USA Roe, the evangelicals and the war on choice

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Jun 7, 2011
57,997
60,059
Mount Gambier
AFL Club
Adelaide
Judges over there apply whatever "law" they think best aligns to their political beliefs, generally under duress from whatever scumbag politician got them appointed.

Why do you think RvW was overturned? I'll give you a hint, it had nothing to do with the law.

It was corrected, R v W got it wrong. It's now with the people, which is where it should have been all along.
 
Jun 7, 2011
57,997
60,059
Mount Gambier
AFL Club
Adelaide
Whatever whackjob.

What right have you or anybody else to determine what a woman does with her own body?

Go on, tell me about what the US Constitution says. The same document that is directly responsible for 50,000 gun deaths in that country every year. Anybody using that piece of toilet paper as the basis for taking agency away from women is a grub.

are you saying that there are no laws in the US that prohibit what people can do with their bodies?
 
It was corrected, R v W got it wrong. It's now with the people, which is where it should have been all along.
Nah, it wasn't 'corrected', Federalist Society hand picked Justices overturned it as promised.

All three newly appointed Justices reaffirmed at their hearing that R v W was settled law.

They perjured themselves just to get their nomination over the line.
 
Last edited:
Mar 1, 2007
23,137
27,442
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
It was corrected, R v W got it wrong. It's now with the people, which is where it should have been all along.
"with the people", interesting phrasing there.

Wouldn't it truly be "with the people" if people who wanted were free to get one, while those who oppose abortions were free not to get one?
 
Dec 12, 2007
8,881
11,791
The North
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Green Bay Packers
"with the people", interesting phrasing there.

Wouldn't it truly be "with the people" if people who wanted were free to get one, while those who oppose abortions were free not to get one?
I mean Ohio put it to the people and the people voted in favour of reproduction rights. Yet now Republicans want to just ignore the will of the people.
 
Nah, it wasn't 'corrected', Federalist Society hand picked Justices overturned it as promised.

All three newly appointed Justices reaffirmed at their hearing that R v W was settled law.

They perjured themselves just to get their nomination over the line.
I can't recall which one did a victory lap at some exclusive dinner at the Vatican, admitting it was his goal the whole time.
 
Apr 23, 2016
30,234
42,174
AFL Club
Essendon
"with the people", interesting phrasing there.

Wouldn't it truly be "with the people" if people who wanted were free to get one, while those who oppose abortions were free not to get one?

I do find it funny when people argue as though RvW somehow resulted in people being forced to do something against their will.

It was a ruling that permitted women the freedom to make their own choices as to what they wished to do with their bodies.

Removing that ruling has resulted in women in a number of states being unable to make such a choice.

Weirdly, those who scream the loudest about freedoms seem to be the one's supporting overturning RvW and outlawing abortion. Almost like they don't actually support freedoms for anyone but themselves.
 
I do find it funny when people argue as though RvW somehow resulted in people being forced to do something against their will.

It was a ruling that permitted women the freedom to make their own choices as to what they wished to do with their bodies.

Removing that ruling has resulted in women in a number of states being unable to make such a choice.

Weirdly, those who scream the loudest about freedoms seem to be the one's supporting overturning RvW and outlawing abortion. Almost like they don't actually support freedoms for anyone but themselves.
freedom to impose their views on others

they want all the laws to match their own personal views and no one elses
 
Dec 12, 2007
8,881
11,791
The North
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Green Bay Packers

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It was corrected, R v W got it wrong. It's now with the people, which is where it should have been all along.
“With the people” - in a system where district borders are set up on partisan lines to advantage incumbent parties, where the ability to vote is suppressed (and elections on working days), that type of “people”?
 
Jun 7, 2011
57,997
60,059
Mount Gambier
AFL Club
Adelaide
Nah, it wasn't 'corrected', Federalist Society hand picked Justices overturned it as promised.

All three newly appointed Justices reaffirmed at their hearing that R v W was settled law.

They perjured themselves just to get their nomination over the line.

You just explained why it was wrong. Having partisan judges effectively writing law is incredibly flawed. Firstly, that profession is so far out of touch with ordinary people it's ridiculous. And second, they're appointed by politicians with axes to grind. It's not 'settled law', it never was, it was wrong when written and just hadn't been addressed. It was a ridiculous overreach implemented by the political will of the day.

