Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

These are some sick evangelicals posing as a gop politicians.

 

Demoncraps loving this. Neocons and freedom caucus morons are the only reason the dems have a chance.

Being able to continually run on roe and leaving vulnerable women in limbo is something they have used to their advantage

 

On HBO’s Last Week Tonight show this evening, the corruption of SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas was the main story; and at the end John Oliver, having established that actually bribing members of SCOTUS seems to be perfectly acceptable in this day and age, made a stunningly outrageous but absolutely real offer — he would personally pay Thomas $1,000,000 per year for the rest of his life, and throw in a $2.4 million brand new motor coach upgrade, if Thomas simply agrees to resign from the Supreme Court within 30 days! (Damn, how much is HBO actually paying John that he can actually afford to make such a bribe deal?)

 

Frozen embryos are children, Ala. high court says in unprecedented ruling

The Alabama Supreme Court ruled Friday that frozen embryos are people and someone can be held liable for destroying them, a decision that reproductive rights advocates say could imperil in vitro fertilization (IVF) and affect the hundreds of thousands of patients who depend on treatments like it each year.


The first-of-its-kind ruling comes as at least 11 states have broadly defined personhood as beginning at fertilization in their state laws, according to reproductive rights group Pregnancy Justice, and states nationwide mull additional abortion and reproductive restrictions, elevating the issue ahead of the 2024 elections. Federally, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this term whether to limit access to an abortion drug, the first time the high court will rule on the subject since it overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.

The Alabama case focused on whether a patient who mistakenly dropped and destroyed other couples’ frozen embryos could be held liable in a wrongful-death lawsuit. The court ruled the patient could, writing that it had long held that “unborn children are ‘children’” and that that was also true for frozen embryos, affording the fertilized eggs the same protection as babies under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.


“It applies to all children, born and unborn, without limitation,” the court wrote. “It is not the role of this Court to craft a new limitation based on our own view of what is or is not wise public policy. That is especially true where, as here, the People of this State have adopted a Constitutional amendment directly aimed at stopping courts from excluding ‘unborn life’ from legal protection.”

The decision overruled a lower court that dismissed the suit because it said the embryos did not fit the definition of a child.

Antiabortion organizers and lawmakers have tried in the past to make it illegal to destroy embryos, though no other state’s high court has ruled on the matter in this way. In Tennessee, for example, an antiabortion activist told Republican lawmakers to wait a few years before talking about IVF and how to regulate it, according to a recording obtained by ProPublica. Kansas, among other states, has considered legislation that would ban destroying embryos, though that bill died in committee. The push for defining personhood has even affected tax law: Georgia now recognizes an “unborn child” as a dependent after six weeks of pregnancy.

In Alabama, voters passed a ballot measure in 2018 that granted fetuses full personhood rights but did not mention frozen embryos. After the fall of Roe, a near-total abortion ban went into effect in the state. Alabama now accounts for nearly half of all criminal cases related to pregnancy across the country, according to a tally by Pregnancy Justice.

Abortion rights advocates say the ruling is the “logical” next step for the antiabortion movement as it seeks to broadly define human life.



The court’s finding, they note, could have implications across the country for fertility treatments such as IVF — the medical procedure in which doctors extract eggs from ovaries and fertilize them with sperm outside the body, forming embryos that can subsequently be moved to the uterus — or even contraceptives.


“This is a natural extension of the march toward fetal personhood,” said Dana Sussman, deputy executive director of Pregnancy Justice. “You only need one state to be the first out of the gate, and then the next one will feel less radical. This is a cause of great concern for anyone that cares about people’s reproductive rights and abortion care.”

To give a patient the best chance at a pregnancy, Sussman said, multiple embryos are created in the hopes that a patient can try again if an attempt at a pregnancy fails. As a result, as many eggs as possible are often fertilized and kept frozen. After a patient becomes pregnant, what to do with the remaining embryos can be an agonizing choice.



The Alabama ruling could make that choice harder, as parents or clinics ponder whether disposing of the fertilized eggs could make them liable for punitive damages, advocates noted. It could also make health-care providers more reluctant to provide care and jeopardize the safety of embryos, as they might worry about inadvertently destroying an embryo, said Karla Torres, senior counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights.

That could affect whether patients decide to pursue IVF.

In an amicus brief filed by the Medical Association of the State of Alabama, the group also warned that the ruling could make pursuing IVF more expensive, or result in fertility clinics shutting down or moving out of state because of the increased risk of lawsuits.


The justices shrugged off that concern, writing that it was up to the legislature to address that “policy-focused argument” and that it had a duty to provide legal protection to “unborn life” without exception.


In a concurring opinion that echoed that view but drew criticism, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Parker quoted the Bible as he examined the “sanctity of unborn life.”

“Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself,” Parker wrote. “Even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.”


Kelly Baden, vice president for public policy at the Guttmacher Institute, said the chief justice’s use of theology in the ruling was problematic because it could mean a judge’s religious beliefs could affect a “deeply personal decision.”

It was not clear from the ruling if the destruction of embryos at any point or for any purpose would be allowed. The justices noted that the plaintiffs had signed contracts in which they agreed that their embryos could be destroyed or donated to research if frozen for more than five years. But because the trial court did not consider those arguments, Alabama’s high court elected not to resolve them either.

Baden added that the court’s ruling and the concurring opinion show that the broad reach of overturning Roe has empowered judges and legislators to restrict more than just abortion.

“The question of how far states can go or courts can go remains to be seen,” Baden said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/19/alabama-supreme-court-embryos-children-ivf/

 

bribing a federal judge you say?

 

Exactly.

 

Sounds like some rich people are about to get nice tax breaks. I have 100 dependants, just costs a few hundred to keep them frozen a year.

 

That's the point. He shouldn't be allowed to, and Thomas should definitely not be allowed to accept, but they can.

 

And child support starts nine plus months earlier. I’m sure that old rich white men would be ok with that. It is only money and we need to think of the children.

 

your terms are acceptable

 

I think most of us would agree it should be that way. Seems crazy that the man shouldn't be on the hook for half the pregnancy related healthcare.

 

He should be careful. Thomas might be untouchable, but John Oliver is indictable.

Forget about destroying frozen children, what about freezing children in the first place? That sounds monstrous!

That sounds like some terrible theology. One, God's glory does not depend on the actions taken by mortals. God fulfills his own glory. Two, the Bible tells hos God fulfills his own glory by sacrificing his only begotten Son to redeem us from our sins. Sins like murder and stuff. Three, God can take care of his own wrath -- and do a better job! -- and he doesn't need the courts running around trying to do wrath for him. And fourth, the judge has a right to his religion and I'm fine with him talking about it, but Scripture doesn't have a place in legal reasoning.

 

Satire is first amendment protected free speech, so as long as no money changes hands ...

Funny thing. Thomas has accepted gifts, which not only appear to be bribes but also were not accounted for on Thomas's taxes. It just like Thomas broke the law while sitting on the highest, most prestigous court in the land. Just like.

 

I would be very surprised if your opinion is the majority opinion of SCWs.

Abortion does not really affect old white rich men ... unless it does. Providing child support for the full 9 months of a pregnancy is just the start. Rich men will need to send their offspring to the finest private K-12 schools and colleges. And they can not have their baby momma and offspring living in a dump.

 

Master Harlan paid for the Uncle and Mama Thomas estates' years ago and he has the bill of sale to prove it. I'm ashamed and still feel disrespected that he replaced Thurgood Marshall on the highest court in the land. He's the complete opposite with an ugly ass white woman to boot...

 

I suppose it takes a play out of Trump's own playbook. Do something illegal like offer a bribe or conspire to subvert an election, but do it bald-faced in public and claim first amendment protection.

 

No, it is not the same.

 

If Merrick Garland's DOJ indicted John Oliver it would be under the premise that he bribed Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Whether Thomas did anything wrong or not in this case, the public would only see his name included in a bribery charge, and that would not be good for Justice Thomas as Americans... well they aren't exactly all that detail oriented anymore, and news stories about the indictment would likely be forced to report why John Oliver did this, and if John Oliver ever did make it to trial, the entire trial would be about John Oliver's intent which is ALL about Clarence Thomas' corruption.

This is either going to be silly 1st amendment protected satire, or it's going to be activism. Either way, John Oliver succeeds at some level assuming his intention is to elevate this issue of the Supreme Court being fully corrupt.