Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
It’s simply beyond my comprehension how a near total abortion ban does NOT conflict with providing emergency health care for all patients, including pregnant women
It conflicts, this court is illegitimate. Do not follow their orders. Do not take their rulings as law. Do not pass go and collect $200.
Unfortunately the SCOTUS isn't a court you can defy in an individual level. It informed federal, state and local authorities. Breaking those laws will absolutely end up with you in prison because those laws will likely be enforced in shit hole states.
Except they can't arrest us all. That's why they crack down so heavily on protesting. The law only means shit if we're willing to follow it. Doesn't matter how many enforcers you have if your civilian population won't submit.
This is where a protest turns into a riot, and eventually, a revolt. Make sure you have a plan before you accidentally get involved in something the government will then hunt you down for.
Btw: vast majority of people are still willing to follow most laws. Even speeding. Everyone slows down when they see a cop even if the entire interstate was doing 80.
While true, human rights are not quite the same as traffic laws. Wait until the NLRB is deemed unconstitutional. That's next on the agenda.
You not recognizing their judgements has the same amount of pull as a sovcit telling the cop they're traveling.
Every courtroom and law occupation defers to their rulings.
This wouldn't be the first time a Supreme Court ruling was ignored, but it hasn't been for a long time and it was never easy.
Do not pass go and collect $200.
Sweet! I'm still over on Baltic Ave. Gimme my $200!
If this passes, not only will people die from complications in states that enact total bans, those states will also hemorrhage maternal and fetal health care providers.
People won’t just return to back-alley abortions, many will be forced to go back to birthing at home. Republicans want the 1950s. They’re gonna end up with the 1750s.
Big facts. My friend is an ob/gyn. We're in NC, on paper we don't have a total ban but in practice it amounts to one. He's currently commuting to VA to work because he doesn't want to get sued, prosecuted, or watch patients almost die before he can treat them. shakes head
Bet they dump all their rulings on the last day, then slink off to suck on the teat of Crow, Leo, and the other rich assholes who want to turn us into Russia.
It’s been two years since we entered this new level of dystopia eh? How the time flies.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is set to rule this month on two major abortion cases with significant nationwide implications as the justices revisit the issue for the first time since overturning Roe v. Wade.
In the other case, which has received less attention but could have far-reaching implications of its own, the justices are considering whether a near-total abortion ban in Idaho conflicts with a federal law requiring emergency medical care for patients, including pregnant women.
The new cases show that the court’s stated aim of getting out of the business of deciding what conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh called “difficult moral and policy questions” was easier said than done.
The mifepristone case attracted nationwide attention last year when a federal judge in Texas issued a sweeping ruling completely invalidating the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the pill, putting its availability in question.
At oral arguments, justices questioned whether the group of anti-abortion doctors who brought the challenge had legal standing simply because they object to abortion and in certain hypothetical situations could be required to give emergency room treatment to women suffering from complications as a result of taking the pill.
While abortion rights advocates are now hopeful they will win the mifepristone case on the standing issue, they fear a loss in the Idaho dispute and insist that such an outcome should not be viewed as the Supreme Court delivering some kind of compromise.
The original article contains 1,105 words, the summary contains 237 words. Saved 79%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
LOL, I hope they ban it.
I love women, and a ban would galvanize them like abortion did in 2022. And then Clarence Thomas can die, Biden or Harris, whichever is alive at the time, can replace him with a young upstart progressive and then get shit done and undo the absolute bullshit that's been going on for the last four years.
For once, I sincerely hope they obey their evil corporate masters.
The last time it took us almost 200 years to get the right, and over the next 50 nobody thought to codify it into law.... I hope they fucking overturn it, and apologize.
Lots of people get used to the new normal, all of them "doing what their corporate overlords want them to" will do serious harm to a lot of people while we wait 20 years for a person to die.
Vote and campaign for better representation in Congress, vote locally, create mutual aid networks to bypass unjust laws. That's how we win.