Texas Law Banning Abortion After About Six Weeks Takes Effect

[Wildswanderer]

That's a lot of excuses. The bottom line is that you speak out against the evils of abortion but you have done nothing to help those who were born and abandoned. Some of whom were born because the mother was coerced into not getting an abortion.

There are a lot of people like you. They are anti-abortion - they like to call it right-to-life - but do nothing to alleviate the consequences.

Lol, what a crock! If one cannot adopt because of circumstances one must not care for kids?
Do you apply that logic to everything?
If I can not stop people in Afghanistan from being killed I must not care about their deaths?
Don't be absurd.

 

[ecco]

Better yet, don't want children, don't have sex.

Spoken like a true misogynistic male. Do you say that to your male friends as well?

People who would have an abortion would kill to have sex. So how come it's the women with the lesser sexual needs that do it?

What does "women with the lesser sexual needs" mean?

 

[ecco]

In all fairness, there is a difference between a woman saying, "I'm pregnant" and "I'm going to have a baby."

The difference, at least in America, is that forty years ago it wasn't proper to use the word pregnant.

Women were expecting. Women were with child. No one used the word pregnant.

It's just another throwback to our tight-assed Christian heritage.


Just found this, I guess it's not just us Americans.

"Pregnant" as a taboo word

This recent article from The Sun states that the term pregnant, in this specific case referred to Meghan Markle, is considered vulgar by the Queen.

According to a recently-resurfaced Us Weekly feature, the term is one of Her Majesty's pet peeves.

The piece - which was published back when Prince George was a baby - quotes a Palace source as saying she finds it "vulgar".

So, what will the 92-year-old be calling mum-to-be Meghan?

The article states that she'll be telling people she's "in the family way".

Apart from the Queen's personal preferences, I found that the term pregnant:

Retained its status as a taboo word until c. 1950. (Etymonline)

from which, probably, its perceived "vulgarity”.

The above statement apprears to be confirmed also by the following article from tv.avclub.com:

More than 60 years ago, a pregnant Lucille Ball couldn’t call herself “pregnant”.

• The script for “Lucy Is Enceinte” famously had to dance around saying the word “pregnant,” a term CBS deemed too vulgar for air.”

 

[ecco]

Lol, what a crock! If one cannot adopt because of circumstances one must not care for kids?

More cop-out excuses. If you really cared about abandoned children, you could have volunteered to assist with mentoring some of them. You could have made small anonymous contributions to families who did adopt them.

You could have indicated that you did some of these things, you didn't.

Well, here's your chance. What have you ever done to help a child who was carried to term and abandoned by a woman who did want the child?

 

[Watchmen]

It does seem odd that the court would refuse to pause a
law of questionable constitutionality, when its enforcement
would have immediate deleterious effect.
It seems that for some justices, are more swayed by personal
opposition to abortion than the law & stare decisis.

But here there apparently is no stare decisis.

 

[Shakeel]

Spoken like a true misogynistic male. Do you say that to your male friends as well?

Obviously it applies to both genders. The man is the one who will earn the living for all his children and his wife.

What does "women with the lesser sexual needs" mean?

It means just that. Women have less sexual needs and they are less urgent as well.

 

[Revoltingest]

One of the most conservative justices was Anton Scalia who stated the Constitution simply does not speak to abortion, the Court never should have heard it in the first place and if it were to revisit it he would not be in favor of overturning it for the same reason.

I see it differently. The Constitution's 9th Amendment says....
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
This how Madison addressed rights not being limited to those
granted in the Bill Of Rights, ie, other rights could exist.

In an article Scalia wrote ' God's Justice and Ours'; in reference to the death penalty “My difference with Roe v. Wade is a legal rather than a moral one: I do not believe . . . that the Constitution contains a right to abortion. And if a state were to permit abortion on demand, I would—and could in good conscience—vote against an attempt to invalidate that law for the same reason that I vote against the invalidation of laws that forbid abortion on demand: because the Constitution gives the federal government (and hence me) no power over the matter.”
God’s Justice and Ours by Antonin Scalia | Articles | First Things

"God's Justice" is merely the religious belief of individuals.
Such beliefs should not rule over non-believers or even
fellow believers. Better for justices to read the Constitution
than the Bible in matters of law (IMO).

