Supreme Court and abortion

[temporal1]

i got it. ^^^

[Falco Underhill]

i got it. ^^^

Okee-dokee!

[GaryK]

Advocates say Portland is first in nation to provide bereavement leave for employees after abortion

https://www.opb.org/article/2021/10/25/ ... -abortion/

[Josh]

Advocates say Portland is first in nation to provide bereavement leave for employees after abortion

https://www.opb.org/article/2021/10/25/ ... -abortion/

Back when I wasn’t opposed to abortion, I was around some women who talked about past abortions. One of them named their “abortion” and they speculated what the child would’ve looked like. They remembered the guy who was the father wistfully. It was a very nonchalant, disturbing attitude.

[temporal1]

Advocates say Portland is first in nation to provide bereavement leave for employees after abortion

https://www.opb.org/article/2021/10/25/ ... -abortion/

Back when I wasn’t opposed to abortion, I was around some women who talked about past abortions. One of them named their “abortion” and they speculated what the child would’ve looked like. They remembered the guy who was the father wistfully.
It was a very nonchalant, disturbing attitude.

The article is a PRIME example of lib hypocrisy. Hard to beat this one.

For decades, they’ve been selling for profit corporate abortion as “nothing,” and CELEBRATING it. It certainly wasn’t loss of human life. From pregnant children and teens, into adulthood.

They have some pastors blessing it, praying for it. As the article includes, whatever they are, they are PROUD.

Now this.
Turns out, abortion is something that has physical, emotional, family+social consequences. [o.really?]

What an article. Twisted. And, they don’t bat an eye. Standard Operating Procedure. (no pun intended.)

One thing is certain.
Whatever perceived benefit has been allotted for whatever reason, in this case, grieving mothers+families, WHATEVER IT TAKES to appropriate those benefits for lib causes, no matter what a stretch (they are not bogged down with shame) they will commit unlimited time+resources to acquire those same legal benefits - TO THE MAX, and beyond! Parasitic.

We’re celebrating! $$$$
We’re grieving! $$$$
We’re TAKING. $$$$

With no moral compass, there is no bottom to their (human reasoning) pit. Twisted.

i am grateful they are, at last, willing to concede reality:
for profit corporate abortion ENDS HUMAN LIFE;
there are multiple HIGH prices to be grieved, there is a ripple effect of loss.

abortion is NOT like having a dental procedure or having a wart removed. important admission.

[GaryK]

This kind of stuff doesn't do much to increase my trust in the federal government's approach to healthcare.

[temporal1]

This kind of stuff doesn't do much to increase my trust in the federal government's approach to healthcare.
https://twitter.com/2Femergency-room-vi

The idea of females, children/teens/adults subjecting themselves to the trauma of any description abortion, along with violent destruction of their newly conceived offspring, is abhorrant. The world thinks so little of them, they don’t deserve better??

They ingest poison, sitting alone on toilets? Is this what any thinking person wants for young children/teens/women?
i can’t imagine it. Grisly. i wouldn’t want a dog to be made to suffer like this.

“Abortion pills by another name”
Pro-abortion groups test a drug for women who don’t want to know they’re pregnant
https://wng.org/roundups/abortion-pills ... 1634593970

.. This form of early chemical abortion is uncommon, but the off-label use of misoprostol could open the door to more drug-induced abortions despite state efforts to increase protections for the unborn. ..

.. Abortion groups acknowledge using misoprostol alone is more likely to result in an incomplete abortion—
when not all of the tissue from the baby or the pregnancy is expelled from the womb. But Upadhyay noted studies show increased dosage increases the likelihood of a complete abortion.

While the Food and Drug Administration has approved misoprostol and mifepristone for abortion when taken in combination, the agency has not approved the use of misoprostol alone for abortions, making such use off-label. In an official leaflet about the drug, the FDA warns that, although approved for preventing gastric ulcers, misoprostol
“can cause abortion (sometimes incomplete which could lead to dangerous bleeding and require hospitalization and surgery).” ..

Wrong on every level. Deep disregard for everyone involved, including fathers and core family units.
What a twisted world.

