I don&#x27;t know... they voted for a person who spoke about this in their campaign. Hard to say it wasn&#x27;t going to happen.

Heh, I know so many suburban Republicans who claimed this day would never come.

Ruling: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.supremecourt.gov&#x2F;opinions&#x2F;21pdf&#x2F;19-1392_6j37.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.supremecourt.gov&#x2F;opinions&#x2F;21pdf&#x2F;19-1392_6j37.pdf</a>

my condolences to my friends in the US, this is a backwards step

I downvoted it because it&#x27;s hopelessly naive and incorrect. This does not return the power to the states, it gives the power to the State to prevent people from having access to reproductive healthcare. Every American just had rights stripped away.The second that Republicans have a majority in Congress and the Presidency, they will pass a federal ban on abortion in all the states.

Because this is not the end. The GOP will issue a federal abortion ban next time they control congress and the presidency.

I don&#x27;t know why you&#x27;re being downvoted. What you&#x27;re saying is exactly correct. That&#x27;s what this ruling affirms: it is a state issue. Abortion is not in the US Constitution and many - even left-leaning - legal scholars have said Roe v Wade was ruled incorrectly.

We don&#x27;t do that with other state laws like murder and theft. And different states have different ideas on what those laws should look like too.EDIT: I&#x27;m not sure what you mean by that. Are you upset about SCOTUS citing common law tradition? Most of our law works that way, you have to build on something. Even &quot;reason&quot; needs axioms and you have to find a way to pick those.EDIT2: There are a surprising number of people who want to decriminalize theft and even murder in some situations (look up &quot;mutual combat&quot; in Chicago.)

No, best would be to leave it up to the individual.

The votes of the people living in those states do that

And perhaps states will outlaw them from travelling to blue states, and outlaws anyone assisting them.Missouri tried. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;world&#x2F;2022&#x2F;may&#x2F;03&#x2F;us-abortions-travel-wave-of-restrictions" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;world&#x2F;2022&#x2F;may&#x2F;03&#x2F;us-abortions-t...</a>

Because the state went through a democratic process and decided to do that. Democracy doesn&#x27;t mean that everyone has to vote for the policies you like.

OP is saying SCOTUS doesn&#x27;t make abortion impossible (ruling that it is always tantamount to murder and thus never permissible). A ban would prohibit states from allowing abortion, and this isn&#x27;t the case.SCOTUS has said that states may decide how to regulate it. Individual states will either ban, or not, as their constituents wish.

It effectively bans safe abortion for poor people in red states.

Yes. As I understand it, Roe vs Wade argued that a right to abortion was implied by the constitution, and thus such a right was created implicitly, rather than by the explicit passing of legislation.The next step is clearly to advocate for explicit legislation.

Unless one is talking about CCW, then it&#x27;s apparently a federal thing.

Except for all those constitutional rights... Freedom of religion being one, and their are at least two recognized religions where abortion is a religious right.So there you go, freedom for Christian&#x27;s not for anyone else, a good Christian nation! &#x2F;s

Exactly how our constitution is supposed to work - your rights are left up to the states to accept or reject&#x2F;s

Pro Life groups said they&#x27;re going after residents who go out of state next, then a national ban.

Then elect federal politicians who are advocating legislation to decide it on a national level.The current administration had a majority in both houses, knew this decision was coming, yet did nothing.

The Supreme court enforced slavery - and virtually ensured that the civil war would occur when it expanded slavery with Dredd Scott. (On the basis of something not in the constitution). The legislative made it illegal and changed the constitution. This opens the same path to legislatures. Hopefully without the civil war that occurred because the Supreme court played a role in preserving slavery.Does nobody read history anymore?

Do get states to decide on slavery again too?
I think such fundamental, health and freedom-related questions should be decided on a national level.

It leaves it up to the states now because there is no meaningful federal code on the matter.  The underpinnings of the decision allow for a federal ban since it&#x27;s just saying that there&#x27;s no inherent constitutional protection.

This doesn&#x27;t ban abortion, it leaves it up to the states. IMO that&#x27;s the best since people simply aren&#x27;t going to agree on it.EDIT: Abortion is not in the Constitution in any way, it&#x27;s not a right.

Especially when you have a leaked opinion and already know what it&#x27;s going to say.

Unrelated: A journalist friend told me that their (very big) media firm started writing obituaries of the public figures as soon as they landed in hospital and were old.There were many (tens) obituaries written for the people who went to live on for more years or are are still living.

I believe that pre-writing articles for both sides of major binary decisions and only releasing the one that turns out to be correct is standard practice at large news organisations, where the value of being first to publish is far higher than the cost of writing two articles.

A slightly different situation, but it reminds me of the classic election-day crossword, which was cleverly constructed to support either outcome:
<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.alaricstephen.com&#x2F;main-featured&#x2F;2017&#x2F;7&#x2F;3&#x2F;the-clintonbobdole-crossword" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.alaricstephen.com&#x2F;main-featured&#x2F;2017&#x2F;7&#x2F;3&#x2F;the-clin...</a>

Id imagine for important news it would be easy enough to just write two articles and release the correct one, especially if your main concern is being first to publish

They could have pre-written this but also the NYT is the world&#x27;s most well connected news organisation.Wouldn&#x27;t surprise me in the slightest if they had found out earlier just like previous decisions have been leaked.

Interestingly: The NYT link was written 4 hours ago (~6AM EST) - but the decision seems to have been released around ~10AM EST. I suppose everyone expected this post the leak.Without taking any side on this issue: this is a tough day in America, when a 50-year precedent is overturned.

GDP per capita was &lt;$3000 in the 50sEdit: downvoted for stating a fact

so basically corner meth dealers will now deliver abortion pills? IDK if thats gonna last, because you know we can always police the drugs out of the system.

We very thankfully have more options for women that are much safer than coat hangers.There are drugs that will allow women to have illegal abortions that are much much safer than a coat hanger. The important factor will be finding ways to get such drugs to women in states where they cannot be legally used, and ensuring that such a delivery mechanism delivers safe, and authentic drugs.

The day that the coat-hanger became a medical instrument (again).

Don&#x27;t have that for you, but I found one difference cited on Twitter: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;notjessewalker&#x2F;status&#x2F;1540342070002348032?s=20&amp;t=LxEHzBgZBAifbb_Bdtrjdw" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;notjessewalker&#x2F;status&#x2F;154034207000234803...</a>

As expected, the 5 justices on the leaked Alito opinion constitute the majority, Chief Justice Roberts filed a concurring opinion (in which he argues that the principle of judicial restraint requires merely upholding the law in question, not overturning Roe), and the 3 liberal justices dissented.In total, the opinions are 217 pages long.Anyone able to quickly run a diff on the leaked majority opinion and the official one?

