SCOTUS reportedly set to overturn Roe v. Wade decision, according to alleged draft opinion

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Bradford Betz , Tyler O'Neil | Fox News


https://i.imgur.com/gzFEeJb.png

The Supreme Court is poised to strike down Roe v. Wade, according to an unprecedented leak of a draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito.

The draft leak obtained by Politico was written in early February. It was not immediately clear if it has been rewritten or revised. The Court has declined to verify or disavow the document. Analysts have suggested the leak may represent an attempt to pressure a Supreme Court justice to change his or her vote on the pivotal case.

https://i.imgur.com/QUi1DIIl.jpg

Until an official opinion is signed and released by the Court, Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land. Drafts circulate and change, as do votes.

Should Roe v. Wade be overturned, abortions would be left for the states to decide.

"We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Samuel Alito writes in the document, labeled the "Opinion of the Court" for the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives."

Alito notes that at the time the Court decided Roe, 30 states had active bans on abortion throughout pregnancy.

He notes that Americans hold "sharply conflicting views" on the subject. "Some believe fervently that a human person comes into being at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. Others feel just as strongly that any regulation of abortion invades a woman's right to control her own body and prevents women from achieving full equality. Still others in a third group think that abortion should be allowed under some but not all circumstances, and those within this group hold a variety of views about the particular restrictions that should be imposed."

Fox News has reached out to the White House for comment.

Disclosing a draft opinion in a Supreme Court case is an extremely rare occurrence. Jonathan Turley, Harvard law professor emeritus, appeared on Fox News ‘Hannity’ Monday evening to discuss the report, saying he could not think of a historical precedent.
1521299636929114122
Politico reported that five of the original votes to overturn Roe remain "unchanged *as of this week*," but it did not report that they have all said they will join the Alito opinion. SCOTUS Blog suggested that the leak may aim to pressure a justice to switch his or her vote.

https://i.imgur.com/cXNVVGPl.jpg

"At least 1 is apparently uncommitted. Hence the leak?" the Supreme Court analysis website tweeted.

"Those interested in who leaked the draft should wonder why Alexander Ward — a national security reporter — shares the byline," SCOTUS Blog added. "The leaker would insist that their identity be incredibly tightly held. Politico would not assign someone who didn’t have to be on the story."

RealClearInvestigations senior writer Mark Hemingway suggested that someone leaked the draft opinion as part of a public pressure campaign to reverse the decision.

"Leaking a draft opinion is a scumbag move designed to create public pressure against the court before the decision is finalized," Hemingway tweeted.

CNN's Mike Valerio claimed that Chief Justice John Roberts, a justice known for upholding precedent whom former President George W. Bush appointed, does not want to overturn Roe.

"Roberts does NOT want to completely overturn Roe v Wade, meaning he apparently would be dissenting from Alito's draft opinion, likely w the court's 3 liberals, sources tell CNN," Valerio tweeted. "Roberts is willing, however, to uphold MS law banning abortion at 15 weeks, CNN learned."

Apparently anticipating a similar move from the Court, states with Democratic legislatures have passed laws codifying abortion in case Roe gets overturned. Gov. Jared Polis, D-Colo., signed a law creating a "fundamental right" to abortion and denying any right for the unborn. In 2019, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y., signed a law codifying abortion rights and explicitly removing protections from unborn infants. The Connecticut legislature has passed a bill aimed at combating abortion restrictions in other states.

Meanwhile, states with Republican legislatures have passed laws restricting abortion, with Texas and Idaho passing laws allowing private citizens to file civil suits against individuals who aid or abet abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, at about 6 weeks of pregnancy.

While many polls suggest Americans support Roe, in-depth polling reveals a more complicated picture. When asked about their opinion on abortion during specific periods of pregnancy and other situations, 71% of Americans say they support restricting abortion to the first three months of pregnancy (22%), or in other limited circumstances such as rape and incest (28%), to save the life of the mother (9%) or not at all (12%). Only 17% of Americans said abortion should be available during an entire pregnancy and 12% said it should be restricted to the first six months.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Patrick Reilly - New York Post


Pro-choice and anti-abortion protesters descended on the Supreme Court in Washington D.C. late Monday as tensions mounted following the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

The ruling was obtained by Politico in an extraordinary breach of the Supreme Court’s ironclad precedence of secrecy. If enacted, it would end a women’s constitutional right to an abortion, which has existed for nearly 50 years.

