Overturning Roe v Wade?

[chiver78]

May 3, 2022 11:50:03 GMT -5 giramomma said:

May 3, 2022 10:28:03 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

I know a lot of people, especially in the at risk states, are buying up lots of morning after pills from Amazon.

You know, that isn't something I thought of.  MN isn't that far of a drive for us, though.

I'm also concerned about what other things are coming down the pipeline.

Griswold v. Connecticut could be next.

I've been reading that Obergefell could be the next target. I'm just disgusted by all of it.

[pulmonarymd]

May 3, 2022 11:50:03 GMT -5 giramomma said:

May 3, 2022 10:28:03 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

I know a lot of people, especially in the at risk states, are buying up lots of morning after pills from Amazon.

You know, that isn't something I thought of.  MN isn't that far of a drive for us, though.

I'm also concerned about what other things are coming down the pipeline.

Griswold v. Connecticut could be next.

Agree, they look to be going after all Supreme Court decisions that prevent them from having a right wing theocracy with a white supremacist ideology. Gay marriage, interracial marriage are all fair game

[Tiny]

May 3, 2022 10:07:18 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I’m still curious about the morning after pill. About 40 percent of terminations happen that way now. What’s to stop a clinic in NYC selling them on line to women in states that don’t allow abortions?

They’re going to open every ones mail? Isn’t that a federal offense?

There are already laws about mailing/shipping guns, alcohol, drugs, knives, and even brand new bulk  syringes  on a State by State basis. 

I assume it wouldn't be that difficult for a state that will not allow the morning after pills to be mailed to an address in their State AND be able to legally enforce it.      Well, at least mailed from a pharmacy or other type of business.   

That would mean more or less a "black market" for morning after pills. 

Do you want to know how I know this stuff?  

I was giving my cat vitamin B via a syringe.   The vet gave me a 16 ounce bottle of Vitamin B and 5 one use syringes.  I was giving my cat something like 5 mililiters (a small amount) of the liquid FROM A 16 OUNCE BOTTLE.    The vitamin B worked great and so I was going to keep giving the supliment to my cat.  The expense of buying 5 syringes at a time from the vet was cost prohibitive - so I looked to see if could buy them in bulk on line (there are plenty of pharmacy/pet websites.)   turns out my State does NOT allow bulk syringes to be shipped within it's borders  (also why the vet would give me 5 at a time.)    A little research showed I could have the bulk syringes shipped to a family member in another state and they could deliver them when they visited.    Thankfully,  I found a vitamin B suppliment that I can add to my cat's food - and it worked just as well as the injectable stuff.   

2nd example:   about 15 years ago it was illegal to ship or mail alcohol (wine, beer, hard liquor) to addresses in my State.   I wanted to join a "wine of the month club" but could not as they could NOT ship the 2 bottles of wine to my house.   

I assume both the online service providing syringes in bulk and the  wine of the month club wanted to stay in business and so made the effort to NOT ship to places they could not ship.  

I'm sure a State will not have a hard time restricting the ability to mail the morning after pill to it's residents. 

[busymom]

Why would they stop with abortion?  Or contraception?  The GOP wants to take this country so far back into the past that it wouldn't shock me if they tried to bring back segregation, or worse parts of our country's history.  

[weltschmerz]

May 3, 2022 12:06:34 GMT -5 Tiny said:

May 3, 2022 10:07:18 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I’m still curious about the morning after pill. About 40 percent of terminations happen that way now. What’s to stop a clinic in NYC selling them on line to women in states that don’t allow abortions?

They’re going to open every ones mail? Isn’t that a federal offense?

There are already laws about mailing/shipping guns, alcohol, drugs, knives, and even brand new bulk  syringes  on a State by State basis. 

I assume it wouldn't be that difficult for a state that will not allow the morning after pills to be mailed to an address in their State AND be able to legally enforce it.      Well, at least mailed from a pharmacy or other type of business.   

That would mean more or less a "black market" for morning after pills. 

Do you want to know how I know this stuff?  

