Supreme Court Will Strike Down Roe v Wade

[yos9694]

Here's the thing, murder is morally wrong, even if you don't like, or care for, or ever meet the victim. An immoral society affects us in many ways, the glorifying of this type of murder, completely at odd with the Jewish sanctity of life, is one of them.Huh? All they said is that it is not a constitutionally mandated "right". Does anyone really doubt that?

Its's hyperbole to equate a Plan B pill with murder. If you won't acknowledge the distinction there's nothing further to discuss.

The end of Roe guarantees that certain states will enact religious based laws. Ending federal protection of that right plants the seed to religious oppression (pun intended)

[imayid2]

Its's hyperbole to equate a Plan B pill with murder. If you won't acknowledge the distinction there's nothing further to discuss.

The end of Roe guarantees that certain states will enact religious based laws. Ending federal protection of that right plants the seed to religious oppression (pun intended)

Who said anything about Plan B pills? Certainly I wouldn't call their usage murder being that they are only effective within 72hrs, halachicly there is a sharp distinction before and after 40 days. Have any states banned or plan to ban their use?
Where was all the religious oppression before 1972?

[PlatinumGuy]

There is no state that would ban such an abortion. An ectopic pregnancy is non-compatible with life.

https://people.com/health/missouri-bill-seeks-to-make-abortions-for-ectopic-pregnancies-illegal/

[yeshivabucher]

https://people.com/health/missouri-bill-seeks-to-make-abortions-for-ectopic-pregnancies-illegal/

anyone can bring up something i doubt this will get anywhere

[imayid2]

https://people.com/health/missouri-bill-seeks-to-make-abortions-for-ectopic-pregnancies-illegal/

This is not a valid source.

[imayid2]

Its's hyperbole to equate a Plan B pill with murder. If you won't acknowledge the distinction there's nothing further to discuss.

Plan B is viewed by the medical world as emergency contraception, not an abortifacient. No states have or intend to ban their use. All you will see is the fear mongering left trying to propagate the idea that birth control will be banned. The chances of that happening is of course zero.

[zh cohen]

https://people.com/health/missouri-bill-seeks-to-make-abortions-for-ectopic-pregnancies-illegal/

A bill being proposed by what seems to be a single state legislator is a far cry from

state that would ban such an abortion

And again the system worked, and the bill was changed before going anywhere -
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/penalty-for-assisting-abortion-in-case-of-ectopic-pregnancy-removed-from-measure-in-missouri-house/article_fc809c07-2ba5-5349-9ab3-963a7e50aa7a.html

[Moshe123]

Any day that the conservatives strike back at the increasingly extreme left is a good day for frum Jews.

[gozalim]

First, I'm not sure why all of you seem to care that a bunch of unwanted babies will be born in states such as Louisiana and Texas. You don't know one way or another any of the people that this affects. You aren't aware that these people exist, will never meet any of them, and certainly wouldn't be willing to ensure their welfare.

Second, this is entirely a battle between evangelical xians and secular society. We don't fall into either group, and neither outcome is going to be consistent with our halacha. The only way I can look at it is that one outcome allows us to practice in accordance with our halacha and the other may not. If past history has taught us anything it is that when the rule of law is based on religion we do not benefit.

For those who don't understand the irony I mentioned, look up the words supreme court and gun. Their decision was that no State should have the right to limit a person's ability to carry guns. However, today's decision says that the States do have the right to limit a person's access to abortions. Nothing could make it more transparent that the supreme court is simply voting on issues based on their personal politics, without shame.

there is every reason to believe that the religious oppression threatening our way of life is just as likely to come from the church of woke to the left as from the evangelical xtian right, if not more.

The religious education ruling in the beginning of the week is almost as good as this was

[S209]

Any day that the conservatives strike back at the increasingly extreme left is a good day for frum Jews.

The court is not supposed to be partisan at all, and it’s terrible news for us if they are.

[S209]

"in an instance where there is a specific state would be at odds with that, they can simply go to a neighboring state."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/08/missouri-abortion-ban-texas-supreme-court/

Now, a prominent antiabortion lawmaker in Missouri, from where thousands of residents have traveled to next-door Illinois to receive abortions since Missouri passed one of the country’s strictest abortion laws in 2019, believes she has found a solution.

An unusual new provision, introduced by state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R), would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a Missouri resident obtain an abortion out of state, using the novel legal strategy behind the restrictive law in Texas that since September has banned abortions in that state after six weeks of pregnancy.

[Moshe123]

The court is not supposed to be partisan at all, and it’s terrible news for us if they are.

The court is always partisan. Was always partisan. More accurately, ideological.
The question is which party.

[S209]

The court is always partisan. Was always partisan. More accurately, ideological.
The question is which party.

I think the court has become far more blatantly partisan recently.

[zh cohen]

I think the court has become far more blatantly partisan recently.

Roe V Wade was ruled on more than 50 years ago

[jj1000]

Roe V Wade was ruled on more than 50 years ago

Are you implying that was a partisan decision?

@zh cohen quickly Googles the makeup of the court in 1973 and who voted what

[aygart]

Are you implying that was a partisan decision?

@zh cohen quickly Googles the makeup of the court in 1973 and who voted what

Maybe not in the current sense but definitely partisan.

[imayid2]

To all those complaining about this "partisan issue", can someone please enlighten the rest of us how a perfectly "non-partisan" justice could somehow see the right to abort a pregnancy enshrined in the constitution as a fundamental right. Are there some pages missing the rest of us don't know about?
Only one side of this specific issue is the partisan one, thankfully the truth prevailed.
Lchaim!

[drosenberg88429]

To all those complaining about this "partisan issue", can someone please enlighten the rest of us how a perfectly "non-partisan" justice could somehow see the right to abort a pregnancy enshrined in the constitution as a fundamental right. Are there some pages missing the rest of us don't know about?
Only one side of this specific issue is the partisan one, thankfully the truth prevailed.
Lchaim!

Amendments 5 and 9

[aygart]

Amendments 5 and 9

Not sure how the 9th amendment confers any rights at all.

[drosenberg88429]

Not sure how the 9th amendment confers any rights at all.

9th is too ambiguous to be usable for anything, but it insinuates that all personal liberties not specifically delineated by the Constitution should not be assumed to be a restrictable right.