Minutes after the bombshell document was leaked, barricades were erected outside of the Supreme Court building in anticipation of protests, according to reports.

Within the hour, a growing crowd of abortion rights activists and a smaller group of counter-protesters clashed outside of the fences at the impromptu gathering.

The crowd of pro-choice activists holding hastily-made signs could be heard chanting “Abortion is healthcare,” one clip shows.
1521326052722843648
By 11 p.m., the crowd had sizably grown, as various chants continued to ring out.

One anti-abortion protester confronted the crowd, yelling at them to “shut the f–k up,” telling them “I want to hear you say you’re okay with killing babies,” a video clip from CNN’s Eva McKend shows.

https://i.imgur.com/tGPVrGK.png

In another clip from the Daily Beast’s Zachary Petrizzo, opposing protests can be heard trying to yell over each other, with the anti-abortion activists yelling “Hey, hey, ho, ho Roe v. Wade is going to go.”

The majority opinion, penned mostly by Justice Samuel Alito and obtained by Politico, rejects the 1973 decision that guaranteed constitutional protections for abortion rights as well as the subsequent Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision in 1992.

The draft ruling, which was written in February, would end the federal abortion protections and instead leave the decision up to each state to restrict or ban abortions.

https://i.imgur.com/8KHO7Ku.png

https://i.imgur.com/iC9fdWf.png

Alito wrote that the Roe decision “imposed the same highly restrictive regime on the entire Nation, and it effectively struck down the abortion laws of every single state”

“The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion,” the draft concludes. “Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”

But the decision may not go over well with the American public.

https://i.imgur.com/GXgvusz.png

https://i.imgur.com/0L5PkQe.png

A 2020 poll conducted by the Associated Press and Chicago University’s National Opinion Research Center found that 69% of voters in the presidential election said the Supreme Court should leave the Roe v. Wade decision alone while just 29% said the court should overturn the decision.

Alito dismissed the idea that the court should be swayed by public opinion, writing “We cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public’s reaction to our work.”

[Muddy]

Wont happen.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Not a chance

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Ronn Blitzer | Fox News


https://i.imgur.com/iZWeg9Ul.jpg

The Supreme Court issued a response to the report of a draft opinion that, if published, would overturn Roe v. Wade, with Chief Justice John Roberts strongly condemning the leak to the press.

In a brief message, the court acknowledged that the leaked document is indeed real, while noting that it is just a draft and that the court has not issued a final decision on the matter.

"Justices circulate draft opinions internally as a routine and essential part of the Court’s confidential deliberative work. Although the document described in yesterday’s reports is authentic, it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case," the court said.

Roberts, in his own statement accompanying the court's press release, announced that he has called upon the Marshal of the Court to investigate the situation and find the source who leaked the document to Politico. Roberts also spoke out against the notion that the leak could succeed as a political maneuver to influence the outcome of the case.

"To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the Court will not be affected in any way," Roberts said.

The chief justice also emphasized how rare such a leak is, due to the loyalty and professionalism of the court's staff.

"We at the Court are blessed to have a workforce – permanent employees and law clerks alike – intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law," he said. "Court employees have an exemplary and important tradition of respecting The confidentiality of the judicial process and upholding the trust of the Court. This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here."

[Muddy]

Roberts is the only good Republican on that board.. He thinks with law and not religious influence.

[Pony]

Funny how this all comes up as we're rolling into a big midterm election year....


....it's almost as if the Dems need something to distract the voters on everything else going on right now.


Just saying, I find the timing of this "leak" suspicious.

[deebakes]

:fbd:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Lindsay Kornick | Fox News


https://i.imgur.com/QfS8L8E.png

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., insisted on Tuesday that the Supreme Court does not have the right to overturn Roe v. Wade.

On Monday night, Politico reported an early draft opinion from the Supreme Court that overturned the 1973 landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade. Since then, Democrats and their allies in the media have decried this potential ruling.

Jayapal emphasized the "terror," "fear," "disgust," and "outrage" she feels over the draft opinion and its "rebuke of precedent."

"This is a stunning, stunning rebuke of precedent and of the fundamental freedom that women have to make choices about our own bodies and our own futures and our own economic security," Jayapal said on "CNN's Newsroom."

While several argued that this draft opinion represents a sense of "fascism" in the court, Jayapal argued that the Supreme Court doesn’t even have the right to overturn Roe v. Wade as "settled law."

"These justices are acting like this is somehow something that they have the right to change. They do not have the right to change this which has been settled law for two generations now of people who have grown up and have gone through their twenties in the firm belief that they can make these decisions about their own bodies," Jayapal said.

https://i.imgur.com/T29NIsQ.png

The progressive lawmaker also criticized the "radicalization" of the court and claimed that this potential decision could allow the justices to overturn other examples of "settled law."

"The only thing that has changed is the makeup of the Supreme Court, the radicalization of the Supreme Court. And if they can do this for this issue, it means that they can ignore precedent for every other issue that we have considered settled law. So we cannot accept it. I don’t think people across this country are going to accept it, and of course, we have to now work extra hard to codify Roe v. Wade in the United States Congress," she said.

She continued with criticism against President Biden for refusing to call for an end to the filibuster that would allow congressional Democrats to pass a law that would ensure nationwide access to abortions.

https://i.imgur.com/5PPr53q.png

The Supreme Court's official ruling regarding Roe v. Wade is not expected until June. Although the draft opinion suggested enough votes to overturn the ruling, several analysts have noted that the opinion as well as the ruling could have since been revised or rewritten.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

BY JOHN KRUZEL - The Hill


https://i.imgur.com/Qrr9gqJ.jpg

A leaked Supreme Court draft opinion authored by conservative Justice Samuel Alito would overturn the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade and upend federal protections that for nearly five decades have safeguarded the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

The draft opinion has the support of a five-member majority of conservative justices, according to Politico, which published the leaked document Monday evening. Those votes and the opinion itself, however, are subject to change before a final decision is published, likely by the end of June.

Here are five key lines from Alito’s 67-page draft opinion. The ruling stems from a dispute over Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, which directly conflicts with Roe’s prohibition on states banning abortion prior to fetal viability, around 23 weeks.

“We thus return the power to … the people and their elected represent*atives”

The practical effect of Alito’s opinion would be to hand full authority to states to regulate abortion. Many Republican officials had urged the court to adopt this very approach in the Mississippi dispute, with a dozen GOP governors in an amicus brief calling on the court to use the case to restore state control over the procedure.

Alito’s opinion delivered on that request, stating: “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh had pursued a similar line of questioning during oral argument in December. He, along with fellow Trump nominees Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, plus Justice Clarence Thomas, formed a majority with Alito, according to reports.

“Why should this court be the arbiter rather than Congress, the state legislatures, state supreme courts, the people, being able to resolve this?” Kavanaugh asked an attorney for the Biden administration during arguments. “And there’ll be different answers in Mississippi than New York, different answers in Alabama than California, because they’re two different interests at stake and the people in those states might value those interests somewhat differently.”

The 2018 Mississippi law at issue in the case, which has been paused during litigation, is just one of hundreds of abortion measures that state legislatures passed in recent years.

According to abortion rights advocacy group Guttmacher Institute, 22 states would be certain to attempt to ban abortion as quickly as possible. Among those, 13 states have trigger laws already in place, designed to take effect automatically or by quick state action if Roe no longer applies.

“Roe … was remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text”

Conservatives have long derided Roe as untethered from the Constitution — or as Alito put it in his draft opinion, “remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text.”

In a footnote, Alito included a key passage from Justice Harry Blackmun’s 7-2 decision in Roe describing the constitutional underpinnings of the abortion right:

“This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the peo*ple, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

Taking aim at Blackmun’s rationale, Alito described the ruling as an “unfocused analysis,” whose “message seemed to be that the abortion right could be found somewhere in the Consti*tution and that specifying its exact location was not of paramount importance.”

“It held that the abortion right, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is part of a right to privacy, which is also not mentioned,” Alito wrote.

“A right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history”

One of the more tendentious claims in Alito’s draft is that, “The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions.”

He cites a litany of historical sources in seeking to establish the existence of “an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973.”

Alito also asserts that no persuasive counterargument has been put forth. “A few of respondents’ amici muster historical arguments,” he writes, “but they are very weak.”

Alito’s treatment of the historical record is likely to draw fierce pushback from dissenters on the bench, who have a number of amicus briefs to draw upon.

