U.S. Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe vs. Wade
- Thread starter donwuan
- Start date
Michigan has an abortion law in place if Roe v Wade is ever over turned.
True the old testament really gets ignored by Christians when you present arguments like the bitter water argument so I don't usually even bother with it anymore. But I agree with you that passage literally tells you when abortion is cool lol.
Obama was a moderate we know he didn't have the guts to do something so progressive. He literally once said he would have probably been a Republican in the 80s lol.
Man fuck these folks.....if you allow your political enemy to pick 3 justices who will rule for the next 30 years....simply because you didn t get 100% of what you wanted and stayed home....
Then STFU and bend over. FOH with the tears
Then STFU and bend over. FOH with the tears
Michigan has an abortion law in place if Roe v Wade is ever over turned.
They just had her on NPR a few weeks ago talking about this and I thought it was a bit hyperbolic.
She knew then...
Lmao at unverified..so no Dems voted for this?
People don't get a chance to tell someone else they have to carry a baby the term
If YOU don't want an abortion, don't have one.
No one LIKES abortion. Women have it because:
- They can't afford it
- They can barely care for themselves
- They are in school and a baby would cause them to derail their way to care for themselves
- They are in an abusive relationship They are trying to leave
- They were raped
- They were molested
- They don't want the kid at that time
I've known three women who have done extreme things in hopes to getting the baby to abort itself
- One drank to the point of passing out almost daily
- Two smoked weed and/or cigarettes the entire pregnancy
Allowing women to get safe abortions is not a bad thing.
The real reason why conservative politicians are against abortion has to do with the decrease in white babies being born.
White people aren't having babies like they used to and by 2045 white people will no longer be the majority in this country. They see abortion as a way of keeping those numbers from decreasing
These politicians who are against abortion are not donating money to the single mothers who have to raise these kids by themselves. They're not adopting kids who were left in shelters or orphanages. They are not helping at all.
Their moral ground is, "Keep this baby you whore. This is what you get for being a whore and not observing God's vow of chastity. This is your fault you impure whor"
I hate Christianity
They just had her on NPR a few weeks ago talking about this and I thought it was a bit hyperbolic.
We have a bunch of conservatives in our state house. She knew.
Abortion is just the beginning. Buckle up and get ready to fight.
Reset progress so we can be in a perpetual loop of repeating the same shit without any actual progress.
Oh you mean millions of cheap labor?
LOL. All these selfish ass kids who were robbing Gucci and LV in 2020. All the current wanted kids making crime go up.
These terrible parents are to busy trying to make 50 the next 20. A lot old ass people need to sit the fuck down and watch their kids. I hope this kills the spirt of some of these endless summer MFers.
Too many over the hill people ain't got the point that they washed. Maybe an extra kid or two will keep them out the club. Sad to say if they get out of line they got plenty of jail space from covid.
Aint really shit to argue. The die is cast. Let see how many of these PAWGs change up on you niggas now that they can't clean up their mistake.
LOL. Swirl gang gonna be on the outside looking in again. LOL.
Have a nice day.
Then tax muffukas to pay for the unborn, count them in the census, and give them full welfare rights. Pay up Republicans.
Everything after the 10th amendment is “next”.Emancipation is next.
Well I mean voting doesn t matter
They don’t. It’s about the subjugation.
You have not been paying attention the past 20-30 years have you? Or even the past 15 during the Obama years. How many religious organizations were willing to pay for viagra but not BC, because stopping a pregnancy is against Gods will? Viagra isn't being restricted to married men with wives of child bearing age, it's for any man who wants a woody even tho he would still be having sex outside of marriage. The woman needs to be controlled and have consequences for her behavior. How many places tried to stop planned parenthood and other places from providing contraceptives to teens? I don't expect you to be aware of this if you aren't a woman or have young girls in your life you are responsible for, but I'm sounding the alarm for a reason. I have PCOS. I've known since I was 16 I couldn't have kids unless I used fertility drugs. This isn't a personal concern because I'm concerned about my lifestyle or my choices, but people I care about are affected, and you may not realize it yet, but black men and black families are affected also.
Anyway...here is an article for you.....
If the Supreme Court undermines Roe v. Wade, contraception could be banned. This explains how.
Constitutional protections for birth control could be on shaky ground.
After last week’s U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, many observers noted that the justices are likely to undermine or overturn Roe v. Wade’s constitutional protections for abortion. Less broadly publicized is how the decision could also limit access to contraception.
