How come you never see the opposite map? Flip the red and the grey colors. Caption: "Abortion is instantaneously going to STILL be legal in these states."The Debt said:TarponChaser said:Based on what will abortion instantly become illegal?will25u said:Abortion is going to instantaneously become illegal in these states. pic.twitter.com/GA7B0zO4XK
— Ryan Brune (@BruneElections) May 3, 2022
They have "trigger laws" in place. Signed, sealed, delivered.
bc #hoesmadgoatchze said:How come you never see the opposite map? Flip the red and the grey colors. Caption: "Abortion is instantaneously going to STILL be legal in these states."The Debt said:TarponChaser said:Based on what will abortion instantly become illegal?will25u said:Abortion is going to instantaneously become illegal in these states. pic.twitter.com/GA7B0zO4XK
— Ryan Brune (@BruneElections) May 3, 2022
They have "trigger laws" in place. Signed, sealed, delivered.
SCOTUS isn't banning abortion nationwide.
A lot of y'all think I'm downplaying this. Get over your emotional reaction. Here's what I'm talking about. There were 880,000 abortions last year in a nation of 330 million Americans. Many states have zero or one abortion clinic. There's not going to be a real change. https://t.co/ajsCsXTgzv
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) May 3, 2022
a million murders per year doesnt matter....GeorgiAg said:
I think he make a good pointA lot of y'all think I'm downplaying this. Get over your emotional reaction. Here's what I'm talking about. There were 880,000 abortions last year in a nation of 330 million Americans. Many states have zero or one abortion clinic. There's not going to be a real change. https://t.co/ajsCsXTgzv
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) May 3, 2022
Thank you GodBMX Bandit said:
he really does not have a good point.
55,440 abortions were provided in Texas in 2017. I guarantee the number is significantly less in 2023, and only a small percentage of those people will go out of state for an abortion.
I think you mean Trump.Sully Dog said:Thank you GodBMX Bandit said:
he really does not have a good point.
55,440 abortions were provided in Texas in 2017. I guarantee the number is significantly less in 2023, and only a small percentage of those people will go out of state for an abortion.
Not that the Dems wouldn't pass up a chance to smear any judge they can't control, but do you think the brouhaha about Thomas' wife had anything to do with this upcoming decision?aggiehawg said:I started a thread when the leak came out that Roberts was not authoring the opinion that it was likely a 5-4 decision and Roberts was not in the majority. That would mean Thomas as the senior justice in the majority assigning who would write for the majority. I thought Thomas would want it for himself so surprised it was Alito.WHOOP!'91 said:I assume that Roberts not writing this opinion means he was not in the majority. Alito, Trump appointees and Thomas are the 5.rwpag71 said:Also a long time to try and intimidate just one judge to change their opinion. Less likely this would have leaked if the current score wasn't 5-4.flakrat said:Wow, was thinking today or this week. That's a long time to REEEEEEEE before the official word comes out.The Debt said:flakrat said:
When are they supposed to officially release the decision?
Usually in the summer months
Not really. I actually think Politico had this back in February and sat on it for awhile. Since this was a draft, expect other drafts were circulating at the same time. Have to wonder why those were not leaked by the same person?fasthorse05 said:Not that the Dems wouldn't pass up a chance to smear any judge they can't control, but do you think the brouhaha about Thomas' wife had anything to do with this upcoming decision?aggiehawg said:I started a thread when the leak came out that Roberts was not authoring the opinion that it was likely a 5-4 decision and Roberts was not in the majority. That would mean Thomas as the senior justice in the majority assigning who would write for the majority. I thought Thomas would want it for himself so surprised it was Alito.WHOOP!'91 said:I assume that Roberts not writing this opinion means he was not in the majority. Alito, Trump appointees and Thomas are the 5.rwpag71 said:Also a long time to try and intimidate just one judge to change their opinion. Less likely this would have leaked if the current score wasn't 5-4.flakrat said:Wow, was thinking today or this week. That's a long time to REEEEEEEE before the official word comes out.The Debt said:flakrat said:
When are they supposed to officially release the decision?
Usually in the summer months
I can't imagine it did, as they know how Thomas will vote. I just assumed they wanted to crush the Thomas family.
Will Texas ban abortion ouright? I think it will be a real fight and one that will eventually be codified by referendum. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of Republicans that quietly vote to keep abortion legal through some measure. IMO, Texans still squirm and the thought of prohibitions and giving too much power to Austin.Keegan99 said:
Texas is an outlier, however.
It is a huge state that will ban abortion in the absence of Roe.
There aren't really any other states that fit that rubric. Maybe Florida would join, but that's no guarantee.
dunlay said:I don't trust the FBI to do anything honestly, or with neutrality, or in strict adherence to law.will25u said:
Get ready!!! THE FBI IS (IN) ON IT!BREAKING—
— Tricia Flanagan (R-NJ) (@NewDayForNJ) May 3, 2022
FBI now involved in Supreme Court document leak.
If Roberts asked them to investigate, they will. That raises the potential criminal issue of making a false statement to law enforcement.Quote:
On what grounds does the FBI have to be involved in any internal code of conduct issue of one of the three branches? Where in the constitution is it a felony to leak SCOTUS information? Or is this an open door they want to run through?
Maybe my least favorite law of all time.aggiehawg said:If Roberts asked them to investigate, they will. That raises the potential criminal issue of making a false statement to law enforcement.Quote:
On what grounds does the FBI have to be involved in any internal code of conduct issue of one of the three branches? Where in the constitution is it a felony to leak SCOTUS information? Or is this an open door they want to run through?
True, but stare decisis is something for the Court to consider - and why it has taken this long to overturn Roe.Quote:
Precedent is for lower courts to consider, not the scotus.
That code still allows for abortion in certain circumstances. Plus:BMX Bandit said:
texas already passed a law triggered by Roe being overturned.
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87r/billtext/html/hb01280i.htm
makes abortion a felony
Does not reject morning after pill or other 'birth control devices' or other interventions that may occur before the pregnancy is "known." Abortions will still occur; they'll just happen differentlyQuote:
1) "Abortion" means the act of using or prescribing an instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to cause the death of an unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant. The term does not include birth control devices or oral contraceptives.
where does it say "other interventions"? What are you referring to?Quote:
Does not reject morning after pill or other 'birth control devices' or other interventions that may occur before the pregnancy is "known." Abortions will still occur; they'll just happen differently
if its needed to save the mother, which is extremely rare.Quote:
That code still allows for abortion in certain circumstances.
in the definition:BMX Bandit said:where does it say "other interventions"? What are you referring to?Quote:
Does not reject morning after pill or other 'birth control devices' or other interventions that may occur before the pregnancy is "known." Abortions will still occur; they'll just happen differently
the women will have to "know" she is pregnant as will the person "using or prescribing" the instrument, drug, medicine, etc. If both participants are blind to the knowledge of the pregnancy, does this apply? If a women highly suspects she is pregnant and the person assist agrees but does not have medical proof that is 'known,' does this law apply?Quote:
a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means
this is the same FBI that stoked the Jan 6 mob, Devised the Governor of Michigan Kidnapping scheme and used secret fisa warrants to try and overthrow an election of the president, I wont hold my breathwill25u said:
Get ready!!! THE FBI IS (IN) ON IT!BREAKING—
— Tricia Flanagan (R-NJ) (@NewDayForNJ) May 3, 2022
FBI now involved in Supreme Court document leak.
the excellent point of this is that perhaps leftist blue females will now move to blue states which allow abortions.JDUB08AG said:
I think it absolutely will change things BUT, you are correct, in that abortions were never entirely be outlawed in this country. If someone is desperate enough, they will find a way to hop on over to another state.
hopefully all 50,000 females will depart the Texas Republic and go to Colorado.IDaggie06 said:I think you mean Trump.Sully Dog said:Thank you GodBMX Bandit said:
he really does not have a good point.
55,440 abortions were provided in Texas in 2017. I guarantee the number is significantly less in 2023, and only a small percentage of those people will go out of state for an abortion.
Abortion attitudes by party, 1972-2021.
— Tom Wood (@thomasjwood) May 3, 2022
Data from @GSS_NORC cumulative file pic.twitter.com/zk5xUqh8nH
It looks that way from my view of the data, @C_Wolbrecht pic.twitter.com/YOSfMqwTS0
— Ryan Burge 📊 (@ryanburge) May 3, 2022
SupaManu said:RebelE Infantry said:ChemAg15 said:
I hate emotionally charged issues that distract from the more pressing issues facing the country. This is the perfect distraction the dems need to energize their base right before the midterms. The timing is too convenient.
There is literally no more pressing issue than infants being murdered day in and day out to the tune of a million or more every single year. None whatsoever.
I think abortion is disgusting but now won't most of these millions Be a burden on tax payers?
TAM85 said:
So if what Hogg said is correct, the current draft of the opinion may be markedly different. In fact, it may be much more or much less restrictive or may not leave the decision to the States.
I agree but as long as there are democrat politicians this will never happen sadlyAgs4DaWin said:SupaManu said:RebelE Infantry said:ChemAg15 said:
I hate emotionally charged issues that distract from the more pressing issues facing the country. This is the perfect distraction the dems need to energize their base right before the midterms. The timing is too convenient.
There is literally no more pressing issue than infants being murdered day in and day out to the tune of a million or more every single year. None whatsoever.
I think abortion is disgusting but now won't most of these millions Be a burden on tax payers?
Not if we start expecting people to make their own way in the world instead of expecting everything to be given to them.
Kind of like how it was expected 60 years ago.
The state would have the burden of proof with intent of the action, correct?BMX Bandit said:
why would you take/do something to end a pregnancy if you don't "know" you are pregnant?
good luck with that argument to a jury.
Agthatbuilds said:TAM85 said:
So if what Hogg said is correct, the current draft of the opinion may be markedly different. In fact, it may be much more or much less restrictive or may not leave the decision to the States.
Tin foil hat time-
Maybe the most recent draft is very narrow and allows Mississippi to keep their law but doesn't overturn roe, essentially making it a regional issue.
this activist clerk(with some outside influences) saw that and released a much earlier draft to create such a ruckus in an attempt to create momentum foe democrats
I think capitalism will reign and a new branch of medical tourism will emergeLMCane said:the excellent point of this is that perhaps leftist blue females will now move to blue states which allow abortions.JDUB08AG said:
I think it absolutely will change things BUT, you are correct, in that abortions were never entirely be outlawed in this country. If someone is desperate enough, they will find a way to hop on over to another state.
making Red states even more red.