Among them is a brief by David Gans, a constitutional litigator and scholar at the Constitutional Accountability Center, who says there’s an originalist argument to be made against Alito’s position. As Gans writes in a forthcoming essay: “The right to abortion flows logically from these fundamental rights that the Fourteenth Amendment was written to protect.”

Court not bound by “egregiously decided” precedent

One of the overarching concerns in the Mississippi case has been “stare decisis,” the legal doctrine that generally binds courts to abide by their past rulings. Strictly applied, this concept would leave the court no wiggle room to depart from Roe.

But Alito, citing precedent, noted that: “We have long recognized, however, that stare decisis is ‘not an inexorable command.’” Elsewhere in the draft opinion, Alito says the doctrine does not require “unending adherence” to cases that were wrongly decided, pointing to the infamous 1896 decision Plessy v. Ferguson that endorsed legal segregation by race before being overturned in 1954 by Brown v. Board of Education.

“Stare decisis … does not compel unending adherence to Roe’s abuse of judicial authority,” Alito wrote. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.”

“Nothing in this opinion should … cast doubt on (other) precedents”

Alito’s draft emphasizes that his ruling was a narrow one and would not spillover to decisions on issues like same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges), sex between gay couples (Lawrence v. Texas) and the right to contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut).

“Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Alito wrote.

But many who read the opinion were unconvinced. Alito’s draft is fueling questions about whether rights that are seen as having a thin historical record and which are not explicitly referenced in the Constitution — so-called “unenumerated rights” — would remain on a firm footing if the draft becomes law.

“I think it’s more than a valid concern,” said Steven D. Schwinn, a professor at the University of Illinois Chicago Law School. “I think it’s a real, deep worry.”

[DemonGeminiX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eozjtyf_cuw

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Tyler O'Neil | Fox News


https://i.imgur.com/wrtLYgk.png

Workers erected a large fence around the U.S. Supreme Court building late Wednesday night, two days after Politico published a leaked draft opinion striking down the abortion precedent Roe v. Wade (1973). The same night, Justice Samuel Alito, the author of the draft, canceled a public appearance.

Work crews erected "tall, non-scalable fencing" around the Court, as Fox 5's Lindsay Watts put it.

Alito scrapped plans to participate in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals judicial conference, which is slated to begin Thursday. He canceled the appearance for reasons that have not been disclosed, Reuters reported. Alito is tasked with reviewing emergency appeals from the 5th Circuit.

Alito's colleagues, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, were slated to give remarks at a similar conference for the 11th Circuit Thursday and Friday, according to a program Reuters acquired. It remains unclear if they will still appear.

Roberts confirmed Tuesday that Alito's draft opinion in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization was genuine – although the draft dates back to February, and it does not represent the current or final opinion of the court. In the draft, Alito strikes down Roe v. Wade, which struck down state laws across the country, and allows states to again make their own laws on abortion.

The move unleashed a firestorm of controversy, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., condemning the draft opinion as an "abomination."

Washington, D.C., police activated protest units amid large protests in front of the building Tuesday. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., joined crowds and shouted until her voice became hoarse.

Some Democrats responded by urging Congress to pass a bill codifying Roe, but the Senate blocked just such a measure at the end of February, with Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., joining Republicans in opposing the bill.

Democratic governors and attorneys general vowed to defend abortion on the state level. States with Democratic legislatures have already passed laws codifying abortion in case Roe gets overturned. Gov. Jared Polis, D-Colo., signed a law creating a "fundamental right" to abortion and denying any right for the unborn. In 2019, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y., signed a law codifying abortion rights and explicitly removing protections from unborn infants. Connecticut's Legislature recently passed a bill effectively combating pro-life laws in other states.

https://i.imgur.com/O76ZhbY.png

Meanwhile, states with Republican legislatures have passed laws restricting abortion, with Texas and Idaho passing laws allowing private citizens to file civil suits against individuals who aid or abet abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, at about six weeks of pregnancy.

Gov. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., pledged to call a special session of her state's legislature "immediately" if Roe gets struck down, in order to defend the lives of unborn infants.