13 states have &quot;trigger laws&quot;; pre-bans on abortion, dependent only on this ruling. A large swath of the country, as of this morning, bans abortion.

Yeah, better hurry up while the conservatives still have the overwhelming majority on the court. You never know what the future brings...

Take heart! The majority ruling explicitly says that its reasoning does not apply to those, and goes into detail about why those rulings are different.

There are, IIRC, forced sterilization laws that depended on RvW, so perhaps those are back in fashion too.

This being a solo opinion is encouraging that they won&#x27;t overturn every due process case.

These are next up on the chopping block and the same logic used to overturn Roe v Wade can be used to overturn those. Thomas is merely voicing that reality instead of playing coy like other reactionary justices.

For reference, his opinion stated &quot;we should reconsider all of this Court&#x27;s substantive due process precedents&quot;, while:&gt; Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Loving_v._Virginia" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Loving_v._Virginia</a>

In Thomas&#x27;s mind, one has long-standing historical precedence where the other doesn&#x27;t.Interracial marriage has existed for pretty much all of human history (though race as a concept likely didn&#x27;t, at least not the way it is perceived in modern times). Heck you even have Moses marrying an Ethiopian woman and his siblings spoke out against him over it and were punished by God for it (see Numbers chapter 12).Gay marriage, on the other hand, has near zero historical precedence outside of a few cases with Roman emperors and stuff like that.

It&#x27;s an interesting sub-case of Dunning-Kruger that people with consciences and integrity try to shame people like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito about hypocrisy. They project onto them attributes they do not care about; their logic is that Loving impacts Thomas and Griswold, Olbergefell, and Lawrence do not. They dislike gay people and feminists, and things that hurt them are good. Things that hurt them are bad. Just look at the stunning hypocrisy on Bruen. It says in plain English: &quot;well regulated militia&quot;, and they can&#x27;t infer a right to regulate firearms by states there... but they can&#x27;t find a right for a basic medical procedure in the Due Process Clause. I&#x27;m not being uncharitable, just read the majority decision. They can&#x27;t hide behind inconsequential dissents now, their shitty jurisprudence is front and center. They can&#x27;t argue on merits, so they appeal to a prior history that never existed. It is an embarrassing episode for those of us that follow Supreme Court decisions, and it&#x27;s a tragic episode for those whose human rights they are taking away (and their loved ones).

Equal protection cannot protect that which is unequal. For example, I doubt an equal protection challenge to unequal lengths of maternity &#x2F; paternity leave would stand, given the obvious difference in what&#x27;s happening. The sexes, when it comes to things like business participation and innovation, may be equal in ability. However, if one views marriage as a precursor to reproduction -- the historical view of marriage -- then it&#x27;s quite clear that the sexes are not equal, whereas the races (for whatever conception of race you have) are.It has been abundantly clear to everyone that a black man can impregnate a white woman. And a black woman can have children with a white man. If this act (reproduction) is what marriage is about, then the sexes are not equal, and thus not worthy of equal protection. A man cannot impregnate a man. Whereas, any race can impregnate &#x2F; be impregnated by any other race as far as we can tell.If you have evidence to the contrary (that both sexes are identical when it comes to reproduction, which is the historical view of marriage Thomas may adhere to; or that various races cannot interbreed), then please do share.

Rich given he is a black man married to a white women. Cherry picks cases for same-sex marriage but not cases allowing inter-racial marriage.

I occasionally wonder just how high the prevalence of closeted homosexuals is amongst conservatives, given how strongly they seem to believe that sexual preference is a choice.  The only logical conclusion is that at some point they chose.

Have you read (or &quot;read&quot;; I don&#x27;t want to be responsible for your death lol) the Texas GOP platform[1] for this year? The first sentence in the &quot;Homosexuality and Gender Issues&quot; section is &quot;Homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice&quot;. And they follow it up with &quot;we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality&quot;.They are rearing for another battle in the gay rights culture war.----------[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;texasgop.org&#x2F;wp-content&#x2F;uploads&#x2F;2022&#x2F;06&#x2F;6-Permanent-Platform-Committee-FINAL-REPORT-6-16-2022.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;texasgop.org&#x2F;wp-content&#x2F;uploads&#x2F;2022&#x2F;06&#x2F;6-Permanent-...</a>

Holy sh*t. Lawrence v Texas? Literally banning gay sex on the mind of American Conservatives

If I understand correctly, it now devolves to the states where elected people make the laws that apply.So the issue is really what the hell is wrong with the states where the people elected feel empowered to take rights away from half their populace.

The Court is a counterbalance against the tyranny of the majority. It&#x27;s specifically, intentionally undemocratic.

As I understand it, at any point where the Democrats held the majority of the legislature (including now) they could have passed federal abortion legislation and this would be moot.

Virtually nothing any branch of the federal government does is &quot;the will of the people&quot;[1]. But even if our government were a functioning representative republic with strong democratic traditions as it purports to be, the purpose of the courts will still be to act as a check on the will of the people, not just a cheerleader for mob rule.[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cambridge.org&#x2F;core&#x2F;journals&#x2F;perspectives-on-politics&#x2F;article&#x2F;testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens&#x2F;62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cambridge.org&#x2F;core&#x2F;journals&#x2F;perspectives-on-poli...</a>

No, the will of the people should be expressed as amendments to the constitution.It is a serious flaw is the US system that issues that carry supper majority support in the public for decades have no chance of making it into the constitution.

Roe v. Wade wasn&#x27;t the will of the people. If the will of the people is to make abortion legal, they would vote for politicians that make abortion legal. In Mississippi, they clearly voted for the opposite.

The Supreme Court positions to be elected positions.None of this is the will of the people.

I hope all current Republican voters who are in a same-sex relationship or are using contraceptives remember this when they vote in November...

Thomas - &quot;...in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. ... we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents&quot;Griswold - contraceptivesLawrence - same-sex sexual relationsObergefell - same-sex marriage

Well, poor people are less likely to be able to travel to get abortions where it&#x27;s legal. So higher infant mortality, higher maternal mortality, and more kids in the foster system, putting a strain on a likely already small (because red state) budget.But otherwise, I agree, this will just further the red states&#x27; economic bankruptcy.

