Roe V. Wade not about abortion but about privacy........Has everyone looked into what that means and the powers striking down this ruling......

[shonuff253]

other issues this will affect. Thomas has already said

"Reproductive rights could be the first of the privacy rights to disappear for many Americans–but it won’t stop there. Emboldened anti-privacy advocates are already turning their attention to restricting access to other areas of reproductive health, marriage rights, and any number of issues that should be considered personal and off limits.

Also, some states are even pushing "Personhood Bills" that say life begins at contraception. This is personal to me because I had my son via IVF. In states where PB are enacted fertility clinics will particularly go out of business due to the embryos that are formed during the IVF process will now be considered "people" and due all the same protections. Thomas in is concurring opinions has said contraception and gay marriage should be relooked at...what limits are there now from government intervening into individual personal life.

Regardless of your personal opinion on abortions how can you have individual freedom without privacy from the government?

Commentary: Overturning Roe v. Wade is more than just an assault on reproductive rights

Reproductive rights could be the first of the privacy rights to disappear for many Americans–but it won’t stop there.

fortune.com

 

[Bells76]

Meh, it was the Constitutionally correct decision. Everyone has personal feelings about these rulings, which is the best part of the Constitution, it takes personal feelings and opinions out of consideration.

as far as individual freedoms being usurped by our fed govt, arguing about something that may happen is a waste of time when our rights have been so thoroughly disregarded by this and previous federal authorities. we have a long way to go in gaining back basic freedoms we have lost to worry so much about what a ruling may lead to.

 

[Reddawg4429]

other issues this will affect. Thomas has already said

"Reproductive rights could be the first of the privacy rights to disappear for many Americans–but it won’t stop there. Emboldened anti-privacy advocates are already turning their attention to restricting access to other areas of reproductive health, marriage rights, and any number of issues that should be considered personal and off limits.

Also, some states are even pushing "Personhood Bills" that say life begins at contraception. This is personal to me because I had my son via IVF. In states where PB are enacted fertility clinics will particularly go out of business due to the embryos that are formed during the IVF process will now be considered "people" and due all the same protections. Thomas in is concurring opinions has said contraception and gay marriage should be relooked at...what limits are there now from government intervening into individual personal life.

Regardless of your personal opinion on abortions how can you have individual freedom without privacy from the government?

Commentary: Overturning Roe v. Wade is more than just an assault on reproductive rights

Reproductive rights could be the first of the privacy rights to disappear for many Americans–but it won’t stop there.

fortune.com

Firstly, the word you are intending to use a couple of times in your prose is conception.

Secondly, regardless of your personal opinion on vaccinations, how can you have individual freedom without privacy from the government?

See what I did there?

Of the myriad of reasons your post is entirely off base, this seemed to me the most likely to cause you deep reflection. Did it work?

 

[Harry Thornton]

How can you murder a baby and call it an act of “privacy?” The baby has to have some right to life and privacy.

 

[shonuff253]

Meh, it was the Constitutionally correct decision. Everyone has personal feelings about these rulings, which is the best part of the Constitution, it takes personal feelings and opinions out of consideration.

as far as individual freedoms being usurped by our fed govt, arguing about something that may happen is a waste of time when our rights have been so thoroughly disregarded by this and previous federal authorities. we have a long way to go in gaining back basic freedoms we have lost to worry so much about what a ruling may lead to.

"arguing about something that may happen is a waste" ~ Isn't this what the right does

Firstly, the word you are intending to use a couple of times in your prose is conception.

Secondly, regardless of your personal opinion on vaccinations, how can you have individual freedom without privacy from the government?

See what I did there?

Of the myriad of reasons your post is entirely off base, this seemed to me the most likely to cause you deep reflection. Did it work?

Would your personal freedom trump another's right to life without you spreading a deadly disease to them?

 

[atlanta cock#]

Nobody's opinion will change, especially in this thread or any thread about abortion. My biggest issue is with the people who are unhappy screaming the court needs to be packed, etc. I don't recall conservatives talking about packing the court when Obamacare was basically approved by SCOTUS, and I don't recall seeing rioting earlier this week when Congress passed gun control. I'm cool with differences of opinion. I'm not cool with burning the place down, literally or figuratively, just because you disagree when the system functions.

 

[shonuff253]

How can you murder a baby and call it an act of “privacy?” The baby has to have some right to life and privacy.

Nice Strawman. So back to my OP...can you have individual freedom without personal privacy from the government?

