Wow, a task force. I’m sure that will fix everything!
Dan Savage’s Twitter: Nothing in the Constitution about eating steak in peace
Other than declaring Martial law, that is the best Joe can do. Why belittle best efforts?
Task forces, convened by any group, administration, or party rarely accomplish much of anything.
Then, PLEASE!!!, tell us how Biden should fix this? Enthrall us with your acumen!
The SCOTUS just fixed this, by overruling a poorly decided decision from 49 years ago.
So you believe that freedom should be restricted by the government?
The ruling increased freedom, by returning the decision to the people, where it belongs.
It removes freedom from individual people; which is where medical and personal life decisions belong.
Everyone has had the freedom all along to not get an abortion.
Also, the majority of The People favour the right to choose.
And as Thorny_locust noted, women have always had the freedom to choose not to have an abortion.
Oh, good, I’ll let the women dying of complications from ectopic pregnancies know that their premature and unnecessary deaths were brought about by their freedom. I’m sure it will cheer them to no end.
If you believed that, you’d support individual people’s rights to make the choice for themselves.
Even if you agree that the legal underpinnings of Roe were weak, there remains a pressing issue about how to resolve unwanted pregnancies.
If the pro-life crowd was hastily passing laws to promote sex education, improve access to contraception, and increase neonatal care, people perhaps wouldn’t be so concerned.
But that clearly isn’t happening. Instead, a medical option has been denied, and the president (who’s authority is, of course, limited) took some action to preserve as much of that access as possible.
At first you derided the effort, now you seem to say it’s not even necessary because it was just a legal question of state sovereignty. I think there’s a more practical impact on actual human beings that’s occurring. Since Congress is predictably deadlocked, I’m glad the President took executive action.
As one of the Justices explained (can’t find the citation at the moment), “the phone and pen” method is not how our Constitutional system works.
He thinks that it is already fixed. He isn’t bemoaning the fact that this won’t be enough.
He is rejoicing.
So, when “the people” decide who you can or cannot marry, which hole you can use if you do get marry, and whether you can or cannot use contraceptives, all of which are based on the same right to privacy Roe v. Wade, one that the court says does not exist, you’ll be fine with that.
The ruling itself said it only applied to abortion.
Do you happen to remember what “Justice” Thomas said about it?
And there is absolutely nothing preventing the same reasoning from being extended to the other rulings using the same philosophy as this one.
Just keep whistling past that graveyard.
Clarence Thomas himself said:
“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”
In other words, the Roe verdict may have been overturned, but Thomas believes that other civil rights should follow.
I just wonder how long it’ll be before he decides to include interracial marriage in that list. Yeah, he’s in an interracial marriage, and he’s Catholic, so divorce isn’t an option. But given how much Ginni seems to have been involved in the attempt to overturn the election results, Thomas may be wanting to distance himself from it after all the scrutiny, and invalidating interracial marriages would be a perfect way to do that.
I admit, though, that that paragraph is all speculation, and should only be taken halfway seriously.