Texas woman who sought court permission for abortion leaves state for the procedure, attorneys say
Kate Cox, a pregnant Texas woman who sought court permission for an abortion, has left the state to obtain the procedure, her attorneys said.
You're viewing a single thread.
We could have codified Roe, but keeping the filibuster was more important than women.
Keeping the filibuster is pretty important. Without it, Republicans would simply have un-codified Roe in 2016.
Followed by repealing the Voting Rights Act and Medicaid, privatizing Social Security and the Post Office, enacting a regressive flat tax, etc.
Keeping the filibuster is pretty important.
...for blocking progress. Republicans don't have to put any work into blocking progress since Democrats do it for them.
It also blocks Republicans from repealing any progress.
And Democrats from implementing any. Popular progress would make Republicans very unpopular indeed if they repealed it. Just look what happened when they finally caught that car they'd been chasing for decades and killed Roe.
Imagine if they had to undo the law first and then get the Supreme Court to strike down Roe. They would have taken the same popularity hit twice. Imagine if the John Lewis Voting Rights Act passed instead of being stopped in its tracks by the filibuster. All the fuckery Republicans are trying to pull at the state level would have to get through a popular civil rights law first. But no. The filibuster is a relic of the Jim Crow era, and holds back civil rights to this day. And that's how centrists like it.
Since it provides Democrats a way to pretend their hands are tied, they prioritize its preservation over the civil rights of their constituents.
Of course, this also means they have limited accomplishments to run on. Which is why the only message right now is "not trump".
Yes, what happened after Republicans killed Roe? Kate Cox had to flee her state to get an abortion, that's what. Republicans are doubling down, not backing down.
I'd rather have small, permanent progress than constantly watch Republicans take away what we gained.
By the way, state legislatures don't have filibusters. Having seen what they are doing, I don't want more of the same at the federal level.
I’d rather have small, permanent progress
You'd rather have no progress.
I'd rather not have the equivalent of the Florida or Texas legislature running the country. That's worse than no progress.
Same. Unfortunately, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act was less important than centrists' adherence to the Jim Crow Filibuster.
Yes, SCOTUS overturned Roe, but they wouldn't have dared to strike down your abortion statute.
Yes, SCOTUS overturned Roe, but they wouldn’t have dared to strike down your abortion statute.
They would have had to figure out why it was unconstitutional first. It would be greater protection than Roe by itself.
“Because Jesus died on the cross for your sins”
Prove it
They would have had to figure out why it was unconstitutional first.
Because Congress lacks the authority to regulate that issue, and the tenth amendment exists. Issues relating to health or morals are typically left to the states. Arguing something like the interstate commerce clause would have been quite the stretch.
The 9th amendment also exists, as do the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 14th. To believe it's a states rights issue is hilariously wrong, as is the Dobbs opinion. Dobbs is law right now, but this court destroyed any concept of precedent mattering, and the younger generations are in overwhelming support of abortion. Dobbs will be overturned, and the right knows it, hence aspects of project 2025 being partially about stripping all people of the right to an abortion.
Dobbs proves my point, not yours, they are limiting unenumerated rights and returning an issue of morality and healthcare to the states. They would do the same with this statute. You don't need to agree with them, but it's true.
Are you going to base Congressional authority on a tenuous interplay of the 1st and 14th amendment and an unenumerated right to privacy? Because the court already ruled against that. Interstate Commerce? That's laughable at best.
If you want to make your point you're really going to have to state where Congress gets authority, because I assure you, SCOTUS would ask in oral arguments.
Also, Dobbs shouldn't be overturned, Roe was a terribly written decision that wasn't based on law, but tried to settle the issue by being everything to everyone. The next liberal court should rule on bodily autonomy grounds, not privacy.
Also, Dobbs shouldn't be overturned, Roe was a terribly written decision that wasn't based on law, but tried to settle the issue by being everything to everyone. The next liberal court should rule on bodily autonomy grounds, not privacy.
Lmfao sure bud, keep living in your fairytale world
Lmfao sure bud, keep living in your fairytale world
You strike me as someone with no legal training, who has never read Dobbs, never read Roe, and doesn't have the first clue what they're talking about.
And you strike me as an originalist. Don't go after my legal knowledge like you think you know how much I do or don't know. I've read every majority, minority, and concurring opinions from Griswold, Roe, Lawrence, Planned Parenthood v Casey, Lawrence, Windsor, Obergefell, and, of course, Dobbs.
The arguments presented for Dobbs, were exclusively Christian fundamentalist. It relied on literally 0 actually substantial claims, it was clearly a case that SCOTUS already made up its mind for.
Kavanaugh, Barrett, and even Gorsuch all specifically said they would never vote to overturn the 50 years of precedent of Roe when they were having their confirmation hearings. They swore they would not because the GOP knew of the fallout that would happen if Roe was ever actually overturned. The 2022 and 2023 elections proved them right.
Even Clarence Thomas said he would abstain on cases like this where he has such personal feelings in his own confirmation hearings, yet he did not do so in Roe. The point I'm getting at with this is that at least 4 of the judges that voted for it have already demonstrated they're fucking liars. How much of your word can you even take, even if you agree with them?
Lastly, I suggest you read the concurring opinions of Dobbs. Clarence Thomas' is especially mortifying. There is no legal argument in it, it is strictly pure hatred. If it wasn't, and he was being consistent, he would have mentioned overturning Loving v. Virginia too, but we all know why that's not something he'll do.
And you strike me as an originalist.
Definitely not.
Kavanaugh, Barrett, and even Gorsuch all specifically said they would never vote to overturn the 50 years of precedent
Did you believe them? Never had a doubt they'd vote that way.
I've read every majority, minority, and concurring opinions from Griswold, Roe, Lawrence, Planned Parenthood v Casey, Lawrence, Windsor, Obergefell, and, of course, Dobbs.
Congrats, you and every other 1L.
Clarence Thomas' is especially mortifying.
For a refreshing change of pace?
Roe was terribly reasoned and made for bad law. In the same way Dobbs was the result of starting with a conclusion and then reasoning it, so was Roe.
A better basis for abortion access is bodily autonomy. A constitutional right to say how one's body is used is at the heart of all other rights. That's a much better foundation than privacy.
Refreshing change of place? Motherfucker Thomas' opinion said they should "revisit" other cases like Lawrence. Obviously when he says "revisit" he means overturn. You saying that confirms literally all I need to know about your intent
Stop trying your manipulative, disingenuous arguments here, they mean the same as the shit fascists like DeSantis say
