• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Hawkeye66 said:
I really want to know what the point of leaking it was.

I feel like the minority did it most likely.
Click to expand...
To get points for one side, potentially with the primaries coming up? I don't understand the point either.

All it is going to do it sow additional animosity between Justices, which isn't good for our Country. Obviously, someone thought leaking it would give them some sort of early start at anger on one side or the other.

Oddly, it isn't illegal, as they are public documents. But it just has never happened in the modern era.
 
Hawkeye66 said:
I really want to know what the point of leaking it was.

I feel like the minority did it most likely.
Click to expand...
I think (hope) it was a clerk instead as I presume clerks get to touch/see this stuff too.

I'd hate to think/know a Justice did this.
 
So what you will have is states that have it and states that don't. Iowa won't, but its not hard to go over to Illinois or to Minnesota. I dont see it as ever having federal law as neither side will muster the votes to outright ban it or make it totally available.
 
Hawkeye66 said:
So what you will have is states that have it and states that don't. Iowa won't, but its not hard to go over to Illinois or to Minnesota. I dont see it as ever having federal law as neither side will muster the votes to outright ban it or make it totally available.
Click to expand...
Yep. The overturn of Roe and Casey will simply permit States to regulate it as they see fit.
 
mendelman said:
Yep. The overturn of Roe and Casey will simply permit States to regulate it as they see fit.
Click to expand...
It will be interesting though if the Anti-Abortion crowd will leave the States alone that allow it or not though. My guess is no.
 
No, they'll just pass laws that make it so you can sue people who cross state lines to get an abortion. Because, this isn't a cross state federal issue according to the court.
 
Visit the blue states for all the things you need, but must openly declare you are against. Need some liquor. Blue state. Need some weed. Blue state. Need an abortion. Blue state. Pretty soon the red states will outlaw strip clubs and we'll all have to go to a blue state for that too.
 
DVD said:
Visit the blue states for all the things you need, but must openly declare you are against. Need some liquor. Blue state. Need some weed. Blue state. Need an abortion. Blue state. Pretty soon the red states will outlaw strip clubs and we'll all have to go to a blue state for that too.
Click to expand...

and you will notice that the map will align with which states take the most in federal dollars and are the poorest.
 
DVD said:
Visit the blue states for all the things you need, but must openly declare you are against. Need some liquor. Blue state. Need some weed. Blue state. Need an abortion. Blue state. Pretty soon the red states will outlaw strip clubs and we'll all have to go to a blue state for that too.
Click to expand...


Pretty much like a lot of Baptists around here. They go to the ABC liquor store in next town or county over to 'avoid being seen'

How do you tell a Baptist from a Presbyterian? Presbyterians will speak to you in the liquor store.
 
Hawkeye66 said:
So what you will have is states that have it and states that don't. Iowa won't, but its not hard to go over to Illinois or to Minnesota. I dont see it as ever having federal law as neither side will muster the votes to outright ban it or make it totally available.
Click to expand...

Hawkeye66 said:
Illinois will have abortion & weed tourism from Iowa now.
Click to expand...
It is an enormous privilege to be able to travel for services. Pregnant people that are poor are disproportionately affected when required to travel to access reproductive care. Having to pay for travel (car, bus, train, plane), accommodations, the medical costs, finding someone to accompany them, arranging for childcare of other children, etc. all require resources and support. Having to travel is just another barrier. If Roe v Wade falls there are about a dozen states that will enact their own restrictive bans shortly after the decision is handed down which increases the distance and difficulty of travel.

I am not going to lie, I cried when I read about the leak today. While I am beyond childbearing years I have daughters and what am I suppose to tell them? How do I explain to them that they do not have the right to their own bodily autonomy? What's next? I need a male guardian, I can't have my own bank accounts or credit? Where does it stop?
 
kjel said:
It is an enormous privilege to be able to travel for services. Pregnant people that are poor are disproportionately affected when required to travel to access reproductive care. Having to pay for travel (car, bus, train, plane), accommodations, the medical costs, finding someone to accompany them, arranging for childcare of other children, etc. all require resources and support. Having to travel is just another barrier. If Roe v Wade falls there are about a dozen states that will enact their own restrictive bans shortly after the decision is handed down which increases the distance and difficulty of travel.