I was giving my cat vitamin B via a syringe.   The vet gave me a 16 ounce bottle of Vitamin B and 5 one use syringes.  I was giving my cat something like 5 mililiters (a small amount) of the liquid FROM A 16 OUNCE BOTTLE.    The vitamin B worked great and so I was going to keep giving the supliment to my cat.  The expense of buying 5 syringes at a time from the vet was cost prohibitive - so I looked to see if could buy them in bulk on line (there are plenty of pharmacy/pet websites.)   turns out my State does NOT allow bulk syringes to be shipped within it's borders  (also why the vet would give me 5 at a time.)    A little research showed I could have the bulk syringes shipped to a family member in another state and they could deliver them when they visited.    Thankfully,  I found a vitamin B suppliment that I can add to my cat's food - and it worked just as well as the injectable stuff.   

2nd example:   about 15 years ago it was illegal to ship or mail alcohol (wine, beer, hard liquor) to addresses in my State.   I wanted to join a "wine of the month club" but could not as they could NOT ship the 2 bottles of wine to my house.   

I assume both the online service providing syringes in bulk and the  wine of the month club wanted to stay in business and so made the effort to NOT ship to places they could not ship.  

I'm sure a State will not have a hard time restricting the ability to mail the morning after pill to it's residents. 

Can't you buy syringes at any pharmacy?

[pulmonarymd]

May 3, 2022 12:21:14 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

May 3, 2022 12:06:34 GMT -5 Tiny said:

There are already laws about mailing/shipping guns, alcohol, drugs, knives, and even brand new bulk  syringes  on a State by State basis. 

I assume it wouldn't be that difficult for a state that will not allow the morning after pills to be mailed to an address in their State AND be able to legally enforce it.      Well, at least mailed from a pharmacy or other type of business.   

That would mean more or less a "black market" for morning after pills. 

Do you want to know how I know this stuff?  

I was giving my cat vitamin B via a syringe.   The vet gave me a 16 ounce bottle of Vitamin B and 5 one use syringes.  I was giving my cat something like 5 mililiters (a small amount) of the liquid FROM A 16 OUNCE BOTTLE.    The vitamin B worked great and so I was going to keep giving the supliment to my cat.  The expense of buying 5 syringes at a time from the vet was cost prohibitive - so I looked to see if could buy them in bulk on line (there are plenty of pharmacy/pet websites.)   turns out my State does NOT allow bulk syringes to be shipped within it's borders  (also why the vet would give me 5 at a time.)    A little research showed I could have the bulk syringes shipped to a family member in another state and they could deliver them when they visited.    Thankfully,  I found a vitamin B suppliment that I can add to my cat's food - and it worked just as well as the injectable stuff.   

2nd example:   about 15 years ago it was illegal to ship or mail alcohol (wine, beer, hard liquor) to addresses in my State.   I wanted to join a "wine of the month club" but could not as they could NOT ship the 2 bottles of wine to my house.   

I assume both the online service providing syringes in bulk and the  wine of the month club wanted to stay in business and so made the effort to NOT ship to places they could not ship.  

I'm sure a State will not have a hard time restricting the ability to mail the morning after pill to it's residents. 

Can't you buy syringes at any pharmacy?

Not everywhere. Can't have those opiate addicts using clean needles to shoot up.

[kadee79]

I thought I remembered Kav saying during his hearings that Roe v Wade was settled law?  If he said that and then votes to overturn it, he is a liar.  Isn't it great having a liar on the Supreme Court?  I also think that Thomas is lying...saying he has nothing to do with his wife's business/opinions/political activities.
Those that lie should be kicked out of the court or resign.

[chiver78]

May 3, 2022 13:18:10 GMT -5 kadee79 said:

I thought I remembered Kav saying during his hearings that Roe v Wade was settled law?  If he said that and then votes to overturn it, he is a liar.  Isn't it great having a liar on the Supreme Court?  I also think that Thomas is lying...saying he has nothing to do with his wife's business/opinions/political activities.
Those that lie should be kicked out of the court or resign.

Barrett said the same thing - stare decisis.

[haapai]

What kind of echo chamber am I in?  We've known that Roe was gonna go the second that Barrett was nominated.  The only real surprise here is the leaking. 

I am only mildly curious as to who leaked the first draft or why.  I'm staring at a map of the US and calculating driving distances.  They are dreadful for women in my state.  Chicago will be swamped with women from Michigan seeking abortions.  The same goes for the Twin Cities for UPers. 

Ontario might be a better option, but you need to have a passport.  I'll google their restrictions. 

[happyhoix]

May 3, 2022 12:06:34 GMT -5 Tiny said:

May 3, 2022 10:07:18 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I’m still curious about the morning after pill. About 40 percent of terminations happen that way now. What’s to stop a clinic in NYC selling them on line to women in states that don’t allow abortions?

They’re going to open every ones mail? Isn’t that a federal offense?

There are already laws about mailing/shipping guns, alcohol, drugs, knives, and even brand new bulk  syringes  on a State by State basis. 

I assume it wouldn't be that difficult for a state that will not allow the morning after pills to be mailed to an address in their State AND be able to legally enforce it.      Well, at least mailed from a pharmacy or other type of business.   

That would mean more or less a "black market" for morning after pills. 

Do you want to know how I know this stuff?  

I was giving my cat vitamin B via a syringe.   The vet gave me a 16 ounce bottle of Vitamin B and 5 one use syringes.  I was giving my cat something like 5 mililiters (a small amount) of the liquid FROM A 16 OUNCE BOTTLE.    The vitamin B worked great and so I was going to keep giving the supliment to my cat.  The expense of buying 5 syringes at a time from the vet was cost prohibitive - so I looked to see if could buy them in bulk on line (there are plenty of pharmacy/pet websites.)   turns out my State does NOT allow bulk syringes to be shipped within it's borders  (also why the vet would give me 5 at a time.)    A little research showed I could have the bulk syringes shipped to a family member in another state and they could deliver them when they visited.    Thankfully,  I found a vitamin B suppliment that I can add to my cat's food - and it worked just as well as the injectable stuff.   

2nd example:   about 15 years ago it was illegal to ship or mail alcohol (wine, beer, hard liquor) to addresses in my State.   I wanted to join a "wine of the month club" but could not as they could NOT ship the 2 bottles of wine to my house.   

I assume both the online service providing syringes in bulk and the  wine of the month club wanted to stay in business and so made the effort to NOT ship to places they could not ship.  

I'm sure a State will not have a hard time restricting the ability to mail the morning after pill to it's residents. 

Yes being sent from a pharmacy- but what’s to keep a clinic from mailing pills with a made up return address, shipping them first in bulk packages to different big cities so they can be dropped in the mail in a variety of postal codes to make it hard to trace back?

Send those in plain fed ex envelopes whose to know? And let’s hope that rather than spend millions trying to figure out how to trace it, the states spend that money instead on providing free BC.

[daisylu]

Amazon says they will reimburse employees travel expenses for medical treatments, including abortions. Apparently, they already were doing it for employees with life threatening issues. 



Amazon already has a policy in place to reimburse employees up to $10,000 for travel expenses if they're having treatments for life-threatening issues. Now, it has also introduced a policy that will benefit those seeking other kinds of treatment. According to Reuters, the e-commerce giant has told its employees in the US that it will offer up to $4,000 in annual travel reimbursements for non-life threatening medical treatments, including cellular gene therapies, substance-abuse disorder services and abortions.


Reuters says Amazon will reimburse travel under the new policy if a procedure is not available within 100 miles of an employees' home and long-distance/virtual treatment isn't possible. It will apply to both office and warehouse employees, as well as their dependents enrolled in Premera or Aetna health plans. It will also be retroactively applied to eligible travel that took place within this year, starting on January 1st.



link

[bean29]

May 3, 2022 14:10:22 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

May 3, 2022 12:06:34 GMT -5 Tiny said:

There are already laws about mailing/shipping guns, alcohol, drugs, knives, and even brand new bulk  syringes  on a State by State basis. 

I assume it wouldn't be that difficult for a state that will not allow the morning after pills to be mailed to an address in their State AND be able to legally enforce it.      Well, at least mailed from a pharmacy or other type of business.   

That would mean more or less a "black market" for morning after pills. 

Do you want to know how I know this stuff?  

I was giving my cat vitamin B via a syringe.   The vet gave me a 16 ounce bottle of Vitamin B and 5 one use syringes.  I was giving my cat something like 5 mililiters (a small amount) of the liquid FROM A 16 OUNCE BOTTLE.    The vitamin B worked great and so I was going to keep giving the supliment to my cat.  The expense of buying 5 syringes at a time from the vet was cost prohibitive - so I looked to see if could buy them in bulk on line (there are plenty of pharmacy/pet websites.)   turns out my State does NOT allow bulk syringes to be shipped within it's borders  (also why the vet would give me 5 at a time.)    A little research showed I could have the bulk syringes shipped to a family member in another state and they could deliver them when they visited.    Thankfully,  I found a vitamin B suppliment that I can add to my cat's food - and it worked just as well as the injectable stuff.   

