Supreme Court madness.

woodbine

The American supreme court has imho made two idiotic decisions this week, the first by agreeing that all Americans have the right to carry guns in public..really?

The second decision today has overturned the right to choose about abortion, and 13 states are already enacting laws to outlaw abortion.

In the year 2022 surely women have the right to chose.

calcotti

woodbine said: In the year 2022 surely women have the right to chose.

Unfortunately not but I would completely agree with the proposition that women should have the right to chose.

leeCal

I think the decision is bizarre.

Tori_Scope

Teddybear12 said:

Just means we will go back to the days of back street abortions. Very sad.

You can't ban abortion, only safe abortion, as they say. I was saddened to see this in the news today too. 

BillYNWA

Unfortunately this is the result of the Trump presidency and his reliance on the Right Wing 'Christian, Fundamentalists. He loaded the Supreme Court with a built in majority of those Judges holding right wing views.
It is a woman's right to choose what happens to her body. These bigots are banning abortions even in the case of rape victims and possible fatal consequences for the mother and/or child at birth. I am not religious but object to these people calling themselves Christian. If they have read the teachings of Jesus Christ, as portrayed in the New Testaments, they would not be racist, misogynist,death penalty supporting dangerous brainless idiots. My views as a humanist are more in line with the ethos of the New Testament than any of them.
Unfortunately we have our own problems in Northern Ireland over abortion rights.

calcotti

The dissenting opinion by three of the judges is very interesting in that it has nothing to do with womens rights but, as I understand, highlights the importance of a court following precedent unless circumstances have changed so much that a previous ruling is no longer fit for purpose. They highlight that if a court is seen to be subject to opinion rather than the law then the court undermines itself and the rule of law.

Biblioklept

calcotti said:

The dissenting opinion by three of the judges is very interesting in that it has nothing to do with womens rights but, as I understand, highlights the importance of a court following precedent unless circumstances have changed so much that a previous ruling is no longer fit for purpose. They highlight that if a court is seen to be subject to opinion rather than the law then the court undermines itself and the rule of law.

I don't think I have fully understood this, so they're saying they had to remove the right to choose because otherwise they'd be undermining themselves? 

calcotti

Biblioklept said:

calcotti said:

The dissenting opinion by three of the judges is very interesting in that it has nothing to do with womens rights but, as I understand, highlights the importance of a court following precedent unless circumstances have changed so much that a previous ruling is no longer fit for purpose. They highlight that if a court is seen to be subject to opinion rather than the law then the court undermines itself and the rule of law.

I don't think I have fully understood this, so they're saying they had to remove the right to choose because otherwise they'd be undermining themselves? 

The opposite, the dissenting judges say that by not following the precedent (Wade v Roe which established the right to choose) the Supreme Court decision undermines respect for the Supreme Court itself and destabilises the law generally.

Biblioklept

Oh phew that makes more sense sorry I was being stupid! I just don't understand the decision at all. The more "progress" made in some areas, the harder others dig down and drag us backwards. 
It's a mad decision and so very sad for everyone. 

L_Volunteer

Never stupid @Biblioklept. Everything is just always a learning curve. It is difficult to understand these things.

Not least, as you said, when progress is made in some areas it is taken away from other areas! We like good in this world so it is difficult to understand 

AndrewHall

Women have the rights to choose but who is listening to the rights of babies to live and become a grown man/woman.  Let's give women the rights to give unwanted babies away for adoptions.

vikingqueen

Really @AndrewHall so the 13 year old abused by her stepfather or the woman attacked by a stranger has to carry a baby for 9 months! Giving birth isn't a walk in the park, why should women be subjected to the trauma it could cause. I think you have opened the hornets nest with your comment 
    Rant over, sorry in advance if I upset anyone with my views.

woodbine

@AndrewHall in every country that allows women to choose and the right to have an abortion it is only allowed upto the point where the "baby" would not survive usually 24 weeks, so the argument doesn't really mean much sorry.

Lisatho11987777

As a woman in a modern world  and hopefuly won't upset people  if women don't want a baby there are so many ways to stop yourself from getting pregnant you  can stop yourself getting pregnant  women can take control  by tskeing the pill , haveing the coil fitted  haveing the injections  using the morning after pill  in this day and age women need to be responsible  

If women don't want a baby then they have a choice of how to stop getting pregnant  abortion is not a contraception  what choice does the unborn baby have 

If women realy don't want to have babys at all you can get sterilised sorry but these are my feelings  these days there are no excuses for unwanted children and unwanted pregnancys 

There are to many teenage pregnancies people need to be educated 

Biblioklept

AndrewHall said:

Women have the rights to choose but who is listening to the rights of babies to live and become a grown man/woman.  Let's give women the rights to give unwanted babies away for adoptions.