[temporal1]

OP:

So the Supreme Court yesterday decided to not intervene in the heartbeat bill Texas had instituted.
What this means is that abortion is now illegal in the state of Texas from the time a heartbeat can be detected (at about 6 weeks).

One step in the right direction!

Now the state legislatures need to move quickly to ease the regulations and expense on adoption as I expect there will be a lot of babies born that would have previously not been. Praise God for the Supreme Court!

Big week for the USSC. i admit awe this day has arrived.

A) NYT: THE MORNING NEWSLETTER / “Abortion at the Court”
“The Supreme Court seems likely to undermine or overturn Roe v. Wade.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/02/brie ... sippi.html

And, NO SURPRISE that APPEALS/maneuvers are prepared BEFORE ruling. SOP.
The process to undermine BEFORE ruling has been in process for years in advance. Major investments. $$$$

B) “Abortion rights advocates vow to fight on after supreme court hearing”
“Leaders say they will look to statehouses and lower courts if justices allow undermining of Roe v Wade”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... roe-v-wade

[temporal1]

A new thread regarding Russia’s EO move to protect the unwanted unborn:

Interesting News out of Russia / Current Events
RUSSIAN DOCTORS FORBIDDEN TO ADVISE ABORTION OF DISABLED BABIES
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=4371&sid=c7cdb8287 ... c396c155b7

DON’T GET AN ABORTION, THE CHURCH WILL RAISE YOUR CHILD—PATRIARCH KIRILL
https://orthochristian.com/139273.html

Unlike Denmark, Iceland, France, aborting Down Syndrome .. (noted in this new thread).

[HondurasKeiser]

One of my favorite legal scholars, Harvard Law prof. and former clerk for Justice Souter, Noah Feldman, has a succinct and down-the-line take on his predictions for the June decision on yesterday's oral arguments in the Dobbs case.

Roberts began with a comment about viability. He noted that the issue was not part of the initial oral arguments in the Roe v. Wade case. And he added that Justice Harry Blackmun, who famously introduced the viability framework when he wrote the majority opinion in Roe, later said that he considered viability not to be part of the holding of Roe, but to be dicta — nonbinding judicial speculation.

From there, Roberts made his gambit more explicit in the form of a question to the lawyer representing Mississippi’s sole functioning abortion clinic. He asked, “If you think that the issue is one of choice ... viability, it seems to me, doesn’t have anything to do with choice. If it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time?”

To decode what Roberts was getting at, you have to understand that the Mississippi law, which prohibits abortion after 15 weeks, clearly violates Roe’s viability rule. Viability is ordinarily treated in the law as occurring at around 23-24 weeks gestation.

Roberts was hinting that, if the core of Roe v. Wade is a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion, but Roe allows the state to restrict abortion at some point in pregnancy, then there is no particular reason to treat viability as the cutoff.

According to Roberts’s implicit theory, the justices could vote to uphold the Mississippi law while simultaneously saying that they were not overturning Roe v. Wade. They could hold that, properly interpreted, Roe allows states to restrict abortion at some point — so long as they allow women “enough time” to end their pregnancies.

What would count as enough time? Here Roberts could, if he could get another conservative justice on board, rely on the Casey decision, which said that the government may not impose an “undue burden” on the right to abortion. The words “undue burden” could be said, on this view, to represent a sliding scale.

If the court took up Roberts’s invitation, it would not need to say at how many weeks’ gestation abortion would have to be allowed. It could say only that there must be enough time that the woman’s right is not unduly burdened. Such a conclusion would presumably still rule out the so-called fetal heartbeat laws — like the one passed by the Texas legislature — that ban abortion at six weeks’ gestation.

Roberts has long signaled that he wants to restrict abortion rights but also does not want the Supreme Court to arouse the potential backlash and loss of legitimacy that would come with overturning Roe. But he can’t get there on his own. To control the outcome in the case, his decision would have to be necessary to the holding. That means that if the five other conservatives all vote to overturn Roe, an opinion by him proposing to move back the viability line to uphold the law would be a concurrence, not a controlling opinion.

In other words, Roberts needs one conservative to say Roe should be upheld and reinterpreted. Based on today’s oral argument, that seems even more unlikely than it did before.