Here Is a State-by-State Rundown of What Will Happen Now That SCOTUS Has Freed Lawmakers To Restrict Abortion
Most states are unlikely to enact bans, but 22 either have them already or probably will soon.

By repudiating Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that said women have a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, the Supreme Court has freed states to set their own abortion policies. But the impact of the new leeway allowed by the Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization will vary widely across the country. While severe restrictions will be enacted or take effect in many states, abortion will remain legal in most.
Thirteen states have "trigger" bans that are designed to take effect after Roe is overturned. Some of those states, plus others, have enacted laws that were enjoined based on Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed Roe's "central holding." Several states do not currently have bans but are expected to enact them in response to Dobbs, which overturned both of those precedents.
Some states never repealed pre-Roe bans. Politico notes that "court action will likely be necessary to determine whether states' pre-Roe abortion bans can take effect or enjoined laws restricting access to the procedure can be lifted, a process legal experts anticipate could take weeks to months."
Existing statutes range from bans like the Mississippi law upheld in Dobbs, which prohibits abortion after 15 weeks of gestation, to nearly complete prohibitions like the trigger laws. In between are "heartbeat" laws that prohibit abortion after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which typically happens around six weeks into a pregnancy, when women may not even realize they are pregnant.
In terms of practical impact, the cutoff makes a huge difference. Even states that generally allow abortion often restrict it after "viability," the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb. The dividing line for viability is generally placed around 24 weeks of gestation. In 2019, according to data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), just 1 percent of abortions in the United States were performed at 21 weeks or later. Only 4 percent were performed after 15 weeks. But 57 percent were performed after six weeks, and some of the rest also would be covered by the "heartbeat" laws.
Most states are unlikely to ban abortion. In some, abortion rights are protected by statute, by judicial interpretations of state constitutions, or both. In others, there is not enough political support to enact new restrictions.
Here is a state-by-state rundown of what we can expect now that the Supreme Court has decided the Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion after all. Red indicates the 22 states that are certain or likely to soon impose or start enforcing new restrictions on abortion, ranging from moderate to severe. Green indicates the 23 states where abortion will remain broadly legal. Blue indicates the five states where new restrictions are unlikely in the short term but are possible in the longer term, depending on electoral outcomes or judicial decisions.
***
Alabama
Abortion will be severely restricted. In 2019, Republican Gov. Kay Ivey signed into law a bill that bans abortion at any stage of pregnancy with a few narrow exceptions, including "cases where abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother." Because of a federal injunction, the law never took effect, but the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs opens the door to lifting that injunction.
Alaska
Abortion will remain broadly legal. In 1997, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution protects "reproductive rights, including abortion."
Arizona
Abortion will be moderately or severely restricted. In March, Republican Gov. Doug Ducey signed into law a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of gestation except for medical emergencies. That law, which is similar to the Mississippi ban upheld in Dobbs, takes effect in late September. It does not affect the vast majority of abortions: In 2019, according to the CDC's data, 95 percent of Arizona abortions were performed at 15 weeks or earlier. But Arizona also has a stricter law, banning abortion at any stage of pregnancy except when necessary to save the mother's life, that was enjoined after Roe but has not been repealed and might be enforced now that Roe has been overturned.
Arkansas
Abortion will be severely restricted. In 2021, Gov. Asa Hutchinson signed into law a ban on abortion except for life-threatening medical emergencies. A federal judge blocked enforcement of the law, which would have taken effect last summer, based on the abortion precedents that the Supreme Court has now overturned. Arkansas also has a trigger law, enacted in 2019, that prohibits abortion except when a pregnancy endangers a woman's life. That law takes effect after the state attorney general certifies that Roe's central holding has been reversed.
California
Abortion will remain broadly legal. In 1969, four years before Roe, the California Supreme Court ruled that the state's abortion ban was inconsistent with the California constitution's guarantee of due process. Under a 2002 law, "The state may not deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose or obtain an abortion prior to viability of the fetus, or when the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman."
Colorado
Abortion will remain broadly legal. The Reproductive Health Equity Act, passed this year, codified the right to terminate a pregnancy.
Connecticut
Abortion will remain broadly legal. A state law says "the decision to terminate a pregnancy prior to the viability of the fetus shall be solely that of the pregnant woman in consultation with her physician." It adds that "no abortion may be performed upon a pregnant woman after viability of the fetus except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman."
Delaware
Abortion will remain broadly legal. Delaware's law is similar to Connecticut's, saying "a physician may terminate, assist in the termination of, or attempt the termination of a human pregnancy before viability." It allows post-viability abortions when, "in the good faith medical judgment of the physician, the termination is necessary for the protection of the woman's life or health or in the event of a fetal anomaly for which there is not a reasonable likelihood of the fetus's sustained survival outside the uterus without extraordinary medical measures."
Florida
Abortion could be moderately restricted. A 1980 amendment to Florida's constitution explicitly protects the "right of privacy," saying "every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into his private life except as otherwise provided herein." That right, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in 1989, "is clearly implicated in a woman's decision of whether or not to continue her pregnancy." But the court will soon have a majority appointed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, which suggests the 1989 precedent could be modified or reversed when the court consider a ban on abortion after 15 weeks that DeSantis signed into law in April. That law, which takes effect on July 1, would affect less than 4 percent of abortions in Florida, according to the CDC's data.
Georgia
Abortion will be severely restricted. A 2019 law prohibits abortion after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, around six weeks into a pregnancy. The law was scheduled to take effect at the beginning of 2020, but it was blocked by a federal judge based on the Supreme Court's pre-Dobbs abortion precedents. In 2019, according to the CDC's numbers, 56 percent of abortions in Georgia were performed after six weeks; 44 percent were performed at six weeks or earlier, and some of those abortions also would be covered by the state's ban.
Hawaii
Abortion will remain broadly legal. Hawaii legalized abortion three years before Roe, and state law currently says "the State shall not deny or interfere with a female's right to choose or obtain an abortion of a nonviable fetus or an abortion that is necessary to protect the life or health of the female."
Idaho
Abortion will be severely restricted. This year Idaho enacted a six-week abortion ban, modeled after a Texas law that took effect in September, that authorizes private lawsuits to enforce that restriction. The law was scheduled to take effect on April 22, but the Idaho Supreme Court temporarily blocked it pending a legal challenge. In 2019, according to the CDC's data, two-thirds of abortions in Idaho were performed after six weeks; one-third were performed at six weeks or earlier, and some of those abortions would be affected by the state ban.
Idaho also has a trigger law, enacted in 2020, that takes effect 30 days after Roe's reversal. That law makes performing an abortion at any stage of pregnancy a felony punishable by two to five years in prison. It allows an affirmative defense when a physician has "determined, in his good faith medical judgment and based on the facts known to the physician at the time, that the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman." The law also makes exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.
Illinois
Abortion will remain broadly legal. The Illinois Supreme Court has interpreted the state constitution's guarantee of due process as encompassing a right to pre-viability abortion. The Reproductive Health Act, approved in 2019, recognizes "a fundamental right" to "have an abortion." It allows abortion after viability "if, in the professional judgment of the health care professional, the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the patient."
Indiana
Abortion is likely to be restricted by the Republican-controlled legislature, although it's not clear to what extent. In March, 100 of the 110 Republicans in the Indiana General Assembly signed a letter asking Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb to call a special session as soon as possible "should the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling [in Dobbs] expand Indiana's ability to protect unborn children." On Wednesday, Holcomb announced a special session beginning on July 6 to consider tax rebates, but the legislature also could pass an abortion bill.
In response to a 2020 Vote Smart survey, Holcomb said "abortion should always be illegal." But last month, when asked whether he supported a blanket ban without exceptions should the Supreme Court overturn Roe, he was cagey. "I have a hard time being the person that's part of taking of a life," he said. "And I'll review the decision that has impact on that."
Iowa
Abortion is likely to be severely restricted. This month the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution does not protect a right to abortion, reversing a 2018 precedent to the contrary. That decision could allow enforcement of a previously enjoined 2018 law banning abortion after fetal cardiac activity can be detected. Judging from the CDC's data, that ban would affect most abortions in Iowa.
Kansas
Abortion will remain broadly legal. In 2019, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution's Bill of Rights, which says "all men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," protects "a woman's right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy."
Kentucky
Abortion will be severely restricted. This year Kentucky enacted a 15-week ban similar to Mississippi's, which would affect about 6 percent of abortions in that state. But Kentucky also has a trigger law, enacted in 2019, that prohibits abortion at any stage of pregnancy. The only exception is for cases where an abortion is "necessary in reasonable medical judgment to prevent the death or substantial risk of death due to a physical condition, or to prevent the serious, permanent impairment of a life-sustaining organ of a pregnant woman." That law takes effect immediately after Roe's reversal.
Louisiana
Abortion will be severely restricted. In 2019, Louisiana enacted a six-week ban, which would affect most but not all abortions in that state. But Louisiana also has a "trigger law," enacted in 2006, that makes all abortions illegal except when necessary to save a pregnant woman's life. It takes effect immediately after Roe's reversal.
Maine
Abortion will remain broadly legal. A 1993 law says the state will "not restrict a woman's exercise of her private decision to terminate a pregnancy before viability." Post-viability abortions are permitted if the mother's life or health would otherwise be endangered.
Maryland
Abortion will remain broadly legal. Under state law, the government "may not interfere with the decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy…before the fetus is viable." Abortion is permitted after viability if "the termination procedure is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman" or if "the fetus is affected by genetic defect or serious deformity or abnormality."
Massachusetts
Abortion will remain broadly legal. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has held that abortion access is protected by the state constitution's guarantee of due process. The 2020 ROE Act codified a general right to abortion before 24 weeks of gestation. Abortion is permitted at 24 weeks or later "if it is necessary, in the best medical judgment of the physician, to preserve the life of the patient, if it is necessary, in the best medical judgment of the physician, to preserve the patient's physical or mental health or, in the best medical judgment of the physician, an abortion is warranted because of a lethal fetal anomaly or the fetus is incompatible with sustained life outside the uterus."
Michigan
New restrictions are unlikely in the short term. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat in the last year of her first term who will be seeking reelection in November, supports abortion rights. Both chambers of the state legislature are controlled by Republicans, but they do not have veto-proof majorities.
Michigan has a pre-Roe ban that is still on the books. Last month, a state judge temporarily enjoined enforcement of that 1931 law pending a legal challenge by Planned Parenthood, saying there was a "strong likelihood" that the organization would prevail. Michigan Court of Claims Judge Elizabeth Gleicher ruled that the state constitution's protection of "bodily integrity" includes a right to abortion, because "the link between the right to bodily integrity and the decision whether to bear a child is an obvious one."
Minnesota
Abortion will remain broadly legal. In 1995, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that "the right of privacy under the Minnesota Constitution encompasses a woman's right to decide to terminate her pregnancy."
Mississippi
Abortion will be severely restricted. Mississippi's 15-week ban, which applies "except in medical emergency and in cases of severe fetal abnormality," is the law that the Supreme Court upheld in Dobbs. The CDC's numbers indicate that the ban covers less than 1 percent of abortions in Mississippi. But Mississippi also has a six-week ban, enacted in 2019, and a trigger law, enacted in 2007, that says "no abortion shall be performed or induced in the State of Mississippi, except in the case where necessary for the preservation of the mother's life or where the pregnancy was caused by rape." The latter law takes effect after Mississippi's attorney general "certifies in an opinion to the Governor" that Dobbs makes it "reasonably probable that the provision would be upheld as constitutional."