I have a question @AndrewHall. If I was dying and needed a kidney and you were a match, should a court be able to decide you have to give it to me, even against your will? Despite any risks to you or how it may impact your situation? 
They reason they can't without your consent is because you have body autonomy. They can't even take organs from corpses without permission because of body autonomy, even if it's so save someone else's life. So why is a corpse afforded more autonomy than a woman? 

Biblioklept

I couldn’t see myself ever getting an abortion but not liking something doesn’t mean I can’t believe that other people should have the right to choose for themselves.
It can be made illegal in even instances of ectopic pregnancies, assault, incest or where the mother and baby have no hope of surviving, that is disgusting.
Whatever view people have on abortion, the fact that women's rights to body autonomy is being stripped away is terrifying.
Do you know one of the Justice's called for revisiting Griswold (this was the decision for married couples to have a constitutional right to use contraceptive)? It's a scary and slippery slope. And I don't even have words for the fact some of our MPs over here agree - at least any that could be posted on here. 

Lisatho11987777 said:

If women don't want a baby then they have a choice of how to stop getting pregnant  abortion is not a contraception  what choice does the unborn baby have 

This doesn't just impact unwanted pregnancies, it's pregnancies that could be life threatening to both mother and foetus, pregnancies outside of the womb, pregnancies that were forced on someone, it's all terminations. 
I agree abortion isn't contraception. It's healthcare.
"If abortion were used as a primary method of birth control, a typical woman would have at least two or three pregnancies per year -- 30 or more during her lifetime."

Lisatho11987777 said:

There are to many teenage pregnancies people need to be educated 

Teen pregnancies in the US have been declining since 1991 because of better education and access to contraception. Contraception use amongst teenagers has increased since it became available and affordable in the US. Abortion rates are actually highest for women in their 20s with them making up over 56% of all abortions in US. 

All this is irrelevant anyway, this decision isn't about "saving babies" at all. If it was there are hundreds of things they could be looking to do first. 

AndrewHall

Lisatho11987777 said:

As a woman in a modern world  and hopefuly won't upset people  if women don't want a baby there are so many ways to stop yourself from getting pregnant you  can stop yourself getting pregnant  women can take control  by tskeing the pill , haveing the coil fitted  haveing the injections  using the morning after pill  in this day and age women need to be responsible  

If women don't want a baby then they have a choice of how to stop getting pregnant  abortion is not a contraception  what choice does the unborn baby have 

If women realy don't want to have babys at all you can get sterilised sorry but these are my feelings  these days there are no excuses for unwanted children and unwanted pregnancys 

There are to many teenage pregnancies people need to be educated 

Well said. Thank you

vikingqueen

 @Lisatho11987777 the post is regarding the laws passed in America not what goes on in the UK.  

Lisatho11987777

@vikingqueen I know but it stands the same if you don't want a baby take contraception if a pregnancy is life threatening  they will be allowed to have an abortion but women fail to protect themselves from getting pregnant  in China or somewhere like that they are sterilised after their first child  if the pregnancy is caused by rape or abuse then thst is different 

Some of those women have had more than one abortion in America so I agree if they can't keep themselves from getting pregnant they should not be allowed to have an abortion children can be adopted there are plenty of people wanting to adopt  in America they have more clinics that give women free contraception including prostitutes  I have family is Los Angeles and there are large amounts of women getting pregnant and have had more than one abortion 

Biblioklept

That's the point @Lisatho11987777 they're not allowing it even if the pregnancy is life threatening or a product of rape or abuse. 
The CDC reports that the number one form of contraception used in the US in women between 15 and 40 IS female sterilisation. Did you know that even sterilisation isn't 100% effective? No contraception is. 

Before legal and safe abortions were a thing infanticide was commonplace? I won't link to articles as it's triggering and horrible reading but here's one quote that's pretty sobering "Based upon both historical and contemporary data, as many as 10 to 15 percent of all babies were killed by their parents."

vikingqueen

   @Lisatho11987777 so the child who is abused should have taken precautions just in case, the women attacked should have done the same, really. We are talking about the rights taken away from these girls and women to have a safe abortion in cases where pregnancy has been 'forced' on them. I'm sorry but your comments are flippant and not relevant to the original post.
  America has gone back a hundred years and will force women to back street abortionists and we all know how that could end.