Yes, which will make the red areas redder and blue areas bluer and further perpetuate the national political division.

How did you even think there was one America?

So doesn’t this simply create two Americas, those with regressive laws and those with progressive laws, and people can choose between them and the market will show which laws attract people that create economic value?I see half of the US becoming economically fallow as a result of this decline into dystopia.

Note though that the majority opinion itself specifically calls out these cases several times as different from abortion because they do not result in the termination of a potential life. Here is one specific quote:Unable to show concrete reliance on Roe and Casey them-
selves, the Solicitor General suggests that overruling those
decisions would “threaten the Court’s precedents holding
that the Due Process Clause protects other rights.” Brief
for United States 26 (citing Obergefell, 576 U. S. 644; Law-
rence, 539 U. S. 558; Griswold, 381 U. S. 479). That is not
correct for reasons we have already discussed. As even the
Casey plurality recognized, “[a]bortion is a unique act” be-
cause it terminates “life or potential life.” 505 U. S., at 852;
see also Roe, 410 U. S., at 159 (abortion is “inherently dif-
ferent from marital intimacy,” “marriage,” or “procrea-
tion”). And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood
or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision con-
cerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right.
Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt
on precedents that do not concern abortion<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;int.nyt.com&#x2F;data&#x2F;documenttools&#x2F;supreme-court-abortion-decision&#x2F;6d8d0bf51a94203d&#x2F;full.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;int.nyt.com&#x2F;data&#x2F;documenttools&#x2F;supreme-court-abortio...</a>

&quot;In a solo concurring opinion, Thomas says the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.&quot;<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;fordm&#x2F;status&#x2F;1540338064324698112" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;fordm&#x2F;status&#x2F;1540338064324698112</a>

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;pqtwO" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;pqtwO</a>

This Supreme Court is coming for contraceptives and same-sex marriage next. We are headed towards a theocracy.

Does that equally apply to gun rights ?The states can ban abortion but not ban concealed carry.

I&#x27;ve never heard such a limiting definition for judicial activism. It&#x27;s typically understood more broadly as a criticism of American judges who, according to some, go beyond their duties of &quot;interpreting law&quot; and instead create it. To borrow from conservapedia (a resource I wouldn&#x27;t otherwise defend, except in this limited case), it&#x27;s &quot;when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court.&quot;

Judicial activism is altering laws according to what the judge likes, usurping a legislative role. The supreme court striking down state laws is the typical form of such abuse because the typical supreme court case is deciding whether a certain new law has a problem.Roe vs. Wade is practically almost the same as a law that allows abortion, the other threatened precedents cited in the other comments are similarly almost laws that allow various rights, and so there is very little &quot;upholding&quot; of existing laws in this demolition and threatened demolition of &quot;liberal&quot; norms.

“Judicial activism” refers to striking down state laws. In this case they upheld a law.

I would buy this as an argument if the Court, when presented with ways to absolutely improve the legislative situation, add more checks and balances to the legislature, and make it more democratic, doesn’t turn around and do the opposite (gerrymandering and Citizens United are two obvious examples).

i think it&#x27;s a twrrible decision, but you have a point policians can keep kicking issues into the long grass- ultinately it will land on scotus and they have to make a decision

The problem as always is the silent filibuster. If obstructionists in the senate actually had to stand up and defend their obstruction more things would get done.

Laws like that would only be possible in certain years where there’s a majority across all 3 branches (e.g. 2008) and neutered when the other branch is in power.Arguably a supreme court decision is more stable.A constitutional amendment would be most stable but we will never get to that level of state support

The democrats would not have been able to make the right for abortion into a law during that period. And women should not have to suffer because the republic is dysfunctional.

In my opinion, It&#x27;s up to the federal government to make federal laws, not the supreme court. Democrats had _plenty_ of time to put the right for abortion into a law and pass it. Now, they have a platform on which to run for the next election, convenient...Politicians delegate too many decisions to the SCOTUS because they don&#x27;t want to govern, well the SCOTUS isn&#x27;t supposed to govern in their place.If nothing can get done at Washington, then the problem is at Washington itself, not the supreme court.

&gt; &quot;we think they were wrong&quot;, which is a pretty awful rationale for the Supreme Court.What exactly are you looking for that would count as a rationale that doesn&#x27;t boil down to &quot;we think they were wrong&quot;?

Roe stood for years because the decision directly tied it to the right to privacy (via the 9th and 14th amendments), because that right &quot;is broad enough to encompass a woman&#x27;s decision whether to terminate her pregnancy&quot;.  The Supreme Court reverses itself in this Dobbs decision; skimming the final decision, it attempts to tear down the original justification, but I&#x27;m not seeing an argument beyond &quot;we think they were wrong&quot;, which is a pretty awful rationale for the Supreme Court.

As an Australian, a few things about the SCOTUS absolutely shock me, aside from the obvious issue of politicisation.I&#x27;ve only skimmed the judgment, but Roberts CJ convincingly points out that there was no need for the court to completely overturn Roe. It would suffice to jettison the viability standard. Going further was completely unnecessary to decide the case.On the other hand, Thomas J took the occasion, without having heard complete argument on the respective issues, to opine that other substantive due process rights should be reconsidered. Including Griswold (no banning controceptives), Lawrence (no banning sodomy), and Obergefell (no banning gay marriage). This is simply astounding.The second is the sheer hypocrisy of the members of the court who decry judicial activism while, in the next breath, engaging in the same.I wish you luck for the future, Americans.

Sorry for the late edit.I basically see people holding states more accountable now. State politicians who are pro-life are on notice. They can no longer cry about it and blame the federal government. The issue is now on their plate- and it&#x27;s a thorny one. People need to vote.

The original Roe v Wade ruling, regardless of opinion on the outcome, was widely viewed as being based on a weak and poorly reasoned judicial argument. The risk of leaving defective judicial reasoning as precedent is that it enables a whole class of undesirable legal outcomes in the future unrelated to abortion. For this reason, it was expected that the Supreme Court would eventually fix this mistake. This ruling doesn&#x27;t outlaw abortion, it merely moves it outside that court&#x27;s jurisdiction and leaves it to other parts of government to decide.I support this ruling for this reason even though I am against outlawing abortion.

Could you explain this a bit more please? (I&#x27;m not from the US so I&#x27;m possibly missing something but your comment is surprising at a broad strokes level)Edit: I see you&#x27;ve edited your post already with a quote which is helpful.