 

[shonuff253]

Nobody's opinion will change, especially in this thread or any thread about abortion. My biggest issue is with the people who are unhappy screaming the court needs to be packed, etc. I don't recall conservatives talking about packing the court when Obamacare was basically approved by SCOTUS, and I don't recall seeing rioting earlier this week when Congress passed gun control. I'm cool with differences of opinion. I'm not cool with burning the place down, literally or figuratively, just because you disagree when the system functions.

I agree. I primarily wanted to share the point that Roe V. Wade isn't about abortion really but privacy and share my personal experience in the IVF process and how this ruling more than likely will cause infertility clinics around the country to shutdown.

This ruling will have unintended consequences and give the government more power into individuals lifes. Now, there are some states that have privacy ingrained into their state constitutions, I know FL is one. They have more protection than other but this is going to be a major issue moving forward and should concern even those anti-abortion advocates.

 

[Reddawg4429]

"arguing about something that may happen is a waste" ~ Isn't this what the right does

Would your personal freedom trump another's right to life without you spreading a deadly disease to them?

Would your/her personal freedom trump another's right to life without you beyond the shadow of a doubt killing them? Not maybe giving them a virus the vast majority of people survive, but definitively killing them and selling their body parts! Just saying....

 

[shonuff253]

Would your/her personal freedom trump another's right to life without you beyond the shadow of a doubt killing them? Not maybe giving them a virus the vast majority of people survive, but definitively killing them and selling their body parts! Just saying....

A collection of cells that wouldn't live outside the woman's body before 24 weeks.....against my personal freedoms. Yeah I'm going to choose me over that scenario. That said, I think abolitions should be heavily regulated past the 20 to 24 week mark or the point of viability....but before viability myself or my partner come first.

Should the government now have the right to outlaw men from "choking the chicken" unless it's into a female or your wife or a personal of the same race?

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

My political leaning is way more libertarian than doctrinaire conservative so I'm ultra sensitive about privacy rights. Having said that, Roe was flawed from day one and even abortion extremist RBG admitted as much. Abortion is not a privacy issue at all and we regulate all sorts of medical procedures even though the records are supposedly private.

Additionally, the SCOTUS most certainly did not end or ban abortion today. They merely returned the issue back to the states. Now, in the situation you mentioned, you may have been inconvenienced in you IVF situation but it would still have been available to you. At a time like this, jumping to conclusions, especially unlikely ones isn't wise but it is what pols want you to do.

 

[sanforddawg11]

Nice Strawman. So back to my OP...can you have individual freedom without personal privacy from the government?

I would beg to differ that it's the actual crux of the specific issue. Either you believe the baby is a human life and has a right to life or you do not. There are severe flaws likening abortion to some other social issues for the purposes of a privacy rights discussion. It is very different given it involves the creation of another human.

 

[Reddawg4429]

A collection of cells that wouldn't live outside the woman's body before 24 weeks.....against my personal freedoms. Yeah I'm going to choose me over that scenario. That said, I think abolitions should be heavily regulated past the 20 to 24 week mark or the point of viability....but before viability myself or my partner come first.

Should the government now have the right to outlaw men from "choking the chicken" unless it's into a female or your wife or a personal of the same race?

So a collection of cells with a heartbeat. A beating heart in a child. And not a single child can survive without someone caring for him/her for several years following birth. Does that mean it's okay to kill them?

You accused someone earlier of making a strawman argument, and then you demonstrate one perfectly with your chicken choking comment.

The fact you don't see your own hypocrisy is laughable to me.

 

[Zonadog]

other issues this will affect. Thomas has already said

"Reproductive rights could be the first of the privacy rights to disappear for many Americans–but it won’t stop there. Emboldened anti-privacy advocates are already turning their attention to restricting access to other areas of reproductive health, marriage rights, and any number of issues that should be considered personal and off limits.

Also, some states are even pushing "Personhood Bills" that say life begins at contraception. This is personal to me because I had my son via IVF. In states where PB are enacted fertility clinics will particularly go out of business due to the embryos that are formed during the IVF process will now be considered "people" and due all the same protections. Thomas in is concurring opinions has said contraception and gay marriage should be relooked at...what limits are there now from government intervening into individual personal life.

Regardless of your personal opinion on abortions how can you have individual freedom without privacy from the government?

Commentary: Overturning Roe v. Wade is more than just an assault on reproductive rights

Reproductive rights could be the first of the privacy rights to disappear for many Americans–but it won’t stop there.

fortune.com

Not to rain on your parade too much, but literally no one is saying "life begins at contraception."

 

[Bells76]

"arguing about something that may happen is a waste" ~ Isn't this what the right does

Would your personal freedom trump another's right to life without you spreading a deadly disease to them?

I don’t know, are you a member of the right? I’m not.

