U.S. Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe vs. Wade

[Non-StopJFK2TAB]

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...

It doesn't matter if you expand the court. When Wyoming has the same voting power as California, then voting doesn't matter.

 

[Gemini]

 

[Non-StopJFK2TAB]

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

The supreme court does not have an army. Is the president a criminal?

The rule of law has been a farce.

 

[notreally]

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.

Spoiler: The rest of the Article...

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/12/11/if-supreme-court-undermines-roe-v-wade-contraception-could-be-banned-this-explains-how/

With all due respect @Camille,

you are arguing with someone who sounds like a gay, religious zealot, with right wing tendencies.

He will never get it, because he is a prime example of what this is all about:

convincing people (MEN! PEOPLE WITHOUT WOMBS!!!) that they have a right to use your human rights
as fodder for political discussion.

This is what patriarchy, Christianity, white supremacy, and...oop. Broken record.

 

[Dirty Hubcaps]

Voting doesn’t matter!!!!

if voting didn't matter then white people wouldn't have gone out of their way to disenfranchise us out of voting rights for hundreds of years.

they're still practicing gerrymandering of district lines to this day.

miss me with this dumb shyt

 

[Thegooch]

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

Legislators think they're doing something but all they're doing is increasing the possibility for women to take this into their own hands and this will cause an increase in "back alley abortions" and women who use alternative means to get rid of the kid they don't want

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

The results were, all three of those babies were actually born. And all three of those babies came out FUCKED UP, all because abortion wasn't available to them or it was immoral to them.

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

You think a Muslim country is better? LOL. They abort the baby by stoning the woman too. You wanna go that route?

You are also free to choose an atheist state like China. See what happens if you share to choose your dissenting opinion with the government.

The solution is to stay in a state that supports your opinion and stay away from those that don't.

Its funny how women act when they dont get their way 100% This is how Republics work, sometimes there are step backwards.

For those that oppsose, its time for you to do more than talk. When I had issues with laws, I became active in getting new laws passed. I rarely bitched about it on line because change was needed in the REAL world. Now I reap the benefits.

Stop getting played and do something real about it of you have an issue with politics.

Been telling you guys local is were the power is. Now you are about to find out.

 

[Gemini]

 

[durham]

Everything after the 10th amendment is “next”.

Basically. Buy a gun, practice, while you still can.

 

[notreally]

Control by white men.

Not just white men. Black men as well. Africa as well as Europe are cauldrons of abrahamic religion, which naturally fosters patriarchy, which inevitably leads to blood letting, conquest, rape, etc., etc., etc.

Patriarchy is doomed to failure. It is literally a cycle of feast, famine, and disaster.

 

[Flawless]

All those White republican christans will just fly their teen daughters to blue states to get abortions

 

[D'Evils]

 

[notreally]

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...

This is why it pisses me off to see assholes trying to convince people NOT to vote democratic. They definitely are not the best, but at the moment, supporting the dems is an extremely necessary evil.

 

[Gemini]

 

[easy_b]

 

[kirkout]

Both sides are the same..

Or the number hit…voting doesn’t matter, so why vote!

 

[easy_b]

This is why it pisses me off to see assholes trying to convince people NOT to vote democratic. They definitely are not the best, but at the moment, supporting the dems is an extremely necessary evil.

The Democrats are currently stop in this country from looking like Russia. Like I said earlier you see what the governor of Florida and Texas did to their own people so yeah people need to get out there and vote for a Democrat this November.

 

[Camille]

With all due respect @Camille,

you are arguing with someone who sounds like a gay, religious zealot, with right wing tendencies.

He will never get it, because he is a prime example of what this is all about:

convincing people (MEN! PEOPLE WITHOUT WOMBS!!!) that they have a right to use your human rights
as fodder for political discussion.

This is what patriarchy, Christianity, white supremacy, and...oop. Broken record.

For the record, I am a Christian. I've had this discussion and made posts about this in the past:

"If we go by biblical standards, death of a child before it was fully formed and able to survive on it’s own was not considered murder. In Exodus 21:22 When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman’s husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the presence of the judges. If a fetus dies before being fully formed and able to live outside a woman’s body, it was a fine, not a capital offense such as murder would have required. So according to scripture, abortion would not be murder. (Note: not everyone agrees that this is the proper interpretation of this scripture Various translations: https://biblehub.com/exodus/21-22.htm) I think the partial birth abortions qualify, but not the standard ones that are performed. Since the bible says the life is in the blood there has been some saying that life begins when blood forms in the fetus, but that was never the traditional view for Jews or Christians. Traditionally life began with the first breath. In Gen 2:7 man was fully formed, but didn’t become alive until the breath of God entered. …then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. According to scripture you are not a living human being until you draw your first breath and your soul enters. Now people say, “well that was then, now we have modern technology and we know when the heart starts beating, ” and so on and so forth. Either the bible is infallible or it’s not. God created man. Our biology is not new to Him. He didn’t need ultrasounds to be created to figure out when the heart starts beating. You mean to tell me He didn’t know how what He put together worked? Any other time science is opposed to God, but now they want to use technology. I’m not saying I agree or disagree, I just wish they’d be consistent. "

 

[Non-StopJFK2TAB]

This is why it pisses me off to see assholes trying to convince people NOT to vote democratic. They definitely are not the best, but at the moment, supporting the dems is an extremely necessary evil.

