved in its life with financial and emotional support to the extent demanded by the mother? If a man denies a child but is later found to be the father (DNA) then all support $$$ are backdated to the birth date and prison beckons until the support is coughed up.
Leaving aside emotional support, the financial support obligation of the father is the law in every state I am aware of (although I do not know if every state makes that obligation retroactive). Sure, some men skip out on it (an continue to make collection difficult), and enforcement is better or worse depending on the state, but that is pretty much what the current state of the law is now.

I can give you an example; I once had a client come into me for a garnishment that was made on his pay by the state welfare department seeking reimbursement for 18 years of welfare payments after the left his family. There wasn't much we could do (he could have denied paternity of the kids, but said he thought he would be found to be the father) as he lived with her at the time, but I did negotiate a settlement.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8570
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Sue U »

ex-khobar Andy wrote:
Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:04 pm
I do not believe that, for example, Donald Trump and the sexual history of which he boasts, has not had an abortion or two in his past.
I considered making the joke, and I am declining the invitation, but I want you to know that I had it all typed out and everything before letting taste and common decency get in the way.
GAH!

Big RR
Posts: 14097
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Big RR »

Come on Sue, no one will blame you.

Big RR
Posts: 14097
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Big RR »

majority rules" is the case, at least in theory. It is mediated via the selection of one citizen to represent the views of the majority that voted him/her into office.

The system devised for the regulation of the states (republican democracy?) is perfectly OK with folks when the laws please them and yet is thoroughly reprehensible when the laws do not please them. It seems to be endemic :lol:
Not really, there is not sufficient protection whether we declare a biding plebiscite or use legislators; there are some areas the government should not insert itself in, even if an overwhelming number of people would support the legislation. So we have civil rights and other protections that cannot be taken away by the majority or the legislature; I personally include privacy among these rights (joining with justice Brandeis--some pretty good company), but even if we eschew that (and IMHO we do so at our peril), the legislature should not legislate in any area where no governmental. We need these protections.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8570
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Sue U »

Big RR wrote:
Mon Jun 27, 2022 6:05 pm
Come on Sue, no one will blame you.
If you're gonna insist ...
ex-khobar Andy wrote:
Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:04 pm
I do not believe that, for example, Donald Trump and the sexual history of which he boasts, has not had an abortion or two in his past.
If only his mother had.
GAH!

Big RR
Posts: 14097
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Big RR »

And a tip of the hat to Sue.

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18383
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by BoSoxGal »

Abortion wouldn’t be such a need if so many men, all across the race and class and political spectrum, didn’t continue to be loathesome deadbeat scumbags when it comes to supporting their offspring.

Women should be entirely free to plan their families - or not to have children at all - for whatever reasons or no reason, but I am quite certain from half a century of observation and a few decades working in the system that there are more than enough women who would love nothing more than to mother children if they weren’t stretched near to death by the obligation to support them alone because he’s moved on to irresponsibly fucking any other gal who’ll look twice at him and fathering who knows how many other kids - some he’ll support maybe, some he won’t.

If men could get pregnant, abortion would be sacrament. ~ GS
An estimated $10 billion in child support payments going uncollected

March 20, 2019 / 12:01 PM
R. Kelly's failure to pay $161,000 in child support highlights a $10 billion problem across the U.S.

More than 30 percent of child support payments aren't made, and less than half are paid in full

Only about half of couples who have children and then separate even have a custodial order governing who'll pay for the kids

R&B singer R. Kelly stopped making child support payments almost a year ago after his former wife came forward with allegations of abuse. He proceeded to rack up a $161,000 support bill that was paid only after spending a weekend in jail.

But Kelly isn't alone. A U.S. Census report estimates that just 43.5 percent of custodial parents get the full amount of support they're entitled to. And more than 30 percent don't receive anything at all.

"It's not easy to get the money," said Highland, Illinois, attorney Nancy Chausow Shafer, whose firm specializes in matrimonial law. "Many people don't want to pay and find a lot of ways to get around it."

Those Census figures come from data going back to 2015. But there's no reason to believe anything has changed. In 2017, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) said $33 billion in child support was paid for more than 15 million children, or one in five. So at least $10 billion in child support is probably going uncollected, and more when the "partial payments" are taken into account.

There's a bigger problem: Only about half of couples who have children and then separate even have a custodial order governing who'll pay for the kids, according to the National Parents Organization. As for the other half, these children may have no rights at all under state divorce laws.

The missing payments exact a toll. According to the Census report, the poverty rate for custodial-mother families was more than 29 percent versus 17 percent for custodial-father families.

But having a judge issue an order of child support is no guarantee of payment, as both the R. Kelly case and these statistics show. "People don't just say, 'You caught me.' Instead, they offer a defense," said Shafer. Among the common excuses are:

Job loss. In such instances, child support payments continue to accrue, amounting to thousands more. Shafer said if you legitimately can't pay, go to court and ask for a reduction.

Cash payments. If you make them, get a receipt. If you can't pay by check, a carbon copy from the money order will show you paid. Payments can also be made through a state office that handles these types of transactions.

No visitation. Lawyers say this simply isn't an excuse. "Child support is a totally separate issue from visitation or parental hostility," said author and attorney Linda Smith, a women's rights advocate.

A battle of attrition

Of course, people find other ways to avoid payment. One is to simply disappear. But moving to another state probably won't stop a private detective or state investigator from tracking you down. Another is to reside in a major city where so many deadbeat parents face charges that your case remains in limbo. Some even avoid payments by filing for disability, experts say.

Others try to wear the custodial parent down with the time and cost incurred by going to court, serving papers, calling the police and paying attorney fees. Legal fees have become so costly that many litigants on either side of the battle avoid them. Occasionally, lawyers themselves wind up demanding money a client doesn't have.

"As an attorney, I tell clients that sometimes the cost outweighs the benefit," said Shafer. This can be a problem for both sides, including parents who may have lost a job or are fighting battles such as deportation and can't afford any additional expenses.

Help is available

State and federal resources are -- at least theoretically -- available to help. The OCSE partners with local governments to ensure that children living in separate households receive monetary support for their care.

The Title IV-D program, under the Social Security Administration, requires every state to set up an enforcement plan to ensure child support is paid. States often do a good job of garnishing paychecks when it isn't, and three-quarters of child support is collected via withholding money from a parent's paycheck.

But sooner or later many custodial parents decide they can't fight any longer -- particularly when it continues for the up to 18 years during that children are still minors. For some parents, the battles are so damaging to their children that the money just doesn't make up for it.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20764
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Sue U wrote:
Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:49 pm
But why does the state (or anyone else) need to "determine the facts" and "exercise judgment" over whether any individual's choice should be entitled to an exception?
Because SCOTUS has just ruled it so. . .?
Well, that's alright then, innit?
Indeed it is.
Murder, theft, assault, etc. are all objectively detrimental to the functions of an orderly democratic society, notwithstanding that they may also suffer from disapproval by religious doctrine. It is perfectly fine for you to follow your religious beliefs and to encourage others to adopt them; just don't legislate them for me.
Then you believe my motivation to vote for Law X is less valid than your motivation. As long as I don't have any religious belief in my mind, I am permitted to vote? "It is perfectly fine for you to follow your humanist beliefs and to encourage others to adopt them; just don't legislate them for me."

Your assertion is as objectionable as the other.

ETA: why is your determination of which matters are "all objectively detrimental to the functions" etc. more correct than any other? Is it the word "objectively" - which, from any perspective, is actually subjective given that it is how you (or I) choose to describe something we believe is objective. It's a philosphie, innit?
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20764
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Sue U wrote:
Mon Jun 27, 2022 6:19 pm
Big RR wrote:
Mon Jun 27, 2022 6:05 pm
Come on Sue, no one will blame you.
If you're gonna insist ...
ex-khobar Andy wrote:
Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:04 pm
I do not believe that, for example, Donald Trump and the sexual history of which he boasts, has not had an abortion or two in his past.
If only his mother had.
No chance of retroactive legislation?
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9032
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Bicycle Bill »

Humans are (supposed to be) reasoning, thinking, intelligent beings, not animals in a state of perpetual rut and horniness and unable to control one's baser instincts.
So men, keep your pecker In your pants.
Women, don't treat your twat like it's a public playground or amusement park.
You're supposed to be civilized people ... so show some decorum, for God's sake!

Any further questions?

-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

Big RR
Posts: 14097
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Big RR »

So sex just for procreation BB? And sexual desire is a "baser instinct"? Somehow I would have hoped that, given all the years of human existence, we would have progressed beyond that.