 

[Shakeel]

If you really cared about abandoned children, you could have volunteered to assist with mentoring some of them.

Much more useful is to come up with something that lessens the amount of abandoned children.

 

[Revoltingest]

But here there apparently is no stare decisis.

Roe v Wade is.

 

[Watchmen]

Roe v Wade is.

Incorrect. Roe v Wade is NOT stare decisis for the unique procedural issue that was before the court. It may be state decisis for the ultimate constitutional challenge.

 

[Revoltingest]

Incorrect. Roe v Wade is NOT state decisis for the unique procedural issue that was before the court. It may be state decisis for the ultimate constitutional challenge.

I said "stare decisis", not "state decisis" (whatever that is).
Roe v Wade is indeed precedent, & I suspect that USSC
justices are aware of the decision.
Precedent - Wikipedia

 

[Watchmen]

I said "stare decisis", not "state decisis" (whatever that is).
Roe v Wade is indeed precedent, & I suspect that USSC
justices are aware of the decision.
Precedent - Wikipedia

It was a typo, but I suspect you know that.
Every case is not precedent on every issue. Here, there was a unique procedural issue without stare decisis. Roe v Wade touches on the constitutional issue, not the procedural issue. Thus, it was not stare decisis for the Texas case. When the actual constitutional issues are before the court, the court can and will consider Roe v Wade.

 

[Revoltingest]

It was a typo, but I suspect you know that.

Suspected.
Unsure.

Every case is not precedent on every issue. Here, there was a unique procedural issue without stare decisis. Roe v Wade touches on the constitutional issue, not the procedural issue. Thus, it was not stare decisis for the Texas case. When the actual constitutional issues are before the court, the court can and will consider Roe v Wade.

From....
Precedent - Wikipedia
We have (underlining added)....
A precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive without going to courts for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.[1][2][3] Common-law legal systems place great value on deciding cases according to consistent principled rules, so that similar facts will yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observance of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. The principle by which judges are bound to precedents is known as stare decisis

The USSC has often cited Roe v Wade as precedent
in later cases. Ref...
Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia

 

[anna.]

When people find out they are pregnant they say "We are going to have a baby, I am going to be a mother". I've never heard a pregnant woman say "I have a baby, I am a mother".

Probability. You're male. Perhaps - absent being a nurse, MD or OB/GYN - you've had fewer opportunities to talk about being pregnant or be around pregnant women than I have. We talk to our babies, name them, talk about their perceived personalities ("he's an active one, keeps me up all night kicking, he's gonna be a handful, I know it already!")

Let me ask, why are you against abortions as approved by the Supreme Court in 1973?

I've actually softened my stance since I started participating in walks for life as a teen. I have believed before, during, and after my own motherhood that there are two lives involved, not one. But I allow more gray in my consideration now, I'm not as black and white as I was; I'm an exception to the presumption that people tend to get more conservative as they get older. I think there should be free and accessible birth control for all women (which flies in the face of my church teaching) as well as a free and accessible morning after pill. After that, it becomes more difficult. I don't have all the answers. I want women to have autonomy, and I want babies to have a chance at life. It's difficult.

I'm telling you now, if you don't respond to the above with more maturity than you've shown in other replies to me, don't bother to answer, because I'll ignore you.

 

[Watchmen]

Suspected.
Unsure.

From....
Precedent - Wikipedia
We have (underlining added)....
A precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive without going to courts for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.[1][2][3] Common-law legal systems place great value on deciding cases according to consistent principled rules, so that similar facts will yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observance of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. The principle by which judges are bound to precedents is known as stare decisis

The USSC has often cited Roe v Wade as precedent
in later cases. Ref...
Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia

Quoting definitions from Wikipedia don’t prove your point and only demonstrate that you don’t seem to understand the term “stare decisis.” I have decades of legal training and experience, have appeared before the courts of appeal, and have a successful state Supreme Court Opinion with my name on it.

