Wednesday, June 26, 2024

SCOTUS Affirms Idaho Emergency Abortions

The US Supreme Court is poised to allow abortions in medical emergencies in Idaho, according to a copy of the opinion that was briefly posted on the court's website.

More

Comments

Oops.

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-06-26 01:42 PM

It appears SCOTUS got a bit too far over the tips of their skis, both on the release of their opinion, and based on the opinion, ahead of themselves by taking this case too soon.

#2 | Posted by YAV at 2024-06-26 01:49 PM

This is common sense and falls within the realm of common sense times when abortion would be okay.

#3 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2024-06-26 02:17 PM

This is common sense and falls within the realm of common sense times when abortion would be okay.

#3 | POSTED BY BLUEWAFFLES

Republicans don't have common sense.

#4 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-06-26 02:22 PM

Just as an aside, listening to this brief bloomberg podcast? announcement? Episode? IDK what it is, is just why I despise most online content.

They say nothing, are repetitive (how many times can they shove the word Bloomberg into a sentence? Use 700 words to say what can be said in 10. All speculation and assumes you know everything about the issue.

Just piss poor reporting.

#5 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-06-26 02:37 PM

"This is common sense and falls within the realm of common sense times when baby murder would be okay."
--Deplorables

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-06-26 02:38 PM

The bigger story, IMO, is they screwed up again and let out a ruling before it was time to do so. This court is as inept as it is corrupt.

#7 | Posted by qcp at 2024-06-26 03:29 PM

Sorry Syco and Snoofy that I don't fall into the camp of killing the baby 2 weeks before the due date just because (and this is what the Democrats want when it comes to abortion). I've been very consistent on acceptable times where abortion should be an option is Rape, ------ (Think Ashley Biden's shower journal entry for reference) or if the mother will die.

Outside of that, I'm a firm no on the subject and it appears that SCOTUS seems to feel this way too.

#8 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2024-06-26 03:41 PM

BlueWaffles, I support your right to not get an abortion.

Unfortunately for hundreds of millions of women, you believe the government should decide what they can and can't do.

You, like most deplorable MAGAts, are desperate for big government to rule everyone's lives.

#9 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-06-26 03:52 PM

Outside of that, I'm a firm no on the subject and it appears that SCOTUS seems to feel this way too.
#8 | POSTED BY BLUEWAFFLES

What gives you that idea?

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-06-26 03:53 PM

"Sorry Syco and Snoofy that I don't fall into the camp of killing the baby 2 weeks before the due date"

Here's the question you'll never answer:
Why is it ever okay to kill the baby?

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-06-26 03:58 PM

My understanding is that the 'leaked' document related to the Idaho abortion case doesn't actually show that the Court will be making any sort of ruling on the merits of the case, but rather they're simply letting the appellate decision stand, which was that Federal law superseded state law thereby requiring that medical facilities must also take into account the health risks to the women if the medically required abortion was not performed. Currently the Idaho law only allows an abortion if the women's life was at imminent risk.

OCU

#12 | Posted by OCUser at 2024-06-26 04:03 PM

"Sorry Syco and Snoofy that I don't fall into the camp of killing the baby 2 weeks before the due date just because..."

Just because... why?

Can you explain your perception of why termination of a pregnancy would be sought 2 weeks before the due date?

Can you provide any examples of this happening? What were the facts surrounding these incidents?

Something tells me you won't answer these simple questions.

#13 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-06-26 04:06 PM

------ (Think Ashley Biden's shower journal entry for reference)

Which you apparently think about a lot about you creepy groomer.

Showering with your daughter is not ------.

#14 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-06-26 04:06 PM

Sorry Syco and Snoofy that I don't fall into the camp of killing the baby 2 weeks before the due date just because (and this is what the Democrats want when it comes to abortion). I've been very consistent on acceptable times where abortion should be an option is Rape, ------ (Think Ashley Biden's shower journal entry for reference) or if the mother will die.
Outside of that, I'm a firm no on the subject and it appears that SCOTUS seems to feel this way too.

#8 | POSTED BY BLUEWAFFLES

So, you are a firm no on the following scenario:

A woman is carrying a fetus that will not survive pregnancy.

Continuing to carry the fetus will likely result in damage to the woman's ability to conceive in the future.

You don't believe the woman should be allowed to obtain an abortion that will allow her to get pregnant in the future.

You, sir, are reprehensible.

#15 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-06-26 04:09 PM

Apparently instead of deciding on the merits the decision is that it is premature for the SC to review the case.

3 justices disagree and would have overruled the federal primacy in abortion care.

Think about that

#16 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-06-26 04:12 PM

Snoofy, it's never okay to kill the baby in my eyes. However, there are people who disagree with that and I think an acceptable middle ground for everyone of all thoughts on the matter to say those three scenarios I listed would be acceptable times for an abortion to occur.

Truth, feel free to read NY State's abortion rights stance post SCOTUS decision on 2022 (which are now enshrined to the state constitution) the 2 weeks scenario is perfectly legal there and it's why I mentioned it.

#17 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2024-06-26 04:21 PM

Sorry Syco and Snoofy that I don't fall into the camp of killing the baby 2 weeks before the due date just because (and this is what the Democrats want when it comes to abortion).
#8 | POSTED BY BLUEWAFFLES

This is the Pro-Life argument: Nothing but lies.

If you have to lie this much to get anyone on your side, it says a lot about you...but nothing we didn't already know.

#18 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-06-26 04:26 PM

You understand you are not answering my questions right?

Just because ... why?

Can you explain your perception of why termination of a pregnancy would be sought 2 weeks before the due date?

Can you provide any examples of this happening? What were the facts surrounding these incidents?

I know for a fact I can justify it. I doubt you can justify the opposite

#19 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-06-26 04:31 PM

" I think an acceptable middle ground for everyone of all thoughts on the matter to say those three scenarios I listed would be acceptable times for an abortion to occur."

There is nothing "middle ground" about an anti-reproduction freedom position. It places the burden solely on the woman.

A middle ground would involve forced and reversible sterilization of men until such time as they are prepared to positively choose pregnancy.

You're not interested in a "middle ground" you are interested in imposing your will on unwilling women.

#20 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-06-26 04:36 PM

You are also interested in imposing your religious dogma on unwilling recipients.

YOU may believe that life begins at conception or at some point in the gestation.

I hold strong belief that women are entitled to complete bodily autonomy. I believe this with an almost religious fervor. I believe in women. I believe they are endowed with an inalienable right to what happens to their body. The fetus only becomes it's own entity upon severance of the umbilical cord.

Your religious beliefs are no more valid than mine.

#21 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-06-26 04:39 PM

It's the "two weeks" that is the lie.

He doesn't support elective abortion under any circumstances from the moment of conception. No emergency contraception either.

Two weeks is because he needs to pick the one where the fetus was so close to being a person, you can taste it.

Coming next to the discusion: A graphic description of a medical procedure that they call partial birth abortion.

That one is supposed to make you think doctors are the kinds of people who would run a pedophile murder ring from the basement of Comet Pizza.

One thing he's never going to talk about is what rights of any the woman has, and how they should be protected and empowered.

There's not two parties -- fetus and mother -- each with rights, that are balanced against each other. There's not how it should be decided, by weighing the rights of the actual person and person-to-be involved.

There's the state, telling the women what the rules are.
(And sometimes, they'll say, each State should her to tell their women whey baby murder is okay!)

That's the difference, thinking-wise, between Pro Choice and Forced Birth.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-06-26 04:47 PM

Your religious beliefs are no more valid than mine.

#21 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

Your beliefs are a fully supported by science (and common sense), NOT Bronze Age religulous theories or arcane laws from the 1800s making your beliefs even more valid.

#23 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-06-26 04:49 PM

Rape, ------, and life+threatening pregnancies give rise to a fraction of abortions.

You're not going to fund the

acceptable middle ground

Standing way out on the edge.

But we understand you're just here to troll the libs, and that there isn't a substantial conversation to be had about women's rights with you.

Maybe the rest of us will have one.

I think abortion should be legal essentially always, simply because the attempts to restrict it gave resulted in all kinds of adverse effects beyond women seeking elective abortion.

The cure is worse than the disease.

It's negatively impacting all women in the local red state area when the top tier on/gyn doctors move to a blue state.

The cruelty is the point.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-06-26 04:56 PM

This is the Pro-Life argument: Nothing but lies.

That's all conservatives have anymore, conspiracy theories and lies.

It's made holding discourse with them impossible.

They can't accept reality and demand you entertain their bullshht.

#25 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-06-26 04:56 PM

Sorry Syco and Snoofy that I don't fall into the camp of killing the baby 2 weeks before the due date just because (and this is what the Democrats want when it comes to abortion).
#8 | POSTED BY BLUEWAFFLES

Nobody falls into the "camp" you just made up.

Claims of abortions occurring "moments before birth" or even "after birth" are false. These scenarios do not occur, nor are they legal in the United States.

Abortions at or after 21 weeks are uncommon and represent 1% of all abortions in the U.S. The procedures are expensive and often require travel and lost wages. They normally require treatment over multiple days and are only performed by a subset of all abortion providers.

Democrats do not "want" late term abortions. I seriously doubt that anyone actually "wants" a late term abortion you hyperventilating cooze.

#26 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-06-26 04:56 PM

the fetus was so close to being a person, you can taste it.

Phrasing!

#27 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2024-06-26 05:02 PM

"It's made holding discourse with them impossible."

That's a feature, not a bug.

They are Brownshirts. They are not interested in talking they are interested in shouting their slogans.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-06-26 05:03 PM

#26 | Posted by donnerboy

Of course, you are correct.

And waffle-boy is a bloated sac of human filth that should be ignored by any rational person.

I plonked that POS the day he first urinated on this blog.

#29 | Posted by Angrydad at 2024-06-26 05:07 PM

There is no such person that is pro-abortion. Abortions are abhorrent, but, when it's called for medically, it should be an option.

#30 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2024-06-26 05:08 PM

Did Republicans really think abortion was legalized at the federal level for happy reasons?

There are medical situations that only doctors and patients need to know about because the rest of us have better things to do than vomit at the thought of such a thing happening.

#31 | Posted by Tor at 2024-06-26 05:18 PM

I plonked that POS the day he first urinated on this blog.

#29 | POSTED BY ANGRYDAD

It takes me awhile to plonk someone as I really do want to listen and hear what they have to say and I want to engage in debate with these folks.

They sure don't make it easy tho.

#32 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-06-26 05:22 PM

the fetus was so close to being a person, you can taste it.
Phrasing!

#27 | POSTED BY LEE_THE_AGENT

Please leave the cannibalism to the christians

#33 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-06-26 05:31 PM

BLUEWAFFLES is simply not convincing.

Swallow it.

#34 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2024-06-26 05:37 PM

Well, I see metaphors are taking a beating here...

In other news:

"Male birth control gel is safe and effective, new trial findings show

After decades of attempts to develop new birth control medications for men, scientists are more hopeful than ever. With new abortion restrictions, demand is growing, experts say."

www.nbcnews.com

Wonder what the prison time will be for men who could have used a gel from CVS, but didn't?

Inquiring minds.... say none at all.

#35 | Posted by Corky at 2024-06-26 05:48 PM

I wonder how the erroneous posting of this decision might affect the scheduled release of other major decisions SCOTUS has on its ToDo list for release this term?

#36 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-06-26 06:39 PM

There is no such person that is pro-abortion. Abortions are abhorrent, but, when it's called for medically, it should be an option.
#30 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2024-06-26 05:08 PM

Procedures are agreed to be effective.

Require if her own life is threatened? Threatened by whom?

The element of the argument that defines what is legally one person, such as a zygote, is broken.

Women are legally conditioned to respect pregnancy as two separate entities forbids her personal choice.

#37 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2024-06-26 06:50 PM

I've got to figure the immunity and the january 6 case will be held to post debate. Probably this was intended to as well, but was "leaked" to make abortion seem less at risk.

#38 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-06-26 06:52 PM

There is no such person that is pro-abortion. Abortions are abhorrent, but, when it's called for medically, it should be an option.
#30 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2024-06-26 05:08 PM
Procedures are agreed to be effective.
Require if her own life is threatened? Threatened by whom?
The element of the argument that defines what is legally one person, such as a zygote, is broken.
Women are legally conditioned to respect pregnancy as two separate entities forbids her personal choice.

#37 | POSTED BY REDLIGHTROBOT

How about this, the government has no role in a woman's pregnancy except to assure that the medicines she takes are safe and the medical professionals are qualified to do their job.

Otherwise stay the ---- out of it.

#39 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-06-26 06:53 PM

#39 - THAT.

#40 | Posted by YAV at 2024-06-26 07:42 PM

t I don't fall into the camp of killing the baby 2 weeks before the due date just because

I got some bad news for you ballwasher, nobody does.

#41 | Posted by jpw at 2024-06-27 10:44 AM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Live: Presidential Debate (644 comments)

Oklahoma Schools Must Incorporate Bible, 10 Commands in Curriculum (105 comments)

Trump Lied Constantly, Rambled Incoherently (79 comments)

SCOTUS Allows Bans on Homeless People Sleeping Outside (52 comments)

Trump's Worst Debate Lie? (36 comments)

White Couple Accused of Adopting Black Kids and Using Them 'as slaves' (31 comments)

Biden Addresses Poor Debate Performance (25 comments)

Former Trump Adviser Steve Bannon Must Report to Prison by Monday (20 comments)