2nd example:   about 15 years ago it was illegal to ship or mail alcohol (wine, beer, hard liquor) to addresses in my State.   I wanted to join a "wine of the month club" but could not as they could NOT ship the 2 bottles of wine to my house.   

I assume both the online service providing syringes in bulk and the  wine of the month club wanted to stay in business and so made the effort to NOT ship to places they could not ship.  

I'm sure a State will not have a hard time restricting the ability to mail the morning after pill to it's residents. 

Yes being sent from a pharmacy- but what’s to keep a clinic from mailing pills with a made up return address, shipping them first in bulk packages to different big cities so they can be dropped in the mail in a variety of postal codes to make it hard to trace back?

Send those in plain fed ex envelopes whose to know? And let’s hope that rather than spend millions trying to figure out how to trace it, the states spend that money instead on providing free BC.

Republicans Objected to the laws mandating birth control be covered by insurance.  Something about it not being really expensive so anyone should be able to afford it if they made it a priority.

[dondub]

May 3, 2022 13:18:10 GMT -5 kadee79 said:

I thought I remembered Kav saying during his hearings that Roe v Wade was settled law?  If he said that and then votes to overturn it, he is a liar.  Isn't it great having a liar on the Supreme Court?  I also think that Thomas is lying...saying he has nothing to do with his wife's business/opinions/political activities.
Those that lie should be kicked out of the court or resign.

The last 3 all prevaricated.

[Tennesseer]

May 3, 2022 11:53:50 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

May 3, 2022 11:50:03 GMT -5 giramomma said:

You know, that isn't something I thought of.  MN isn't that far of a drive for us, though.

I'm also concerned about what other things are coming down the pipeline.

Griswold v. Connecticut could be next.

I've been reading that Obergefell could be the next target. I'm just disgusted by all of it.

There are a few states in the South where residents would still like to see Loving v. Virginia overturned too.

[hurley1980]

I'm so glad I live in California!  This is going to be a crapshow, and will not stop at just Roe v Wade!

[Tennesseer]

May 3, 2022 11:53:50 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

May 3, 2022 11:50:03 GMT -5 giramomma said:

You know, that isn't something I thought of.  MN isn't that far of a drive for us, though.

I'm also concerned about what other things are coming down the pipeline.

Griswold v. Connecticut could be next.

I've been reading that Obergefell could be the next target. I'm just disgusted by all of it.

Fundamental LGBTQ Rights Also Under Attack In Leaked Supreme Court Draft

Millions of Americans were shocked Monday night by a leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade — a decision that, if finalized, would reverse 50 years of precedent ensuring a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.

But that’s not the only stunning attack on established constitutional rights in the court’s draft majority opinion, first obtained by Politico.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the draft opinion, also specifically criticizes the landmark civil rights cases that legalized marriage equality, Obergefell v. Hodges, and that legalized private consensual sex, Lawrence v. Texas.

Referencing those two cases, Alito eerily says that, like abortion rights, “None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history.”

Both Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas have already publicly called for revisiting same-sex couples’ constitutional right to marry. In October 2020, they described the court’s 2015 decision on marriage equality as putting “a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment.”

“By doing so undemocratically, the court has created a problem that only it can fix,” Alito and Thomas said at the time. “Until then, Obergefell will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty.”

That Alito is now tying his criticisms of marriage equality to an actual draft court opinion to overturn a 50-year precedent on abortion rights should be a blaring siren for anyone concerned about constitutionally protected LGBTQ rights.

As Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern points out on Twitter, at the heart of Alito’s opinion is a scathing repudiation of “unenumerated rights” that are not laid out in the Constitution.

“The Supreme Court may only protect these rights, Alito says, if they are ‘deeply rooted’ in history. Abortion is not. Neither is same-sex marriage,” Stern says.

Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the landmark marriage equality case, said in a Tuesday statement that it is “concerning” that some on the Supreme Court are eager to tie abortion rights to the rights of same-sex couples to get married.

“The sad part is in both these cases, five or six people will determine the law of the land and go against the vast majority of Ohioans and Americans who overwhelmingly support a woman’s right to make her own health decisions and a couple’s right to be married,” said Obergefell, who is currently a candidate for an Ohio House seat. “This is a sad day, but it’s not over. We have fought the good fight for too long to be denied our rights now.”

Fundamental LGBTQ Rights Also Under Attack In Leaked Supreme Court Draft

[chiver78]

Both Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas have already publicly called for revisiting same-sex couples’ constitutional right to marry. In October 2020, they described the court’s 2015 decision on marriage equality as putting “a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment.”

what the EFF does anyone else's consensual relationship have to do with the pearl-clutching front pew Christians and their warped interpretation of their rule book? 

[bean29]

May 3, 2022 16:54:58 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Both Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas have already publicly called for revisiting same-sex couples’ constitutional right to marry. In October 2020, they described the court’s 2015 decision on marriage equality as putting “a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment.”

what the EFF does anyone else's consensual relationship have to do with the pearl-clutching front pew Christians and their warped interpretation of their rule book? 

You mean how does a gay couple being married interfere with someone else's religious liberty?  I was also trying to figure out the logic in that.

I think this court is ready to go waay further than most voters anticipated.  I did expect them to go after Abortion and Birth Control, at least some forms of birth control.  It looks like they will be way more backward than that though.  

[happyhoix]

May 3, 2022 16:54:58 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Both Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas have already publicly called for revisiting same-sex couples’ constitutional right to marry. In October 2020, they described the court’s 2015 decision on marriage equality as putting “a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment.”

what the EFF does anyone else's consensual relationship have to do with the pearl-clutching front pew Christians and their warped interpretation of their rule book? 

Seeing gays behaving like normal people makes kids think they could act that way too. 

They need to stay firmly in the closet or marry someone of the opposite sex and pretend to be straight. 

That’s why DeSantis is pushing the Don’t Say Gay agenda. 

Next - get the browns and blacks back on to the wrong side of the railroad tracks where they belong, and we’ll be comfortably back to the 50’s. 

[chiver78]

May 3, 2022 19:52:11 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

May 3, 2022 16:54:58 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

what the EFF does anyone else's consensual relationship have to do with the pearl-clutching front pew Christians and their warped interpretation of their rule book? 

Seeing gays behaving like normal people makes kids think they could act that way too. 

They need to stay firmly in the closet or marry someone of the opposite sex and pretend to be straight. 

That’s why DeSantis is pushing the Don’t Say Gay agenda. 

Next - get the browns and blacks back on to the wrong side of the railroad tracks where they belong, and we’ll be comfortably back to the 50’s. 

I saw a meme, I wish I'd saved it. but the gist was "I grew up getting bombarded with instances of heterosexual relationships in media and approved literature, and yet I never felt that pull to try out that lifestyle"

if I can find it again, I'll update this post.

[bean29]

May 3, 2022 20:00:11 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

May 3, 2022 19:52:11 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Seeing gays behaving like normal people makes kids think they could act that way too. 

They need to stay firmly in the closet or marry someone of the opposite sex and pretend to be straight. 

That’s why DeSantis is pushing the Don’t Say Gay agenda. 

Next - get the browns and blacks back on to the wrong side of the railroad tracks where they belong, and we’ll be comfortably back to the 50’s. 

I saw a meme, I wish I'd saved it. but the gist was "I grew up getting bombarded with instances of heterosexual relationships in media and approved literature, and yet I never felt that pull to try out that lifestyle"

if I can find it again, I'll update this post.

I'm thinking George Takei recently made a comment to that affect on twitter, don't remember if a meme was attached or not.

[chiver78]

May 3, 2022 20:24:42 GMT -5 bean29 said:

May 3, 2022 20:00:11 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

I saw a meme, I wish I'd saved it. but the gist was "I grew up getting bombarded with instances of heterosexual relationships in media and approved literature, and yet I never felt that pull to try out that lifestyle"

if I can find it again, I'll update this post.

I'm thinking George Takei recently made a comment to that affect on twitter, don't remember if a meme was attached or not.

nah, this was a screen shot of a tweet. but, George Takei puts out an amazing wealth of snark toward the RINO (Religious In Name Only) right.

[Knee Deep in Water Chloe]

May 3, 2022 9:14:09 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

May 3, 2022 7:04:34 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Supreme Court is supposed to be above politics, that’s true.