Analysts have suggested that the leak of the draft opinion – unprecedented in the court's history – may represent a pressure campaign to stop the court from overturning Roe. Yet even so pro-abortion a justice as the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned that Roe may prove "unstable." She noted that, rather than working with legislatures to craft a compromise on abortion, the court had decided to "fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force."

Some on the Left have revived calls for packing the Supreme Court following news of the leaked opinion, and the fencing seems to suggest that authorities are concerned for the safety of the court's members. Some Democrats have also recently called for the impeachment of Justice Thomas, due to his wife's political activism.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Anders Hagstrom | Fox News


https://i.imgur.com/NTNRnYs.png

Left-wing activist groups are planning to send protesters to the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices following a leak indicating the court may soon overturn Roe v. Wade.

The activists are organizing under the moniker "Ruth Sent Us" and have published the supposed home addresses of Justices Amy Coney Barrett, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

"Our 6-3 extremist Supreme Court routinely issues rulings that hurt women, racial minorities, LGBTQ+ and immigrant rights," the group's website reads. "We must rise up to force accountability using a diversity of tactics."

Fox News is told there has been a strong police presence at the justices' homes following the leak. The group says they will visit the homes on May 11.

The D.C. Police Department has erected fencing around the Supreme Court building in anticipation of escalating protests this weekend. Police have also activated protest-response units through Sunday.

The move comes after a draft copy of Justice Samuel Alito's opinion upholding a Mississippi abortion law leaked to Politico. The decision would overturn Roe v. Wade if adopted by four other justices.

Chief Justice John Roberts described the leak as a "betrayal" of the court on Tuesday and ordered an investigation into the incident.

Republicans on Capitol Hill have also expressed outrage over the nearly unprecedented leak, while Democrats have sounded the alarms in defense of abortion.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called for the leaker to be prosecuted, saying the move was a transparent attempt to subvert the court's ruling.

"Somebody, likely somebody inside the court itself, leaked a confidential brief to the press, to stir up a pressure campaign," McConnell, R-KY, said. "Whoever committed this lawless act knew exactly what it could bring about."

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Tyler O'Neil | Fox News


https://i.imgur.com/9UBampE.png

Pro-abortion activists are targeting Catholic churches for protests on Mother's Day, with some citing the Roman Catholic faith of multiple justices who reportedly at one point supported the leaked draft opinion striking down Roe v. Wade.

The protests follow days of organizing in front of the Supreme Court building following the leak Monday night – protests that led the Washington, D.C., police to erect a fence ostensibly to protect the building and justices within. Fox News has also learned that there has been a strong police presence at the justices' homes following the leak.

"Whether you’re a ‘Catholic for Choice’, ex-Catholic, of other or no faith, recognize that six extremist Catholics set out to overturn Roe," the pro-abortion organizing group Ruth Sent Us posted on Twitter, with a video of activists appearing to disrupt a church service. "Stand at or in a local Catholic Church Sun May 8."

The organization Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights has organized a "week of action" beginning on May 8, Mother's Day, with "Actions Outside of Churches."

"This action is called for by a collective of spanish [sic] speaking women’s rights groups + activists across the country, including from Bride’s March, Dominican Women’s Development Center, Ni Una Menus, and Las 17," according to the event schedule. "Several cities will be hosting protests outside of prominent churches in their towns, these can look like a group of people holding signs wearing Handmaids Tale outfits, passing out flyers outside to church goers or doing a die-in."

Abortion activists don "Handmaid's Tale" outfits in protest, comparing laws restricting abortion to the regime of ritualized rape and forced motherhood in Margaret Atwood's novel.

Pro-abortion vandals targeted a church in Boulder, Colorado, Wednesday, spray-painting "bans off our bodies" and "my body my choice" on the building.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed Tuesday that Justice Samuel Alito's draft opinion in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization was genuine – although the draft dates back to February, and it does not represent the current or final opinion of the court. In the draft, Alito strikes down Roe v. Wade, which struck down state laws across the country, and allows states to again make their own laws on abortion.

Following the leak, activists have called for protests at the homes of the justices who will supposedly vote to overturn Roe, and even published their addresses online.

It remains unclear whether the Court will overturn Roe in the Dobbs decision, and which justices will vote in favor of the move. The Politico story reporting the link claimed that five justices had voted to do so, and that Roberts favored upholding the Mississippi abortion law at issue but did not want to overturn Roe.

https://i.imgur.com/Rd87FtD.png

Brian Burch, president of the Catholic advocacy organization Catholic Vote, condemned the planned protests and urged President Biden – who has faced criticism for claiming a Catholic identity while supporting abortion – to condemn what Burch called "domestic terrorist threats."