Tell me, where in Roe v Wade does it state the US Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear a petition and grant emergency injunctive relief where (1) there are no state or appellate decisions on the matter, and (2) the law at issue involves enforcement by the citizenry, but the named defendants all deny they can or will enforce the law?

 

[pearl]

That's a lot of excuses. The bottom line is that you speak out against the evils of abortion but you have done nothing to help those who were born and abandoned. Some of whom were born because the mother was coerced into not getting an abortion.

There are a lot of people like you. They are anti-abortion - they like to call it right-to-life - but do nothing to alleviate the consequences.

When one considers the political position is the Republicans and their anti-abortion position as opposed to a pro-life position, its not the Republicans who advocate government programs designed to ease the burden of birthing and raising a child. Post uterus is no concern of theirs.

 

[Revoltingest]

Quoting definitions from Wikipedia don’t prove your point and only demonstrate that you don’t seem to understand the term “stare decisis.”

I quoted relevant text in support of my argument.
You offered....uh.....personal opinion & ad hominem.

I have decades of legal training and experience, have appeared before the courts of appeal, and have a successful state Supreme Court Opinion with my name on it.

And yet, you've not explained how the USSC having cited
Roe v Wade as precedent in multiple cases is not precedent.

Tell me, where in Roe v Wade does it state the US Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear a petition and grant emergency injunctive relief where (1) there are no state or appellate decisions on the matter, and (2) the law at issue involves enforcement by the citizenry, but the named defendants all deny they can or will enforce the law?

Roe v Wade doesn't address jurisdiction.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
However, the Incorporation Doctrine would
have the decision apply to all states.

You claim much experience & authority,
but I'm not seeing the benefits thereof.
So instead of dissing my poor understanding,
how about some solid evidence based
reasoning, eh.

 

[anna.]

Perhaps you need to read and understand what I wrote.

Fear not. I understand you better than you realize.

The baby showers are given to provide items for the baby to use. You don't put diapers on a fetus, do you?

Stop pretending that "fetus" is some sort of seldom used esoteric scientific word. It is specifically to differentiate between the unborn (fetus) and the born (baby).

Stop building straw men.

Google, or ask a teacher, or ask a friend how big a six-week-old fetus is.
Google, or ask a teacher, or ask a friend how big a six-week-old baby is.

You and yours like to propagate the picture of a seven-pound baby being killed to further your religious agenda. That's much more powerful than the image of a 1/2 inch embryo being extracted. It's also intentionally deceptive.

Is it legal in certain states to abort a seven-pound baby?

A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

 

[Watchmen]

I quoted relevant text in support of my argument.
You offered....uh.....personal opinion & ad hominem.

And yet, you've not explained how the USSC having cited
Roe v Wade as precedent in multiple cases is not precedent.


Roe v Wade doesn't address jurisdiction.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
However, the Incorporation Doctrine would
have the decision apply to all states.

You claim much experience & authority,
but I'm not seeing the benefits thereof.
So instead of dissing my poor understanding,
how about some solid evidence based
reasoning, eh.

I’ve already explained a couple times now. You don’t understand or choose not to. I’ll say it one more time: Roe v Wade is not precedent because it does not address the procedural issue before the court. Do you understand the difference between procedural issues and substantive issues?

I also asked you to show me the passage in Roe v Wade relevant to the specific procedural issue. You ignored my request other than to say Roe v Wade doesn’t address jurisdiction, which proves my point.

Roe v Wade is precedent for the constitutional issue and the USSC will cite to it when they can address the constitutional issue. For now, the majority decided they cannot reach that issue yet because of the procedural status of the matter.

I think I was able to write this post (and others) without any snide remarks directed towards you. My apologies if you feel differently.

 

[pearl]

"God's Justice" is merely the religious belief of individuals.
Such beliefs should not rule over non-believers or even
fellow believers. Better for justices to read the Constitution
than the Bible in matters of law (IMO).

That religious teaching or morality has no place on the Court was Scalia's point.