Contraceptives came up frequently in the oral arguments. Mississippi’s Solicitor General Scott G. Stewart contended that the court needn’t worry about pregnancy’s burden on women because “contraception is more accessible and affordable and available than it was at the time of Roe or Casey. It serves the same goal of allowing women to decide if, when, and how many children to have.”
But as U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar pointed out, “about half the women who have unplanned pregnancies were on contraceptives” when they got pregnant. While contraception reduces the chance of pregnancy, it is not a foolproof alternative to abortion.
The Dobbs argument ignored “contraceptive deserts” and burdensome costs
But that’s not the only flaw in Stewart’s argument. Birth control has never been as affordable, easy and widespread in the U.S. as he suggests, according to our research. Take affordability. One of the most widely used forms of contraception — “the pill” — costs approximately $370 a year, the equivalent of 51 hours of minimum wage work. Not until the mid-1990s did state governments begin requiring health insurance plans to cover prescription contraceptives. That’s a major out-of-pocket cost for people who may have to put housing or food first.
Although the Affordable Care Act broadened insurance coverage for contraception, the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and a 2017 Trump administration order limited that coverage by exempting employers and insurance providers who have objections based on “sincerely held religious beliefs.”
Nor is contraception always easy to get. In most states, women must first get a doctor’s prescription and then find a pharmacist who will fill it — which can be hard in rural areas or for those whose jobs and families give them little control over their time. Only 15 states allow pharmacists to prescribe birth control themselves. Six states allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense contraceptives altogether if they have religious or other conscience-based objections.
Overall, as a result of state-level differences in direct funding for family planning and Title X implementation, between 17 percent and 53 percent of Americans currently live in “contraceptive deserts” with inadequate and inequitable access to affordable reproductive health care. In other words, contraception cannot possibly be a meaningful substitute for access to abortion.
If the court topples Roe, it puts constitutional protections for birth control on shaky ground
But here’s the more important question: Will women still have access to birth control in a post-Roe world? The limits described above will likely expand and some states will try to ban contraceptive access entirely.
There are two reasons for this. First, constitutional protections for abortion and birth control are linked. In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court invalidated a law prohibiting birth control, arguing that the prohibition violated a fundamental “right to privacy.” This right to privacy is the foundation for Roe v. Wade.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor clearly had this precedent in mind during oral arguments for Dobbs, saying, “in Roe, the Court said … certain personal decisions that belong to individuals and the states can’t intrude on them. … We have recognized that sense of privacy in people’s choices about whether to use contraception or not.” If the court invalidates Roe v. Wade, contraception rights might be precarious as well.
The changing composition of the court, particularly the replacement of reproductive rights champion Ruth Bader Ginsburg with conservative Amy Coney Barrett, increases the chances that legal precedents related to contraception may be overturned. When asked during her confirmation hearing whether Griswold v. Connecticut was decided correctly, Barrett declined to answer on the grounds that a full ban on contraception at the state level was “unthinkable.” Barrett’s silence on Griswold, coupled with the court’s new conservative majority, sends the signal to state governments that more restrictive contraception policies might be welcomed.
Religious groups classify some forms of birth control as abortion
Further, in recent decisions, the court let religious groups argue that some forms of contraception are “abortifacients.” For instance, in the Hobby Lobby case, the company objected that four FDA-approved contraceptives prevented implantation of a fertilized egg — and that that counted as an abortion. More specifically, the company claimed that the owners’ “religious beliefs forbid them from participating in, providing access to, paying for, training others to engage in, or otherwise supporting abortion-causing drugs and devices.”
The Little Sisters of the Poor, an organization of Roman Catholic nuns, challenged the paperwork requirements of religious exemptions under the Affordable Care Act, arguing that even signing the exemption forms constituted an endorsement of contraception and a violation of their religious tenets. In both of these cases, the court tacitly endorsed the plaintiffs’ conflation between birth control and abortion by not clearly distinguishing between the two in its rulings. This conflation has been subsequently echoed by Justice Samuel A Alito Jr. and in briefs submitted in Dobbs.
That legal blurring of distinct scientific boundaries between abortion and birth control threatens contraceptive access in the United States. Some state governments will listen to the Dobbs arguments and extrapolate from the Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor decisions — and will probably ban some forms of contraception outright, using the discredited idea that contraceptives act as abortifacients.
In other words, the court doesn’t have to formally end legal protection for contraception use. If it allows plaintiffs to call contraception abortion, and Dobbs ends legal protection for abortion, then contraception is at risk.