"In the wake of the shameless leak of a draft opinion of the Supreme Court, pro-abortion groups are now threatening to disrupt Catholic churches and to protest outside the homes of Supreme Court justices this Sunday," Burch noted in a statement Thursday.

"President Biden must immediately and forcibly condemn these domestic terrorist threats," Burch declared. "Anti-Catholic zealots are plotting to intimidate and harass Catholics across the country, along with justices and their families. This country was built on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The President of the United States must stand up for both."

"These threats follow a record number of attacks on Catholic churches, shrines, and symbols over the past two years," the Catholic Vote president added, citing the Boulder vandalism.

Catholic Vote has urged the Department of Justice to investigate the trend of anti-Catholic vandalism, citing at least 120 instances since May 2020.

The White House on Thursday declined to encourage abortion activists to avoid protesting at justices' private residences. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said that Biden "shares" the "concern" and "horror" of those who "feel outraged" or "scared" over the leaked draft opinion.

When Fox News' Peter Doocy asked Psaki if abortion protests outside justices' houses might be considered extreme, she said, "Peaceful protest, no. Peaceful protest is not extreme. We certainly encourage people to keep it peaceful and not resort to any level of violence."

Contrary to Ruth Sent Us, the justices who voted to overturn Roe were not "six extremist Catholics." While Justices Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett are Catholic, Neil Gorsuch, the ostensible fifth vote, is Episcopalian. Roberts and Justice Sonia Sotomayor are also Catholic, though they reportedly did not vote to overturn Roe. Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan are Jewish, while incoming Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is a nondenominational Protestant.

[Muddy]

Well at least they are targeting the right group..

[Pony]

There must be a lot of paranoid bullshit floating around out there, one girl on my Facebook page keeps posting nonsense. The latest was for all women to immediately delete "Period tracking apps".

Because apparently the government is going to know if you miss a period and send Black Suits to your home to watch you for 9 months?

She also posted that "they" are going to ban birth control.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

There must be a lot of paranoid bullshit floating around out there, one girl on my Facebook page keeps posting nonsense. The latest was for all women to immediately delete "Period tracking apps".

Because apparently the government is going to know if you miss a period and send Black Suits to your home to watch you for 9 months?

She also posted that "they" are going to ban birth control.

The democrats are throwing all kinds of nonsense out there now. Rep. Eric Swallwell said that the next thing SCOTUS is going to ban is interracial marriage. Um, really? :-s Clarence Thomas is in an interracial marriage. And Biden during one of his incoherent ramblings said that "they" might ban LGBT kids from being in regular classrooms and they would be segregated away.

:shakehead:

[Pony]

The democrats are throwing all kinds of nonsense out there now. Rep. Eric Swallwell said that the next thing SCOTUS is going to ban is interracial marriage. Um, really? :-s Clarence Thomas is in an interracial marriage. And Biden during one of his incoherent ramblings said that "they" might ban LGBT kids from being in regular classrooms and they would be segregated away.

:shakehead:

I knew they were gonna run with this with as much fear mongering as they can, they have been handed a silver platter leading up to the midterms.

[lost in melb.]

If only you could just agree on sensible time frames for abortion.i.e. something between a foetus and an embryo. Focus of the religious conservatives on "heartbeat" is ridiculous - as are those pretending that babies aren't human and don't have a consciousness. :smh:

[Pony]

So, if they overturn it and a bunch of conservative states pass new laws, maybe all the liberals that have been flocking to conservative states to take advantage of the lower taxes will go back to California and New York.

Texas and Ohio might be saved! Sorry Lance, it's too late for Colorado.

[RBP]

If only you could just agree on sensible time frames for abortion.i.e. something between a foetus and an embryo. Focus of the religious conservatives on "heartbeat" is ridiculous - as are those pretending that babies aren't human and don't have a consciousness. :smh:

It's already there. Viability - was 23 weeks at time of Roe, now probably 20. Then nothing after that. It seems simple to me.

These morons love to say "why can't we be more like Scandinavia" where the limit is a reasonable 18 weeks and requires a medical review board proof of risk to life of the mother after that.

But then again, I have said since the 80's that securing the southern border was a no-brainer also.

So what the fuck do I know.

But to continue this bullshit over and over and over is mind numbingly stupid.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Mary Margaret Olohan - The Daily Wire


https://i.imgur.com/hyIkk0Pl.png

Democrats scrambling to address the potential overturn of Roe v. Wade are urging one another to stop using the word “choice” or references to coat hangers in their messaging.

Messaging materials sent from the Pro-Choice Caucus to House Democrats on Roe v. Wade list language deemed “harmful” in abortion messaging, Politico reported. The caucus is led by Colorado Rep. Dianna DeGette and California Rep. Barbara Lee.

Rather than saying “choice,” the messaging suggests Democrats say, “decision.” Rather than using the phrasing “reduce abortion” or “safe legal and rare,” use “safe, legal, and accessible,” the messaging says.

Say “unexpected pregnancy” rather than “unwanted pregnancy,” the messaging guide suggests, and rather than citing “conscience clause” or “conscience protections,” apparently when referring to Americans who object to performing or providing abortions for religious reasons, Democrats were instructed to say “refusal of care” or “denial of care.”
1524792388677402626
The messaging, which also urges Democrats to avoid “back alley abortions” or “coat hangers” references, and instead use the phrase “criminalizing healthcare,” comes amid demonstrations in front of the private residences of Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito over the past week since the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion showing that the court is likely preparing to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Protests also took place outside the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., in Los Angeles (where protestors violently clashed with police) and in New York City.

Many of the demonstrators who have joined protests as of late carry signs depicting coat hangers and warning that women will have to obtain back alley abortions if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Politico reported that some Democrats have privately expressed concerns about revamping Democratic messaging on abortion during such a pivotal moment (ahead of the Roe v. Wade decision, which some expect Monday).

[lost in melb.]

It's already there. Viability - was 23 weeks at time of Roe, now probably 20. Then nothing after that. It seems simple to me.

These morons love to say "why can't we be more like Scandinavia" where the limit is a reasonable 18 weeks and requires a medical review board proof of risk to life of the mother after that.

But then again, I have said since the 80's that securing the southern border was a no-brainer also.

So what the fuck do I know.

But to continue this bullshit over and over and over is mind numbingly stupid.

https://c.tenor.com/-kHJ5bxUwisAAAAC/smile-nod.gif

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Hank Berrien - The Daily Wire


https://i.imgur.com/Ril2I0cl.jpg

Officials affiliated with the Supreme Court are reportedly intensifying their investigation into the leak of the draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, allegedly causing law clerks working for SCOTUS justices to consider obtaining legal counsel.

New steps taken by the Court reportedly include obtaining law clerks’ cell phone records and signed affidavits, according to sources providing information to CNN.

“Chief Justice John Roberts met with law clerks as a group after the breach,” CNN reported, “but it is not known whether any systematic individual interviews have occurred.”

“I think an attorney, in the course of representation, could decide to speak to the press to promote his client’s interests,” Josh Blackman pointed out at Reason. “But there is an open question: does the attorney-client privilege survive in light of a duty of confidentiality to the Court? That is, could a clerk tell her attorney about some internal information in order to prepare a legal strategy? Could the Chief fire a clerk who confides in this lawyer?”

The investigation is headed by the Supreme Court marshal, Colonel Gail Curley, who is “in some ways constrained in her investigation by her position, which was created just after the Civil War, in 1867,” AP noted.

“Experts say leaking the draft opinion likely wasn’t a crime, and Curley’s investigative tools are limited,” AP continued. “She could theoretically hire an outside law firm to assist, and in other judicial records cases the FBI has been called in. But it isn’t clear if she or others have the power to issue subpoenas to get material from journalists or the fewer than 100 people in the court — including justices — with access to a draft opinion.”

After the leak of the draft opinion on May 3, Chief Justice John Roberts harshly criticized the leak, calling it “a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here,” adding that he had “directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.”

[deebakes]

is it still okay to nut in chicks to abort their fetuses or do i need to change method?

[DemonGeminiX]

is it still okay to nut in chicks to abort their fetuses or do i need to change method?

:-k

Given up on the Dirty Sanchez?

[deebakes]

that's for round 2 :tup: