Roe vs. Wade.....

[JaneV2.0]

Embryos are composed of human tissue; that's as far as science seems to go. You can't claim your fetus as a dependent, or list it in the census, for example.

ETA: and don't try to pull off that "but officer, it's a person!" ploy next time you're driving alone in the car pool lane. That's been tried.

[Alan]

I thought the Supreme Court said today that they were not weighing in on whether or not the unborn is a person worthy of constitutional rights, a person in the legal sense.

And I think rightly so, that should be done in Congress.

[frugal-one]

Brett Kavanaugh, under oath "Roe is an important precedent. Roe and Casey have been reaffirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent.

Neil Gorsuch, under oath. "Roe v. Wade...is a precedent of SCOTUS. It has been reaffirmed... A good judge will consider it as precedent."

John Roberts, under oath, "Roe is settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. It is settled."

Apparently being honest is not a trait we should expect of supreme court justices anymore.

conservative republicans at work

[frugal-one]

I wouldn't consider filling existing vacancies to be 'packing'. To me, court packing would be along the lines of Democrats fairly recent plan to increase the number of justices in order to get their preferred ideologues on board.

Plus, the will of the people will be honored through the democratic process in their respective states. That's how it should work.

No longer with all the gerrymandering and voter suppression by the republicans. WI is a prime example.

[iris lilies]

And I think rightly so, that should be done in Congress.

Ok, but This circles back to my question a screen or two ago – what can Congress do about this, what legal right does it have to make laws about abortion?

[Alan]

Ok, but This circles back to my question a screen or two ago – what can Congress do about this, what legal right does it have to make laws about abortion?

Since abortion is obviously a states rights issue based upon any reading of the 10th Amendment, I'd guess they would have to use something like my civil rights example to sneak up on it or do the right thing and go through the constitutional amendment process and hope to get enough support from the states to ratify.

[Rogar]

After several years of listening to others being chided by the 'party of science', I'd suggest we follow the science on this one.

I honestly don't have a strong opinion on abortion, but would like to defend the integrity of science.

"New abortion laws say it's clear when life starts. Biology can't agree.


New research didn't bring an irrefutable answer to when the start of life is. Instead, the question got more complicated."

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/new-abortion-laws-say-its-clear-when-life-starts-biology-cant-agree

[ApatheticNoMore]

And it wasn't even a question on the definition of life, but of a person. I don't know how one expects science to answer that, as if it was an actual testable question like: does the vaccine prevent various outcomes of covid? Something like that is what is what we are comparing it to?

[iris lilies]

Since abortion is obviously a states rights issue based upon any reading of the 10th Amendment, I'd guess they would have to use something like my civil rights example to sneak up on it or do the right thing and go through the constitutional amendment process and hope to get enough support from the states to ratify.

Congress doesn’t have much legal right, then.

[JaneV2.0]

Ok, but This circles back to my question a screen or two ago – what can Congress do about this, what legal right does it have to make laws about abortion?

Congress can't do anything about it as long as there's a filibuster and intransigent Republican senators. There are hundreds of House-passed bills that Mitch McConnell hasn't even allowed to come to a vote. This government is positively dysfunctional, and I lay that at the feet of Republicans who refuse to do their jobs.