For a change of pace let us go to our Supreme Court and a ruling to come…..
SCOTUS will be hearing a Roe v Wade petition….and it is not looking good for the pro side…..
A draft opinion in the closely-watched Mississippi abortion case that was leaked to Politico shows that the Supreme Court has voted to side with Mississippi and overturn abortion rights. Politico notes that nothing is final until the opinion is published, which will likely happen sometime in the next two months, and that justices could potentially change their votes during deliberations. However, the draft opinion written by Samuel Alito in February and circulated among the justices Feb. 10 minces no words in stating that, according to the majority of the justices, both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which largely maintained the abortion rights established by Roe, should be overturned. If that happens, federal protection of abortion rights would end, and it would be up to each state to decide.
“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” it states. “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” In a separate piece, Politico looks at 10 key passages from the draft opinion here; the site says there’s an almost “mocking tone” to some portions of the draft opinion, as well as Alito’s signature “caustic rhetorical flourishes.” A source says Alito and the four other conservative justices (Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett) stand behind the draft opinion, while the three left-leaning justices (Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan) are working on dissents. It’s not clear how Chief Justice John Roberts will vote.
In a third piece, Politico looks at the exceptional rarity of a leak from the Supreme Court. For more on that, click here; for the 10 key passages, click here; for the Politico exclusive in full, click here. Hours before Politico published its piece, the Washington Post was out with a piece looking at “the next frontier for the anti-abortion movement.” According to the paper’s sources, if SCOTUS does in fact roll back abortion rights in the Mississippi case and Republicans take power in Washington, anti-abortion groups and their congressional allies are working on federal legislation that would ban abortion nationwide after the 6-week mark of pregnancy. Per AZFamily, Arizona will be the state most affected if Roe is overturned, followed by Michigan and South Carolina. In December, NPR looked at the 21 states likely to ban or significantly restrict abortions if Roe falls.
I think this is just wrong….we are talking about a personal decision that has no place being decided by SCOTUS.
What is next for the conserv court?
Which right will we be denied next time?
Turn The Page!
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
In Saner Thought 
Two points.
1. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade, then gives the issue back to the states. That is, instead of deciding issue — the current situation — the court refuses to make a decision where it was not given jurisdiction anyway. Since the court tried to make law with Roe v. Wade, supposedly in defense of choice, that mocking tone would be appropriate.
2. That draft never should have been leaked. UNETHICAL! Someone is trying to intimidate the judges.
Roberts has promised to investigate the leak. I believe the right of choice is a necessity for a republic…all choice. chuq
So, if someone decides to kill you to have a republic, we must permit them to do so? That would be a choice.
The is issue is whether an unborn child deserves the protection of the law, not privacy or choice. What a republic requires is the recognition that everyone, even those unable to protect themselves, has certain unalienable? God-given rights.
That argument does not hold water…but that is my belief and as you have yours this is a moot debate.
So a doctor with his oath cannot decide to not treat a person….if he does then he should be demoted to medic. chuq
That argument does not hold water? Why? Because you have your own truth?
Someone hires what we would usually call an assassin and pays his price. If that assassin has taken an oath to use good judgment when he murders people, does that make it okay for him to murder people? Does that argument hold water?
Just as you have yours. I am a male and have no right to make a choice for a woman….it is her choice and hers alone and all the whining does not change that fact. Do you want someone making your choices for you. Like I said that is my opinion I do not expect to to care about mine as I care little for yours. chuq
Well, I guess you are right. If I wanted to murder someone, I sure would not want anyone taking away my choice.
If you take a real close look at all the laws on the books in The United States, you will soon discover that there is not a single presumed “Right” of the citizens that has escaped being affected by those laws in one way or the other .. and the perspective as to whether those affectations are moral or not or proper or not depends on individual definitions of what is just and what is not. So every law that exists tells, in one fashion or another, what a person can or cannot do and because of that fact, every law on the books is going to be applauded by some folks and condemned by others. Example in point: Gun rights laws are loved by the Gun advocates and hated by those who oppose them …but this is the cost of living in a democratic republic .. you can’t please all the people all the time. In this case, the Republicans, whether they realize it or not, are actually taking the moral high ground for a change. But while they are doing this they are creating another magnitudinous problem: “Who is going to end up feeding and caring for the millions of extra kids that will come into the world?” Taxpayers beware .. the cost of welfare is about to increase by leaps and bounds.
Not to worry there are those ‘american’ that will fight tooth and nail to see that those children die a slow death from hunger. Problem solved. chuq
That’s an excuse used for euthanasia too.
Let’s take saving taxpayers money to its logical conclusion. If someone is paying less in taxes than they receive from the government, we send IRS agents to their home and have them “aborted.”
We don’t want to pay for social welfare programs? That means we have to abort unborn children? Might it not be more ethical to stop voting for politicians who insist upon funding them.
In a few months when the Biden administration has gotten us into a war with Russia and there is nothing left here because of the nuclear holocaust, all these little petty political concerns will amount to nothing at all.
@John
You don’t suppose there is any relationship between tens of millions of abortions and the fact we have put politicians in the pay of foreign powers into public office?
I think it is time for me to start calling America ‘Gilead’. I want to get in early, before the official name change later.
Best wishes, Pete.
LOL Good one Pete! chuq