However do you think the conservative members of the court are properly reviewing Roe vs Wade and its 50 years of precedence as a law by suddenly declaring Roe was wrong? Seems like the conservative judges are indulging in politics themselves, ignoring both precedent and public opinion.

My understanding is abortion wil not be outlawed. The way I read two articles, the court review was suggesting the states would decide what abortion standards were to be allowed. Yes, some states would make it all but impossible. Others would open it up to the previous levels that were allowed.  FYI, I do not believe in abortion but also know it should be an option for women for so many reasons, some I disagree with, but I do not believe I have the right to impose the limits. 

Same

[teen persuasion]

May 3, 2022 16:52:49 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

May 3, 2022 11:53:50 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

I've been reading that Obergefell could be the next target. I'm just disgusted by all of it.

Fundamental LGBTQ Rights Also Under Attack In Leaked Supreme Court Draft

Millions of Americans were shocked Monday night by a leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade — a decision that, if finalized, would reverse 50 years of precedent ensuring a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.

But that’s not the only stunning attack on established constitutional rights in the court’s draft majority opinion, first obtained by Politico.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the draft opinion, also specifically criticizes the landmark civil rights cases that legalized marriage equality, Obergefell v. Hodges, and that legalized private consensual sex, Lawrence v. Texas.

Referencing those two cases, Alito eerily says that, like abortion rights, “None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history.”

Both Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas have already publicly called for revisiting same-sex couples’ constitutional right to marry. In October 2020, they described the court’s 2015 decision on marriage equality as putting “a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment.”

“By doing so undemocratically, the court has created a problem that only it can fix,” Alito and Thomas said at the time. “Until then, Obergefell will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty.”

That Alito is now tying his criticisms of marriage equality to an actual draft court opinion to overturn a 50-year precedent on abortion rights should be a blaring siren for anyone concerned about constitutionally protected LGBTQ rights.

As Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern points out on Twitter, at the heart of Alito’s opinion is a scathing repudiation of “unenumerated rights” that are not laid out in the Constitution.

“The Supreme Court may only protect these rights, Alito says, if they are ‘deeply rooted’ in history. Abortion is not. Neither is same-sex marriage,” Stern says.

Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the landmark marriage equality case, said in a Tuesday statement that it is “concerning” that some on the Supreme Court are eager to tie abortion rights to the rights of same-sex couples to get married.

“The sad part is in both these cases, five or six people will determine the law of the land and go against the vast majority of Ohioans and Americans who overwhelmingly support a woman’s right to make her own health decisions and a couple’s right to be married,” said Obergefell, who is currently a candidate for an Ohio House seat. “This is a sad day, but it’s not over. We have fought the good fight for too long to be denied our rights now.”

Fundamental LGBTQ Rights Also Under Attack In Leaked Supreme Court Draft

Many on Twitter were listing all the legal fallout if they kill Roe - some mentioned Thomas might want to be careful about opening a can of worms, Loving vs Virginia is potentially on that list, too.

Slippery slope.

[Tennesseer]

May 3, 2022 20:54:12 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

May 3, 2022 16:52:49 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Fundamental LGBTQ Rights Also Under Attack In Leaked Supreme Court Draft

Millions of Americans were shocked Monday night by a leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade — a decision that, if finalized, would reverse 50 years of precedent ensuring a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.

But that’s not the only stunning attack on established constitutional rights in the court’s draft majority opinion, first obtained by Politico.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the draft opinion, also specifically criticizes the landmark civil rights cases that legalized marriage equality, Obergefell v. Hodges, and that legalized private consensual sex, Lawrence v. Texas.

Referencing those two cases, Alito eerily says that, like abortion rights, “None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history.”

Both Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas have already publicly called for revisiting same-sex couples’ constitutional right to marry. In October 2020, they described the court’s 2015 decision on marriage equality as putting “a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment.”

“By doing so undemocratically, the court has created a problem that only it can fix,” Alito and Thomas said at the time. “Until then, Obergefell will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty.”

That Alito is now tying his criticisms of marriage equality to an actual draft court opinion to overturn a 50-year precedent on abortion rights should be a blaring siren for anyone concerned about constitutionally protected LGBTQ rights.

As Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern points out on Twitter, at the heart of Alito’s opinion is a scathing repudiation of “unenumerated rights” that are not laid out in the Constitution.

“The Supreme Court may only protect these rights, Alito says, if they are ‘deeply rooted’ in history. Abortion is not. Neither is same-sex marriage,” Stern says.

Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the landmark marriage equality case, said in a Tuesday statement that it is “concerning” that some on the Supreme Court are eager to tie abortion rights to the rights of same-sex couples to get married.

“The sad part is in both these cases, five or six people will determine the law of the land and go against the vast majority of Ohioans and Americans who overwhelmingly support a woman’s right to make her own health decisions and a couple’s right to be married,” said Obergefell, who is currently a candidate for an Ohio House seat. “This is a sad day, but it’s not over. We have fought the good fight for too long to be denied our rights now.”

Fundamental LGBTQ Rights Also Under Attack In Leaked Supreme Court Draft

Many on Twitter were listing all the legal fallout if they kill Roe - some mentioned Thomas might want to be careful about opening a can of worms, Loving vs Virginia is potentially on that list, too.

Slippery slope.

There are one or two southern states down here which would not be sorry to see Loving v. Virginia overturned.

[Value Buy]

May 3, 2022 14:17:54 GMT -5 daisylu said:

Amazon says they will reimburse employees travel expenses for medical treatments, including abortions. Apparently, they already were doing it for employees with life threatening issues. 



Amazon already has a policy in place to reimburse employees up to $10,000 for travel expenses if they're having treatments for life-threatening issues. Now, it has also introduced a policy that will benefit those seeking other kinds of treatment. According to Reuters, the e-commerce giant has told its employees in the US that it will offer up to $4,000 in annual travel reimbursements for non-life threatening medical treatments, including cellular gene therapies, substance-abuse disorder services and abortions.


Reuters says Amazon will reimburse travel under the new policy if a procedure is not available within 100 miles of an employees' home and long-distance/virtual treatment isn't possible. It will apply to both office and warehouse employees, as well as their dependents enrolled in Premera or Aetna health plans. It will also be retroactively applied to eligible travel that took place within this year, starting on January 1st.



link

Yeah, have you seen their stock price lately? Now they think they have TOO MANY EMPLOYEES and company may be laying people off. Companies will start taking the corporations back, as they are not a working commune as employees think they are.

[kadee79]

"Referencing those two cases, Alito eerily says that, like abortion rights, “None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history.”

I think Alito needs a serious history lesson.  There have been 'gays' since history started, in fact some native tribes referred to them as 'he/she' persons.  
Maybe Alito went to one of DeSantis' schools where that part of history wasn't allowed to be taught or even talked about.

[happyhoix]

May 3, 2022 20:00:11 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

May 3, 2022 19:52:11 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Seeing gays behaving like normal people makes kids think they could act that way too. 

They need to stay firmly in the closet or marry someone of the opposite sex and pretend to be straight. 

That’s why DeSantis is pushing the Don’t Say Gay agenda. 

Next - get the browns and blacks back on to the wrong side of the railroad tracks where they belong, and we’ll be comfortably back to the 50’s. 

I saw a meme, I wish I'd saved it. but the gist was "I grew up getting bombarded with instances of heterosexual relationships in media and approved literature, and yet I never felt that pull to try out that lifestyle"

if I can find it again, I'll update this post.

My mom was convinced my cousin was gay because my aunt dressed her in little boy clothes. (And no, my aunt did not dress my cousin in little boy clothes).

My mom couldn’t even bring herself to say the word gay. We can’t go back to that mindset.

[Opti]

May 3, 2022 16:54:58 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Both Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas have already publicly called for revisiting same-sex couples’ constitutional right to marry. In October 2020, they described the court’s 2015 decision on marriage equality as putting “a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment.”

what the EFF does anyone else's consensual relationship have to do with the pearl-clutching front pew Christians and their warped interpretation of their rule book? 

They already have their precious religious liberty. They don't need to marry anyone of the same sex nor are they compelled to be gay publicly or privately. It is not religious freedom to force choices on others; especially those who do not follow their religion.

[happyhoix]

One theory going around about who leaked this is that a conservative member of the court leaked it to force other conservatives who were wavering to fall in line with it.

The theory is Roberts wanted a less draconian decision- abortion allowed within the first trimester and allowances for later abortions for rape, incest or the health of the mother.