But that’s not the only flaw in Stewart’s argument. Birth control has never been as affordable, easy and widespread in the U.S. as he suggests, according to our research. Take affordability. One of the most widely used forms of contraception — “the pill” — costs approximately $370 a year, the equivalent of 51 hours of minimum wage work. Not until the mid-1990s did state governments begin requiring health insurance plans to cover prescription contraceptives. That’s a major out-of-pocket cost for people who may have to put housing or food first.
Although the Affordable Care Act broadened insurance coverage for contraception, the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and a 2017 Trump administration order limited that coverage by exempting employers and insurance providers who have objections based on “sincerely held religious beliefs.”
Nor is contraception always easy to get. In most states, women must first get a doctor’s prescription and then find a pharmacist who will fill it — which can be hard in rural areas or for those whose jobs and families give them little control over their time. Only 15 states allow pharmacists to prescribe birth control themselves. Six states allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense contraceptives altogether if they have religious or other conscience-based objections.
Overall, as a result of state-level differences in direct funding for family planning and Title X implementation, between 17 percent and 53 percent of Americans currently live in “contraceptive deserts” with inadequate and inequitable access to affordable reproductive health care. In other words, contraception cannot possibly be a meaningful substitute for access to abortion.
If the court topples Roe, it puts constitutional protections for birth control on shaky ground
But here’s the more important question: Will women still have access to birth control in a post-Roe world? The limits described above will likely expand and some states will try to ban contraceptive access entirely.
There are two reasons for this. First, constitutional protections for abortion and birth control are linked. In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court invalidated a law prohibiting birth control, arguing that the prohibition violated a fundamental “right to privacy.” This right to privacy is the foundation for Roe v. Wade.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor clearly had this precedent in mind during oral arguments for Dobbs, saying, “in Roe, the Court said … certain personal decisions that belong to individuals and the states can’t intrude on them. … We have recognized that sense of privacy in people’s choices about whether to use contraception or not.” If the court invalidates Roe v. Wade, contraception rights might be precarious as well.
The changing composition of the court, particularly the replacement of reproductive rights champion Ruth Bader Ginsburg with conservative Amy Coney Barrett, increases the chances that legal precedents related to contraception may be overturned. When asked during her confirmation hearing whether Griswold v. Connecticut was decided correctly, Barrett declined to answer on the grounds that a full ban on contraception at the state level was “unthinkable.” Barrett’s silence on Griswold, coupled with the court’s new conservative majority, sends the signal to state governments that more restrictive contraception policies might be welcomed.
Religious groups classify some forms of birth control as abortion
Further, in recent decisions, the court let religious groups argue that some forms of contraception are “abortifacients.” For instance, in the Hobby Lobby case, the company objected that four FDA-approved contraceptives prevented implantation of a fertilized egg — and that that counted as an abortion. More specifically, the company claimed that the owners’ “religious beliefs forbid them from participating in, providing access to, paying for, training others to engage in, or otherwise supporting abortion-causing drugs and devices.”
The Little Sisters of the Poor, an organization of Roman Catholic nuns, challenged the paperwork requirements of religious exemptions under the Affordable Care Act, arguing that even signing the exemption forms constituted an endorsement of contraception and a violation of their religious tenets. In both of these cases, the court tacitly endorsed the plaintiffs’ conflation between birth control and abortion by not clearly distinguishing between the two in its rulings. This conflation has been subsequently echoed by Justice Samuel A Alito Jr. and in briefs submitted in Dobbs.
That legal blurring of distinct scientific boundaries between abortion and birth control threatens contraceptive access in the United States. Some state governments will listen to the Dobbs arguments and extrapolate from the Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor decisions — and will probably ban some forms of contraception outright, using the discredited idea that contraceptives act as abortifacients.
In other words, the court doesn’t have to formally end legal protection for contraception use. If it allows plaintiffs to call contraception abortion, and Dobbs ends legal protection for abortion, then contraception is at risk.
Pro-white man. I don't think they care about the women.
Whitey said "You hoes are going to keep these white babies so that we can keep our numbers up."
I live in a blue state so your Republican fuckery can kick rocks lmao. What this means is all of the actual educated young people will leave these states and it will only be you idiots there aging with no educated work force.
Control by white men.
It's why they packed the courts, hell Supreme Court is in their favor 6 to 3 and the filled up the federal courts with conservative white judges. The demographics may change but they run the legal system...
But they know the white numbers aren't going to go up dramatically either. It's all a ruse.
A POOR bitch's pussy. Rich white women and the mistresses of married right wing politicians will still be able to get one.