I am not going to lie, I cried when I read about the leak today. While I am beyond childbearing years I have daughters and what am I suppose to tell them? How do I explain to them that they do not have the right to their own bodily autonomy? What's next? I need a male guardian, I can't have my own bank accounts or credit? Where does it stop?
Click to expand...

In Iowa's case the distances are not that far. I grant you in some places in will be more a burden.

In Iowa's case its being led by a woman governor. Not sure what to tell you.
 
Just did my voter preference card for early voting. In Arizona, as an independent, I get to choose which primary I vote in. It's all nice except two problems:
1. There are at least 3 points of critical information on a post card I'm returning. Name, address, date of birth. If some criminal intercepted the card they could collect a lot of information about me from just that. I'm not too concerned, but it is a problem.
2. Where you sign on the bottom there's a blank for the date. I went to write the current date like you do with any signature. Nope, it's asking for date of birth. They put it there hoping you would screw up and write the current date so they could invalidate my early voting.

Do people in Arizona realize that a lot of the GOP voters are elderly midwestern voters who fall for scams like buying car warranties over the phone when they can't even drive a car? This is going to hurt the GOP voter roles in Arizona. Just my thought.
 
DVD said:
You're not thinking about the children!

Also the correct answer is, "There are too many hookers and blow in Atlanta to prevent naked people"
Click to expand...
Obviously I never think of the children. Hookers and blow, priorities, etc...
 
Hink said:
Georgia is a purple, soon to be blue state. Doesn't count ;)
Click to expand...
I'm very curious as to how the November elections will go, although I think it will take another election cycle here before an actual read can be made on the impact of the anti-Trump backlash effect on the last election cycle.
 
Some 70.6% of the current U.S. population was born after Roe v. Wade. (I acknowledge that seven years of Gen X were born pre-Roe, but I'd argue they had no clue about reproductive rights at that age in their lives, and so I stand on the percentage.) That's a lot of "history and tradition" being flushed down the barrel.
 
There is a whole lot of hysteria and hyperbole flying around. I realize we are in the Internet era now, but I am curious at the level of it back when the Roe decision came down in 1973. Vietnam was winding down, the 60's were over.
 
Hawkeye66 said:
Interesting note. I dont think it led to less kids being up for adoption.
Click to expand...
Newborn adoption rates have declined dramatically since the early 1970s. It was estimated to be about 9% of newborn births to less than 1% nowadays. The reduction is mostly due to de-stigmatizing single parenthood and more readily available contraception. It was within many of our lifetimes that only married women could access contraception and often needed her husband's permission to use it.
 
kjel said:
Newborn adoption rates have declined dramatically since the early 1970s. It was estimated to be about 9% of newborn births to less than 1% nowadays. The reduction is mostly due to de-stigmatizing single parenthood and more readily available contraception. It was within many of our lifetimes that only married women could access contraception and often needed her husband's permission to use it.
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that "contraception" isn't mentioned in the Constitution...
 
My thoughts...

First, as someone who is pro-life, I will be interested to see what the final version of the opinion says. Regardless though, I believe it is movement in the right direction.

However, I am very concerned that this was leaked. Something like this should not happen. While minor leaks have happened in the past, something of this magnitude is unheard of.

www.businessinsider.com

The Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade leak to Politico is unprecedented, but details about justices' secret inner deliberations have become public before

One case that was slightly similar had to do with a decision the Supreme Court made to uphold the Affordable Care Act.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com
 
michaelskis said:
My thoughts...

First, as someone who is pro-life, I will be interested to see what the final version of the opinion says. Regardless though, I believe it is movement in the right direction.

However, I am very concerned that this was leaked. Something like this should not happen. While minor leaks have happened in the past, something of this magnitude is unheard of.
Click to expand...
You mean overturning 50 years of precedent by judges who sat in front of the Senate and said it was settled law and would not be overturned? I agree.
 
michaelskis said:
My thoughts...

First, as someone who is pro-life, I will be interested to see what the final version of the opinion says. Regardless though, I believe it is movement in the right direction.

However, I am very concerned that this was leaked. Something like this should not happen. While minor leaks have happened in the past, something of this magnitude is unheard of.

www.businessinsider.com

The Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade leak to Politico is unprecedented, but details about justices' secret inner deliberations have become public before

One case that was slightly similar had to do with a decision the Supreme Court made to uphold the Affordable Care Act.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com
Click to expand...
The leak is alarming.

