Whose cell/womb is it anyways?

[Grant]

Politico publishes a draft of a SCOTUS ruling that would "overturn Roe v. Wade". 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

Gather your feces
They are coming for your womb
Who wants a baby?

And just when abortions are starting to come back up again! 

States mostly heavily effected include: New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Florida, and Connecticut.  I mean, the women of Mississippi will be effected as well, just not quite as much. 

Anyways, the poop is once more hitting the fan.  Because that is the industry.  Crisis is their brand. 

Two and a half thousand women had abortions in New Jersey in 2017.  Out of about four and a half million women.

I am consistently amazed at what drives other people nuts in America.  But do go on.

[Ouija Nightmare]

I don’t get your reasoning. How does this most heavily effect New York ? Reproductive care access is codified into law there it’s business as usual.

Folks feeling the most profound impacts will be the residents of the red states run by theocracies.

[Crunch]

Folks feeling the most profound impacts will be the residents of the red states run by theocracies.

Theocracies. 

Maybe you don’t know what that word means?

[Crunch]

If this leak is real, whoever leaked it must be identified and prosecuted to the full extent of the law if laws were broken. At the very least, the person should be barred from working in the legal profession.

[msquared]

Is there a law against it?  I really would like to know.

[yossarian22c]

Is there a law against it?  I really would like to know.

Kind of doubt draft court agreements are classified. If may be something a clerk could get fired over if they are shown to be the leak. But I think that would be the extent. Doubt it would be a serious enough breach of ethics to get the clerk banned from the legal profession.

This was going to be public sooner or later. So the sanctions can't be that severe. More weird would be if somehow this doesn't end up being the majority opinion. I suspect that is the goal of whatever clerk or other aid that leaked this was to let the justices see the public reaction before announcing the final draft. For all we know Roberts leaked it. His was the only name not on one side of the decision. I don't think this is the court legacy he wanted.

[Lloyd Perna]

Is there a law against it?  I really would like to know.

Sedition, attempt to disrupt an official government proceeding. 

[NobleHunter]

Is there a law against it?  I really would like to know.

Sedition, attempt to disrupt an official government proceeding.

From leaking a document? Ha. Especially if it's one of the justices.

Do we want to make a list of rights "not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions"? Just so everyone knows what could be next.

[yossarian22c]

Is there a law against it?  I really would like to know.

Sedition, attempt to disrupt an official government proceeding.

From leaking a document? Ha. Especially if it's one of the justices.

Do we want to make a list of rights "not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions"? Just so everyone knows what could be next.

<sarcasm>
I'll assume my right to vote is safe being a white male property owner. Glad I can check all 3 boxes just to make sure its safely rooted in the Nation's history. 15th amendment is probably good enough for everyone else. <end sarcasm>

I imagine that voting rights protections will continue to take hits though. "Religious freedom" rights seem to be on the upswing. Meaning teachers will be able to lead classes in prayer. Well at least until a Muslim tried to do it, then we've gone too far.

The court clearly doesn't give a crap about gerrymandering. They have refused to prevent it at all, the only question is if they will begin preventing state courts from enforcing state constitutional provisions on congressional and state house line.

Gay marriage may be on the chopping block as a legal right.

We could be entering a time where there becomes some real legal distinctions depending on which state you're in. Each state has always had different laws, but we may be seeing some much bigger bifurcation between red and blue states if the Supreme court allows all the red states to legislate to their culture war heart's desire. It will create hardship for millions of Americans but maybe kill the Republican party in the process. They motivate and drive hard core conservatives to the polls with the culture war issues but they get a lot of votes from people who vote for them for lower taxes or other issues knowing the courts won't let them go to far on restricting individual's rights. Going to get a little tougher on them when they have to start passing these laws and then have to reconcile the different sections of their voters.

[TheDrake]

The intention of the leaker could be to influence the current court. Or to convince the Democratic leadership to pull the trigger on court composition? Or to influence midterm elections somehow, presumably senate races? Or to influence Manchin to end the filibuster, allowing for a federal law protecting abortion independent of the court. Either way, its ridiculous to suggest that somebody needs to be put in jail for leaking a memorandum. I'm not suggesting it is okay, that person should be fired and it is unclear if they should practice law, given the ethical violation. Let's also note that we don't know that this is a pro-abortion leak. It could be leaked also by a conservative who wants to encourage states to put more trigger laws on the books, or just wanting to share the Good News.

It's interesting to me that the conservative reaction is anger against this being leaked, rather than jubilation that so many unborn lives will be saved.

Why the leak to encourage action now? Because midterms are in peril for the Democrats, and if they are in the minority, legislative solutions of any stripe would be unavailable in 2023. Democrats have been chicken on the legislative front for fear that passing legislation at the state level to reinforce abortion legality would cost them some support - especially Democrats from the conservative end of the spectrum. Not wanting ads plastered all over TV labelling them as baby killers. I use Democrats only as a placeholder, there are some Republicans that don't think abortion should be decided by the state but rather the individual.

Let's note that any legislative solution, however, can be undone. Leading to abortion provider chaos. Republicans are on the move at the national level as well. They wouldn't be able to overcome a Biden Veto, but they are going to make this a big selling point in the Presidential race for 2024.

Republican senators have met to discuss legislation that would ban abortion nationwide, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) told the Post, and Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) would reportedly likely introduce the bill.

[ScottF]

It's interesting to me that the conservative reaction is anger against this being leaked, rather than jubilation that so many unborn lives will be saved.

How would this save so many unborn lives? Wouldn't this just defer to individual states and still be legal anyway?

[NobleHunter]

It's interesting to me that the conservative reaction is anger against this being leaked, rather than jubilation that so many unborn lives will be saved.

How would this save so many unborn lives? Wouldn't this just defer to individual states and still be legal anyway?

A whole bunch of states will make abortion illegal the moment the decision is issued. There is data that it won't affect abortion rates all that much.

The language in the draft basically allows for arguments to reverse rulings on homosexuality (never mind just gay marriage), interracial marriage, contraceptives, and basically every right not explicitly spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Even then, it's arguable there aren't deeply rooted  historical rights to things like handguns or semi-automatic rifles or private conversations on the telephone.

[TheDrake]

NH - But abortions will go down because the women who die during an unsafe abortion won't be able to get pregnant again. The important thing is that we'll be able to punish these women for their sins, along with anyone trying to help them.

Not to worry though, the GOP is also helping to ensure that the flow of unwanted pregnancies is unabated.

“Anti–birth control sentiment has been building for over a decade,” says Robin Marty, the author of The New Handbook for Post-Roe America. “The groundwork was laid in 2010, when the Tea Party fought Obamacare by saying IUDs, Plan B, and contraception itself were, as they called it, the biggest expansion of abortion in the nation.”

Marty continued, explaining the groundwork Trump laid. “The reason this is no longer undercover is because of the Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby.” The Hobby Lobby verdict allowed employers to refuse to pay for birth control coverage for their employees due to religious reasons. The Trump administration, Marty says, “set the groundwork for the idea that doctors or pharmacists can decline to treat people because of religious beliefs. And now we have a Supreme Court that will rubber-stamp both those decisions.” The irony is that thrice-married adulterer Donald J. Trump, the man who used to be pro-choice, created this atmosphere.

Anti birth control movement

The important thing is to punish the sinner who is having sex for fun rather than procreation as the Lord intended. And that is why people are going to refer to this as theocracy.

[Lloyd Perna]

NH - But abortions will go down because the women who die during an unsafe abortion won't be able to get pregnant again. The important thing is that we'll be able to punish these women for their sins, along with anyone trying to help them.

Not to worry though, the GOP is also helping to ensure that the flow of unwanted pregnancies is unabated.

“Anti–birth control sentiment has been building for over a decade,” says Robin Marty, the author of The New Handbook for Post-Roe America. “The groundwork was laid in 2010, when the Tea Party fought Obamacare by saying IUDs, Plan B, and contraception itself were, as they called it, the biggest expansion of abortion in the nation.”

Marty continued, explaining the groundwork Trump laid. “The reason this is no longer undercover is because of the Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby.” The Hobby Lobby verdict allowed employers to refuse to pay for birth control coverage for their employees due to religious reasons. The Trump administration, Marty says, “set the groundwork for the idea that doctors or pharmacists can decline to treat people because of religious beliefs. And now we have a Supreme Court that will rubber-stamp both those decisions.” The irony is that thrice-married adulterer Donald J. Trump, the man who used to be pro-choice, created this atmosphere.

Anti birth control movement

The important thing is to punish the sinner who is having sex for fun rather than procreation as the Lord intended. And that is why people are going to refer to this as theocracy.

