Supreme Court Will Strike Down Roe v Wade

[gozalim]

Concerns about government overreach are front and center here.

roe was never rooted in the 1st amendment. It was rooted in the 14th

[skyguy918]

Not going to dig up the source, but this is fake news. People posted pictures of the barricades up days ago

+1. Supposedly put up in response to the guy that burned himself alive to protest climate change.

[Ver hut gazugt]

A society that accepts that government can regulate what a woman does within her uterus (without regard for her own moral or religious values) can also accept that government can regulate what parents do to their newborn's foreskin (without regard for their moral or religious values).

governments have been passing many such laws for a long time without such fan fair. Seatbelt laws, drug laws, body mutilation/ suicide laws.

Not sure what you mean by “moral or religious values”. Which values necessitate abortion.

The big issue is having a society that allows relations before marriage and yet takes away the ability of the woman to “choose/control” the consequences. Roe v wade tried to cure the symptom instead of the core problem.

[yos9694]

Personally, I would like to see Roe upheld but with a provision for religious exemption to opt out of abortion

[aygart]

Is that how this works?

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1521506139673927680

Oh she became a biologist now?

[YitzyS]

Is that how this works?

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1521506139673927680

Roe killed and subjugated many, many babies

[jye]

My guess is the leak actually pushes Roberts to join the majority to overturn, particularly if one of the other justices switches his vote to uphold, but I guess we will see in June.

[S209]

A society that accepts that government can regulate what a woman does within her uterus (without regard for her own moral or religious values) can also accept that government can regulate what parents do to their newborn's foreskin (without regard for their moral or religious values).

Roe v Wade explicitly regulated on a federal level what a woman can do to her and the father’s “baby”, location aside. Overturning it allows states to decide individually whether they should or shouldn’t.

(Removing skin ≠ kill. There can and should be a line between choosing to end a life* and choosing to  perform a medical procedure, risk and benefits aside.)

*assuming it is a life

[Dan]

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1521509850181742592

[JlmBoi]

The big issue is having a society that allows relations before marriage and yet takes away the ability of the woman to “choose/control” the consequences.

Ever heard of birth control?

[YitzyS]

Ever heard of birth control?

Stupid people win stupid prizes

[aygart]

The big issue is having a society that allows relations before marriage and yet takes away the ability of the woman to “choose/control” the consequences. Roe v wade tried to cure the symptom instead of the core problem.

What is the issue with allowing someone to do something of they so wish but then requiring them to abide by the consequences of that voluntary action?

[yitzgar]

What is the issue with allowing someone to do something of they so wish but then requiring them to abuse by the consequences of that voluntary action?

Abide?

[aygart]

Abide?

Yes thanks

[zh cohen]

A society that accepts that government can regulate what a woman does within her uterus (without regard for her own moral or religious values) can also accept that government can regulate what parents do to their newborn's foreskin (without regard for their moral or religious values).

The (draft) decision makes absolutely clear that the reason the constitution does not guarantee the right to abortion is because it is not explicit in the constitution.

To suggest that the decision would make the infringement on rights that are explicit in the constitution (religious freedom) more likely is absolutely wrong.

A better parallel would be if the court decided that governments can require parents to make specific medical decisions (like vaccination) for their children.

[Baruch]

What effect will the overturn of roe v wade have on the Jews?

If it causes the libs to pack the court, can be very bad for our religious rights.

[Baruch]

If it causes the libs to pack the court, can be very bad for our religious rights.

We needed those 5 Justices to move the needle on religious issues, instead they overturned Roe, which although it was a terrible legal decision, is not as important as religious rights for our community.

[yos9694]

How many of you acknowledge that this could also impact frum people in a negative way? Sometimes a miscarriage requires a procedure that is considered an abortion, nobody wants that to be illegal. We also don't want a debate between a rov who says halachicly the doctor should terminate vs the secular law that says its a crime. Other scenarios can be relevant too, even if not common

[avromie7]

If it causes the libs to pack the court, can be very bad for our religious rights.

If they decide to pack the court, it's the end of all rights and freedom.

[Dan]

How many of you acknowledge that this could also impact frum people in a negative way? Sometimes a miscarriage requires a procedure that is considered an abortion, nobody wants that to be illegal. We also don't want a debate between a rov who says halachicly the doctor should terminate vs the secular law that says its a crime. Other scenarios can be relevant too, even if not common

SCOTUS is not criminalizing abortion.