These matters belong with the people, not partisan judges. And since the correction, the people have almost entirely been proving themselves to be trustworthy.
 
Jun 7, 2011
57,997
60,059
Mount Gambier
AFL Club
Adelaide
“With the people” - in a system where district borders are set up on partisan lines to advantage incumbent parties, where the ability to vote is suppressed (and elections on working days), that type of “people”?

So you're against democracy? You prefer some other system to determine the laws that you are bound to abide by? Plenty of other countries you can emigrate to comrade.

Yours is just a pure emotional post. An exact example of why having a group of unelected individuals writing law is wrong. Great when I agree with your ideologies, but $hit when I don't, so I need to be able to vote you out. On abortion, I'd agree with your emotions, but I'd imagine there'd not be much other alignment. But if I live in a society that elects you consistently, I'd be comforted knowing that you represent the views of a of a fair proportion of society.
 
Last edited:
You just explained why it was wrong. Having partisan judges effectively writing law is incredibly flawed. Firstly, that profession is so far out of touch with ordinary people it's ridiculous. And second, they're appointed by politicians with axes to grind. It's not 'settled law', it never was, it was wrong when written and just hadn't been addressed. It was a ridiculous overreach implemented by the political will of the day.

These matters belong with the people, not partisan judges. And since the correction, the people have almost entirely been proving themselves to be trustworthy.
Already answered by Crankyhawk did you even read the reply?

On one hand you refer to partisan judges and then ignore partisan politicians that make the laws in their own state.

The people that preferred Row V wade are currently in the majority but depending on the state they live in have no chance that is why the Federal Law was preferred.

“With the people” - in a system where district borders are set up on partisan lines to advantage incumbent parties, where the ability to vote is suppressed (and elections on working days), that type of “people”?
 
You just explained why it was wrong. Having partisan judges effectively writing law is incredibly flawed. Firstly, that profession is so far out of touch with ordinary people it's ridiculous. And second, they're appointed by politicians with axes to grind. It's not 'settled law', it never was, it was wrong when written and just hadn't been addressed. It was a ridiculous overreach implemented by the political will of the day.

These matters belong with the people, not partisan judges. And since the correction, the people have almost entirely been proving themselves to be trustworthy.
except the legislators try to defy the will of the people (and likely cite election fraud when they lose too)
 
Jun 7, 2011
57,997
60,059
Mount Gambier
AFL Club
Adelaide
Already answered by Crankyhawk did you even read the reply?

On one hand you refer to partisan judges and then ignore partisan politicians that make the laws in their own state.

The people that preferred Row V wade are currently in the majority but depending on the state they live in have no chance that is why the Federal Law was preferred.

answered incorrectly. Partisan politicians are much preferred to partisan judges, we get to vote on politicians every 3 or so years. People complaining that a right/left balance of power change resulted in law being repealed is hilarious. You loved the 'system' when it resulted in outcomes that suited your particular bent, but then there's something wrong with it when it doesn't.

In terms of states where abortion remains a criminal act, noting that it was only a year or so ago that South Australia decriminalised abortion, if the voting public demand it, it will be done. And if not, and a citizen wants the right to something not allowable under that jurisdiction's legislature, then they are free to relocate to where it is. We are all burdened by governments that, throughout our lives, make decisions we strongly disagree with. But again, I much rather an elected government than an appointed lawyer.
 
So you're against democracy? You prefer some other system to determine the laws that you are bound to abide by? Plenty of other countries you can emigrate to comrade.

Yours is just a pure emotional post. An exact example of why having a group of unelected individuals writing law is wrong. Great when I agree with your ideologies, but $hit when I don't, so I need to be able to vote you out. On abortion, I'd agree with your emotions, but I'd imagine there'd not be much other alignment. But if I live in a society that elects you consistently, I'd be comforted knowing that you represent the views of a of a fair proportion of society.
I'd prefer that they had an independent non partisan electoral commission that was trusted rather than the current shitshow of governors arbitrarily drawing district gerrymander lines. And had voting on a weekend. And not undermining absentee voting/ putting in barriers for this to occur. Or more recently avoiding the will of the people via claiming electoral fraud, then going to your hand picked partisan judges to support you in this.

In short I distrust the results USA democracy gives when compared to what we have here.
 
It's not 'settled law', it never was, it was wrong when written and just hadn't been addressed. It was a ridiculous overreach implemented by the political will of the day.
If so, why did those candidates lie about it?
 
Jun 7, 2011
57,997
60,059
Mount Gambier
AFL Club
Adelaide
I'd prefer that they had an independent non partisan electoral commission that was trusted rather than the current shitshow of governors arbitrarily drawing district gerrymander lines. And had voting on a weekend. And not undermining absentee voting/ putting in barriers for this to occur. Or more recently avoiding the will of the people via claiming electoral fraud, then going to your hand picked partisan judges to support you in this.

In short I distrust the results USA democracy gives when compared to what we have here.

I don't follow it that closely, but the R v W thing did interest me. Only a couple of years ago, in SA, abortion was a criminal act unless 2 doctors signed off on it due to mental or physical health risks. So if you turned up to a clinic and said that having the baby wouldn't negatively impact your mental health and you were otherwise physically able to, it would be a criminal act to choose and undergo an abortive procedure. I've been involved in this farce a couple of times, once as a supportive friend and the other as the potential father. I found the outrage on the Adelaide politics thread quite amusing considering how little most understood of the existing laws within their own state.

But I thought I'd heard that a few states that had elections following R v W reversal had voted in the pro choice side of the argument. I do understand that there are wacky states that are full of religious nut jobs, but I find it perfectly normal that governments pass laws that reflect a majority of their constituents. It's similar to gun laws (ignoring the lobby system), Americans get the laws that the majority prefer. I definitely disagree with the interpretation of the constitution with respect to the right to bear arms though. But it's up to the people to change that. Lobby system does make that harder though. Still, I prefer that weakness to lifetime appointed judges making the decisions.
 
I don't follow it that closely, but the R v W thing did interest me. Only a couple of years ago, in SA, abortion was a criminal act unless 2 doctors signed off on it due to mental or physical health risks. So if you turned up to a clinic and said that having the baby wouldn't negatively impact your mental health and you were otherwise physically able to, it would be a criminal act to choose and undergo an abortive procedure. I've been involved in this farce a couple of times, once as a supportive friend and the other as the potential father. I found the outrage on the Adelaide politics thread quite amusing considering how little most understood of the existing laws within their own state.

But I thought I'd heard that a few states that had elections following R v W reversal had voted in the pro choice side of the argument. I do understand that there are wacky states that are full of religious nut jobs, but I find it perfectly normal that governments pass laws that reflect a majority of their constituents. It's similar to gun laws (ignoring the lobby system), Americans get the laws that the majority prefer. I definitely disagree with the interpretation of the constitution with respect to the right to bear arms though. But it's up to the people to change that. Lobby system does make that harder though. Still, I prefer that weakness to lifetime appointed judges making the decisions.
The people cannot change it (the system) due to the inherent gerrymanders that favor incumbency.
 
Jun 7, 2011
57,997
60,059
Mount Gambier
AFL Club
Adelaide
If so, why did those candidates lie about it?

did they though? I've read what their views were when asked and only a couple stated, in what I'd call unequivocal terms, that they'd not vote to overturn if something came before them on R v W. It's not surprising that many here would misinterpret their statements, especially when presented on their FB feed. In the real world, people almost always misunderstand the requirements of something like a CoP that states 'should' as opposed to 'must'. These little words are key, but yet they're often ignored in favour of the overall message. But the writers could easily have placed 'must' in the sentence, but yet didn't. And there's a reason for that and it needs to be respected as if it wasn't done by accident.
 
Jun 7, 2011
57,997
60,059
Mount Gambier
AFL Club
Adelaide
The people cannot change it (the system) due to the inherent gerrymanders that favor incumbency.

Are you saying that their are anti-choice states that haven't changed governing party for decades? I lived in the NT for 20 years and was there for the first ever non liberal government. I know it can happen, but don't have that depth of knowledge on US state politics. Or any knowledge really. I'd be interested to know how many governments are governing having actually lost the popular vote. I think it happened a couple of elections ago in SA and maybe federally as well. But it's rare.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back