You sound like Alex Jones if he was a lefty.

[rightleft22]

Sex and freedom who gets to define the boundaries?

The important thing is to punish the sinner who is having sex for fun rather than procreation as the Lord intended. And that is why people are going to refer to this as theocracy

For many of those that remain in the community I grew up abortion is The issue they vote on and would be very happy for any movement towards a theocracy.
They would also argue that this is Freedom, small government but not a theocracy.

"But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth" - "The left hand does not know what the right hand is going". We create what we do not intend to create and work against ourselves. 

[Lloyd Perna]

Biden tries to use religion to Justify Roe v. Wade.

“Look, think what Roe says. Roe says what all basic mainstream religions have historically concluded — that the right — that the existence of a human life and being is a question. Is it at the moment of conception? Is it six months? Is it six weeks?”

I guess forgot that the Catholic Church, of which he claims to be a devout member, teaches unquestionably that life begins at the moment of conception.

[TheDrake]

NH - But abortions will go down because the women who die during an unsafe abortion won't be able to get pregnant again. The important thing is that we'll be able to punish these women for their sins, along with anyone trying to help them.

Not to worry though, the GOP is also helping to ensure that the flow of unwanted pregnancies is unabated.

“Anti–birth control sentiment has been building for over a decade,” says Robin Marty, the author of The New Handbook for Post-Roe America. “The groundwork was laid in 2010, when the Tea Party fought Obamacare by saying IUDs, Plan B, and contraception itself were, as they called it, the biggest expansion of abortion in the nation.”

Marty continued, explaining the groundwork Trump laid. “The reason this is no longer undercover is because of the Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby.” The Hobby Lobby verdict allowed employers to refuse to pay for birth control coverage for their employees due to religious reasons. The Trump administration, Marty says, “set the groundwork for the idea that doctors or pharmacists can decline to treat people because of religious beliefs. And now we have a Supreme Court that will rubber-stamp both those decisions.” The irony is that thrice-married adulterer Donald J. Trump, the man who used to be pro-choice, created this atmosphere.

Anti birth control movement

The important thing is to punish the sinner who is having sex for fun rather than procreation as the Lord intended. And that is why people are going to refer to this as theocracy.

You sound like Alex Jones if he was a lefty.

Where have I quoted anything that is untrue, let alone an Alex Jones conspiracy? Religious citizens don't want abortions to happen, don't want to pay for birth control. What other conclusion should one come to other than that they want their religion to dominate public policy? Tell me that most of the people crusading against abortions are not in the same breath lamenting "unwed mothers" - often labelled in much more pejorative if not racist terms.

These aren't fringe lunatics, they are US Senators like Mike Lee entitled:

Love, Marriage, and the Baby Carriage: The Rise in Unwed Childbearing

Affluence and technological development facilitated the decoupling of sex and marriage, which increased nonmarital sexual activity and elevated unwed pregnancy rates. Penicillin brought an end to the syphilis crisis that regulated sexual activity through much of the first half of the twentieth century. The pill provided a way to dramatically reduce the chance of an unintended pregnancy. And abortion became safer, fueling rising demand for legal abortion services that culminated in the Roe decision. As nonmarital sex became safer and its consequences less severe, more single men and women became sexually active. This trend became self-reinforcing. Normative regulation of sexual activity among single men and women loosened.

They really seem to think that people having sex is a real bad idea.

[ScottF]

Might not be in line with the prevailing pro-choice lexicon, but I do appreciate Biden's honesty here.

"The idea that we're going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child, based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think goes way overboard,"

[cherrypoptart]

It seems like the actual Constitution and the law gets lost in the discussion especially by the left.

Does anyone seriously think that anyone who wrote or sponsored any part of the Constitution believed that it made or ever intended it to make abortion a Constitutionally protected right?

Of course not.

It couldn't pass as a Constitutional Amendment back then and it couldn't even pass as one right now.

The Supreme Court back in the day invented a Constitutional right where there never was one. It usurped the will of the people and the democratic foundations of our society.

And yet... the left that constantly claims they support democracy and the will of the people make it clear that they really don't on so many issues of which this is one of the big ones.

Whatever the science is, whatever the biology, or the theology, or anything else, the law and the Constitution are clear enough.

Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Show me the word abortion or the word privacy in the Constitution, anywhere. It's not there. Control over abortion is clearly not a power delegated to the federal government and clearly not a power prohibited to the States so according to our system of government, the one the left claims to support but really only does so as it's convenient, abortion is an issue that is reserved to the States and the people to decide.

This Supreme Court is just setting right the ridiculously absurd political ruling made by its predecessors.

[yossarian22c]

Where in the constitution does the government have the right to regulate abortion? Right reserved for the people. But go on supporting your activist judges who have no respect for precedent.

[Fenring]

Where in the constitution does the government have the right to regulate abortion? Right reserved for the people. But go on supporting your activist judges who have no respect for precedent.

Well if abortion is murder, then pretty much the same right it has to outlaw murder? That's what the argument is, at bottom. At best it's a debate involving a conflict of rights, at worst it's about avoiding discussing what a fetus is.

[Lloyd Perna]

Where in the constitution does the government have the right to regulate abortion? Right reserved for the people. But go on supporting your activist judges who have no respect for precedent.

So you believe the Warren court were activist judges who have no respect for precedent when they reversed Plessy v. Ferguson in Brown v. Board of Education?

[rightleft22]

Will of the people and the democratic foundations of our society

Is the constitution a static document? If a majority of people express a will what does the constitution say about that?

[Fenring]

Will of the people and the democratic foundations of our society

Is the constitution a static document? If a majority of people express a will what does the constitution say about that?

Constitutions should be very hard to change, or else demagogues and shifting sentiment could essentially collapse the foundations of the country with very little resistance. That is, if the original constitution is good. If it's bad then I guess it's not worth preserving...

[TheDrake]

In my opinion, a constitution must be interpreted to fit new circumstances. Search and seizure is a good example which hasn't been black and white. Is it a "search" to use infrared cameras to find grow houses from the street was one example. When the founders thought of "search" it was pretty simple to identify, government agents physically access your property. Likewise the second amendment had to be considered in the light of invention of new weapons. What are or are not valid weapons to possess? Are your rights different depending on your location? Such things required interpretation. When it comes to rights, yes I believe that there was plenty of support for the court to make slavery illegal without the Fourteenth amendment, and it was a tragedy that they didn't act on it. Some abolitionists argued that the constitution, properly applied, would make slavery unconstitutional despite obvious indications that the authors of that document were not attempting to do so, or they would have said so and the debates were on the record. Fredrick Douglass spoke the most about it. When it comes to protecting individual freedom, the court should indeed expand on the intent of the constitution as it was perceived by those who wrote it, but based on its contents precedents and consistency. The Constitution is not eroded by expanding its protections based on its principals. Otherwise, governments could just lawyer their way around it, and say the constitution doesn't spell out that we can't gather voicemails voluntarily given to government agents. This would just be like a carrier sharing a letter between two individuals, no search protection there. The government constantly tries to erode the constitution, under any president, and the court needs to have the latitude to counter their creativity.

[NobleHunter]

It seems like the actual Constitution and the law gets lost in the discussion especially by the left.

Does anyone seriously think that anyone who wrote or sponsored any part of the Constitution believed that it made or ever intended it to make abortion a Constitutionally protected right?

Of course not.

It couldn't pass as a Constitutional Amendment back then and it couldn't even pass as one right now.

The Supreme Court back in the day invented a Constitutional right where there never was one. It usurped the will of the people and the democratic foundations of our society.

And yet... the left that constantly claims they support democracy and the will of the people make it clear that they really don't on so many issues of which this is one of the big ones.

Whatever the science is, whatever the biology, or the theology, or anything else, the law and the Constitution are clear enough.

Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Show me the word abortion or the word privacy in the Constitution, anywhere. It's not there. Control over abortion is clearly not a power delegated to the federal government and clearly not a power prohibited to the States so according to our system of government, the one the left claims to support but really only does so as it's convenient, abortion is an issue that is reserved to the States and the people to decide.

This Supreme Court is just setting right the ridiculously absurd political ruling made by its predecessors.

If they didn't intend to guarantee a right to an abortion, they should have written the Constitution more carefully. I'm amazed conservative are so willing to expand the power of the Federal government based on activist readings of the Constitution.

Though it's entirely possible they could have added an amendment allowing abortions to the Bill of Rights. It was a controversial issue mostly with Catholics, who I don't believe were over represented in US government of the time. They probably didn't think it was a matter for the Federal government. But the Constitution of today is not the same as the one written back the day. If states can't ban guns, they also can't ban abortions.

[cherrypoptart]

"If they didn't intend to guarantee a right to an abortion, they should have written the Constitution more carefully."

It's written carefully enough. Abortion isn't anywhere in it so it's up to the states.

If states can't ban guns, it's because of the 2nd Amendment. That's clearly in the Constitution. It's a perfect example.

There is no amendment along those lines for abortion like: "A well sexed population, being necessary to the enjoyment of a free-use state, the right of the people to enjoy abortions as birth control shall not be infringed."

There has never been a time in our country when abortion had the public support required to give it Constitutional protection as a fundamental right. Not when the Amendments were written. Not when the Supreme Court made a political decision instead of a judicial one to write a new Constitution from the bench, and certainly not now when if enough of the states and politicians wanted abortion to be a Constitutional right, it would be.

People just can't seem to distinguish between what they want to be a right protected by the Constitution and what actually is in the Constitution as a protected right. Just like healthcare. Not a right guaranteed by the Constitution so it's up to the states. It's understandable that people get it mixed up since the Supreme Court itself gets confused about these things all the time, making decisions based on emotions and desires instead of facts, logic, and law.

And just to reiterate, I don't think abortion should be illegal. But that doesn't mean the Constitution says it can't be.

[NobleHunter]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Crunch]

Will of the people and the democratic foundations of our society

Is the constitution a static document? If a majority of people express a will what does the constitution say about that?

Uh, dude, there’s a process for amending the constitution.

[Crunch]

Is there a law against it?  I really would like to know.

18 U.S. Code § 641 - Public money, property or records:

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;

Find the leaker, lock him up. The reporter is also in violation of the law, 10 years for him too.

[Crunch]

Everyone needs to calm down. Nobody is coming for your abortions. We just want common sense abortion laws. Mandatory background check and a mental health evaluation. A $200 tax stamp. A 30 day waiting period. Also, limit abortions - nobody needs more than one.

No big deal, amirite?

[yossarian22c]

Is there a law against it?  I really would like to know.

18 U.S. Code § 641 - Public money, property or records:

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;

Find the leaker, lock him up. The reporter is also in violation of the law, 10 years for him too.

Wow, going hard after leaks now. Police state much. Would your opinion change if it were a conservative leak who was really excited about the decision and wanted to put public pressure to lock in the votes of the conservatives on the court?

[Ouija Nightmare]

Is there a law against it?  I really would like to know.

18 U.S. Code § 641 - Public money, property or records:

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;

Find the leaker, lock him up. The reporter is also in violation of the law, 10 years for him too.

With those kinds of broad legal interpretations I could shoot you right now and claim self defense.

[Fenring]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Obviously this statement should not also be taken to imply that anything not mentioned in the constitution is (or may be) a right. In other words they did their best to enumerate them but left open the door for incomplete knowledge. But the argument being put forward in the preceding context isn't that abortion isn't a right, but that the constitution does not claim it's a right. In other words there are no grounds put forward in the constitution enabling judges to decide whether it should be a right or not.

[Ouija Nightmare]

Wow, going hard after leaks now. Police state much. Would your opinion change if it were a conservative leak who was really excited about the decision and wanted to put public pressure to lock in the votes of the conservatives on the court?

There are other reasons for a conservative to leak this too. For example to signal to more friendly states to get their motors running to establish the trigger laws to shut things down the moment the decision is issued.

[msquared]

I wonder if Crunch would have the same view if it turns out to be one of Trump's judges who did it? Crunch, would you agree that a Justice who violated the law like this should be impeached and removed from the bench?

Of course it could be Bryer.  What would they be able to do to him? If they even prosecuted him by the time the trial happened he would probably be dead.

[NobleHunter]

Obviously this statement should not also be taken to imply that anything not mentioned in the constitution is (or may be) a right. In other words they did their best to enumerate them but left open the door for incomplete knowledge. But the argument being put forward in the preceding context isn't that abortion isn't a right, but that the constitution does not claim it's a right. In other words there are no grounds put forward in the constitution enabling judges to decide whether it should be a right or not.

But since the Bill of Rights was never intended to be an exhaustive list (and since it could not be some people argued for leaving it out because small-minded authoritarians would always be tempted to treat it as an exhaustive list), "it's not in the Constitution" contributes nothing.

