[red]But since they care so deeply about those babies, they’re going to put their money where their mouths are and support 100% prenatal care, healthcare for 0-18, and child care costs, plus free access to contraception and robust sex education, right?[/red]
4 Likes
I agree with this. Hopefully they have enough sodomy to not want to criminalize that either.
I was just thinking of some examples of the “Right to Privacy”.
Keep the blinders on.
2 Likes
Never stopped the republicans. The ones that were the most fervently against the gays usually were the most wanton (in engaging in gay sex).
1 Like
That was already attempted in my state just before COVID hit. Thankfully our Democratic governor not only stopped it but pushed through additional assistance during peak pandemic. However there was something like $60M in food aid that was not provided during the fight.
The SCOTUS saying “This isn’t a right in the Constitution so it won’t be upheld simply on judicial precedence” is a lot different than banning something.
Sure. I was thinking of stuff that States could do.
Well if we can’t have abortions, you guys can’t have your miniature American flags.
2 Likes
Oh sure, yeah that would get trickier.
Maybe someone can create a gay religion to cover it.
Via scotusblog tweet-
Politico reports that the 5 original votes to overturn Roe are “unchanged as of this week,” but does not report (and the leaker would know) that they have all said they will join the Alito opinion. At least 1 is apparently uncommitted. Hence the leak?
1 Like
That’s today. Put a federal ban in front of him, he’ll come up with all kinds of tortured logic as to why it’s fine but other federal-level impositions on personal rights also not explicitly stated in the Constitution aren’t.
2 Likes
In a logical world that interprets the Constitution consistently in line with past rulings, this would violate the Commerce Clause among other things.
In Republican Bizarro World, it opens the door for states to prohibit (and punish, where deemed appropriate) things like getting married in another state, buying goods and services in another state, getting educated in another state, going to another state to participate in activities that the home state deems unsavory or inappropriate, and so on, and they’d be all for it in the name of “protecting liberty and freedom.”
Good, hopefully this forces people to stop being obstructionist and start governing.
1 Like
About half the states have abortion bans in place, either left over from before Roe or written recently to take effect if Roe is overturned.
1 Like
If we were talking about Trump or McConnell or McCarthy or someone of that ilk I would agree.
Alito is not in the same category, IMO.
Alito is much worse, I totally agree.
2 Likes
I will nitpick and point out that this includes “likely” bans, but that’s an admittedly minor nitpick.
Interestingly that is estimated to only reduce abortions by 14% (by one source I’ve seen cited several places) because it’s already difficult to find abortion providers in those states anyway.
Than Trump? C’mon.
So the Ninth Amendment just doesn’t exist?
Also older bans-- ie Michigan-- which seem poised to fall.
1 Like