They definitely did not.RBG thought that Roe v Wade won for the wrong reasons, but didn&#x27;t want to repeal it because of the damage she knew it would cause – she wanted to roll-forward rather than roll-back.This court, or at least the conservative majority, are very much in favour of rolling-back, and I suspect are only vaguely in favour of letting the legislature pass laws because they know that there will be challenges to those laws that they can then get involved in, meanwhile they have shifted the overton window of women&#x27;s rights.

do you think the supreme court did this because they share the same opinion as rbg? I think this Case was maybe a wonky solution for the Problem  but it was the only one you Americans Had.

I think we can have some nuance here. As individuals I believe we have the leeway to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. But once we get to the level of government and acting in accordance with laws, I believe that acting for the right reasons (i.e. following the laws) is the only option that can lead to long term outcomes.For the government to selectively follow laws, saying that in this case they don&#x27;t apply since they don&#x27;t give us the right result, makes a mockery of the very idea of having laws.

The Roe vs. Wade decision was the wrong way to solve the problem because it specifically set the stage for decades where the legislature didn&#x27;t enshrine abortion as a right, and thus left it up for grabs to be taken back away only decades later. Ruth Bader Ginsburg argues that if Roe vs. Wade had been less sweeping, that the existing cultural movement in favor of women&#x27;s rights would have naturally led to the protection of this right on a more fundamental and long lasting level.

If we&#x27;re speaking about what one should use as guiding principles, then it seems that if one acts for the &quot;right&quot; reasons, then that usually result in doing the right thing and only unusually results in doing the wrong thing.Whereas if one acts for the &quot;wrong&quot; reasons, then that will only rarely result in doing the &quot;right&quot; thing.One can look back at the original Roe v Wade and say &quot;The right thing was done here, the outcome was good&quot;, but having that sort of consequentialist outlook tends to blind people to the downside of having the right things done for the wrong reasons- which is as we see here, those wrong reasons can in the future easily lead to the undoing of the right thing.The original Roe v Wade decision meant that Congress never had to pass a law that explicitly nationally legalized abortion. If they had, the current situation wouldn&#x27;t exist.

So you believe that doing the wrong thing for the right reason is better than doing the right thing for the wrong reason? That intent matters more than outcome? And that laws being structured in a way you specifically find compelling matters more than the morality of a law?

And my criticism on RBG is she should&#x27;ve stepped down when Obama was in office instead of dying and giving Trump an appointee.

The problem is that even if abortion rights are re-established on stronger footing in the future, a whole lot of people are going to get hurt in the meantime.

People are guaranteed early, unnecessary deaths when they cannot afford expensive medical treatments for their rare conditions. Or insulin for their diabetes. Or housing for their family.Where in our constitution and laws are these things codified as rights? They are not.In the same way, abortion is not a right. But I believe it should be. This is an issue that our elected officials must decide, not the courts.

You believe it is right on a technicality, but don&#x27;t care to factor in the women who are guaranteed an early, unnecessary death because of this ruling?

I&#x27;m pro-choice as well and think this was the right decision. Roe created a Constitutional right that didn&#x27;t exist. All this does today is correct that mistake.As a big believer in states&#x27; rights, I&quot;m glad to see more rights returned to their voters and legislatures. As was frequently told to me, &quot;If you don&#x27;t like it, you can move to another state.&quot; And I did.Furthermore, this decision gets rid of the viability precedent so more extreme liberals states are now free to pass all the 3rd tri-mester up-until-the-moment-of-birth abortion laws they want, free of any potential legal challenges.This gives states and their voters, the citizens, the people the right to choose. And I&#x27;m all for that.

I&#x27;m pro-choice but I still believe that this is the right move.&gt; “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.law.uchicago.edu&#x2F;news&#x2F;justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.law.uchicago.edu&#x2F;news&#x2F;justice-ruth-bader-ginsbur...</a>

That&#x27;s so many read flags in one place that it resembles May 1st on the Red Square.

It&#x27;s a simple vote exchange, you know. People got triggered badly by Roe and &quot;liberal&quot; rulings that actually enshrined the right of women to have a sexual life and control their own life, so they made a pact with the Republicans to overturn it. In exchange for that, the Republicans had a free hand to cut taxes to rich people and ensure that poor people stayed poor.

I wish we saw more comparison between the US and Latin America in online discourse. There is an excess of references and analogies made to the emotionally salient topics of the US Civil War, the Civil rights period and Europe from 1918 to 1945 when discussing the current American situation and a dearth of comparison to Latin America. The frequent comparison of Trump to a dictator instead of to a populist president in the Latin American mold is an example.

Religious issues are how you get votes. And that is how you can be in power to help your crony capitalist friends.

(edited) It&#x27;s not like you had any more urgent issues than this?That move greatly reinforces Galkovsky&#x27;s position that USA is now a Latin American country not unlike Brazil; and indeed, Latin American countries also deeply care about this (non)issue and have abortion laws inappropriate to their general level of economical and human development.The problem being, at least Brazil recognizes that it is Brazil and knows how to run Brazil.

Here&#x27;s the article linked in case you don&#x27;t have a NYTimes sub:<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;live&#x2F;2022&#x2F;06&#x2F;24&#x2F;us&#x2F;roe-wade-abortion-supreme-court?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxfs4h2Hza3LNE2wFl7pSWdTH5lyKf61uIsQ60zneTdVGKqMuQ_o31fJHJUFoRkyjpYaehN5NBRQJnr-JfzF82YPRD_d_9TLlZ2KoI-B7wLC0oxOBNn_sX6Db0HEjJRIzosdlaV2h2XEXz63HEPohjtQoifZ3AJ15RDwQdWLd6amTfhZ0Pd-NbBDW6xBnGL0KHGGOwqPPru4IYw5QClnZTXxg4mta6N5UOt8fOKqXPAd3MYOlwu1XUjo0Wd_vU54hRIHUlKFot6rNrHGPzcm3w_YxEMZEreHyBGIaR7hOn3H-jOkyzmQ&amp;smid=url-share" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;live&#x2F;2022&#x2F;06&#x2F;24&#x2F;us&#x2F;roe-wade-abortion...</a>

In practice, this ruling bans abortion in those states. Regardless of your opinion of those states, people DO live in them and will be adversely affected. Lives will be ruined, people will die, and ultimately this will probably be counterproductive wrt lowering the number of abortions overall.

And in many states there are laws on the books that make abortion illegal effective today.

Because the media is making it out to be the end of the world. This ruling does not ban abortion, it lets the states have jurisdiction over the issue.

Rule by minority is probably the &quot;end of the world&quot; feeling you&#x27;re getting from all this.

Personally I think this is a good thing. My hope is that SCOTUS passing rulings down from the federal level to the states will encourage more (young) people to vote in their city and state elections. The voter turnout for presidential elections is always decent, however for local and state issues there&#x27;s a clear difference in number of voters. Additionally, younger people don&#x27;t vote as often in local and state elections. I wish it was not true but there&#x27;s no arguing the statistics.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sos.ca.gov&#x2F;elections&#x2F;prior-elections&#x2F;statewide-election-results" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sos.ca.gov&#x2F;elections&#x2F;prior-elections&#x2F;statewide-e...</a><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.electproject.org&#x2F;home&#x2F;voter-turnout&#x2F;voter-turnout-data" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.electproject.org&#x2F;home&#x2F;voter-turnout&#x2F;voter-turnout...</a>

The US senate is 2 senators per state. The smaller states are mostly rural conservative issues. The senators that confirmed the three trump justices represent 43% of the population.It&#x27;s not that easy.

&quot;Just vote with the people that won&#x27;t ban abortion&quot; in insufficient in a system with an undemocratic Senate. The Senate controls who gets on the Supreme Court, and it requires 60 votes to advance legislation.

Because in contrary to the states&#x27; rights argument being touted, the legal theory underpinning the decision opens the door to a federal ban.  You might not get the chance to vote for the people that ban abortion for you.

In many states that has no effect whatsoever because district boundaries have been gerrymandered to ensure that the party that favors banning abortion will not lose control of the legislature.

How is this seen like it&#x27;s the end of the world?Just vote with the people that won&#x27;t ban abortion.

I am fine with this contrarian argument, but why does it stop at birth? There’s no support (universal healthcare for children, paid maternity&#x2F;paternity leave, etc etc). Conservatives apply these arguments inconsistently.

then why do these same people not do other things to protect life that&#x27;s already being lived?sorry, this is not enlightened.

It’s a surface level protection. Forcing someone to bring an unwanted child into this world is not enlightened. There’s a reason why women and couples opt for abortion. They’re often not ready for that responsibility, and it’s the kid who suffers most.Life for the sake of life feels like virtue signaling, especially since those who espouse it have no interest in providing social programs to help these mothers and couples raise the kid they were forced to have. That’s pretty barbaric.Congratulations. You saved a life you almost immediately stop giving a shit about.

The direction they&#x27;re going includes removing the right for contraception and same-sex marriage.That&#x27;s not an enlightened or moral direction.

Come on. Nobody that supported this ruling except the deluded give a damn about life or whatever they were preaching. The Republicans only care about getting the votes they need to maintain their stranglehold over red states, cut taxes and environmental protections for the benefit of their patrons. The fundamental Christians only care about seeing the rights of women being repelled, there are zero concerns about the life of children, otherwise they would be pushing for free childcare, support for mothers, parental leave, ....It&#x27;s all a matter of punishing women for their own desire to be emancipated, it&#x27;s a punishment for those women who have sinned by thinking they could act like a man and have sex whenever they wanted. If they truly cared about the unborn, they would1. care about the already born, first, and 
2. push for the widespread availability of contraception.Given that contraception is bad for them, too, it&#x27;s clear this is not an ethical question, but a moral one: sex outside of marriage, or for pleasure really, should not be allowed, and it must always carry consequences, no matter if it vastly more impacts women than it does men. You know, a man can always run from their responsibilities, while a woman cannot run away from her womb.

I can understand this argument, however in this specific case we are forcing children onto parents who are in bad positions to raise them (or most wouldn&#x27;t consider abortion), and our state does a terrible job at providing support to kids throughout their lives (healthcare, education, welfare programs are all notorious in the US) in the case where parents aren&#x27;t reliable.As a pro-choice person, I could be convinced against abortion _if_ there was a guarantee that every child would have the full resources of the government to help them achieve a successful life. We all know that isn&#x27;t going to happen.So without the appropriate follow-through, this is actually less enlightened and hurting both parents and children more.

Abortion restrictions do not reduce abortion rates. They only reduce safe abortions. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;edition.cnn.com&#x2F;2018&#x2F;03&#x2F;21&#x2F;health&#x2F;abortion-restriction-laws&#x2F;index.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;edition.cnn.com&#x2F;2018&#x2F;03&#x2F;21&#x2F;health&#x2F;abortion-restricti...</a>

To quote Carlin - “if you’re pre-born you are fine; if you are pre-school you are fucked!”

Unless it&#x27;s young life that&#x27;s already living and happens to be impregnated via rape? Then fuck her, right? Force her to give birth?And exactly how does banning an abortion when the pregnancy is not viable for any number of reasons (molar pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, anencephaly) help anyone? Why are we forcing women to carry dead fetus&#x27;s around in their bodies?Because that&#x27;s what a total ban on abortion does. It also makes IVF illegal if &quot;life begins at conception&quot;.The notion that the only abortions happening are happy couples who find out they&#x27;re pregnant, tell their friends and family, plan parties, and then in some sinister plot months later wake up and casually decide &quot;you know what, let&#x27;s just kill it&quot; is absurd.Not all life is equal, and not all human life is equal. If you were driving down the street and two buildings were on fire, a IVF clinic with viable implanted eggs, and a preschool full of living children, you would 100% of the time try and rescue the preschoolers if you only had time for one. The idea that all human life down to a recently implanted egg has the same value as an 11 year old girl who&#x27;s been raped and wants an abortion is an untenable position.

I would have no problem with this line of argument if it was honest and genuine, but it&#x27;s not - it&#x27;s a pretence.If prolife movement actually cared about protecting life, they would not support policies that leave children to die of terrible diseases if their family can&#x27;t afford healthcare.

The Republican party&#x27;s concern for young life ends at the moment of birth. After that it&#x27;s: &quot;Fuck you, got mine&quot;.

I am not arguing here.But there are some stages in the life of a human fetus that is less sentient than a monkey, a horse, a dog, a fly, an ant, etc.Do you think abortion should be illegal at all stages?And, do you think that abortion should be illegal even if the woman faces life threatning risks?

It&#x27;s worth considering that IVF fertility treatment often has discarded zygotes.