[rightleft22]

I can imagine reasons why someone on the right, left or even a justice might have leaked the document but its all speculation. Maybe it was just a *censored* disturber wanting to burn everything down. I assume the tribes will assume they know what 'tribe' the person who  leaked it was on. 

I won't be surprised if we never find out who leaked the draft.

I'm leaning towards Crunch here. The person who leaked the draft should be held accountable. At the minimum fired and prosecuted if laws were broken.
I'm not sure why the above position is even a issue to be debated.

The Justices should have been allowed to work through the process. I wonder if the draft was leaked in order to end the process and lock the Justices in.  We will likely never know and maybe that was the intention. Another nail in the coffin of our democratic institutions.   

I see little good coming from the leak.

[rightleft22]

Obviously this statement should not also be taken to imply that anything not mentioned in the constitution is (or may be) a right. In other words they did their best to enumerate them but left open the door for incomplete knowledge. But the argument being put forward in the preceding context isn't that abortion isn't a right, but that the constitution does not claim it's a right. In other words there are no grounds put forward in the constitution enabling judges to decide whether it should be a right or not.

But since the Bill of Rights was never intended to be an exhaustive list (and since it could not be some people argued for leaving it out because small-minded authoritarians would always be tempted to treat it as an exhaustive list), "it's not in the Constitution" contributes nothing.

If one has ever been part of a orthodox / fundamentalism debate on the Bible the argument that such sources don't allow for interpretation (even as they are interpreting) you won't be surprised by such arguments. Islam sharia law comes from such beliefs and contradictions.

Here I lean towards TheDrakes argument that many of those in the ProLife movement are consciously or unconsciously working towards a theocracy.

[Fenring]

Obviously this statement should not also be taken to imply that anything not mentioned in the constitution is (or may be) a right. In other words they did their best to enumerate them but left open the door for incomplete knowledge. But the argument being put forward in the preceding context isn't that abortion isn't a right, but that the constitution does not claim it's a right. In other words there are no grounds put forward in the constitution enabling judges to decide whether it should be a right or not.

But since the Bill of Rights was never intended to be an exhaustive list (and since it could not be some people argued for leaving it out because small-minded authoritarians would always be tempted to treat it as an exhaustive list), "it's not in the Constitution" contributes nothing.

I don't think you understand...the argument put forward by the left is that the constitution does grant the right to an abortion, thereby removing the option from the states to decide. The right-wing argument is that the constitution says nothing of the kind and that it's up to legislators to determine the law of the land; more specifically, at the state level.

[msquared]

I thought it was more about privacy than the actual act.

[NobleHunter]

That's because the Left believes people have a right to get an abortion and the Right believes people don't have that right. Granted, the Right finds the Ninth Amendment highly inconvenient to their project of establishing a theocratic white ethnostate, which is where the "deeply rooted in history" part comes from, it isn't the debate over abortion in isolation can be reduce to whether or not a more or less specific right to abortion exists.

[Fenring]

That's because the Left believes people have a right to get an abortion and the Right believes people don't have that right.

But this is asymmetric. If the right is correct, then it is possible to make a law outlawing it, according with 'natural law' (or morality, or whatever), or to make a law enshrining it, which would be a privilege granted by the state, but not an inherent human right. In this instance, outlawing it would not be a human rights violation but merely a lack of being able to do something you would like to. Conversely, if the left is correct, then a law outlawing abortion is an actual human rights violation, and a law permitting it is a recognition of the inherent human right. But where I think you're not reading me correctly is that if the constitution has nothing to say on the matter then whether or not it's a fundamental human right the legislators still have to figure out what to do at the state level. Some states may end up violating rights (if it is a right) in this instance, but the equivalence is that if abortion is murder then rights are being violated by any state permitting abortion.

There is no free lunch on this issue; no recourse to "well the constitution says it's a right so there's no debate." Trying to squash the debate is itself probably a human rights violation. This needs to be figured out at a societal level, not by fiat. *We* (collectively) need to really think hard about it for a long time. It's not going to be decided based on who has more judges in the SCOTUS, or at least it shouldn't be. Any attempt at a legal run-around will just result in kicking the can down the line, because it's going to come up again and again.

[Crunch]

I wonder if Crunch would have the same view if it turns out to be one of Trump's judges who did it? Crunch, would you agree that a Justice who violated the law like this should be impeached and removed from the bench?

Of course it could be Bryer.  What would they be able to do to him? If they even prosecuted him by the time the trial happened he would probably be dead.

Back to Trump ... whatever.

I don't care who it is. If it was a Justice or a clerk, they should be out. This is ethically as corrupt as it gets and essentially criminal if they want to go after it.  But, I bet if it was Kagan or Sotomayor, you'd disagree.

[Crunch]

Is there a law against it?  I really would like to know.

18 U.S. Code § 641 - Public money, property or records:

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;

Find the leaker, lock him up. The reporter is also in violation of the law, 10 years for him too.

With those kinds of broad legal interpretations I could shoot you right now and claim self defense.

JFC, no. You could not. Seriously.

[Crunch]

Is there a law against it?  I really would like to know.

18 U.S. Code § 641 - Public money, property or records:

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;

Find the leaker, lock him up. The reporter is also in violation of the law, 10 years for him too.

Wow, going hard after leaks now. Police state much. Would your opinion change if it were a conservative leak who was really excited about the decision and wanted to put public pressure to lock in the votes of the conservatives on the court?

This "but what if it was a conservative" logic is so specious and uninformed it's insane that so many of you are trying to run with it. Those that break the law should face consequences. That you're trying to set it up so that the people you approve of don't have to follow the law is absurd.

[msquared]

Crunch you would be wrong again.  I agree with you that who ever did it should be at least fired.  If it is a Justice who did it then they should be impeached.

That is why I think it might be Breyer.  I mean he is done in a few months, so they can't really impeach him.  And at his age any trial will take years to happen
I am saying that of all of the Justices, Breyer has the least to loose and so is at the top of my list of suspects just for that and no other reason.

[yossarian22c]

...

This "but what if it was a conservative" logic is so specious and uninformed it's insane that so many of you are trying to run with it. Those that break the law should face consequences. That you're trying to set it up so that the people you approve of don't have to follow the law is absurd.

So you are supportive of all the prosecutions of the January 6th rioters? Do you support prosecuting Flynn for lying to the FBI and violating FARA requirements? Do you support prosecuting Trump for destroying documents and taking classified files to Mara Lago? Just curious where you draw the line at prosecuting every potential violation of the law to the fullest.

IMO this leak is firing worthy. I just don't see how any laws are broken by giving a non classified document to the American media. Its a violation of policy not law. I also don't see this leak as serving the public interest in any meaningful way. It was going to become public within a month or so. Knowing what the first draft says instead of the final and knowing in May instead of June doesn't really change the public response all that much.

[rightleft22]

Crunch you would be wrong again.  I agree with you that who ever did it should be at least fired.  If it is a Justice who did it then they should be impeached.

That is why I think it might be Breyer.  I mean he is done in a few months, so they can't really impeach him.  And at his age any trial will take years to happen
I am saying that of all of the Justices, Breyer has the least to loose and so is at the top of my list of suspects just for that and no other reason.

Perhaps if Breyer was a stupid man who viewed his life work as a justice with contempt. I'm not the brightest bulb and even I can see how such a leak would work against progressive's, harden hearts and undermine the Supreme Court.  Then again Liberals are thier own worst enemy.

In the long long run I suspect a repeal of roe will work against those 'pro choice' as the die has been cast.
Sex has over the years become more and more detached from the notion of relationship, commitment... and within that context procreation.  I don't see that rolling back. If it be at a state level or federal one.

The youth will not allow Sex to be uses as a tool to control them (as the church as used it) Once the baby boomers are gone this attitude to 'Freedom' will prevail, time is on thier side. I don't see anything stopping it except maybe force.  And then everyone loses.

[rightleft22]

IMO this leak is firing worthy. I just don't see how any laws are broken by giving a non classified document to the American media. Its a violation of policy not law. I also don't see this leak as serving the public interest in any meaningful way. It was going to become public within a month or so. Knowing what the first draft says instead of the final and knowing in May instead of June doesn't really change the public response all that much.

But it does undermine the Supreme Court. And I wonder if that wasn't the intent as I agree that the leak does not serve the right or the left with regards to the debate. We won't know though as the leaker prevented the process from completing as it ought to have. The leak opening the door to all types of speculation and conspiracy. Who ever did leaked it, for whatever reason should be ashamed and I suspect history will not be kind.