I have no issue with people being "pro-life" as long as their opinion does not infringe upon my right to make decision about my body. Also, many "pro-lifers" are really pro-birth because they don't give a shit about a life once it's born.
 
This is exactly what I think of when I hear people making pleas for the unborn.

279899108_434223868749618_657026892042614068_n.jpg
 
estromberg said:
You mean overturning 50 years of precedent by judges who sat in front of the Senate and said it was settled law and would not be overturned? I agree.
Click to expand...

Good try... What should not happen is leaks.

kjel said:
The leak is alarming.

I have no issue with people being "pro-life" as long as their opinion does not infringe upon my right to make decision about my body. Also, many "pro-lifers" are really pro-birth because they don't give a shit about a life once it's born.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with women choosing to do what they want with their body. It is the bodies of unborn babies that I am worried about.
 
michaelskis said:
It is the bodies of unborn babies that I am worried about.
Click to expand...
Science is important. Definitions are important. No baby has ever been viable prior to 21 weeks. The concept of "unborn" baby is like saying that I am worried about the eggs within a women and therefore we need to assure she never has a period as each and every egg is an "unborn" baby. Same with sperm. See the problem?

The issue is the line we seem to allow to be drawn. "Unborn" babies do not exist prior to 21 weeks. If you want to argue an abortion should not happen after 21 weeks, I think you would find A LOT more people that saw an actual argument, scientifically. The problem I have with "pro-life" concepts, is that they do not understand nor want to understand actual science. If they have to use religion as a reason, that again is not a valid reason within a government to take away a right of a person to protect their own, life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Unless you think abortion is murder, and then we again have this whole viability argument again...
 
Hink said:
Science is important. Definitions are important. No baby has ever been viable prior to 21 weeks. The concept of "unborn" baby is like saying that I am worried about the eggs within a women and therefore we need to assure she never has a period as each and every egg is an "unborn" baby. Same with sperm. See the problem?

The issue is the line we seem to allow to be drawn. "Unborn" babies do not exist prior to 21 weeks. If you want to argue an abortion should not happen after 21 weeks, I think you would find A LOT more people that saw an actual argument, scientifically. The problem I have with "pro-life" concepts, is that they do not understand nor want to understand actual science. If they have to use religion as a reason, that again is not a valid reason within a government to take away a right of a person to protect their own, life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Unless you think abortion is murder, and then we again have this whole viability argument again...
Click to expand...

When you read the article @kjel posted that was the point the justices were making.

The laws being thrown around now in those states are more restrictive than the state laws prior to 1973. No exceptions for rape or the mother's health.

I am uneasy with it personally, but there is no consensus in our society, so I trust it to women to make those personal decisions with their doctors and in some cases their partners. Basically, the court has thrown out precedent here in such a way that you would have to say Brown vs. Board of Education would be in play. In my mind nothing is off limits.
 
Am I more concerned about the leak or changing 50 years of established law? Not hard for me to pick. Leaks happen, everyone knows it. I don't like it because it's distracting and it doesn't matter if it came from the right or left. The focus should still be will the court overturn 50 years of established law and just throw it all out. Also, taking abortion out of it are you okay with setting a precedent that we can just take anything we don't want to deal with and pass it to the states just because it's not in the constitution? I'm all for states rights, but some things we actually need to face as a nation or in this case since we can't decide, leave the status quo until we can. So many things aren't in the constitution yet the feds still take care of it. Should all those things now be passed to the states? Weed is decidedly a state issue at this point, but we still cling to federal laws. Federal drinking age is 18, but states have declared 21, mostly due to federal pressure, should we start changing that? Guns are regulated at the state and federal level. They are in the constitution, but you know what, screw years of case law. Lets just have a free for all on those or completely ban them. Each state can decided.

Also,
1651693350477.png
 
Remember restriction flipped is a mandate. Only women can be sentenced to mandatory gestation. What happened to equal protection?
 
Hink said:
Science is important. Definitions are important. No baby has ever been viable prior to 21 weeks. The concept of "unborn" baby is like saying that I am worried about the eggs within a women and therefore we need to assure she never has a period as each and every egg is an "unborn" baby. Same with sperm. See the problem?

