ADVERTISEMENT

Supreme Court faces Friday deadline in case that could shape abortion access and the future of American health care

herdfan06

Platinum Buffalo
Feb 3, 2007
39,281
5,264
113
Anticipation Popcorn GIF
 
The decision to drop the news late on a Friday makes me think it’s not going to be popular news.

The legal basis here is insane. It is absolutely insane to think a judge could overturn an FDA approval because they don’t like it.
 
Who is the FDA accountable too? Seems like they have ability to make decisions without a lot of accountability. (And this goes beyond just this medicine case)
 
Ahh so now we are against activist judges
I’m generally against judges making rules up from the bench and I’m pretty sure I’ve mentioned on here that I don’t think RvW was correctly decided. Congress punted on their job for decades and this is exactly what happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThunderCat98
From what I read this is going to go back to the court later this year.
 
From what I read this is going to go back to the court later this year.
Yes. The decision tonight was to stay the ruling, so the Texas ruling doesn’t go into effect until or unless the SCOTUS heard a the case and makes a decision. They could’ve let the decision stand and still chosen to hear it later but they decided the potential harm caused by not staying it made a stay worth it.

They could also choose not to hear it and for the stay to, well, stay. Given the current circuit split that’s very unlikely.
 
Yes. The decision tonight was to stay the ruling, so the Texas ruling doesn’t go into effect until or unless the SCOTUS heard a the case and makes a decision. They could’ve let the decision stand and still chosen to hear it later but they decided the potential harm caused by not staying it made a stay worth it.

They could also choose not to hear it and for the stay to, well, stay. Given the current circuit split that’s very unlikely.
What is the potential harm?
 
What is the potential harm?
Women having to use riskier methods of abortion.

The company that makes it would also suffer irreparable financial harm from it being banned for a few months even if it was eventually overturned, which is somewhat crass but still factors into decisions like this.
 
Women having to take personal responsibility for spreading their legs and actually carrying a pregnancy to term? Oh, the horror.
Nevermind the men that were forced to crawl between those legs against their will and can then walk away from raising the child. Shut up.
 
Women having to take personal responsibility for spreading their legs and actually carrying a pregnancy to term? Oh, the horror.
By the way, always nice when the mask slips for a second and you all admit that you know a fetus isn’t a human, because that’s insane, and you just want to punish women for having sex.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mlblack16.
They why attack only one of the two?
I am fully onboard with going after the men too. It does take two to tango. It would be nice to see a local mobile clinic set up to do vasectomy like they do for neutering cats too. Easily cheaper than paying for WIC and SNAP for 18 years.
 
By the way, always nice when the mask slips for a second and you all admit that you know a fetus isn’t a human, because that’s insane, and you just want to punish women for having sex.
What in the holy fvck are you talking about??? That is one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard. It is beyond Dtard level bad.

You can believe having an abortion is murdering an innocent life AND think women need to exercise personal responsibility in their sex lives so they don't feel the need to murder their own child. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive, dumbass.
 
By the way, always nice when the mask slips for a second and you all admit that you know a fetus isn’t a human, because that’s insane, and you just want to punish women for having sex.
At what point does it become a human?
stages-human-embryonic-development_1308-49608.jpg
 
So outlawing/limiting abortions should result in requiring mandatory vasectomies at 15?? I would ask for an expanded explanation from Greedtard, but fully realize he wouldn’t be able to provide it.
 
So outlawing/limiting abortions should result in requiring mandatory vasectomies at 15?? I would ask for an expanded explanation from Greedtard, but fully realize he wouldn’t be able to provide it.
If there are mandatory vasectomies at 15 years old, we no longer have an abortion problem and we are not having this conversation. But cowardly idiots like you would much rather force the women to carry the child and raise it for minimum of 18 years.
 
If there are mandatory vasectomies at 15 years old, we no longer have an abortion problem and we are not having this conversation. But cowardly idiots like you would much rather force the women to carry the child and raise it for minimum of 18 years.
You are a main reason that I am in favor of abortions. I wish your "birthing parent" would have sucked you up in a tube when it was pregnant with you. The world would be a smarter place for it.
 
You are a main reason that I am in favor of abortions. I wish your "birthing parent" would have sucked you up in a tube when it was pregnant with you. The world would be a smarter place for it.
Reminds me of when one of my coworkers told another that he should have been a blowjob.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: GeauxHerd
You can believe having an abortion is murdering an innocent life AND think women need to exercise personal responsibility in their sex lives so they don't feel the need to murder their own child.
So the 13 year old “woman” has to take responsibility for having sex to the extent of having to go through pregnancy, give birth, and possibly raise a child at that age, yet that same “woman” can’t have the responsibility to make the choice about her own body if she wants to take hormone suppressors.

I love when you deplorables take stances that contradict each other.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT