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: 14050
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 »

Perhaps, but then the governments are elected by the people and represent the people. There are no hereditary or appointed leaders, the people's representatives govern by the election and consent of the people. The people are no less the sovereign in the state systems than in the federal one; indeed, since states are smaller subunits than the country as a whole the individual may even have greater sway to effect government policy.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

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

Post by Scooter »

Now that this genie is out of the bottle, the slave states* are falling over themselves in search of abortions that they can ban. In particular, they are attempting to ban abortions performed out of state, by invoking the most tenuous of connections to do so. One example is this gem that is before Missouri's legislature. I have redacted this excerpt pretty heavily to focus on some of the most egregious parts:
188.550. 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the provisions of this chapter; the laws of this state on the use of public funds for an abortion; and the laws of this state which regulate in any manner an abortion facility that, or a person who, performs or induces an abortion on another, or attempts or conspires to perform or induce an abortion on another, shall apply to all conduct occurring:
...

(3) Outside this state, when:
...
(c) It involves a resident of this state, including an unborn child who is a resident of this state. An unborn child shall be considered a resident of this state when:
a. The mother of the child is a resident of this state at the time the abortion is, or would have been, performed or induced;
b. The mother of the child was a resident of this state around the time that the child may have been conceived;
c. The mother intends to give birth to the child within this state if the pregnancy is carried to term;
d. Sexual intercourse occurred within this state and the child may have been conceived by that act of intercourse;

...

2. The provisions of subsection 1 of this section shall:
(1) Be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes;...
All emphasis added.

So now we have the state in the business of policing when and where people are having sex, and prosecuting women and their doctors for out-of-state abortions of fetuses that coulda/woulda/shoulda been conceived in state. And the language around "liberally construed" sounds like the state will not have a high burden to meet in making its case i.e. if its in any way mathematically feasible for the sex that MIGHT have led to conception to have occurred in state, then a resultant abortion would be prosecutable under Missouri law.

Has the world gone absofuckinglutely stark raving mad?

Are women now going to have to save their used tampons and pads in dated ziploc bags, to be able to prove when they became pregnant in order to avoid prosecution?

Are men going to have to save and date their used condoms in order to prove that conception could not have occurred from particular acts of intercourse?

I would suggest that all of those pieces of evidence should be sent to members of the legislature to assure them that the law is being adhered to.




* so called because they have reduced all pregnant women to slavery in service of the fetus invading their uterus
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 13925
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 »

But whatever happens, the State of Missouri (or the federal government) should not be allowed to require people in certain emergency situations to wear a mask or get a vaccine. That would be a serious violation of the right to privacy as it has been defined by the Supreme Court.

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

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

Post by Gob »

“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

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

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

From HuffPost's reporting on the Supreme Court leak and its implications:
The opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, indicated there was no protection for abortion rights in the Constitution in part because the word “abortion” does not appear in the document.
Let's have a list of all the things that aren't in the Constitution:

Motor vehicles
Assault (i.e., military type semiautomatic) rifles
iPods, iPads, iMacs, Velveeta, lampshades, veggie burgers
Black people (apart from those to be counted as 3/5ths of a real person for the purposes of enumerating population of a given state)

There must be more but I can't think of them at the moment. Oh yes

Vacations in Cancun

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9555
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 »

The opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, indicated there was no protection for abortion rights in the Constitution in part because the word “abortion” does not appear in the document.
Another document in which that word does not appear: the Bible.
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

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18298
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 »

Econoline wrote:
Sat May 07, 2022 7:21 pm
The opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, indicated there was no protection for abortion rights in the Constitution in part because the word “abortion” does not appear in the document.
Another document in which that word does not appear: the Bible.
But it’s full of baby killing - at the massacre level, even!
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
Econoline
Posts: 9555
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 »

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

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9015
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 »

Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito's draft opinion on abortion cited, among other precedents, 13th century English jurist Henry Bracton, who proposed that abortion be outlawed after "quickening," or when a fetus begins to move on its own (that varies, but usually happens at about 20 weeks, although some laws of the past put it as early at 40 days).  Another source cited in Alito's opinion was Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century jurist who sentenced women to death as 'witches' and conceived the notion that husbands can’t be prosecuted for raping their wives — which was the law of the land in England until 1991 (!??!) and has continued to be cited in court as recently as 2009.