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 14023
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Joe Guy »

The way I see it, the urge to have sex is built in to all animals and is for the continuation of your species but we also are given the urge to practice as often as possible with the opposite sex.

In the interest of being politically correct, I should add that homosexuals are exempt from the opposite sex practice thing....

MGMcAnick
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 10:01 pm
Location: 12 NM from ICT @ 010º

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by MGMcAnick »

Joe Guy wrote:
Mon Jun 27, 2022 1:44 am
I have a question about this abortion ruling. If the states can decide whether or not to allow abortion, shouldn't it be determined by popular vote of the citizens of each state?
We're going to find out in Kansas on August 2nd.

An earlier state supreme court ruling said that the state constitution allowed abortion. I agree. Changing the current law to NOT allow abortion on demand requires an amendment to the KS constitution. Sooo, a vote to amend the Kansas constitution will be on the ballot at the time of our primary election. I don't know how long it will take to git 'er done after the vote, should it pass.

Of course this is the land of dead Dr. Tiller. I'd say it has a really good chance of passing.
If so, welcome to Kansas. Please set your watches back 49 years. (Only the current 10 if the initiative fails.)
A friend of Doc's, one of only two B-29 bombers still flying.

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9566
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Econoline »

Don't have sex.jpg
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

Burning Petard
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Burning Petard »

The noble Justice Thomas pointed out that the same reasoning in the majority opinion for Dobbs v Jackson should also mean the banning of same sex marriage, sale of contraceptives, and restore laws against homosexuality. There is no federal right of privacy.

snailgate

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18383
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by BoSoxGal »

Burning Petard wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 1:13 am
The noble Justice Thomas pointed out that the same reasoning in the majority opinion for Dobbs v Jackson should also mean the banning of same sex marriage, sale of contraceptives, and restore laws against homosexuality. There is no federal right of privacy.

snailgate
Just to clarify, the laws against homosexuality were sodomy statues that prohibit oral and anal copulation. But the persecuting generally doesn’t include heterosexual people who engage in those acts, only queer people.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20764
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Got there first, Econo!
Econoline wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 6:49 am
Image
MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:03 pm
Throughout history, not having sexual intercourse is guaranteed to avoid an unwanted pregnancy (bar one but you know . . .)
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18383
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by BoSoxGal »

Reading the comments to an article in the Daily Mail; the article is about Texas AG Ken Paxton discussing how he is prepared to defend the sodomy laws in Texas which were overturned by Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, if an opportunity to bring it back before the Supreme Court as encouraged by Uncle Clarence Thomas arises.

This Brit has US pegged:
ICareAboutFact, Winchester, United Kingdom, 1 hour ago
Republican America is regressing back to the 19th century. Force women into back street unqualified doctors. Make being gay illegal. Build big walls. Have paper voting. Let the meek starve. Let the poor get sick and die. Walk around carrying guns. Sheriffs shooting people on the streets. Enforce the death penalty. Legalise tor-ture. Incarcerate people without trial. Separate the confederate states. Pump more oil. Teach creation-ism. Treat ailments with snake oil. Don't tax the rich. It's a matter of time before they try and repeal the 13th amendment. I'm serious by the way! Y'allQuaida have taken over the GQP
I love that ‘Y'allQuaida’, I’m totally stealing that.

Hey people we are living under early fascism. I’m officially calling it, no more need to dance around it. The United States of America, great defeater of Hitler et al. is currently an anocracy and heading rapidly toward autocracy.

Check out Barbara F. Walter’s How Civil Wars Start, and How to Stop Them.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18383
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by BoSoxGal »

A United States President sent armed thugs to attack the United States Congress and his own Vice President. Take the metal detectors down, they’re not here to hurt ME. Let them in! I want a bigger crowd!

This is a fascinating exercise in political science. I am trying to find something to embrace about this horrific insanity and I guess all I can find is that I am a witness to an extraordinary moment in human history and I am on the edge of my seat to see which way human nature will sway us.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

Big RR
Posts: 14097
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Big RR »

It's also astounding that Pence, who I don't think i stupid, still supports (or at least does not speak ill of) the man who almost had him lynched. I had respect for him in January, but have lost that over the past few months.

Post Reply