I think there is huge question of right of mother as well. Lets take hypothetical situation where someone forcibly mates two humans together in such a way that removing other would kill that other. Per anti-abortion people they would have to live together forever. Which seems bit sick...

A contrarian argument would say that protecting life - especially young life - is a more enlightened and moral direction.

Lol no it bends towards tyranny and centralized control.

[citation needed]Seems to me that the arc of the moral universe is actually more of a spaghetti. While some things improve, others regress.

&quot;The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.&quot;

I don&#x27;t disagree with you in this case, but there are a lot of people who would say this is one such example.

Just for some context, I once heard commentary about MLK that suggested that that specific statement was made in more of a spiritual tradition than a practical or historical tradition.

&gt; There&#x27;s this belief that society always moves in a &quot;forward&#x2F;upward&quot; directoryThat&#x27;s the central fallacy of Whig historiography [1]. It is in part facilitated by the fact that recent history is often written by the victors.MLK repeated the same fallacy: &quot;The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.&quot; Is that the same arc that included two world wars?[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Whig_history" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Whig_history</a>

Ya that&#x27;s a really good point and I think about it often.Look at Iraq, the cradle of civilization, the seat of Babylon. And Egypt. And even Greece to an extent. Former glories of the world but they aren&#x27;t the most glorious places in the world now.

Different people have different sets of principles by which they measure progress and sometimes those principles run in opposition to one another.

Specific instances are subjective of course, but seen throughout history it&#x27;s objectively the case that we&#x27;ve regressed numerous times.

These are the same people who think the world is 6000 years old, the first man was made out of mud and the first woman was made from the rib of the first man.  They&#x27;re clearly insane so their view of forward should be thrown in the garbage.

This assumes there is a universally agreed upon definition of &quot;upward&quot; and &quot;forward&quot;. Religious people would argue things like abortion rights and pride celebrations are the opposite of upward and forward progress since they enable and encourage what they believe to be sin.

There may not have been significant moves in the last 50 years, but the majority remains pro-choice.

It is interesting to note that while American&#x27;s attitudes on many social issues like gay marriage or racial injustice have moved in a progressive direction, American&#x27;s attitudes on abortion haven&#x27;t budged since the 1970s.

So true. Glad to see the regression has been reversed, a bit, today.

Your comment is quite mild given that from the outside the last years it really looks like the US is sliding slowly towards autocracy. The tendencies are there. I&#x27;ve asked myself if it&#x27;s not the case that the largest threat to peace and progress &amp; good quality of life for the western world long term does not lie in the balance of how it goes in the US and what I can do about this - just to ensure the best for my life and those I care for.

There&#x27;s this belief that society always moves in a &quot;forward&#x2F;upward&quot; directory, where we become more advanced, more enlightened and more moral.But this is not the case and sometimes we regress.

Bad generalization and prejudice right there. While whether someone is brought up in an environment that encourages care absolutely influences the choices people make down the road, whether the person in question was &quot;wanted&quot; does not matter. I can&#x27;t exactly back that up with some solid data but i think that many people know someone who is far from being an &quot;unwanted&quot; person but still made some bad choices in life.

Thank you. We&#x27;ll figure it out in 20 years time if no federal law will be instated. The data from pro&#x2F;contra abortion states can then be correlated with the crime differential in those states. Through that I guess it can then either be shown plausible or implausible. We&#x27;ll see.

The study you’re speaking of (abortion lowering crime rates by preventing unwanted children from terrorizing the streets) remains unproven at best, despite oft being cited as settled research[0][0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect#2001_Donohue_and_Levitt_study" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Legalized_abortion_and_crime_e...</a>

For anyone interested, the book Freakonomics had a chapter devoted to studying this as a factor that lead crime to drop from its peak in the early 90s US, approximately 20 years after Roe v Wade.Kind of a provocative study and you could make a similar case for leaded gasoline and other factors but nevertheless interesting.

Don&#x27;t worry, we will have full pre-crime surveillance by then and you won&#x27;t be able even think about farting without it being noted.

Looks at racial break-down of abortions.  Rereads parent comment.

It is if you don&#x27;t consider a fetus to be a person.

Is this line of thinking materially different from being pro-death penalty?

The mid 2030s and 2040s will be the years of crime. That&#x27;s when all the unwanted kids will &quot;grow up&quot; without affection.

Texas has no income tax.  But the property tax functions as a backdoor income tax because there is rich school district to poor school district redistribution.  Therefore property taxes are high in Texas, though not higher than, say, in New Jersey (which also has an income tax).

They will if they have some kind of tax relief.

&quot;Knowledge&quot; worker in Texas here (native; didn&#x27;t move here). I don&#x27;t feel this affects me for a few reasons, but I will say that I&#x27;m also aware that 1. I can travel out of state, and 2. drugs are available online and there are drugs that can provide medical abortions - perhaps those can be put together.That said, in talking with a colleague this morning, we agreed that if the state does go completely crazy and manages to secede, we just want enough notice to sell our property so we can leave.

I always find it a bit funny that HN&#x2F;tech crowd is generally considered liberal, when I as a Norwegian feel opinions here are sooo conservative. Guess it depends on frame of reference. Democrats would probably be far to the right in Norway?

&gt; Will tech companies continue to flock to Texas, in what will become a very difficult environment for abortion?Recruiting for tech in Texas has already taken a hit due fear around abortion (getting employees to move down there can be quite difficult).More broadly, I think this is likely to put a big damper on high-end knowledge work in conservative states. Educated people are overwhelmingly liberal. While you could certainly find a subset of knowledge workers who don&#x27;t have an issue working in a state banning abortion, the difficulties with hiring and transfers probably won&#x27;t pass a cost benefit analysis (again, we already see this in Texas).

While I think that these kind of things shouldn&#x27;t require a company to take any action in, this isn&#x27;t &quot;going so far as&quot; in a country where medical care is basically tied to your job. If your company guarantees medical care, why is paying for an abortion anyhow different? 
But indeed I prefer a system of public health insurances which keep these matters independent of your employer.

&gt; Some companies have even gone so far as paying for abortions. That&#x27;s disgusting. It reveals that The Man doesn&#x27;t want women&#x27;s productivity to go down and would rather work them to the bone instead. Out of the kitchen and into the office? Might be a bad deal.Or it could reveal that abortions, even in the best circumstances, cost money -- time off of work and travel expenses for example. Perhaps these companies support women having access to it regardless of their economic status.It&#x27;ll blow your mind, but some companies even allow employees time off to vote in elections, partially for the same reasons.

&gt; Do you think corporations should take a public stance in support of abortion rights?Some companies have even gone so far as paying for abortions. That&#x27;s disgusting. It reveals that The Man doesn&#x27;t want women&#x27;s productivity to go down and would rather work them to the bone instead. Out of the kitchen and into the office? That might be a bad deal.

After reading a bit about Austin this morning (but before this news) I was browsing zillow + google maps, trying to get a feel for the city. Basically I&#x27;m tired of winter. It&#x27;s a total non-starter now though.

&gt; Almost no &#x27;good&#x27; people are opposed to those things.That is an interesting perspective. You just called something like 100M or more Americans not good people. I am not being hyperbolic. Talk to them. On the surface they are friendly, easygoing, etc, but switch the topic to LGBT rights and listen. The very fact that they believe there is such a thing as &quot;gay rights&quot; tells you a lot. Good luck trying to educate them on how &quot;cannot discriminate based on sexual preference&quot; is not the same thing as giving gay people special rights.

While I am pro-legalised abortion I think this is a separate kind of issue to LGBT rights, racial equality etc. LGBT rights&#x2F;racial equality is about treating everybody equally. Almost no &#x27;good&#x27; people are opposed to those things. There are plenty of good people who literally believe abortion is the murder of a baby. I disagree but I don&#x27;t agree that it&#x27;s an unreasonable opinion. Given that, I think companies taking a stance on it would cause a lot more division than when they take a stance on more clear cut social issues.

&gt;Do you think corporations should take a public stance in support of abortion rights?No. We already have enough corporate influence in the political sphere.

I work for a company, headquartered in the Mid West, that has been very public in their support of LGBTQ rights, among other things. Do you think corporations should take a public stance in support of abortion rights? Will tech companies continue to flock to Texas, in what will become a very difficult environment for abortion?

They absolutely will and already are. There will be loopholes or lax enforcement for the rich and white, but the poor and non-white will have those options restricted and prosecuted.

There are already bills introduced in four state legislatures to do that, and more are surely on the way.

And if they do legislate it? Since they are already trying?What then?

You don&#x27;t legislate that. That&#x27;s the point of states.

This is a good point - it&#x27;s how the Texas law was written.And not just travel - self managed abortions are cheap, safe, and the most common of all abortions nowadays. They can just mail you the pills, and its literally safer than ibuprofen.You&#x27;re going to see a lot of cases about &quot;Can [provider, citizen, org] in [Legal_State, Legal Country] provide [medical care, advice, money, other_help] to [person, organization] in [Illegal_State]&quot;

My guess is they&#x27;ll try to outlaw home pregnancy test and start requiring doctors to report any positives. Wouldn&#x27;t be surprised if someone already tried to pass such a bill somewhere.

The real question is, what kind of draconian laws will they start hatching to make abortion tourism (flying to a state where it&#x27;s legal, then coming back) illegal. How do you legislate that? Are people still free to go to another state if they want? Are they getting arrested as soon as they come back?The next case they&#x27;ll hear is about Mississippi v Some Nonprofit That Pays For Abortion Flights.

The Roe v. Wade established certain rights to privacy.This decision overturns the argument that Roe v. Wade was based upon and rights it established.Overturning Roe v. Wade opens the door for banning contraception, interference with the right to marry (interracial relationships can be banned), family relationships, right to intimacy, the right to personal control of medical treatment. It will even have data collection limit consequences.

What enabled this is large populations who voted republican purely for this cause due to religious reasons.

This is simply a matter of law. The justification for Roe Vs Wade doesn&#x27;t hold water, it never did, it asserts a right to privacy that apparently only applies in the specific case of abortion and not in warrantless surveillance or any other matter. It was a legal fiction.

The voters who support the policy believe it is about the lives of unborn children.

&gt; It isn’t about religion. It’s about power and control.Power and control is what organized religions have always been about.

&gt; We need to stop pretending it has anything to do with Jesus and everything to do with power over others.I can promise you that this has quite a bit to do with religion. My parents both voted republican because &quot;Billy Graham&#x27;s son endorsed Trump&quot; and before Trump they voted republican for this issue among others. I fully understand that elected republicans are just paying lip service to religion&#x2F;abortion but they have their constituents completely fooled (or happy with their cognitive dissonance).

&gt;&gt; It isn’t about religion. It’s about power and control.The difference? Politics and religion are both about controlling the actions of people. It may be done for good or ill, but it is always about control.

Yes, it is about power and control in the same way that society&#x27;s prevention of the sexual abuse of children is about power and control. That&#x27;s what laws are about: power and control.

Interestingly enough - Evangelicals where typically left of center prior to Roe v. Wade (even in states where abortion was legal). My hope is that things return to a more historical norm now that Roe V Wade can actually be &quot;a fair fight&quot; (to use Scalia&#x27;s language)

&gt; It isn’t about religion. It’s about power and control. We need to stop pretending it has anything to do with Jesus and everything to do with power over others. Nietzsche is more relevant here than Jesus.We, as a society, need to stop constantly creating straw men like this.Opposition to abortion is certainly about religion, or at least morality. Sure some politician can exploit morality to cynically gain power to accomplish other things, but that doesn&#x27;t mean the voters are doing that. The voters are just caught in (many) moral dilemmas, and are therefore forced to make bad choices.

Religion is the ruler&#x27;s favorite toolThis is seen very Authoritative Governments and Dictatorships because it allows for the exploit of self-identity. People often create their self-identity around a religion and if you try to talk about any logical flaws with their statements or show them whole evident of facts proving them wrong they will still stick with their religion because they then would destroy their self-identity. When religion becomes self-identity then the person stops living reality and in a religious dream-like state.Look at Benjamin Franklin, US Founding Father, was a Christian but didn&#x27;t self-identity and also wrote a section in a book, Every Man His Own Doctor: The Poor Planter&#x27;s Physician, how to perform an abortion.He is an example of self-identity that goes beyond religion. But also the self-identity factor can also be tie not to religion but political parties or other extreme identities leading to group think.With high confidence, and hopefully a good study is done, a high percentage of people that gave power to the anti-abortion &#x2F; anti-liberty movements are self-identified with religion over other aspects.

What possible argument against abortion exists besides &quot;religion&quot; ?