Here's SNL's take on the matter, which clearly points out the utter ridiculousness, if not the outright stupidity, of relying on on the opinions of medieval men when it comes to making laws affecting 21st century society.


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

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

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

Post by Gob »

“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

MGMcAnick
Posts: 1342
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 »

About that leak...
I know I have mentioned my nephew who works for the New York Times. This Article quotes Nathan Willis and mentions him by name. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/08/insi ... rting.html
I knew Nathan was an editor of some sort, but was not aware that he is THE DC bureau's night editor. Pretty good for a 43 year old graduate of the University of Kansas with a degree in journalism. He started with the WaPo several years ago writing obituaries, and made the switch to the NYT after taking a sizeable buyout with which bought two DC condos. He lives in one when he's not working from "home" here in Kansas
A friend of Doc's, one of only two B-29 bombers still flying.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

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

Post by Scooter »

Image
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20703
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 »

Gob wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 6:35 am
MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 2:14 pm

You find the concept of requiring laws to be constitutional "lunacy"?

Nice bit of twisting there., I expect the elected representatives of a country to decide what laws should be passed, and judges to make their decisions based on those laws.
So you think that if Parliament passes a law making it illegal to live in Cornwall, courts can only decide whether or not the complainant lives (or does not live) in Cornwall? You don't believe a court has any role in determining whether or not a given law is legal or illegal?

(At this point, you may want to rehearse your response to "The Supreme Court. We are the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases, and for criminal cases from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Supreme Court hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population"

See that there - "constitutional" - does a law passed by Parliament (or a decision issued by the Government) conform to the (unwritten) constitution? Evidently, your own governing system supports and believes in something in which exceeds your "expectation" :nana
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
Econoline
Posts: 9555
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 »

From Jim Wright:
Things that have more rights in America than women:
  • Corporations
    Banks
    Religion
    Home Owners Associations
    Political Action Committees
    Guns
    Rapists
    Nazis
    Pets
    Corpses
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

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

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

Post by Scooter »

Image
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9015
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 »

Remember when the manufacture, sale, and consumption of alcoholic beverages was banned by the Constitution?  History shows that this law was one of the more ignored and circumvented laws in the history of the nation.  Just about everybody knew someplace where if "You knew Joe", you'd find a way to wet your whistle with something stronger than lemonade.

A second example was the nationwide 55-mph speed limit implemented during the 1970s and 1980s.  An entire industry of radar detectors, jammers, CB radios, and other devices and gizmos — even a new dialect ... the good ol' boy trucker-speak — sprang up over that one.  About the only people who took that law seriously was people on bicycles and kids on skateboards.

So let me just say here that if the SCOTUS does overturn Roe v Wade and those states that are under the thumb of the American Taliban Party make good on all the restrictive abortion / contraceptive laws they already have on the books or poised to drop into place, I predict that the number of opponents to it and acts of civil disobedience that will result will be even greater than the other two examples combined.
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 13925
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 »

Bicycle Bill wrote:
Mon May 16, 2022 11:21 pm
A second example was the nationwide 55-mph speed limit implemented during the 1970s and 1980s.
That reminds me of a time in the seventies when 55 mph was the limit on the highway. My friend had borrowed his sister's VW van and four of us were returning home after spending a weekend in Tahoe. We were driving on an uphill slope on the highway somewhere in the east SF bay area near Livermore in the right lane at 45 mph because the van couldn't go any faster uphill. We were pulled over by the CHP and my friend got a ticket for driving too slowly.

Those were the daze....

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9015
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 »

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

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9015
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 »

Scooter wrote:
Mon May 16, 2022 8:51 pm
Image
Image
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

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

Post by Gob »

20220524_090536[1].jpg
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

Post Reply