Why argue with those people? You're better than me.

Seventy-two million people voted for the former president. That's a lot of evil people in this country.

 

[Camille]

if voting didn't matter then white people wouldn't have gone out of their way to disenfranchise us out of voting rights for hundreds of years.

they're still practicing gerrymandering of district lines to this day.

miss me with this dumb shyt

That was sarcasm.

 

[cashwhisperer]

Lemme guesss....they're not gonna do it!

 

[Thegooch]

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.

Spoiler: The rest of the Article...

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/12/11/if-supreme-court-undermines-roe-v-wade-contraception-could-be-banned-this-explains-how/

Could aint would. If Pfizer says no then Pelosi and Facci will follow suit. Same with the Republicans.
I gonna bet my money with greedy drug companies. You can believe whatever you want.

Them SOBs turned out an entire country on Oxy. Yall gonna pay for that BC and like it.

I suggest you and your homegirls have few less power girl lunches and shopping trips. Just put your money were you mouth is.

What other choices do you have except Mexico and Canada. Mexico is going to be rough and in Canada you might have the baby before you get a doctor's appointment.

Don't fight the go fight with me. Go yell you white bosses you want the right to "choose" while no one else gets a say so.


In the meanwhile, fellas improve that pull out game and girls don't fuck randoms you don't see being a good father. Sorry it had to come to this but I hope you enjoy the fight with the GOP crowd.

 

[Supersav]

This is why it pisses me off to see assholes trying to convince people NOT to vote democratic. They definitely are not the best, but at the moment, supporting the dems is an extremely necessary evil.

2 Dems voted for this...also dems had a chance before trump and never moved on the issue

 

[Duece]

 

[Gemini]

 

[Non-StopJFK2TAB]

What a clown.

 

[Gemini]

 

[dHustla]

 

[dHustla]

Women gon hafta be more accountable with who get to cum inside em.

 

[Non-StopJFK2TAB]

Women gon hafta be more accountable with who get to cum inside em.

What a dumb post.

 

[Thegooch]

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.

Leaving because they can't get an abortion. Money trumps everything. Why are people leaving NYC by the droves for NC and FL right now. Why is are Cali people leaving for Texas, AZ, and Idaho?

The facts don't support that statement. If you think abortion right supercedes COL, Jobs, and weather then you are a god-damned fool.

I live in a blue state too. And most are fucking dying a slow death. Why do you think the DNC loves immigrants so much. Even immigrants don't move to blue states or cites anymore.

But keep on trucking if you feel that load is gonna get you paid. Labeling me as republican aint gonna ease the pain either. No calling is the last resort of people without a point/purpose.

Trust me, DNC is licking its chops with all the kids it gonna jail in Democratic cities. More servants and peasants to serve and hand feed the DNC (Starbucks dont pay the rent). They love poor people, more social worker jobs on the way, yeah.

 

[Camille]

Republican AG Candidates Say Birth Control Is States' Rights Issue

Three Michigan Republicans running for attorney general offer 'terrifying' take on contraceptive bans.

crooksandliars.com

A debate between the Republicans running for Michigan attorney general confirmed warnings from reproductive rights advocates that Republicans aren’t going to stop with abortion bans—they’re coming for birth control next. In the last question of last Friday’s debate, all three men said they thought the 1965 Supreme Court decision striking down laws banning the sale of contraception had been wrongly decided, because states’ rights.




At least two of the three candidates did not know what Griswold v. Connecticut was about—which itself is kind of an issue in people campaigning to be Michigan’s top lawyer, since Griswold is a pretty damn famous case. (I literally learned about it in high school, and I am not a lawyer.) But all three agreed, once they learned what it was, that it was bad.




The Connecticut law struck down in Griswold allowed the prosecution of married couples for buying contraception. In Griswold, the Supreme Court said that the law violated the “right to marital privacy,” foreshadowing the privacy right that would be invoked in Roe v. Wade in 1973.

 

[Non-StopJFK2TAB]

Basically. Buy a gun, practice, while you still can.

What happens when they say blacks cannot have guns?

 

[Thegooch]

Then tax muffukas to pay for the unborn, count them in the census, and give them full welfare rights. Pay up Republicans.

Did you know that cites get $5k per person in federal funding. Why should people have a kid if they are gonna end up on welfare?

You act like black people have no self control. That more racist than stoping abortion. Thankvyou thinking so lowly of us. I gues we are just cats and dogs fucking on instincts to you.

Now who's the racist???

 

[Ninja05]

2 Dems voted for this...also dems had a chance before trump and never moved on the issue

Wait Obama had 60 votes for Roe v Wade to be codified into law in the Senate? Are you sure about that?

When did they have a chance? He had one chance (if any) and he chose the ACA.

 

[Big Tex]

Did you know that cites get $5k per person in federal funding. Why should people have a kid if they are gonna end up on welfare?

You act like black people have no self control. That more racist than stoping abortion. Thankvyou thinking so lowly of us. I gues we are just cats and dogs fucking on instincts to you.

Now who's the racist???

Where in my post did I mention Black people. You’re the one that immediately thought about Black people when you thought about people being irresponsible and having no self control.

So you just proved you’re the racist against black people and probably white.