Actually most women don't support abortion, especially late term.
It's the slutty, irresponsible ones that are having a hissy fit - and they're a minority.
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/dmn/N6YDEAROHZA2X6ZDD2C6ALXHPM.jpg)
Posted on 06/24/2022 4:19:49 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The end of Roe v. Wade is perhaps the greatest political and cultural event in a generation. It will change American politics forever, and — what’s more important — it will save the lives of countless unborn children. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs is a great victory for the U.S. Constitution, for the American people, and for justice and truth and the common good.
It is also a turning point. We should now expect Democrats and the left to call more explicitly for violence, initially against places like crisis pregnancy centers and Catholic churches, as we have already seen, and eventually against ordinary people who disagree with them. We should expect not just calls for physical attacks against the justices in the Dobbs majority, but, as we have also already seen, attempts to carry out such attacks.
This violence will likely be accompanied by rhetoric that more explicitly posits abortion not just as a positive good — “shout your abortion” — but a necessary one for women to enjoy their full rights as citizens under the Constitution. The argument, already gaining steam in public discourse, is that without a constitutional right to kill the unborn, women are relegated to a kind of second-class status, stripped of their full humanity. This rhetoric will be used in part as a justification for violence, but it also reflects the actual views of Democrats and the left on abortion.
Indeed, the very first paragraph of Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent in Dobbs makes this claim: “Respecting a woman as an autonomous being, and granting her full equality, meant giving her substantial choice over this most personal and most consequential of all life decisions.” Note the phrase “full equality.” Without a right to abortion, women do not have full equality, goes the argument.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
Why not just get an abortion before the 15 weeks? If raped, take the morning after pill, which many states allow.
Why put it off until you are past the restrictions…I don’t get it??
Shouldn’t there be a new holiday?
It would be June 22, A national day of celebration.
The National FREDD.
Fetal Rescue Escape Democrats Day
Granted, it will only have full effect in a list of special
states, but it is worthy of note. It will expand.
Shouldn’t there be a new holiday?It would be June 22, A national day of celebration.
How about June 24?
Yes, of course you’re right.
I had the year on the brain.
A bit of a stretch comparing the two.
And sadly, NO ONE EVER SAYS “TRUST GOD....HE CREATED THAT LIFE, SO HE HAS A PLAN....TRUST HIM....HE WILL REWARD YOU”.
In the interest of reciprocity, are they going to demand children have the right to kill their parents?
The problem with this argument is that slavery simply was not threatened in the US in 1860. Lincoln not only went to great pains to say publicly and repeatedly that he was no abolitionist (indeed abolitionists could not get more than single digit percentages of the vote anywhere in the US prior to that), but that he also supported strengthened fugitive slave laws. Here is one example:
“When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said the institution exists, and it is very difficult to get rid of in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would possibly be to free all slaves and send them to Liberia to their own native land. But a moment’s reflection would convince me that this would not be best for them. If they were all landed there in a day they would all perish in the next ten days, and there is not surplus money enough to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all and keep them among us as underlings. Is it quite certain that this would alter their conditions? Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of whites will not. We cannot make them our equals. A system of gradual emancipation might well be adopted, and I will not undertake to judge our Southern friends for tardiness in this matter. I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States — not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves.” Abraham Lincoln
Furthermore, Lincoln supported and indeed orchestrated the Corwin Amendment which was passed both houses of the US Congress with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority after the congressional delegations of the original 7 seceding states had already left. Lincoln further endorsed it in his all important inaugural address:
“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service.......There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that— I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them,”
The Southern states - even the original 7 seceding states - did not secede over slavery. There was no need to do so. Slavery was not threatened in the US. The writers at the Federalist need a history lesson.
You have to laugh when Democrats bring up this whole argument about how the Constitution was written long ago by dead white guys and how those dead white guys do not match up to the social mores of today.
OK. True. And completely IRRELEVANT.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It simply does not matter who wrote it or how long ago. It remains current law. If you do not like something in it, persuade enough of your fellow citizens as to the rightness of your cause and get an amendment passed. Its that simple. 2/3rds, 2/3rds and 3/4ths. That’s what you need. Get to it if you feel so strongly about it.
150+ years ago, in the Dred Scott case, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney said “you know, if black people are citizens they’ll be able to carry guns... eek!”
Now, Justice Clarence Thomas says “you’re damn straight we will!”
What planet are you from?
Successful violence will come only in Democrat cities for which I will raise an eyebrow at worst. In other cities there is a solid chance of armed pushback. The leftists have guns now and carry them in their riots but they are not yet ready to face an armed population ready to commit self defense and property defense against them.
“it will save the lives of countless unborn children.”
Unfortunately,it will do no such thing. Uber liberal states will probably make it even easier to get an abortion - in revenge. And in those states where abortion may become more restricted, the women who want to kill their unborn can just go on a little vacation to a nearby state and do the deed.
This ruling was much more about states rights than abortion. Don’t expect the number of abortions to go down much if at all.
Actually they can go a much easier route. Just pass a federal law that does what Roe v Wade did.
Actually most women don't support abortion, especially late term.
It's the slutty, irresponsible ones that are having a hissy fit - and they're a minority.
Does federal law supersede state law? In any case, I was sort of tongue in cheek. A “right to abortion” means doctors must first be given a license to kill, which sort of violates their Hippocratic oath to do no harm. And also, nowhere in the Constitution does a person have a “right” to any kind of service other than basic infrastructure. The while “right to abortion” idea is just plain screwed up. But then, Leftists don’t understand what democracy or a republic is.
“Does federal law supersede state law?”
Yes, article VI.
“A “right to abortion” means doctors must first be given a license to kill, which sort of violates their Hippocratic oath to do no harm.”
No, that would be true if a fetus was legally declared a “person” . That’s the essence of the abortion debate - is a fetus a person and if so when in the gestation period?
“And also, nowhere in the Constitution does a person have a “right” to any kind of service other than basic infrastructure.”
The constitution doesn’t mention what services one can avail himself of. That’s left to congress or the states.
The title is referring to the original Roe decision back in the 70s.
Article VI of the Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."
So, yes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.