The issue is the line we seem to allow to be drawn. "Unborn" babies do not exist prior to 21 weeks. If you want to argue an abortion should not happen after 21 weeks, I think you would find A LOT more people that saw an actual argument, scientifically. The problem I have with "pro-life" concepts, is that they do not understand nor want to understand actual science. If they have to use religion as a reason, that again is not a valid reason within a government to take away a right of a person to protect their own, life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Unless you think abortion is murder, and then we again have this whole viability argument again...
Click to expand...
How about the twinkle in daddy's eye? There's a kaleidoscope of unrealized dream in there, unless his gaze has been bound to that grindstone that skins his nose if he mis-steps.
 
DVD said:
Visit the blue states for all the things you need, but must openly declare you are against. Need some liquor. Blue state. Need some weed. Blue state. Need an abortion. Blue state. Pretty soon the red states will outlaw strip clubs and we'll all have to go to a blue state for that too.
Click to expand...
And they will be outlawing religion too, unless it's Protestant or Baptist
 
Hink said:
Science is important. Definitions are important. No baby has ever been viable prior to 21 weeks. The concept of "unborn" baby is like saying that I am worried about the eggs within a women and therefore we need to assure she never has a period as each and every egg is an "unborn" baby. Same with sperm. See the problem?

The issue is the line we seem to allow to be drawn. "Unborn" babies do not exist prior to 21 weeks. If you want to argue an abortion should not happen after 21 weeks, I think you would find A LOT more people that saw an actual argument, scientifically. The problem I have with "pro-life" concepts, is that they do not understand nor want to understand actual science. If they have to use religion as a reason, that again is not a valid reason within a government to take away a right of a person to protect their own, life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Unless you think abortion is murder, and then we again have this whole viability argument again...
Click to expand...

You are correct, science is important. The reality is there is no single scientific definition for what is "Life" that is universally agreed upon. However many scientists agree that life is a single or multiple cells of organic nature within a unique DNA structure that grows and adapts based on a combination of metabolic processes, and that responds to exertional stimuli is life. More so, your argument of 21 weeks is invalid because even a child born at 40 weeks is still entirely dependent on others for a period of time for its survival. Or are you claiming that life does not exist until a child can support themselves. Or are you saying that life does not exist until they hit puberty and are able to reproduce?

If scientists found a single celled organic organism that was completely dependent on a limited environment on Mars, the scientific community would be doing backflips with excitement and the words "LIFE FOUND ON MARS" would be plastered on every newspaper around the world.

Why should the definition of life be different for humans than other organisms?

Legal is also import as well. Cornell Law teaches that the term "Unborn Child" means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." Furthermore, The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 recognizes that homicide of a pregnant woman that also causes the death of an unborn child is recognized as two separate crimes regardless of age. More so, Section 919a. Article 119A Subsection 3 of that Act states:
If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall, instead of being punished under paragraph (1), be punished as provided under sections 880, 918, and 919(a) of this title (articles 80, 118, and 119(a)) for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
Click to expand...

I am pro-life for many reasons, and yes, religion is an element of that. But I also personally believe that there are also legal, scientific, ethical, and rational reasons to oppose abortion as well, so yes, I see abortion as a form of murder. I know people who have had an abortion, and they know that I don't agree with their decision, but that decision does not supersede my intent to maintain a relationship with them.
 
A quote that resonated with me (relayed by Minnie Driver in a recent interview):

"...if I want to donate my organs after I die, I have to sign so much documentation to say that you can have my marrow, my organs after I die — which means that if you overturn Roe v. Wade, literally a corpse has more rights than a living, breathing woman, a person."
 
I'm not touching the abortion/Roe debate, but...
NHPlanner said:
A quote that resonated with me (relayed by Minnie Driver in a recent interview):

"...if I want to donate my organs after I die, I have to sign so much documentation to say that you can have my marrow, my organs after I die — which means that if you overturn Roe v. Wade, literally a corpse has more rights than a living, breathing woman, a person."
Click to expand...
...in Georgia, signing up for organ donation is literally just checking a box when you renew your drivers license. I have not idea what the heck she's babbling about.
 
Back
Top