The general opinion is the reverse. It was leaked to lock any wavering justices in to supporting this (stop them from changing their mind and get behind Alito’s opinion).
It’s all speculation but that seems more likely.
They don’t give a single solitary shit about efficacy. They care only about maintaining a foothold on their ability to exact moral judgment on the sluts and whores who can’t or won’t refrain from indulging in that dirty, dirty sex.
And, IMHO, to give the states a heads up to start passing anti-abortion laws.
Sluts and whores are women who do refrain from indulging in that dirty, dirty sex – with them.
Nah…sluts or not they can control this! You didn’t know? /s
Full title: GOP lawmaker says she trusts Utah women to control their ‘intake of semen’ as abortion trigger law goes into effect
(you can’t make this shit up)
Are there guidelines for the recommended daily intake of semen?
Apparently only for women from Utah. If you are a woman living in New York you have to take your chances since they can not control semen intake.
That or she meant women in New York just intake more semen because they are sluts. I am unclear on what she means. /s
Could there be something in blonde hair dye that causes brain damage?
Joking aside, it’s just a variant on “Nice girls keep their legs crossed. If they don’t they get what they deserve.”
* at our hands
See post above:
But it bears repeating that the horrors of this decision have already started.
Yes, especially when Kavanaugh’s concurrence reads so apologetic and stresses how much he respects the authors of Roe and Casey. It seems he was a swing vote to join Roberts view that Roe should be upheld but the viability line should move to 15 weeks. And if Roberts gets Kavanaugh that becomes the opinion
It’s a variation on the Todd Akins “women can just shut that whole thing down” if they’re raped. Many anti-abortion activists cannot abide the idea that their position is anything less than 100% morally correct in every circumstance. They reject out of hand the idea that a woman can be impregnated against her will, because they hate having their shining virtuous certainty clouded by any hint of doubt or contradiction. Rather than take the morally complicated position that – while women can indeed become pregnant through rape, coercion or incest – the life of the fetus is paramount, they will contort reality and women’s anatomy to simply exclude that possibility.
Which would likely allow her to get the care or even abortion (in some cases). Now if you specified Evangelical Christian , you wouldn’t even need to have it just men.
Now, before we get too scary here, remember that somewhat more people/women live in states without regressive abortion laws. This does not cover the entirety of the USA, just the Red states.
How to fight the ruling is simple- women, change your party from (R) to (D), and everyone get out to vote. Progressives, don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the Good. Vote dammit.
A tweet I just spotted from Bette Midler:
There are a lot of posts, so I may have missed it, but has anybody considered the religious exemption to any abortion ban?
Get yourself a rabbi to recommend an abortion, and bingo bango you’ve got yourself some 1st amendment cover.
A synagogue has already sued Florida over their abortion law
I highly doubt something like this is going to go anywhere. You could apply this form of religious freedom logic to make exceptions all sorts of things most people wouldn’t really want it to apply to and in any case the SCOTUS wasn’t going to take a complete hacksaw to abortion rights if they were going to make an exception this easily. They would’ve just opted for the Roberts method of chipping away at them.
I saw an argument for abortion rights on Reddit (in the comments) that I hadn’t seen before, and I found it pretty compelling. I feel like it should be a top line argument used, but again I haven’t really seen it before.
It doesn’t matter if a fetus is a full human or not. No humans have the right to another human’s body. If I need a kidney and you’re the only match, and I die without that kidney, if you choose not to donate your kidney then I die. I have no legal recourse. Nobody has any right to anybody else’s body.
‘Well the fetus has a body too, so the mother shouldn’t get to decide for it.’ But the mother does get to decide what to do with her own body, or at least she should, unless you also think the state should have the power to compel you to donate an organ.
Hell, we don’t even take organs from dead people without their consent. That’s how deeply we believe in bodily autonomy.
It’s the whole organ donation angle I hadn’t seen before. It seems pretty compelling and unassailable to me. Also simple enough to easily understand.
This argument has been around a long time, probably most famously in an essay by Judith Jarvis Thomson - A Defense of Abortion