 

[cherrydawg]

The left cannot be happy unless the government forces all of us to accept and pay for unlimited human baby murders and sex change operations for trannies and drag queen party’s for elementary children. A sick disgusting perverted group one and all. You don’t supporter those acts and get to claim normalcy.

 

[shonuff253]

Not to rain on your parade too much, but literally no one is saying "life begins at contraception."

Sorry meant conception

 

[shonuff253]

So a collection of cells with a heartbeat. A beating heart in a child. And not a single child can survive without someone caring for him/her for several years following birth. Does that mean it's okay to kill them?

You accused someone earlier of making a strawman argument, and then you demonstrate one perfectly with your chicken choking comment.

The fact you don't see your own hypocrisy is laughable to me.

No no no a strawman is one opinion or point of view that is mischaracterized in such a way to defend it is folly. My OP is about how overturning Roe V. Wade has unintended consequences, one of which is a personal experience that I have gone through. That was then mischaracterized as privacy = killing babies which funny enough is not what I was arguing...that's a strawman.

Now my post about choking the chicken was an example given to debate does this ruling opens the possibility for such a law to be put in place. Now I will admit I was being a bit facetious making that statement and it is a bit extreme but totally in line with the loss of privacy to the state.

 

[Zonadog]

Sorry meant conception

I know, but it had to be done.

 

[nice marmot]

No no no a strawman is one opinion or point of view that is mischaracterized in such a way to defend it is folly. My OP is about how overturning Roe V. Wade has unintended consequences, one of which is a personal experience that I have gone through. That was then mischaracterized as privacy = killing babies which funny enough is not what I was arguing...that's a strawman.

Now my post about choking the chicken was an example given to debate does this ruling opens the possibility for such a law to be put in place. Now I will admit I was being a bit facetious making that statement and it is a bit extreme but totally in line with the loss of privacy to the state.

the bans on women traveling to other states to get reproductive care are gonna make america great again I guess.

 

[Cotton Dawg]

the bans on women traveling to other states to get reproductive care are gonna make america great again I guess.

I’m sorry but I must have missed it. Is there a law in place that prevents travel to other states to get reproductive care?

 

[New Coach HC]

The left is screaming that the Republicans are taking certain rights away and yet they find nothing wrong with the government telling us who we have to hire, who we have to sell our house to, who we have to associate with.

 

[Cotton Dawg]

The left is screaming that the Republicans are taking certain rights away and yet they find nothing wrong with the government telling us who we have to hire, who we have to sell our house to, who we have to associate with.

Don’t forget about the pronouns!

 

[nice marmot]

I’m sorry but I must have missed it. Is there a law in place that prevents travel to other states to get reproductive care?

It is coming.

 

[Whosyodawgy]

other issues this will affect. Thomas has already said

"Reproductive rights could be the first of the privacy rights to disappear for many Americans–but it won’t stop there. Emboldened anti-privacy advocates are already turning their attention to restricting access to other areas of reproductive health, marriage rights, and any number of issues that should be considered personal and off limits.

Also, some states are even pushing "Personhood Bills" that say life begins at contraception. This is personal to me because I had my son via IVF. In states where PB are enacted fertility clinics will particularly go out of business due to the embryos that are formed during the IVF process will now be considered "people" and due all the same protections. Thomas in is concurring opinions has said contraception and gay marriage should be relooked at...what limits are there now from government intervening into individual personal life.

Regardless of your personal opinion on abortions how can you have individual freedom without privacy from the government?

Commentary: Overturning Roe v. Wade is more than just an assault on reproductive rights

Reproductive rights could be the first of the privacy rights to disappear for many Americans–but it won’t stop there.

fortune.com

Unconstitutionality is the reason Roe was rightly overturned. Unconstitutionality in the other direction would have to come from the individual states. I suppose it is within the realm of possibility but getting anti privacy legislation through a state legislature will not be easy and then it would be immediately challenged in court and stand little chance of surviving ... kinda like a baby in an abortion clinic.

 

[sanforddawg11]

It is coming.

Lol

 

[Cotton Dawg]

It is coming.

Says who?

 

[nice marmot]

Lol

I mean - you can laugh...

Abortion-Travel Bans Are `Next Frontier’ With Roe Set to Topple

There’s a clear view of what a world without Roe v. Wade would look like in terms of the law because conservatives have been working for decades to limit abortion access.

news.bloomberglaw.com

 

[nice marmot]

Says who?

Lawyers and GOP electeds.

I bet you there is a case in front of SCOTUS to this effect within five years. How they rule is another question...

Kavanaugh seems to draw a line but we know how reliable what he says is...

 

[shonuff253]

Unconstitutionality is the reason Roe was rightly overturned. Unconstitutionality in the other direction would have to come from the individual states. I suppose it is within the realm of possibility but getting anti privacy legislation through a state legislature will not be easy and then it would be immediately challenged in court and stand little chance of surviving ... kinda like a baby in an abortion clinic.

So what does your statement have to do with Roe being about privacy and not abortion..... Because that's what my original post was about.

What does your post have to do about the unintended consequences of the repeal of Roe...which is what my I
original post was about.

This gives state government more power over your privacy and not less.

 

[Whosyodawgy]

the bans on women traveling to other states to get reproductive care are gonna make america great again I guess.

I don't like same sex marriage but I have to agree that Constitutionally it cannot be forbidden. Roe is without foundation in the document and rightly returned to the purview of the states. That is all that happened. You are off the chain pal. This is childish, hyperbolic overreaction.

 

[nice marmot]

I don't like same sex marriage but I have to agree that Constitutionally it cannot be forbidden. Roe is without foundation in the document and rightly returned to the purview of the states. That is all that happened. You are off the chain pal. This is childish, hyperbolic overreaction.

I shared an article about the ongoing / upcoming debate. I am neither being childish or hyperbolic. merely factual.

It is coming before the court.

 

[shonuff253]

I don't like same sex marriage but I have to agree that Constitutionally it cannot be forbidden. Roe is without foundation in the document and rightly returned to the purview of the states. That is all that happened. You are off the chain pal. This is childish, hyperbolic overreaction.

Here's the thing, it's not childish or hyperbolic after today because this what Thomas and sure Alito think....they said it today. So same sex marriage and equal protect for LGBTQ is going to come back up to the SCOTUS because of this ruling. This is why I made this post because a lot of people don't realize it's not about abortion but the erosion of privacy rights in this country.

Clarence Thomas ~ “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell” — referring to three cases having to do with Americans’ fundamental privacy, due process and equal protection rights.

Justice Thomas: SCOTUS ‘should reconsider’ contraception, same-sex marriage rulings

Democrats warned that the court would seek to undo other constitutional rights if it overturned Roe v. Wade, as it did on Friday.

www.politico.com

 

[shonuff253]

I shared an article about the ongoing / upcoming debate. I am neither being childish or hyperbolic. merely factual.

It is coming before the court.

Exactly...I just posted an article from Politico detailing the coming privacy battles.

 

[nice marmot]

Here's the thing, it's not childish or hyperbolic after today because this what Thomas and sure Alito think....they said it today. So same sex marriage and equal protect for LGBTQ is going to come back up to the SCOTUS because of this ruling. This is why I made this post because a lot of people don't realize it's not about abortion but the erosion of privacy rights in this country.

Clarence Thomas ~ “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell” — referring to three cases having to do with Americans’ fundamental privacy, due process and equal protection rights.

Justice Thomas: SCOTUS ‘should reconsider’ contraception, same-sex marriage rulings

Democrats warned that the court would seek to undo other constitutional rights if it overturned Roe v. Wade, as it did on Friday.

www.politico.com

The whole hyperbolic and childish thing is the same stuff said to those who worried and were told (as well by no less than three sitting judges) that roe was settled precedent and could never be overturned.

 

[Whosyodawgy]

So what does your statement have to do with Roe being about privacy and not abortion..... Because that's what my original post was about.

What does your post have to do about the unintended consequences of the repeal of Roe...which is what my I
original post was about.

This gives state government more power over your privacy and not less.

My statement, perhaps poorly, that overreach by individual states will not survive a court challenge either.
And, such overreach will certainly be immediately challenged.

 

[Whosyodawgy]

The whole hyperbolic and childish thing is the same stuff said to those who worried and were told (as well by no less than three sitting judges) that roe was settled precedent and could never be overturned.

None of them said that.

 

[nice marmot]

None of them said that.

they did. and Casey as prescedent upon prescedent.

not that anyone except Susan Collins and a couple other Senators believed them at the time. but that's not the point.

 

[Whosyodawgy]

I shared an article about the ongoing / upcoming debate. I am neither being childish or hyperbolic. merely factual.

It is coming before the court.

Did this SCOTUS decision not get it through your head that this majority favors the letter of the Constitution? If a matter has Constitutional foundation it will stand. If not, it will fall.
Trust the Constitution. This SCOTUS is easy to predict because they go by the document as all SCOTUS are supposed to.

 

[Whosyodawgy]

they did. and Casey as prescedent upon prescedent.

not that anyone believed them at the time. but that's not the point.

Wrong. Go back and listen. All SCOTUS nominees answer loaded questions the same way except for stupid ones. They get rejected.