Missouri
Abortion will be severely restricted. Missouri has a trigger law, enacted in 2019, that prohibits all abortions "except in cases of medical emergency." The ban takes effect after Roe's reversal is recognized by an opinion from the attorney general, a proclamation by the governor, or a concurrent resolution by the state legislature.
Montana
Abortion will remain broadly legal. In 1999, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that the "right of privacy" guaranteed by the state constitution protects "procreative freedom," including the right to obtain a pre-viability abortion.
Nebraska
New restrictions are likely. Last month, Gov. Pete Ricketts, a Republican, said he would call a special session of the state legislature to consider a blanket ban on abortion, without exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. Nebraska's unicameral legislature is controlled by Republicans, who hold 32 of the 49 seats. But it's not clear that legislators are prepared to go as far as Ricketts would like: In April, a proposed trigger ban that would have allowed abortion only when necessary to save the mother's life fell two votes short of the 33 necessary for cloture.
Nevada
Abortion will remain broadly legal. In 1990, Nevada voters overwhelmingly approved a referendum that barred the state legislature from restricting abortion at 24 weeks of gestation or earlier without the approval of voters.
New Hampshire
New restrictions are unlikely. Abortion currently is legal up to 24 weeks, and last month Gov. Chris Sununu, a Republican serving his third two-year term, said he was committed to keeping it that way. "I'm a pro-choice governor," he declared, "and as long as I'm governor, we're going to remain a pro-choice state." The Center for Reproductive Rights predicts that "abortion will remain accessible in New Hampshire."
New Jersey
Abortion will remain broadly legal. In 1982, the New Jersey Supreme Court recognized "the fundamental right of a woman to control her body and destiny," including "the choice to terminate a pregnancy or bear a child." A 2022 law codifies that guarantee, saying every resident "shall have the fundamental right" to "choose whether to carry a pregnancy, to give birth, or to terminate a pregnancy."
New Mexico
Abortion will remain broadly legal. The state legislature is controlled by Democrats, who hold 27 of 42 seats in the Senate and 43 of 70 seats in the House of Representatives. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat who is seeking reelection this year, said she was "outraged and horrified" by the prospect of Roe's reversal.
New York
Abortion will remain broadly legal. A 2019 law protects "a woman's fundamental right to access safe, legal abortion" at 24 weeks of gestation or earlier. After 24 weeks, abortion is allowed when it is "necessary to protect the patient's life or health."
North Carolina
New restrictions are unlikely in the short term. Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat serving his second term, supports abortion rights. Republicans control both houses of the state legislature, but they do not have veto-proof majorities.
North Dakota
Abortion will be severely restricted. North Dakota has a trigger law, enacted in 2018, that bans abortion except "when necessary in professional judgment to prevent the pregnant female's death." That law takes effect when North Dakota's attorney general certifies that "it is reasonably probable that this Act would be upheld as constitutional" in light of a Supreme Court ruling.
Ohio
Abortion will be severely restricted. In 2019, Ohio enacted a six-week ban that would apply to roughly three-quarters of abortions performed in that state.
Oklahoma
Abortion will be severely restricted. This year Oklahoma enacted two abortion bans. One law, taking a cue from Texas, authorizes private lawsuits against anyone who performs or facilitates an abortion after fetal cardiac activity can be detected (i.e., around six weeks). The other law prohibits all abortions except "to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency." For good measure, Oklahoma also has a trigger law, enacted last year, that imposes a similarly broad ban. It takes effect once the state's attorney general certifies Roe's reversal.
Oregon
Abortion will remain broadly legal. In 1983, Oregon repealed all legal restrictions on abortion. In 2017, the state legislature went even further, approving a law that requires insurers to fully cover the cost of abortions.
Pennsylvania
New restrictions are unlikely in the short term. The Center for Reproductive Rights predicts that "abortion will remain accessible in Pennsylvania." Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat who is in the last year of his second term, supports abortion rights. Republicans control both houses of the state legislature, but they do not have veto-proof majorities. The Democratic nominee to replace Wolf in this year's election, Attorney General Josh Shapiro, likewise supports abortion rights.* But the Republican nominee, state Sen. Doug Mastriano, welcomes the demise of Roe, describes abortion as "science-denying genocide," and brags about sponsoring a "heartbeat bill" in 2019.
Rhode Island
Abortion will remain broadly legal. A 2019 law codifies the right to abortion, ruling out restrictions prior to viability and allowing post-viability abortions "when necessary to preserve the health or life" of a pregnant woman.
South Carolina
Abortion will be severely restricted. Last year, South Carolina enacted a six-week ban, which would apply to at least four-fifths of abortions performed in that state.
South Dakota
Abortion will be severely restricted. South Dakota has a trigger law, enacted in 2005, that bans abortion except when a woman's life is endangered by continuing a pregnancy. That law takes effect immediately after Roe's reversal.
Tennessee
Abortion will be severely restricted. Tennessee has a trigger law, enacted in 2019, that bans abortion except when "necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman." That law takes effect 30 days after Roe's reversal.
Texas
Abortion will be severely restricted. Actually, that has been true since last September, when a six-week ban took effect. The law evaded early judicial intervention by charging private litigants with enforcing it—the approach that Idaho and Oklahoma copied this year.
Based on 2019 data, the Texas ban would have affected roughly three-fifths of abortions performed in the state. After it took effect, the number of abortions performed by Texas clinics fell by nearly 60 percent. But taking into account women who used abortion pills or traveled to other states for the procedure, the net drop was probably more like 10 percent.
Texas also has a trigger law, enacted in 2019, that bans abortion except when continuing a pregnancy poses a risk of death or "substantial impairment of a major bodily function." That law takes effect 30 days after Roe's reversal.
Utah
Abortion will be severely restricted. Utah has a trigger law, enacted in 2020, that allows abortion when it is necessary to save the mother's life or avoid "a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of major bodily function." The law also includes exceptions for cases involving rape, incest, or a fetus with a "uniformly diagnosable" and "uniformly lethal" defect or a "severe brain abnormality" resulting in a "mentally vegetative state." Otherwise, abortion is prohibited. The ban takes effect after the legislative general counsel certifies that "a court of binding authority" has deemed such restrictions constitutional.
Vermont
Abortion will remain broadly legal. A 2019 law recognizes "the freedom of reproductive choice" as "a fundamental right." It prohibits "public entities" from "interfering with or restricting the right of an individual to terminate the individual's pregnancy."
Virginia
Abortion will remain broadly legal. Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, describes himself as "pro-life" and has said he supports a "pain threshold" bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of gestation. But Democrats control the state Senate, and that chamber's president pro tempore, L. Louise Lucas, promises that any such legislation would "run into a BRICK WALL." The Center for Reproductive Rights, which notes that the state legislature "repealed numerous medically unnecessary restrictions on abortion access" in 2020, predicts that "abortion will remain accessible in Virginia."
Washington
Abortion will remain broadly legal. State law says the government "may not deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose to have an abortion prior to viability of the fetus" or "to protect her life or health" after that point.
West Virginia
New restrictions are likely. In 2018, West Virginia voters approved a constitutional amendment stating that "nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of abortion." Gov. Jim Justice, a Republican, welcomes Roe's demise and describes West Virginia (accurately) as a "rock solid right-to-life state." Republicans control both chambers of the state legislature, and West Virginia still has a pre-Roe abortion ban on its books that could be enforced now that the Supreme Court has cleared the way.
Wisconsin
New restrictions are unlikely in the short term. Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat who is seeking reelection this year, supports abortion rights. Republicans control both chambers of the state legislature, but they do not have veto-proof majorities.
An 1849 law that is still on Wisconsin's books prohibits abortion except when necessary to save a pregnant woman's life. "I don't know if [the pre-Roe ban] is enforceable or not, but there isn't going to be anyone who performs abortion in Wisconsin for the time being because they don't want to take the risk," Lester Pines, founder and senior counsel at the Pines Bach law firm, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "The practical effect of this is, for the time being, women in Wisconsin who are seeking abortions will go to Illinois or Minnesota."
According to the Wisconsin Legislative Council, the Journal Sentinel says, the enforceability of the 1849 law is "a question that likely won't be answered definitively until a judge opines on the matter." The paper notes that "some legal experts believe subsequent abortion statutes repealed the original 1849 law."
Wyoming
Abortion will be severely restricted. This year Wyoming enacted a trigger law that prohibits abortion except in cases of rape or incest, or when continuing a pregnancy poses a "serious risk" of death or "substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function." The ban takes effect within 30 days of Roe's reversal, upon certification by the governor based on the attorney general's advice.
***
As the experience in Texas shows, banning abortion is not the same as eliminating it. Even with abortion bans in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana, Texas women can still travel to clinics in New Mexico, Colorado, or Kansas. They can also obtain abortion pills online, over the counter in Mexico, or in states where they remain legal.
Such workarounds entail additional costs, risks, and burdens, which will be especially daunting for women of modest means who live far from states where abortion remains legal. "A post-Roe United States isn't one in which abortion isn't legal at all," Middlebury College economist Caitlin Knowles Myers observed in an interview with The New York Times. "It's one in which there's tremendous inequality in abortion access."
The new obstacles will prove prohibitive in many cases, but not most. Research suggests that something like 80 percent of the women covered by the Texas "heartbeat" law managed to obtain abortions anyway. Last year, based on a scenario in which 22 states banned abortion, Myers projected that the annual number of abortions in the U.S. would fall by about 14 percent.
While Americans who view abortion as tantamount to murder will certainly welcome that sort of accomplishment, it is a far cry from the goal that pro-life activists have pursued since 1973. And while pro-choice activists are understandably dismayed when anyone is forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy, their outrage and energy can be channeled into efforts to address the inequality that Myers decries by helping women overcome the barriers that Dobbs allows states to erect.
*CORRECTION: This post originally misidentified the Democratic candidate for governor of Pennsylvania.
[This post has been updated with additional information about the pre-Roe abortion bans in Michigan and Wisconsin.]
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Who has first watch to stop ENB from hurting herself?
Fuck that, I hope she cuts her throat
She is just a clump of cells.
I'm earning 85 dollars/h to complete some work on a home computer. I not at all believed that it can be possible but my close friend earning $25k only within four weeks simply doing this top task as well as she has satisfied me to join.
Check further details by reaching this link..>> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
Immoral woman whores will be like, "Fuck! I'm barely conscious after all that heroin and I think 20 dudes just fucked me! I don't want to have a baby! Fuck!"
Immoral man whores will be like, "Fuck! I banged that chick the other night and then blacked out, what's her name, and now she is pregnant! Fuck! I thought I could just go down to my neighborhood clinic and get rid of that shit, but it closed down! Fuck!"
Meanwhile at reason.com:
Authoritarian court eliminates freedoms of the American people, what's next? Sex police?
You again? What's with the oversized pink font?
Aren't we all.
Aren’t we all just ugly bags of mostly water?
I'm earning 85 dollars/h to complete some work on a home computer. I not at all believed that it can be possible but my close friend earning $25k only within four weeks scs09 simply doing this top task as well as she has satisfied me to join.
Check further details by reaching this link..>> http://dollarspay12.tk
EvilBahnFuhrer, drinking EvilBahnFuhrer Kool-Aid in a spiraling vortex of darkness, cannot or will not see the Light… It’s a VERY sad song! Kinda like this…
He’s a real Kool-Aid Man,
Sitting in his Kool-Aid Land,
Playing with his Kool-Aid Gland,
His Hero is Jimmy Jones,
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jim-Jones
Loves death and the dying moans,
Then he likes to munch their bones!
Has no thoughts that help the people,
He wants to turn them all to sheeple!
On the sheeple, his Master would feast,
Master? A disaster! Just the nastiest Beast!
Kool-Aid man, please listen,
You don’t know, what you’re missin’,
Kool-Aid man, better thoughts are at hand,
The Beast, to LEAVE, you must COMMAND!
A helpful book is to be found here: M. Scott Peck, Glimpses of the Devil
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1439167265/reasonmagazinea-20/
Hey EvilBahnFuhrer …
If EVERYONE who makes you look bad, by being smarter and better-looking than you, killed themselves, per your wishes, then there would be NO ONE left!
Who would feed you? Who’s tits would you suck at, to make a living? WHO would change your perpetually-smelly DIAPERS?!!?
You’d better come up with a better plan, Stan!
Home income solution to enable everyone to work online and receive weekly payments to bank acct. Earn over $500 every day and get payouts every week straight to account bank. My last month of income was $30,390 and all I do is work up to 4 hours a day on my computer. Easy work and steady income are great with this job.
.
More information. >> https://dollarscash12.blogspot.com/
Please hire SQRLSY and take him away from here forever.
I thought libertarians were above wishing death to those with whom they disagree. It makes libertarians look bad to non-libertarians who visit the site. Maybe you're not a libertarian.
She better hope is ain't the guards that were 'watching' Epstein
Remember when reason wrote this?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/volokh/2018/09/09/why-settled-law-isnt-really-settled-and/%3famp
CA: You're only scratching the surface about what CA will do. CA government sees itself the way most woke individuals see themselves - smarter and morally superior to all others and thus justified in forcing others to behave as they do.
CA will not only have fully legal abortion but most likely will fully fund - at CA taxpayer expense - abortion tourism from out of state. And CA will likely ban any CA state business done with states that have made abortion illegal, and divest pension fund assets from any states with illegal abortion.
I believe you are right. I think that this is an acceptable cost of federalism and that further change will come as we change hearts and minds.
CA state business done with states that have made abortion illegal, and divest pension fund assets from any states with illegal abortion.
What pension fund assets, the IOU written on the table napkin somewhere in Gavin Newsom's junk drawer?
I hope they obliterate their state economy if they pull that. Enough is enough. Then maybe there will be enough dissatisfaction that something changes in their state legislature.
If not, it will be necessary for a future President (DeSantis?) to slap them down using the commerce clause. Which is exactly what that is for.
Hey, most social conservatives think of themselves the same way. They knew COVID was a scam, even as they buried Grams.
Prepare for a deluge of ENB whining
Progressive tears are the best part of overturning RvW.
So true
the best part. this means that those who really really want abortions as part of their lifestyle will necessarily have to move to pro-Abortion States thus making anti-Abortion States better places to live.
I mean... they could also stay put and help turn the state less anti-abortion
sure, as they kill their own progeny that they would necessarily need to grow support for baby butchering.
I guess. Every woman I know who has had an abortion went on to have kids once they were older and in a stable marriage.
Abortion is not "baby butchering", at least 99% of them. There is no god, we have no souls, so don't bring up that crap. There is no chance of sentience at 16 weeks, and certainly no consciousness. Heck, it's most likely you remember nothing from before the age of four.
I'm anti-abortion, but pro-freedom. It's possible, just as I'm anti-war but pro-troops.
Social conservatism is dead.
Or travel out of state for the few occasions in their life where they need an abortion. Vif’s hope for red states doesn’t hold water.
Or get on a plane.
Although it will reduce the number of chicks who put out in those states.
Among women in lower-class neighborhoods with a macho culture, sex is less voluntary than we would like to believe.
Words have meaning and "ban" isn't the same as "restrictions."
Stop feeding the angry mobs who will be parading the streets. Most states will end up with restrictions kind of like those seen in European countries.
also some of the states that have no current restrictions are pre-emptively labeled as "but the bad R legislature will surely be banning it"...
Ya, they def arent looking to stir up a fight
Good.
Sullum still hasn't paid for his months of lying to cover up the illegitimate election of a totalitarian regime.
Let him finally feel consequences.
No they wont. The states that restrict will, in the short term, end up looking more like countries under Catholic (South America) or Sharia law (Middle East) or Africa (except enforced). That will only change as the theocrats swing the pendulum too far in their new power trip and create a counterreaction.
like countries under Catholic (South America)
Good news, those populations are transferring here and are enriching us as we speak.
Pretty sure that the Venn diagram of pro-lifers shows that entire part of the world swirling down the subset of shitholes.
Hell - most of them also think that abortion is probably one of the social welfare programs that is pulling them north. So that they and their aborted progeny can vote Dem. Or something.
Thank you, President Trump, for restoring power to the people and away from our "know better" elites. Of course, there is not a Constitutional right to an abortion, not in any vapors and emanations.
I guess it was worth it for religious conservatives to sell their souls to align with a man who is chin deep in what they would consider sinfulness.
The worst is when they pretend like they believe he is a man of faith. Just so pathetically sad to witness.
How long before 15 Republican Senators join with Democrats to pass a law legalizing abortion.
Depends on where the limit is. Wouldn't surprise me if a law allowing abortions up to 12 weeks, no questions asked, was a doable thing that could gain filibuster-proof support.
But we should be like Europe!
But, wait, that IS like Europe.
really takes the steam out of their "im just going to move to XYZ European country!"
"Bon voyage!"
Um didn't SCOTUS just say the issue is returned to the States?
Not really sure they were doing this as an excuse to further apply Wickard...
Dunno. My Twitter feed is full of liberals predicting the opposite will happen: Republicans will next pass national laws against abortion, gays, and contraception.
Legislators are too chicken shit to actually do anything. Except get paid of course.
https://twitter.com/nmlinguaphile/status/1540342930472423428?t=G3tPgQTQzjsoh3j33swR5Q&s=19
I’m still waiting to see whether the Democrats we’re angrier when the GOP freed the slaves or are angrier today that the Dems genocide on minority babies is slowed.
there is probably going to be a massive increase in black children born.
The democrats who definitely aren't interested in scientific racism and eugenics will surely be celebrating this fact.
You guys are literally as bad as the breitbart republicans. I don't know why I expected better here, but I did. Very disappointing
So far it seems like Texas, at least, should continue to allow IVF treatment. I'm concerned about the availability of drugs like methotrexate though. Been through an ectopic pregnancy once and if the only option left will be surgery that may leave my wife impaired anyway, that prospect is terrifying.
As a healthcare provider you would have absolute legal grounds to prescribe methotrexate for an ectopic. It's not even an option, you have to end that pregnancy as it cannot be carried to term and the longer you wait the more dangerous to the mom.
You have that absolute legal ground, yes. But whether anyone will risk supplying a drug like that in Texas when it could open them up to liability is the big question. Selling booze to a minor will get you a fine. Selling an abortion drug to a pregnant woman who ends up using it for the wrong reasons will put you away for life in prison.
It's ironic that the penalties for this are more severe than those or actual murder. Shooting the woman in the face could get you out of prison in as little as 5 years.
It would be as simple as you have it documented, with evidence in chart, that there is an ectopic pregnancy. There is no medicolegal basis to argue against prescribing methotrexate in that scenario as it is the way to go.
Trying someone for something they do with a substance that is the correct treatment but they used for someone else would be a very easy case to defend. If I sell you a coat hanger and you give it to another pregnant lady for the purposes of abortion, it would be a hard stretch to say I caused the abortion.
Ectopic pregnancy usually requires surgical intervention. Also, any reasonable abortion regime will allow for them because it's a completely different situation. I am sympathetic to those who claim certain anti-abortion laws are so poorly written that ectopic pregnancy is not excluded from it. They will have to rewrite those.
early enough and its preferred to do methotrex. Surgery is not first choice, if possible
Why would you sell it to a pregnant woman? Why would you not sell it to an OB/GYN to prescribe to a pregnant woman as a medically neccessary treatment for a life-threatening ailment?
Treatment for ectopic pregnancy is not elective abortion, which is what abortion restrictions are concerned with.
" whether anyone will risk supplying a drug like that in Texas when it could open them up to liability is the big question. "
No, it's a silly question.
Really.
Silly.
Abortifacient medication, under such circumstances, is the proper alternative to the more invasive option of surgery.
The current state of medical technology does not allow any approach other than termination for dealing with an ectopic pregnancy. As it stands right now the baby is never going to make it, so saving the mother from severe harm is entirely appropriate.
Perhaps one day in the future where removal and reimplantation becomes a reliable alternative then the situation may change.
So, my point above is incorrect? I thought ectopic pregnancy required surgical intervention, usually removal of a fallopian tube as well.
Depends almost entirely on how far along the situation is. Early detection means medical management can be an option.
The median time served for murder in the US is 22 years.
You and your wife should never have to say "Big Brother May I?" to a bunch of dumbass, ignorant Texas politicians, Judges, and D.A.s who probably think you can still herd cattle with a gangrenous leg, like on the BetterHelp commercial:
Better Help Commercial with David Banks
https://youtu.be/GVXvMutlIok
If they aren't willing to undergo anything approximate to what you and your wife have gone through or would ever go through, then fuck 'em!
People in your situation may have to be the ones whom Lao Tzu referred to who "Know and don't talk" and get away from all who "Talk and don't know."
When they protect your interests and it is not your interest by rights of choice, that were an hegemony.
Methotrexate will be widely available in that it is used for many other circumstances. It is an old medicine.
So no "terrified" needed
Abortifacient doses of methotrexate being darn near chemotherapy level dose I do not think that will prove popular.
Buckle up for the "mostly peaceful demonstrations" to come.
Why need they be peaceful?
Whoa. I see someone is being a little too honest today.
It's not in the service of peace to gut Roe, which was, let's not forget, the compromise position between two extremes. Which stood for half a century. It's not peace for theocrats to use their state power to force women to give birth against their will.
No justice, no peace.
a lot of what is happening is due to a massive over reach and shifting of the overton window by the left
the "peaceful" protests are not going to be tolerated forever. come to the wrong neighborhood at your own risk friend
I just think it's hilarious that you idiots are actually afraid of leftwing violence. As if there has been any significant leftwing violence in this country in centuries. I enjoy the fact that you're actually afraid of it because FOX News told you to be. They hurt you, and that makes me smile.
Ya those cities must have burned themselves to the ground. Probably just need better fire department.
Excellent gaslighting attempt
Gaslighting is his bag.
Yeah, like that. You actually believe there have been cities burned to the ground. It's like you're a mole person.
I have friends that live in Minneapolis and saw first hand pictures and video from the day after. Sorry bud, the "mostly peaceful" tag in front of burning buildings only fooled the people that wanted to believe.
But all of that was eclipsed when Trump supporters attacked the capitol building in an attempt to overthrow the constitution.
A few burning Walgreens is quaint by comparison. A supreme court justice's house burning down is quaint by comparison. Hopefully, everything remains quaint by comparison.
I love when people have to argue over which of their political teams is the biggest piece of shit. It's never whose team is good, just that my team isn't as awful as your team.
Democrats could be 10 times as worthless as they are, and Republicans would still be responsible for nearly 100% of the shittiness in this country right now. Some trace it specifically to Newt Gingrich.
Again, tell me you're a raging tribalists without telling me you're a raging tribalist.
One of your fellow travelers was going to murder Kavanaugh, and maybe his family too. This is after other comrades of yours tried to murder Steve Scalise and others. And let’s not forget Rand Paul’s democrat neighbor who viciously assaulted him.
Face it Tony, democrats are domestic terrorists.
I am a raging tribalist. I've admitted it many times. There are only two options in this country, and one of them is genuine fascists. And there's no such thing as not making a choice.
The irony is you know you're a raging tribalist, but you don't realize that such tribalism completely eliminates your credibility and stains your thoughts and arguments. You've given up on being able to fairly contemplate and address issues in favor of tribal narrative.
You have literally chosen to be a pseudo-intellectual groupthinker.
Tony, you ignorant slut! The Walgreen's Pharmacist and employees may well be on the Pro-Choice side!
Why the fuck do you want to deprive them of a livelihood, or even a life if they're caught inside the stores you want to burn?
Fuck Off, Nihilist!
No, I get it. If something goes the way you don't want, violence is what you advocate for. Same garbage logic that caused Jan 6 is prevalent on both sides, just was surprised you were so honest.
A radical theocratic minority is trying to usurp democratic will. Thomas Jefferson says I get to kill people now.
LOL! Again, confirming that you are no better than Jan 6 rioters. Thanks.
But I am. As Jefferson specifically noted, motives matter. If tyranny threatens, I get to kill.
They wanted to kill because they lost an election, including in the popular vote.
Yet, you're not. That's what is funny. You just believe your motives are better than your opponent's motives. The same rationale used by many a genocidal maniac and totalitarians the world over.
It's simple, you have no actual principles other than "I am right and free to force that on others because I am right."
No, again, Republicans are actual tyrants, tyranny being defined as rule of the few against the wishes of the people. I get that you hate democracy, but I don't know that you've ever articulated your allegedly superior alternative.
Tribalist believes opposing political party evil! News at 11.
You're literally arguing as a tyrant in order to fight what you claim is "tyranny." It's why places like North Korea are called the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. Dictators are always fighting "tyranny" and "oppression" all while instituting tyranny and oppression. You're just a cliched tribalist who has convinced themselves they are right and your enemies are evil.
Again, a time honored gaslight of the highest order.
Yes Tony, the tyranny of freedom where you aren’t ‘free’ to force your Marxist bullshit on Americans. You and your fellow travelers can try to kill us, but I don’t think it will work out for you.
No better? He’s worse, far worse.
Actually, a group of jurists took it out of the hands of jurists and put the issue back to “democratic will.”
You’re just scared that the “democratic will” isn’t what you think it is, and can’t force your idea of what you think should be on those who disagree with you.
Tell me you don’t know what you’re talking about without telling me you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Check out Donald Trump over here.
Come to my town and start rioting. Please. Then I can say I was……. provoked.
Why need they be peaceful?
If nothing else to not look like such flaming hypocrites?
Oceans of lefty tears and screeching this weekend.
Oceans.
Nice little psychological trick labelling things red, green, and blue based on status. I personally wouldn't have added extra colors and would maybe suggest grouping the states by category. This color guide projects a bit too much.
Also weird that they picked red as the bad color and blue as the "kind of good" (in their opinion) color. You would think if red is "bad" something like orange or yellow would be the intermediate color.
On war maps enemy forces are red.
The colors don't pass accessibility standards so not really a smart thing to do regardless of the trick.
North Carolina
New restrictions are unlikely in the short term. Gov. Ray Cooper, a Democrat serving his second term, supports abortion rights. Republicans control both houses of the state legislature, but they do not have veto-proof majorities.
For the time geing at least, Ya'll Come!
Y'all come and have your baby vivisected in utero!
Oh, you mean like it was both condoned and supported by JHVH-1 in The Holy Bible?:
What The Bible Says About Abortion--The Skeptic's Annotated Bible/Qu'ran/Book of Mormon
https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html
You mean the way it was condoned and supported by JHVH-1 for viable children, not to mention millions of adults?:
What The Bible Says About Children--The Skeptic's Annotaated Bible/Qu'ran/Book of Mormon
https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/children.html
People hage some serious 'splaining to do about this before they can lecture me on the value of human life.
Reading through the full decision right now and found this gem:
Attempts to justify abor-tion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s “concept of existence” prove too much. Casey, 505 U. S., at 851. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like.
Way to punch libertarians in like six places at once there.
Libertarians believe that people have those rights and that the state should lack the power to interfere in such personal choices.
Libertarians also understand that the US Constitution is not a fully libertarian document and that in the US, states can legally and constitutionally interfere in such choices.
Libertarians also understand that opening the door of reading things into the US Constitution that aren't there is dangerous, because mostly what will get read into it isn't libertarian principles but authoritarian principles.
"Libertarians believe that people have those rights and that the state should lack the power to interfere in such personal choices."
Depends on exactly where said libertarians stand on the question on life and personhood.
The default position when faced with an individual who is otherwise unable to make his/her wishes known, or not having reach the age of legal majority being for the parent or legal guardian to not otherwise harm him or her.
All Libertarians don't believe that you have a right to commit murder.
"My body, my choice!" the pro-abortion crowd chants. The baby in the womb/uterus is a separate body with completely different DNA - 50% of the DNA coming from the father. Like so much argument from the left, "my body, my choice" is empty sloganeering.
So is the "It's just a clump of cells" line. We are all clumps of cells.
That's a perfectly reasonable libertarian point of view.
However, no matter what you consider a fetus to be, legally, it does not have personhood. That's why regulating abortion is a state matter.
So you are fine with putting an unborn person's rights above the living woman who is carrying it right's? Women are considered less of a person than a nonperson?
If the unborn person just materialized in the woman's womb out of thin air, that would be a valid argument.
But the woman needed to take several steps for the unborn person to appear in her womb and to become dependent on her body. The woman made a commitment for nine months when she took those steps and she can be held to it.
By analogy, let's say I invite you to a nine month sailing trip on my boat. If I decide after two months, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, that I don't like you anymore and push you overboard, that is murder, plain and simple.
The baby in the womb/uterus is a separate body with completely different DNA
Totally separate? Like, not attached at all?
Completely different DNA?
50% of the DNA coming from the father.
Oh, so no. In fact "substantially the same DNA." If you count both parents as parents, then in fact exactly the same DNA.
And does this mean that the lives of twins are less valuable? As long as you keep one are you good?
The constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. There is no right to self-defense in the constitution. There is no right to own an AR-15. Yet there they were found, by so-called textualists.
I know you have a hard time with plain English sometimes, but the 2nd Amendment exists.
I know, have you read it? Even the first bit?
The trick is to understand it, so you’re shit out of luck.
Yes, see that’s the part where you have trouble with plain fucking English. It’s not hard to understand what a prefatory and operative clause are. Doubly so when it’s been explained to you ad nauseum.
Actually, the Constitution specifically mentions keeping and bearing arms. Funny how hard you people on the left work to overlook black letter language.
It says in service of a well-regulated militia. Plain as day.
Actually, it doesn't say in service of. It establishes to have a well regulated militia, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Anyone who knows history here clearly understands that people need to have arms if they are to ever form well regulated militias. Thus, it requires an armed populace first. You want the militia part to come first, which isn't how it is written.
Again, your attempts to ignore obvious language and history to gaslight into your own narrative is impressive.
I'm glad we agree that the 2nd Amendment should be considered 100% obsolete.
I didn't remotely say that. But gaslighting is kind of your thing.
So I'm succeeding in making you feel insane?
Not even remotely. You must think something very different is going on than actually is. Sorry to hear that. I thought you were lucid.
You're the one who accused me of gaslighting.
A fundamental right died today. Let's not abuse words as well.
You do gaslight. You ascribed a position to me that I clearly didn't take. That's gaslighting. If you don't like being called out on gaslighting, don't gaslight.
If you think abortion is a right, then do the work to pass a constitutional amendment saying so. Rights aren’t whatever you feel Ike they are at any given moment.
I know. He's just so hate-filled and angry that it's entertaining arguing with him.
You're welcome to "consider" it "100% obsolete", but it remains in force until the Constitution is amended.
Furthermore, even without the 2A, the federal government has no delegated power to restrict gun ownership.
Finally, there is no rational basis to restrict gun ownership to law abiding citizens. None.
The 2A does not create the right to bear arms, it affirms it, so it doesn't matter how the 2A is qualified or whether the 2A exists at all.
What creates the right to bear arms is the fact that the Constitution does not delegate the power to restrict arms to the federal government.
Well, no. The Constitution has a meaning separate from SCOTUS' interpretation. That's why SCOTUS can change its mind, and why legal scholars debate SCOTUS decisions. For practical purposes, SCOTUS decision usually determine the interpretation of the Constitution as far as the executive and legislative branches of government are concerned, but that's all.
That is completely false. As the 10A says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Has the power to restrict ownership of AR-15's be delegated to the United States by the Constitution? No, it hasn't.
No, you’re just too idiotic and obtuse to understand things. You’re also a lying piece of shit. Your comments are failures, and basically, so are you. Just a failing faggot. And so we’re clear, I don’t hate gay people, it’s just you.
Most gay people are just gay. You…. you’re a faggot.
The constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. There is no right to self-defense in the constitution.
The Supreme Court literally just found a right to self-defense in the Constitution.
So which of these two sentences is incorrect?
I disagree. A lot of this isn't libertarian necessarily. We've seen a split on topics such as conservative judiciary vs. active judiciary and it tends to speak to a split on process v. outcome in politics.
I think that's from a separate thread of political philosophy that it just so happens that libertarians have interacted with and taken ideas from. Sort of a classical liberal, Burkean political tradition. I think you can have libertarianism without that.
That said, I'm definitely of that type of libertarian and I would be concerned about a judicial ruling that pulled a reverse Roe, banning all abortion. Though, admittedly, I'd be less upset since I am very pro-life.
I'm not sure what exactly you disagree with. We obviously don't live in a libertarian society, and the US Constitution obviously did not create a federation of libertarian states. So, when it comes to actual abortion issues in the US, what matters is what the Constitution says, not what libertarians want.
Under the Constitution as written, regulating abortion is not a delegated power to the federal government. A fetus is not a legal person, so equal protection or other clauses don't apply. On the other hand, states certainly have the power to regulate and restrict drugs and medical procedures; they do it all the time.
So, whatever your or my libertarian preferences may be, the legal situation is that allowing or banning abortion is a state matter. And given the divisiveness of the issue, that is also politically prudent.
As an individualist, I'm feelin' it.
That was always the problem with Roe. The mysterious right to privacy never got past abortion and butt sex. I favor a constitutional amendment protecting privacy rights across the board but it hasn't happened. Can't blame Alito for pointing that out.
I just don't get how this is a pro-abortion argument. I mean how is outlawing a medical procedure an intrusion into anyone's private life? Many drugs and medical procedures are illegal under current law already.
Is outlawing domestic abuse an intrusion into someone's private life too?
Third party doctrine would certainly seem to apply.
Is the "abuse" voluntary for both parties? Outlawing BDSM is absolutely an intrusion into someone's private life.
From a libertarian point of view, it is.
From a constitutional point of view, it isn't.
The Constitution only bans "unreasonable searches and seizures", but banning private conduct is not in itself an "unreasonable search or seizure". Enforcing such a ban may involve "searches and seizures", but so does the enforcement of most criminal law.
The Constitution only bans "unreasonable searches and seizures", but banning private conduct is not in itself an "unreasonable search or seizure". Enforcing such a ban may involve "searches and seizures", but so does the enforcement of most criminal law.
This is a tautological argument though:
Step 1: Pass a law declaring some activity illegal.
Step 2: Police must perform a search to enforce the law.
Step 3: Because the activity is illegal, the search is not unreasonable.
For police to perform a search, they need a search warrant issued by a court. A court only issues a search warrant upon probable cause. That is, there needs to be independent evidence that an abortion occurred before a search can be conducted.
Furthermore, anti-abortion laws usually are directed against the provider, so the woman's privacy rights simply do not enter.
I expect that most prosecutions of abortion providers will be based on voluntary complaints from women who changed their mind after the procedure, as well as based on sting operations. Neither of those even involve police searches of a woman's possessions or medical information.
Sorry, but the "anti-abortion laws violate a woman's privacy" is a dead horse. Stop beating it.
The privacy argument survived 50 years of legal precedent but suddenly it's a dead horse? You're trivializing an issue that is fundamentally complex.
Furthermore, the war line on abortion is (very clearly) going to fall onto abortion pills. They have been developed to be practical even past 10 weeks in cases, and are far more difficult for anti-abortion litigation to target compared with conventional abortions. I expect a ton of additional medical research to go into making these pills even cheaper and more effective, in light of SCOTUS.
Stopping women from using abortion pills is going to be about as plausible as stopping people from smoking weed. As in, not at all possible.
"Most states are unlikely to enact bans, but 22 either have them already or probably will soon."
Now I'm not a mathematician, but 22 is getting close to that half way point. And, just going out on a limb here, with the elections coming, I'm thinking that some of the calculus is seriously going to change.
Abortion simply doesn't matter much to most voters because it doesn't affect them. So, I don't see this as a big election issue. Inflation, the stock market, jobs, and education are what people actually care about.
This is patently incorrect. A majority of voters did not care about abortion up to this point because they thought it was a dead issue (i.e. not subject to change and thus not relavent). This has proven to be untrue.
Furthermore, the biggest advantage republicans have during midterm elections (lack of democrat engagement) is about to evaporate as a result of this issue.
The gun rights enumerated in the 2A of the constitution were restricted to the point of prohibition in some localities. Abortion, mentioned nowhere in constitution was construed as an absolute right in Roe v. Wade, UNTIL NOW! Hats off to Trump for his SC picks. Although I think Mitch McConnell is the ultimate RINO. I'll give him his props for keeping that piece of shit Merrick Garland off the SC and pushing ACB through so quickly. As far as those picks being stolen from the Dems, TFB! everybody knows that if the shoe was on the other foot, they would have done the exact same thing, they're just pissed off that the Republicans did it first. And the special shout out goes to Clarence Thomas who led the charge on the 2A decision. It's very funny to see a black conservative SC justice stick it to white progressives. That was nice payback for the torment he put up with during his SC nomination hearings at the hands of Biden and other's back in '90. It seems the pendulum is swinging the other way and it's about fucking time.
They had a chance, but they Obama put up that piece of shit Garland and then RBG’s ego wouldn’t let her step down in time.
Wow, you sound sane and balanced.
This is a shitty, low effort, list, Sullum.
Half of the 'red' entries are 'well, the Republican legislatures are *likely* to further restrict abortion - even though they don't now' or (like Arizona) 'have a law on the books making abortion illegal that was enjoined and then later superseded by a more recent law that allows abortion'.
Restricted does not mean "banned".
Most countries in the world (yes, Europe, too) have restrictions on abortion and most are at 16 weeks. None are as permissive as some US states will be. So, even with the "scary" restrictions, the US will have the most permissive abortion laws in the world.
I think some of us like hysteria for hysteria's sake.
"So, even with the "scary" restrictions, the US will have the most permissive abortion laws in the world."
And we're still going to get Handmaiden's Tale cosplayers for the foreseeable future.
"One method of destroying a concept is by diluting its meaning. Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e. the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living." - Ayn Rand
Diluting the meaning of unborn to mean non-living while decrying such rhetorical slight of hands is certainly a form of chutzpah.
the unborn are "nonliving," especially at the stage where most abortions are performed. If you kill a woman who is 8 weeks pregnant, the fetus dies as well. Until it can live outside without "living" host, why should the woman's rights be canceled out?
If she isn't responsible for the life she has created and is dependent on her - then why would she be responsible for it just because it cans survive for a few days outside her body - like for the first several years after birth.
Why does your position sound suspiciously like support for infanticide?
You might want look up the definition of infanticide. Until the fetus can live without using the blood, lungs, kidneys, etc. of the woman, it's rights should not supersede that rights of that woman. The Federal government should not be able to cancel the woman's rights and State governments should not be able to cancel the woman's rights.
The federal government in this case isn't cancelling anybody's rights.
I think animals shouldn't be abused; does that "obliterate" the rights of human beings? Of course not.
In fact, one can object to both abortion and animal abuse on the same grounds and without any reference to rights of the victim: it is a morally reprehensible act on the part of the human being performing the act.
Alright! The freedom train promised to us by the GOP/Libertarian/Mises alliance continues to roll on down the track.
You are so bad at this.
It causes me to sit back and ponder why OBL works. There's someone who posts under the name "Joe Biden" as well, and he's similarly not a good troll, even though I'm not a Joe Biden fan.
Maybe it's just too blunt? It reads more like someone who doesn't understand what's going on trying to be sarcastic or something. Maybe it's just tradition and OBL put in the effort to be fun. Maybe it's just that OBL is a very specific parody, he's a Reason libertarian parody in a way that doesn't engage directly with national partisan politics.
It's fun to think about. AmSoc needs to try harder though with this new character. There's possibly something there, but I don't know. It's sort of incoherent so far.
I think OBL has mastered the ability to be sarcastic, but not snarky. Most try to mask their snarkiness as sarcasm and it is readily apparent. OBL is somehow able to avoid that.
OBL is great at mockery and parody, although sometimes he is a little too on-the-nose. This AAA guy is very clearly filled with hate and vitriol, so the reader doesn't get the same effect. I'm surprised he didn't call himself a gay black man in this post like he usually does. I honestly don't know what he is trying to accomplish by doing so, but he has been pretty consistent with it.
OBL just comes off as a funny smart ass smirking behind a keyboard.
These other guys seem like they are just sitting there seething
I agree. I think OBL is able to add that layer of innocence and obliviousness to the partisan echoes out there. Plus his hashtags are on the Babylon Bee level.
I thought the Joe Biden account was funny initially, but sustaining it would be difficult as the real JB is a man of limited talent. He doesn't differ much from one issue to the next in his talking points and method. The real JB is mean vanilla ice cream.
Ali Snakbar just sucks. Unfunny. Poorly presented. Dull.
OBL actually get theyself into character. OBL becomes as overly earnest leftist when it posts.
While xi may think that perspective is absurd if sincere, OBL is intelligent enough to understand and mimic the perspective. OBL also understands that to be effective, the parody cannot be consumed by emotion and resentment.
Leftists can't meme aren't honest, insightful, or self controlled enough to mimic the perspective they're going for. They lack a sense of humor so, while OBL is clearly amused by leftist beliefs, leftists are unable to overcome their contempt/resentment and enjoy pretending to be that which they seek to satirize.
Wow! You guys sure like OBL a lot. Is that because he likes government cock shoved in his mouth as much as you guys. That’s funny, because as a gay, Black man (GOP Proud like Caitlin snd Milo) I too enjoy cock shoved up in my mouth. We’re not so different after all.
My initial reaction would be because it’s just so obvious a troll job. OBL works because a) it is such a subtle troll that he caught many posters unaware (and still does some of the née people that pop in), and b) says things that you could reasonably see Keith Olberman or some leftist policy wonk saying in earnest.
AAA lacks both of those. I know lots of rednecks and good ol boys and none of them talk like his character posts.
love when evil loses. it's so fucking rare.
People don't have rights. Only state legislatures. Unless they want to restrict guns.
People have rights. Just not this one.
Not anymore.
Women never had a "right to an abortion".
Sure they did. From roughly the start of modern human civilization to its end.
Having an ability is not a right.
Words confuse him.
Never did. Even RBG publicly said Roe was a shaky decision. But you think rights and laws are whatever faggots like you think they are at any given time. This is because you’re a sociopath.
Which also explains why you’re se gleeful about murdering babies.
Wait, is this a sarcastic comment, because you've literally argued this in the past with sincerity.
I believe individual people should be maximally free. Right-wing theocrats have always had different ideas.
No, you believe people should be as free as you feel appropriate. That's the problem. Most who claim freedom only mean the freedom they condone. And you have shown yourself to be clearly no exception to that generality.
I believe same as any halfway rational person: maximum liberty for all. The "for all" does qualify many possible individual liberties "for some," no doubt. You practicing a right to murder interferes with others' right not to be murdered. Hence the necessity of government.
I'm telling you, it's only the right wing who are interested in turning the state into Daddy to force people to live their private lives in a certain way. That's what we should all be working against. But they drew you in with the promise of tax cuts or what the fuck ever you thought you were getting.
Yeah, it's only the right that wants to impose restrictions on how people live their lives.
Seriously, tell me your a raging tribalist without telling me you're a ragins tribalist.
If you think the totalitarian left doesn't want to dictate your life as much as the totalitarian right, then you are not a serious observe of reality.
Here's a thought, stop being a tribalist and think for yourself. I know that's tough because back in the day the GOP touched you in a no-no spot, but you have to let that hatred go if you want to be an honest broker in the world of ideas.
Me being tribal doesn't have anything to do with the facts. What personal, private decisions does The Left want the state to interfere with? Name one.
Guns, cars, countless business regulations, education, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of association, religious practice, and investment to name a few.
You list things that are either not personal, private matters or are so vague that they don't mean anything.
The Right just took away people's right to decide whether to give birth or not.
Actually, all those things are personal and if you were knowledgeable of current events, they wouldn't be vague. By I get it, you just wanted to dodge the substance, so I will let that go.
The other side of the coin is the right prevented people from killing a baby. And that's the problem, you tribalists frame these issues so biasedly, it's not possible to operate in reality.
there were 1000's of opportunities to attain birth control, get an IUD, wear a condom, or not have sex.
Your ilk dont want freedom from "forced birth". You want freedom from anything resembling personal responsibility.
If gun ownership was a personal and private decision only, the United States would not be unique among developed countries in gun deaths. More children die from gunfire than by any other cause now. That is not a personal, private matter. Children, as far as I know, are not personally, privately making the decision to die by gunfire.
I don't know what public interest is being protected when politicians force women to give birth against their will.
Actually, since the vast majority of those gun deaths are by suicide, your main premise is wrong.
And the policy that is being argued for is to protect the life of the baby. That's the pro-life argument. I know that you purposefully ignore that so as to not have to address the substance but rather engage in hyperbole and hysterics, but that's the reality.
This juvenile need to ascribe evil intentions on people who have differing opinions is so bizarre to me. But it does show an inherent lack of strength in one's belief in their argument.
Squirrel. He’s been told that dozens of times. He will keep repeating the lie. As he is a liar.
I know. He's just so hate-filled and angry that it's entertaining arguing with him.
Me being tribal doesn't have anything to do with the facts.
We know.
"You practicing a right to murder interferes with others' right not to be murdered."
So it sounds like you are in agreement with the pro-life folks. 100% of non aborted babies poll in favor of not having been aborted
'maximally free' meaning 'under state control' on your parlance.
You’ve never believed people have rights Tony. Don’t rush into pretending you do now.
But don’t worry, I’m sure the Democrats will hurry up and try to pass an amendment guaranteeing your women can kill that little critter all the way to the point it’s laying in a basket 24 hours after being born.
You're being rather flippant on a day a basic human liberty was stripped from hundreds of millions of Americans.
a day a basic human liberty was granted to all.
The only liberty that was granted was that of state legislatures to force women to give birth to rape babies.
Stop telling us about your sexual fantasies.
Or for states to allow the killing of a baby up to birth. Just depends on how your extremist positioning wants to frame the situation.
If you like. No civilization has ever considered a fertilized ovum the same as a person, but sure, that's what they're protecting. That cherished principle.
No modern civilization considers a nine month old baby to be free to be killed because the mom doesn't want it either. Seems maybe both extremes are wrong here. Hmmmm. Say it ain't so!
Hence the moderate compromise position that was Roe.
Which ironically eliminates your whole argument about a constitutional protection. Finding the compromise position is the realm of legislatures, not SCOTUS justices. As such, now compromise can be accomplished on a legislative scale as intended for most things.
SCOTUS is not a super-legislature no matter how much you want (or, ironically in this case, you don't) want it to be.
All SCOTUS did is found no constitutional right to abortion, which even RGB said was a tenuous finding as it is quite clearly not in the Constitution. Like so many issues, it's now in the realm of legislatures.
SCOTUS is clearly a super-legislature, no matter how much they may have you fooled with their thinly veiled horseshit. They make a decision and suddenly law changes for hundreds of millions of people. What more do you want for a super-legislature? For them to admit it? They lie. Republicans lie.
But traditionally, the Supreme Court has not made new law in spite of public will but have tended to move right along with it. There's a reason it took until the 21st century to discover a right to gay marriage. It's a political body if you just look at what it does, and it always has been.
Only now is it enacting an ideological agenda against the wishes of a clear and persistent majority of Americans. We'll see how that works out for them.
It's amazing how broken you are. Just astounding. You have no base principles. You believe in the almighty government, but then repulse against that government when it is run by people you don't like. You argue for absurdities all while ignoring reality. You condemn and gaslight all while engaging in histrionics and hysterics. I can't imagine what it is like living in such an amorphous, convoluted, hated filled world.
Yes, I want the world to be a certain way as opposed to another way that I see as inferior. Sorry I have political beliefs?
It's not I who have been caught in a web of hypocrisy, though, because I do believe in a government actually doing things for the people who pay for it. It's "small government" types who seem to only care about the freedom of themselves to control the private lives of others.
Squirrel, progs hate America, but they love government. Tony is the embodiment of that.
Nothing was "stripped", since no such "right" ever existed; that is what SCOTUS said, as you pointed out, the definitive interpretation of the Constitution.
Furthermore, all SCOTUS said is that this is for states to decide. If you are the kind of man who needs abortions, move to a state where you can get them.
The right existed until today. Rights do not depend on your intellectual permission to exist or not. They exist if the law says they do.
rights exist absence of law.
Tony, your tears are delicious, I’m going to savor yours for some time to come.
The right existed until today. Rights do not depend on your intellectual permission to exist or not. They exist if the law says they do.
So pass a law.
If Congress roughly represented the majority in this country rather than giving Montanans 40 votes for every Californian, it would have long ago.
Obama had free reign and opted not to do anything about it.
Take it up with your leader, until then, STFU
More delicious tears!
And here we see Tony devolve into fits of “it’s not fair that two major cities can’t dictate life to the rest of you rubes!”
Hahahahaha
Congress isn't set up that way because the US isn't a classical centralized nation state, it is a federation of states. That is, it is precisely so that Californians can't impose their will on the people of Montana that we have the current system.
If you don't like this system, then the only solution is to dissolve the union altogether. You can't lure small states into a union with the promise of being able to legislate largely independently and then impose national majoritarianism on them.
It's a terrible and undemocratic system, and there ought to be a very good justification for a system not being democratic. "Because some of us make a lot of money from slaves" is not among those good justifications.
Not as terrible as the system you want.
It is democratic, it simply isn't majoritarian.
Yes: the justification is that the US is a federation of largely independent states, each with their own cultures, laws, and political preferences. States agreed to become a member of that federation only under the system agreed upon in the Constitution.
Electoral majorities have historically favored slavery, racism, segregation, fascism, and communism. That is one of the reasons why majoritarianism is unacceptable in a free and just society.
Well, and SCOTUS says that there is no "right to an abortion", and that the previous decision was in error.
Likewise, the Constitution doesn't list a "right to an abortion".
Since you believe that rights exist when the law says they do, obviously there is no "right to an abortion". So what are you complaining about?
If the law has to spell it out, then something's not right, Ohh!
I guess those Americans can relocate to one of those socialist paradises like Germany or France where they have no abortion restrictions....oh wait
It’s a big day for the right of infants to stay alive.
I'm curious. Do you know that embryonic personhood is a euphemism for forcing women's bodies to be the tools of the state? Are you a perp or a victim of this propaganda?
Whoa whoa, lets cool it with the "Woman" talk. You some kind of biologist?
Many men no doubt would like abortion to be freely available as well. Donald Trump, personally responsible for this travesty, has paid for more abortions than we can probably count.
As much as I’m sure you’ve tried endlessly to have the seed of life implanted in your backseat, it’s just never going to happen.
>>forcing women's bodies to be the tools of the state
they can goto the next state over. for fuck's sake.
What does the state get to do with your body?
Force experimental vaccinations under threats of being excluded from society.
The state did no such thing.
Again, gaslighting. If you have to gaslight in order to have a winning argument, then it may be time to reevaluate your position.
Oh it didn’t? Awesome! Where do you live?
Oh it didn’t? Awesome! Where do you live?
Wrong thread
No, I don't know that for the simple reason that it isn't true.
The pro-abortion agenda in the US, in fact, was driven by progressives, in particular eugenicists. These people wanted to put the state in charge of reproduction, with forced sterilizations and widespread abortions for "undesirable groups". That is what progressives do.
Fortunately, conservatives and moderates put a stop to that; progressives have now retreated to trying to achieve their eugenics objectives by merely throwing money around to keep minorities from reproducing.
Technically, a conspiracy of surgeons could abduct a man and implant him with an embryo to carry to term. A real man underwent a not so dissimilar procedure and gave birth.
You could be that man! Would you give up that foreign body to another Man if liberty could offer that choice?
You're being rather flippant on a day a basic human liberty was stripped from hundreds of millions of Americans.
It was not. It has been determined to not be constitutionally protected and therefore has been returned to the legislatures. For instance, I don't see why Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress could pass a law while a friendly president sits in the white house. With that kind of a remarkable, stable consensus, this seems like the perfect moment, don't you think?
I have long appreciated that certain individual liberties ought to be protected from the whims of political bodies. Today's events hardly motivate me to modify that view.
Roe was not only a libertarian-friendly decision, it was quintessentially so. It said that "where life begins" is a question too deep, philosophical, and controversial to be decided eternally by politicians. So Roe left the question up to individuals. It left people free to decide for themselves. That is what you people claim you have always wanted.
I've also long said that your supposed value of individual liberty was a smokescreen for the exact opposite, and today's events don't motivate me to amend that view either.
None of what you said is accurate. Just nonsensical, factless whining.
You're not smart enough to be a libertarian, and that's saying something.
Smarter than you. By a lot. With your 85 IQ.
And if sociopaths like Tony individually decide that life only begins after week 60, there shouldn’t be a law to prevent him from getting rid of that inconvenient worm.
Oops, he won’t procreate anyways. Might be better.
I'm fine with the state staying out of the question, just as Roe required it.
Roe was wrong. Now it’s gone.
Ever actually read Roe? Thousands of words from 70s experts on the viability issue. So unelected judges waded in and decided instead of icky politicians. But yeah that's totally libertarian.
It should fall under the category of liberty. Why the hell should it be left up to a bunch of men who didn't find women equal enough to give them authority to vote, own land, etc., to force them to carry a pregnancy and give birth. Because these men decided not to literally spell it out that women should not be subjected to forced birth in the constitution should not make one bit of difference. Remember, these are the same men who found nothing wrong with owning, beating, killing, raping of other humans because of the amount of melanin in their skin. Fuck them. L I B E R T Y
Nobody is forcing any woman to give birth.
Yeah, that’s just a bunch of tired, hackneyed, leftist rhetoric.
Actually abortions have been trending down for years, and nearly half of women don’t believe in abortion, so the idea this going to affect 100’s of millions is just asinine.
Not until they get the banning of contraception part...which Clarence basically invited them to do.
Who exactly is banning contraception?
Connecticut and several other states banned contraception until 1965 when the Supreme Court decided Griswold v. Connecticut. Sending contraceptive materials or literature through the US Post Office was also banned by the Comstock Law until it was overturned by Griswold.
Roe v. Wade explicitly relied on the "right to privacy" from Griswold. I don't see where the new SC decision explicitly retained Griswold's right to privacy and only reconsidered the significance of the other potential person involved in an abortion..
Uh huh. And Mitt Romney is gonna come take your tampons away too.
Most states are unlikely to enact bans, but 22 either have them already or probably will soon.
I guess I'd better read the article so I know what the author means by "ban".
Around here, "ban" typically means any type of restriction.
Right, so I need to see which states are simply codifying what the Roe V Wade decision said: That a woman's right to abort was not "unlimited" and could be restricted based on a compelling state interest.
It's like 'banning' books. You literally don't have them in every available place a reader may want them. By so doing you are 'banning' them, as the reader must then go to another, far less convenient place to find that 'banned' book.
It is horrible to force say a small child in school, to have its parent go in search of a book on the gender bending platypus that all the child's cool trans friends are reading in their gender positive houses.
They might have to open an app on their phones and have it delivered directly to their door in two days or less.
What a dystopian nightmare.
You might want to get a crystal ball because apparently Jacob can read the minds of all the legislatures and see the future.
I have no doubt that there are red states that do want to ban abortion. But sticking to Roe V Wade's precedent of "three generations of imbeciles is enough", I'm not convinced that something which simply tightens the reins on legal abortion is a "ban".
A blue state banned it too. Louisiana.
But, and I've said this before, never generalize from what is happening in Louisiana. It's the closest state we have to a foreign nation.
laws in French ... yellow fire hydrants ...
Louisiana. It's the closest state we have to a foreign nation.
No, that would be New Mexico. They don't even speak the language.
Same could be said for CA. And don't get me started on those gingers in Boston.
"Three generations of imbeciles is enough" didn't come from Roe v. Wade. That came from Oliver Wendell Holmes in the Eugenics case of Buck v. Bell. Start again.
The articles lists the details state-by-state. Restricting most abortions to 15 weeks or less is considered a "ban", but in a quick scan through it appeared that most of these states are either banning nearly all abortions or setting the limit much earlier (like Texas's 6 weeks - better schedule that abortion before you have confirmation that you're pregnant).
"The state may not deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose or obtain an abortion prior to viability of the fetus, or when the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman."
Whoa, slow down there, you banjo-playing backwater, California, define: viability of the fetus.
What will happen in California, unless they do rewrite it to codify their stance, is that "life or health of the women" will be extended to include basically anything.
Mental well being.
'Dude, I'm like totally like stressed in a mental health day way to like have to, you know, carry this zygote. Like whoa. I'm like, the handmaid, whatever that is.'
Most of the cutoffs are pretty reasonable. Compare them to our oh so progressive role models in Europe: Germany bans abortion after 12 to 14 weeks, depending on the time of inception.
But spoiled, mollycoddled, weak liberals need something to be crying about no matter what. Keep on crying, see where it gets you and brace for the midterms. Thats all i gotta say about that.
Conception of course, but still the same thing. Not the smartest of phones.
And to be clear, those trigger laws are fucking dumb and i would get rid of them.
Now, remember kids: insurrections are a no-no.
I am very happy that the Constitutional abomination of Roe v Wade was overturned. The original decision was a gross violation of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment, where a tyrannical court egregiously usurped states' powers. Time to make America Constitutional again.
The decision on abortion restrictions should reside at the state level, never should have been imposed by the court at the federal level.
I believe that the vast majority of people support some restrictions and not an outright ban nor abortions for any reason and at any stage of pregnancy.
The most appalling position is when people support partial birth or post birth abortions. These people are pure evil.
Likewise people who support a complete ban including banning birth control are authoritarians attempting to force their beliefs on others.
With the decision now being at the state level, we can vote with our feet. We can chose to live in a state where our personal beliefs are more in sync.
False framing. The court imposed nothing in Roe. The court removed state impositions.
So there is no such thing as federal impositions and that’s why we don’t need the Constitution?
No, you are engaging in false framing.
In fact, in Roe, the court usurped a power that the federal government doesn't legally have: to determine abortion policy.
"In fact, in Roe, the court usurped a power that the federal government doesn't legally have: to determine abortion policy."
The state governments should not have that power either. Whether decided by Federal or State, it infringes on a woman's liberty and her pursuit of happiness. No government should have the ability to force someone to go through 40 weeks of pregnancy and subject their lives to the risks of labor and delivery should they chose not to.
It is a legal fact that "in Roe, the court usurped a power that the federal government doesn't legally have". It is also a legal fact that states can restrict abortions.
Now, you say that "no government should have the ability to force someone to go through 40 weeks of pregnancy". Let's think about that.
In a free society, according to you, should I be able to sign a contract that says "if I get pregnant, I make a legally binding commitment not to have an abortion"?
In a free society, should I be able to say "unless you make a commitment not to have an abortion, I won't do business with you/rent you an apartment/marry you/socialize with you"?
I think that in a free society, individuals should be able to make those choices. Do you agree?
Your choices only punish women. Why does that always seem to be the case. Because we are treated like second class citizens thats why. Does your scenario also give the choice for a man to be held to those standards, say if you ever paid for an abortion or agreed with the woman that an abortion was in your best interests, I won't do business with you/rent you an apartment? Your marry you, socialize with you options make no sense in this argument. No one is forced to marry or socialize with anyone. I do not understand why the concept of forcing someone through a 40 week pregnancy and then labor and delivery that they do not want is not looked as the abhorrent authoritarian bullshit that it is.
Of course.
If you don't want to go through a 40 week pregnancy, don't have sex or use protection. How difficult is that?
I think the reason society tolerates privileged, entitled, self-righteous jerks like you is because straight men just think with their dicks and can't help themselves white knighting.
I couldn't care less whether abortion is legal or not. If anything, if people like you don't reproduce, it's probably a good thing for humanity. But that doesn't change the fact that your legal and political arguments are insane.
Be happy that SCOTUS sent this back to the states; that way, you can choose to live in one of the many states where you can terminate your pregnancy at any stage. Just leave the people who want to make different choices and live in other kinds of communities alone.
"If you don't want to go through a 40 week pregnancy, don't have sex or use protection. How difficult is that?"
Ok, so as long as we refuse medical treatment to smokers with lung cancer or fat people with diabetes, etc. I mean all they had to do was not smoke right. Or not overeat and be inactive. The state governments, and any of my neighbors who vote Republican, have no right to stop me from obtaining medical care if I become pregnant and do not wish carry the pregnancy to term and deliver. PERIOD. This its not in the constitution argument is BULLSHIT. Liberty. We are all supposed to be afforded LIBERTY. If you find that legal and political argument insane then you are a closet authoritarian.
What medical treatments are available, and what medical treatments are covered, is indeed a political decision, just like whether abortion is available. That's just a fact. That's the way the US is founded and that's the way the Constitution was written.
Really? Who told you that? The US Constitution put together a federation of largely independent states, each of which had license to limit your "liberty" in numerous ways. The Bill of Rights didn't even apply to the states until the 20th century.
I'm simply stating the way US democracy actually operates and what it takes to change it. That is, if you want abortion to be legal, you have to pass laws at the state level, in every state. That's reality.
But you aren't making "legal and political argument". You aren't even trying to convince anyone. You are simply an entitled, privileged jerk throwing a temper tantrum and wallowing in self-righteous indignation. You aren't trying to change anybody's mind, and in fact, you are just pissing people off and making pro-choice legislation less likely. (But then, I seriously doubt that abortion is anything more than a theoretical concern to you anyway.)
I actually support pro-choice legislation like that found in most progressive Western nations. Hopefully, moderates will come to their senses and work something out. Hopefully, decent Democrats will disavow people like you and send you back to your room so that the adults can actually compromise and legislate.
Wow, this is a stupid argument. Should people also be allowed to sign slavery and indentured service contracts?
Even if a person is allowed to sign a 40 week contract to not get an abortion, they should also have the freedom to break said contract and suffer reasonable consequences (like a fine).
Damn! My local doomsday prepper store has just run out of concertina wire and landmines!
How can I prepare a mostly peaceful reception for the mostly peaceful protesters that refuse to accept Supreme Court rulings?
Are there any Libertarians on this comment page. Anyway, this demonstrates the need for the Libertarian Party. Without a federal welfare state to lean on the states that prohibit all abortions will be forced to pay for all the unwanted children out of their own budgets.
Women being responsible for their own actions and individual agency are non-concepts to non-libertarians.
But I agree that states that impose draconian limits on abortion will reap the drawbacks. But its still better to let the states figure that out I think.
Or, and I know this might sound radical, they could put those babies up for adoption, seeing as how there are more people looking to adopt than available babies.
Tony's month of celebrating raw dogging every guy in sight got interrupted by SCOTUS handing him a nice big tear barrel to fill up.
This rests solely at the feet of the dems.
RBG's hubris in thinking Hillary was a lock
Obama nominating a clearly corrupt partisan instead of a more reasonable pick
Obama promising he would codify Roe with his FUCKING SUPERMAJORITY and never acting once
Roe is frankly too useful to dems as a campaign add, actually making it federal law would do too much damage to their re-elections.
You fuckers have no one to blame but yourselves, and you know it
So, as usual, lots of comments here about the desirability of banning abortion since abortion represents, in this view, a lack of personal responsibility on the part of the mother.
So this begs the question. Should the state pass laws to enforce "personal responsibility" as a type of moral virtue?
And if the ultimate reason to ban abortion is to save the life of the unborn child, what does "personal responsibility" have to do with anything?
"Should the state pass laws to enforce "personal responsibility""
Apparently lots of states are in the form of "dont kill the baby you created"
Above, you wrote:
there were 1000's of opportunities to attain birth control, get an IUD, wear a condom, or not have sex.
Your ilk dont want freedom from "forced birth". You want freedom from anything resembling personal responsibility.
https://reason.com/2022/06/24/here-is-a-state-by-state-rundown-of-what-will-happen-now-that-scotus-has-freed-lawmakers-to-restrict-abortion/?comments=true#comment-9561000
Would you consider having unprotected sex an irresponsible act? Of course, not every instance of unprotected sex leads to pregnancy. Should the state pass laws to try to enforce "personal responsibility" in these areas as well?
many of them are, they are banning you from shirking responsibilities you created, in the form of banning the end immoral act, abortion
You missed the point of the question.
Would you regard having unprotected sex as an "irresponsible act"? Is it an irresponsible act even if no pregnancy results? Should the state have a role in enforcing "personal responsibility" for 'careless' sex even if there is no pregnancy?
Outside a committed relationship, yes, it's an irresponsible act.
No, the state should simply not force other people to suffer for the consequences of your irresponsible choices, which is what you are arguing for.
You have not established that anyone suffers from the act of an abortion, particularly an abortion in the first 16 weeks. I know this is going to seem like a ridiculous statement to you, but I promise it is not.
I don't know which lefty grey-box piece of shit posted this, but it's retarded of course.
There are plenty of laws that enforce personal responsibility. Child support laws are just one example.
You just don't have a constitutional right to be sheilded from the consequences of your actions.
You just don't have a constitutional right to be sheilded from the consequences of your actions.
Does that include, for instance, being kicked off Twitter for saying offensive shit?
Yes, it does! Twitter should be free to kick off anybody they like. Twitter should also not be shielded from legal liability for the choices they make on what to publish and what to censor on their platform.
You just don't have a constitutional right to be sheilded from the consequences of your actions.
Does that include, for instance, being denied entrance at private businesses because the owner insists all visitors must be vaccinated?
Correct. Private businesses should be free to decide whether to require or not require vaccinations from people entering their property.
It is Democrats who have denied them that freedom.
You just don't have a constitutional right to be sheilded from the consequences of your actions.
Does that include, for instance, rioters who are treated like common criminals for breaking in to the Capitol building and trashing the place?
Yes, the Capitol protesters should be held accountable for their actions: trespassing, vandalism, disrupting official proceedings.
They have a right to a speedy trial, which has been violated.
And equality under the law requires that others are treated the same way. For example, John Oliver's "comedy crew" should be in solitary confinement without bail until they are held accountable for their acts of trespassing. Likewise, the anti-SCOTUS protesters who have violated federal law should likewise be treated equally harshly and suffer the consequences of their actions.
Speedy on what scale of significance? The article does not promise a fast and speedy preparation period but only the nature of trial by such time it were to be conducted. Innocent Man should have no trouble with having to await trial because their conscience has any reason to accept their fate with minimal apprehension.
Detainment of Whom must match the specific charges being conducted by investigator warrant. The specific charge(s) must be stated plainly.
A "speedy trial" generally means 2-3 months.
The fact that many of the January 6 defendants are, in fact, bearing their cross with grace does not change the fact that the government's conduct is in violation of the Constitution and an outrage.
Why didn't the president say to lead a brigade and take the vote by any means necessary?
Those are of course rhetorical questions. We all know the answers to those questions:
The state must vigorously enforce the consequences of one's actions for OTHER people. When it comes to conservatives, however, there's always an exception which exempts them.
As I keep saying:
Conservatives can tell others what to do.
Others cannot tell conservatives what to do.
your above points are refutable by a knowledgeable middle schooler.
Oh you're right. I must have imagined all of those conservatives who demanded that Twitter be declared a "public forum" and that it be made illegal for the company to kick them off. I must have imagined all of those conservatives who threw a fit when *private* businesses wouldn't let them in if they were unvaccinated. I must have totally imagined all of those conservatives who regard Jan. 6 rioters as "political prisoners" for being treated the same as any other common criminal in the system.
I am more right than you care to imagine. Consequences are enforced only on "other people". But when consequences are enforced on conservatives, it's an outrage, it's unfair, they're being victimized, they're being targeted for their beliefs, there's always a reason why they don't deserve the consequences.
Yes, you imagined that.
What conservatives have been demanding is that Twitter chooses one of the following two options: (1) either it operates like any other private company, meaning that it is subject to civil liability for postings appearing on its site, or (2) if it wants to be exempt from civil liability, then it act like a common carrier and does not make editorial choices.
All of this is about civil liability (not making things "illegal"), and all of it is about the conditions under which Twitter receives a special exemption from civil liability.
I'll take number 2, please.
Oh, fucking THIS.
The one thing none of those examples have in common? They don’t result in the death of a human.
Now you might argue that it’s not a person deserving of rights, and up to a certain point I’d be willing to agree. But that doesn’t change the fact that abortion kills a living thing and deplatforming, or denying basic service for not being vaccinated against one type of illness, or mostly peaceful protesting doesnt.
(For the sake of this argument we’ll ignore that at least one of those were at the request of the federal government and the vaccines being demanded weren’t actually stopping the spread)
Unless you count the death of women waiting around for a hospital ethics committee to agree her life is sufficiently in danger to allow an abortion after her water breaks really early in pregnancy.
You apparently don't know the answers to those questions.
Conservatives are quite clear on equality under the law.
Democrats and progressives are quite clear that they reject equality under the law and favor politically motivated selective enforcement of laws. Many Democrats have explicitly run on this.
Of course, when it comes to pregnancy and STIs, conservatives aren't trying to hold anybody accountable, conservatives simply don't want the state to step in an shield people from the consequences of their choices.
Jeffy-
You really do know how to demonstrate what a Fucking Useful Idiot Prog Tool you are.
... and that you have absolutely no idea of what Libertarian is.
Yes, totally. Libertarianism is defined as picking and choosing policy prescriptions that one finds desirable and moral and then advocating for the government to impose restrictions on everything else. Are you even paying attention to the font of wisdom here on the comment page of reason.com. My gay and Black ass has only been here for 6 months and I totally get it. Are you slow or something?
This article desperately needs a color-coded map to aid readability and analysis. It wouldn't even be hard to make.
Aw man! Why do you have to make this so hard? What, are we supposed to find a US map and color it in by ourselves?
We want pictures, don't make us read!
[/sarc]
So basically, just about every person in the country is a short afternoon drive or a $100 flight away from abortion.
I get that it's less than perfect for abortion fanatics but the overall number of abortions will not actually decline much.
Roe Roe Roe your boats,
Gently down the hill,
Now you'll have to keep the kid,
Should've took the pill.
I guess you guys aren't ready for that, but your kids will love it.
I shall now do the impossible and convince everyone beyond doubt that abortion is not a right.
You have been going about the issue all wrong.
The entry of a bullet into a perpetrator is not a right, and yet we do recognize legitimate instances where it is not a punishable offense. Likewise, the entry of whatever violation of any supposedly viable zygote, embryo or fetus by surgical removal tools likewise has instances where it is not a punishable offense. But make no mistake -- the act itself were the act of abortion, and it is not a right.
So wherever the issue were taken, abortion is not the right itself but only one known expression that relates to the right in question, and is not in every case a legitimate procedure. In order to be a right, it must be legitimate in every case, not leastwise so as not to mislead people like you & me.
Please, let's not forget that the Court has also Freed Permissive States from the Constraints Roe vs Wade's evolution established around the "3 month regime". There is much more to fear from the free for all inventivities of the Liberal states as regard to any respect for human life than the restrictions, which will probably soften over time, of the more Conservative states.
The win of yesterday's Court decision, because I view it as a win, is the limits of Federal interventionist powers over State sovereignties... but I am not sure that abortion culture will ever offer a somewhat unified or uniform balanced national resolution.
The color-coding is quite biased here. Why use green for the pro-abortion states and red for the pro-life states? Red has a much more negative connotation when used as the opposite of green. Green means safe or go, red means danger or stop. The logical thing to do would've been to use blue for the pro-abortion states. Red and blue in that context would correspond to how states are color-coded for election results, which is logical here given the political divisions on this issue. Purple, then, would've been the logical color for the 5 "swing" states, where abortion law is more uncertain at this juncture.
Using the population numbers on Wikipedia, I've totaled up here the population for each category of state on this list. Of the 5 "swing states," I think only Florida sounds likely to move into the pro-life column in the foreseeable future. I've also included totals incorporating the way the swing states are leaning:
Swing states: 61,243,065
Pro-life: 122,939,141 (144,720,269 with leaners)
Pro-abortion: 146,809,020 (186,270,957 with leaners)
Just as predicted, mostly the bumblefuck, bible thumper states where people will get even poorer and more crime-ridden with all the children born to families who don't want them or can't afford them.
Here's a law designed to kill women:
"The only exception is for cases where an abortion is "necessary in reasonable medical judgment to prevent the death or substantial risk of death due to a physical condition, or to prevent the serious, permanent impairment of a life-sustaining organ of a pregnant woman." "
Here's another one:
"exceptions for medical emergencies only".
In places that outlaw abortion with wording like that you get people waiting for infection to set in, waiting for fevers to spike and waiting or organ damage while some committee decides whether or not they can treat the eclampsia, incomplete miscarriage, premature water breakage etc. In the meantime a pregnant woman dies of sepsis. This has happened a lot in Latin America, Iran and Malaysia. Ireland relaxed it's abortion law after a woman died of sepsis waiting for the Catholic hospital to consider her sufficiently in danger of dying.
Even Roberts came out and said Roe was obviously wrong. Viability was never a legal standard. But he also said he still would have lessened the decision to be meaningless.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/18/herschel-walker-fathers-day-weekend-pass-social-conservatives-00040710
Social conservative crowd cheers Herschel Walker after revelations of undiscussed kids
The former Heisman winner got applause from the Faith & Freedom crowd, after a week of reports that he had more children than he’d publicly acknowledged.
“Pro-family-values” square-jawed super-hero Republicans like Herschel Walker will be cheering the new abortion restrictions, ‘cause their lied-to harems full of fertile babes will now have a MUCH harder time of using abortion as “veto power” against lying scum-bucket men!!! Herschel Walker and ALL the other “Lying Lotharios” for the win!
See “Lying Lothario” details here… http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/#_Toc105750001
Herschel Walker will put an entirely NEW meaning to the phrase “binders full of women”! The harems of women will have “binders” on them, binding them as womb-slaves, by the onslaught of new anti-choice laws!
Wow, Goldilicks GorillaShit! What a WAAAY advanced, benevolent, and WISE way to run your life!
(BTW, how large is YOUR harem of lied-to babes?)
All of the democrats are raging this week. Even the ones pretending to be libertarian.
Why do you hate the rights of women to NOT be lied to, and, if lied to, to nullify the inherent "contracts" made? You want humans to devolve into harem-fighting, harem-lying BEASTS, right, you beast?
(Lying Lothario is still Lying Lothario, whatever his skin color. Why do you favor certain skin colors on Lying Lothario, you racist?)
An obvious way to divide the US is along state boundaries. But that will leave plenty of partisans behind enemy lines. I suggest using county lines, so that even in California, most people can end up in the right color country.
Plus, the blue country would end up mostly a bunch of detached metro areas. The red country would contain almost all of the production (food, goods, energy). That could make for some interesting treaties.
protect that Institution, Johnny!
Well, HI is in for a lot of lawsuits over the terms 'nonviable', and 'health'.
Mental health? Just because she says kids drive her crazy?
Abortion has impoverished millions of women. Men who impregnate them are freed from responsibility.
Since “Women” can’t be defined, how can they have rights?
"Abortion has impoverished millions of women."
How so? How much does it cost to raise a child in the USA? https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/life-insurance/cost-of-raising-a-child/#:~:text=In%20the%20US%2C%20the%20average,Department%20of%20Agriculture%20(USDA). the average cost of raising a child through the age of 17 is $233,610.
How much does a typical abortion cost? An abortion can cost anywhere from nothing out of pocket to more than $1,000.
Learn to "Google"! Don't be a Foolgle!
Poverty v/s number of children. AKA Poverty v/s family size ...
When the number of persons in a family increases, the income of the family becomes less than what is the minimum required to provide them the essentials for proper living. This ultimately leads to poverty.
Nutless Johnny…….
No, just make the Marxists leave. Why should they get anything? Since we’re taking in all these illegals, just ship at least an equal amount of progs to those countries in exchange.
Think how awesome California will be without leftist idiots running amok. And real estate there will become affordable.
"mostly a bunch of detached metro areas"
That would be like the "state" that Israel offered to the Palestinians.
Nuclear weapons even. Who's going to stop you? The cops?
"Pregnant persons" and "birthing-capable persons" can have rights, though! Don't be a CIS-shitlord!
Of course. I was illustrating a point.
Star football player? Wouldn't doubt it. Some women want that "seed" regardless. Think women seeking sperm donors. They want a father who is both a genius and star athlete. LOL So just because he has a lot of children, doesn't make him a bad guy per-se. As long as he is providing for them? Taking responsibility is the conservative message. And he isn't married to all of them. He can't marry all of them. But he can take responsibility for them. Which apparently he has done. What more do you want from him? To undo what has already been done?
LOL. Is contraceptives and barrier protection a new idea here? Is the only way to prevent a pregnancy is to stab a baby in the head and suck out it's brains? I don't think so. States will be able to enact legislation that eliminates ONE of those contraceptives. And that is the baby murder method. And it should probably be banned anyways right?
Remember the late spunky kid who built his own nuclear reactor science project by pinching material from smoke alarms? That was a nuclear weapon.
The weather is waaaaay too nice in much of California for the real estate to be affordable. It is affordable now, in the places where the weather is too damned cold, or hot.