&gt; I hope that whomever supported this ruling is happy right now, and I&#x27;d like to remind them that, while Jesus Christ never gave to abortion the slightest mention, he was quite vocal about the fact that greed was not compatible with salvation. I&#x27;d like to see Evangelicals and other Christians being as vocal for social justice as they were for abortions and same sex marriage, but I guess they do care more about putting woman back in the kitchen as indentured servants more than they do about social justice.It isn’t about religion. It’s about power and control. We need to stop pretending it has anything to do with Jesus and everything to do with power over others. Nietzsche is more relevant here than Jesus.

You are incorrect. The bible does not support fetal personhood. The bible clearly gives fetuses a lower moral valence than a living person and discusses that an accident that results in a stillbirth is not equivalent to &quot;killing a person&quot;. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Judaism_and_abortion" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Judaism_and_abortion</a>

&gt;unanimously interpreted to cover abortionExodus 21:22-23 recounts a story of two men who are fighting and injure a pregnant woman, resulting in her subsequent miscarriage. The verse explains that if the only harm done is the miscarriage, then the perpetrator must pay a fine. However, if the pregnant person is gravely injured, the penalty shall be a life for a life as in homicides.Jesus was Jewish and fetuses aren&#x27;t considered persons under Jewish law.

The old testament also banned eating shrimp and that people working on Saturday should be stoned, so I kind of see lots of cherry picking here. It&#x27;s also highly ambiguous if the fetus should be considered a human being or property (see Exodus), but that&#x27;s not the point.The core point was that most of the message and teachings of Jesus were clearly, unambiguously about social justice and charity, and yet modern Christians care way more about Old Testament moral rules than the actual Christian message, what Jesus clearly cared about the most, the last, the meek, the poor.The modern Christian votes for racist ultra-rich that only profess hate towards everyone that&#x27;s different from them in order to get abortion and gay marriage banned. That&#x27;s the worst corruption of the Christian message possible, in my opinion, and makes those people phony believers to my eyes. They use their as an indentitarian way to distinguish them from the others, which is absolutely at odds with the ecumenical message of Jesus Christ.Care about the young not being able to start families first, about those who are in need and can&#x27;t make their ends meet, and then take care of the rest.

Immediately after receiving the 10 commandments, Moses orders the Israelites to slaughter their friends, family, and neighbors who worshiped the golden calf. And God approved.

&gt; &quot;Thou shalt not kill,&quot; which in the times of Jesus was unanimously interpreted to cover abortionThen how do you explain this:- When the Bible commands abortion: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.patheos.com&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;slacktivist&#x2F;2018&#x2F;02&#x2F;03&#x2F;bible-commands-abortion-part-1&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.patheos.com&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;slacktivist&#x2F;2018&#x2F;02&#x2F;03&#x2F;bible-c...</a>- How to perform an abortion, according to the Bible: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.patheos.com&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;allsetfree&#x2F;2021&#x2F;11&#x2F;how-to-perform-an-abortion-according-to-the-bible&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.patheos.com&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;allsetfree&#x2F;2021&#x2F;11&#x2F;how-to-perf...</a>

Genesis 2:7 - Life begins at first breath.Exodus 21:22-23 - Abortion isn&#x27;t murder. It&#x27;s property damage.Numbers 5:11–31 - The biblical version of the &quot;abortion pill&quot;, used to test a wife&#x27;s fidelity.

&gt; while Jesus Christ never gave to abortion the slightest mentionIn his defense, Jesus came to fulfill the old law and not abolish it, as directly stated by himself. The old law has the 5th commandment, &quot;Thou shalt not kill,&quot; which in the times of Jesus was unanimously interpreted to cover abortion (Psalm 139 being one reason why) and Jesus, by not speaking against this interpretation (unlike other interpretations), left that view unchanged.

Do you paint other religious groups with that same broad brush? I&#x27;m sure you supported similar rhetoric about Muslims post 9&#x2F;11.

This isn’t really Christianity collectively. Lots of what’s happening in America is due to an American heretical brand of Christianity with its own motives outside the teachings of Christ.

Christianity’s true face has been shown. I’ve rarely seen it to have anything to do with the teachings of Christ.

To be fair, we’ll never know all the things Jesus said since it’s not like he wrote an autobiography or anything.  All records of him were selected and written by other people, who may or may not have been comprehensive.

Why is there never an expectation that Christian’s engage in dialogue and civility about this issue? There is never a demand they convince the pro choice people just that they be allowed to control and threaten them. Calls for dialogue are just part of the intentional narrative created to undermine peoples rights.Rights do not necessitate dialogue.

My understanding is that abortion is a major social justice issue for Christians. So you would want to engage with them on their social justice priorities and strategies, finding overlap, and so forth. At least that’s how I approach these dialogues regarding policies of lower levels of government.

In 2016, Republicans who went to church weekly were far less likely to vote for Trump, than those who rarely or never went.That means the lower taxes and less regulations were likely desired for their own sake not as a trade off.Christians crazily believe Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and was God incarnate within the womb. As crazy as that may be, it logically follows they would adamantly be against ending human lives before they’re born.

It likely won&#x27;t affect things much, or they wouldn&#x27;t have let it go through. They will now be focusing on protecting this new status quo; &quot;don&#x27;t let liberals re-instate abortion and kill children!!!&quot; etc

Where are you getting that religious Americans held their noses to vote Republican? That is not the mental model I have of people religious enough to ban abortion.

I would be curious if this decision hurts the Republicans going forward.Religious Americans essentially held their noses to vote for Republicans just to get this issue rammed in.Now that they have gotten what they wanted, are they still going to vote for Republicans with the same transactional decision process? Or are they now going to say the Republicans can no longer offer them anything additional and now the problems with Republicans being immoral and unchristian become too large?Once Christians have an abortion ban do they become focused on helping the poor and other issues which were pushed by Jesus and whose teachings more closely align with progressive agendas? Or are they hypocrites and will vote for the Republicans to give the Pharisees &amp; Rich of the world more power?

This is the final chapter of a decade-long saga which basically boils down to the Republicans obtaining votes from Evangelicals and other Christian denominations in order to give them what they wanted. In exchange for that, they would use their power to cut taxes, regulations and let the riches become richer and richer at the expense of everyone else.I hope that whomever supported this ruling is happy right now, and I&#x27;d like to remind them that, while Jesus Christ never gave to abortion the slightest mention, he was quite vocal about the fact that greed was not compatible with salvation. I&#x27;d like to see Evangelicals and other Christians being as vocal for social justice as they were for abortions and same sex marriage, but I guess they do care about putting woman back in the kitchen as indentured servants more than they do about social justice.

Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade