Current Events > Kavanaugh (Trump's SCOTUS nominee) forced 2 women to have abortions via ruling.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1348102.html

The two women in question were mentally disabled and deemed unfit to make the medical decision for themselves.
---

inb4somejokeaboutdawkins
---

Probably the only good thing he has done tbh.

the evangelicals won't even notice
---

Kombucha posted...

the evangelicals won't even notice

They are too busy maga ing
---

okay
---

Completely read that wrong sorry lol
---

I thought cnn said he was going to overturn roe v wade
---

Like I said. Republicans don't care.

Hypocrisy is ok as long as the base gets what they want. Evangelicals have admitted this. They'd vote for the devil himself if he said he'd ban abortion.
---

The District of Columbia authorizes surgeries for such persons when: (i) two physicians have certified that the proposed surgery is clinically indicated to maintain the health of the patient; (ii) D.C. caregivers have made efforts to discuss the surgery with the patient at the level of patient comprehension; and (iii) no guardian, family member, or other close relative, friend, or associate is available to otherwise consent or withhold consent. Plaintiffs argue that the 2003 policy is inconsistent with D.C. statutes and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We disagree and therefore reverse the judgment of the District Court.

setting aside how this might enrage the religious right, this majority opinion makes sense to me, and it's actually a bit reassuring that he wrote it, since the GOP senate will eventually hand him a seat.
---

Southernfatman posted...

They'd vote for the devil himself if he said he'd ban abortion.

I know. I'm just saying that forcing women to have abortions is basically the exact opposite of banning abortions.
---

This case involves the District of Columbia's 2003 policy for authorizing surgeries for intellectually disabled persons who are in the District's care and have never had the mental capacity to make medical decisions for themselves. The District of Columbia authorizes surgeries for such persons when: (i) two physicians have certified that the proposed surgery is clinically indicated to maintain the health of the patient; (ii) D.C. caregivers have made efforts to discuss the surgery with the patient at the level of patient comprehension; and (iii) no guardian, family member, or other close relative, friend, or associate is available to otherwise consent or withhold consent. Plaintiffs argue that the 2003 policy is inconsistent with D.C. statutes and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We disagree and therefore reverse the judgment of the District Court.

Nothing was forced by Kavanaugh. Stop making shit up.

The bigger question is how did they get pregnant, since we're talking about (literally, mods) mentally [redacted] people.
---

So? It was done for the health and well being of mentally disabled women.
---

Nomadic View posted...

So? It was done for the health and well being of mentally disabled women.

so its okay to kill precious unborn babies if the mother is mentally handicapped but it isn't for any other reason? :v God makes a distinction?
---

Abyssea posted...

Nomadic View posted...

So? It was done for the health and well being of mentally disabled women.

so its okay to kill precious unborn babies if the mother is mentally handicapped but it isn't for any other reason? :v God makes a distinction?

Remember this sarcasm when Kavanaugh is nominated and people are screeching that it's the end of justice and roe v wade is days away from being repealed and blood will run in the streets because trump is literal satan, and then it turns out everything is fine and the world keeps turning.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Remember this sarcasm when Kavanaugh is nominated and people are screaching that it's the end of justice and roe v wade is days away from being repealed and blood will run in the streets because trump is literal satan, and then it turns out everything is fine and the world keeps turning.

Well, he is yet to be confirmed, so there's that.

I expect the more realistic fear is that roe v wade will be at risk of replacement with laws that make abortion only legal when health of the mother is in question, rather than as a moral judgment left in the hands of the mother.
---

Darkman124 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Remember this sarcasm when Kavanaugh is nominated and people are screaching that it's the end of justice and roe v wade is days away from being repealed and blood will run in the streets because trump is literal satan, and then it turns out everything is fine and the world keeps turning.

Well, he is yet to be confirmed, so there's that.

I expect the more realistic fear is that roe v wade will be at risk of replacement with laws that make abortion only legal when health of the mother is in question, rather than as a moral judgment left in the hands of the mother.

Especially when it's looking more and more likely that Trump himself made a mistress get an abortion.

Darkman124 posted...

Well, he is yet to be confirmed, so there's that.

I expect the more realistic fear is that roe v wade will be at risk of replacement with laws that make abortion only legal when health of the mother is in question, rather than as a moral judgment left in the hands of the mother.

I think that's the plan. Make it to where only the elite can get access to abortions whenever they knock up one of their minds, but the poor are shit out of luck. Then they can still go on about finally over turning RvW, but they always conveniently can't cause of liberals or insert reason here.

Then they can still shame all those "mooches who can't keep their legs closed" to get votes from the sociopathic and hypocritical right.
---

BWing posted...

Especially when it's looking more and more likely that Trump himself made a mistress get an abortion.

Hypocrisy among the pharisees is to be expected. But the SCOTUS is not filled with monsters, because monsters do not rise up high enough in the legal profession to be considered as justices. The GOP victories are not absolute and unconditional but incremental and reversible.

If people fucking vote.
---

So he's for abortion. That's a good thing.

(Some District of Columbia statutes and cases use the term mentally ********; we will use the more common term intellectually disabled.)

Welcome to the 19th century.

I mean, it's even picked up by the auto censor here.
---

Wait, is this supposed to be a bad thing?
---

SideshowBob311 posted...

Wait, is this supposed to be a bad thing?

---

Darkman124 posted...

BWing posted...

Especially when it's looking more and more likely that Trump himself made a mistress get an abortion.

Hypocrisy among the pharisees is to be expected. But the SCOTUS is not filled with monsters, because monsters do not rise up high enough in the legal profession to be considered as justices. The GOP victories are not absolute and unconditional but incremental and reversible.

If people fucking vote.

Something I've never understood about this line of reasoning: why does everyone assume that more voters means by default the country will shift left? Only about half the country votes, which I agree is bad, but the whole "vote to change" movement seems built entirely on the idea that the remaining 50% are democrats in red states that just can't bother. What if reality is the remaining 50% is republicans in major cities that think their vote doesn't matter, and an increased turnout drives the country far right?
---

s0nicfan posted...

Darkman124 posted...

BWing posted...

Especially when it's looking more and more likely that Trump himself made a mistress get an abortion.

Hypocrisy among the pharisees is to be expected. But the SCOTUS is not filled with monsters, because monsters do not rise up high enough in the legal profession to be considered as justices. The GOP victories are not absolute and unconditional but incremental and reversible.

If people fucking vote.

Something I've never understood about this line of reasoning: why does everyone assume that more voters means by default the country will shift left? Only about half the country votes, which I agree is bad, but the whole "vote to change" movement seems built entirely on the idea that the remaining 50% are democrats in red states that just can't bother. What if reality is the remaining 50% is republicans in major cities that think their vote doesn't matter, and an increased turnout drives the country far right?

because only fucking bigoted lunatics vote gop.

most americans are reasonable people.

s0nicfan posted...

Something I've never understood about this line of reasoning: why does everyone assume that more voters means by default the country will shift left? Only about half the country votes, which I agree is bad, but the whole "vote to change" movement seems built entirely on the idea that the remaining 50% are democrats in red states that just can't bother. What if reality is the remaining 50% is republicans in major cities that think their vote doesn't matter, and an increased turnout drives the country far right?

It's actually not completely false that higher turnout would favor democrats.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/309190-cities-lead-the-nation-in-many-ways-but-not-in-voter-turnout

The fact is, residents of most major American cities typically vote at rates 5 to 15 percent lower than their suburban neighbors.

Maybe part of the reason is that it's much easier to vote if you're in a rural area. It's quicker. In big cities, you sometimes have to wait in line all day long since the have far less voting booths per amount of people.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Something I've never understood about this line of reasoning: why does everyone assume that more voters means by default the country will shift left? Only about half the country votes, which I agree is bad, but the whole "vote to change" movement seems built entirely on the idea that the remaining 50% are democrats in red states that just can't bother. What if reality is the remaining 50% is republicans in major cities that think their vote doesn't matter, and an increased turnout drives the country far right?

Because the voting rates of population demographics are well-documented, and it's widely understood that youth, minorities, and poor people--who overwhelming vote democrat--vote far less reliably than whites, the elderly, and upper middle class people--who vote republican by a smallish margin.

I read a very interesting meta-analysis on the topic. Been trying to dig it up for a while. Will share and tag you when I find it. But the message is very clear that increased turnout strongly favors democrats, and reduced turnout strongly favors the GOP. Viewed through this lens, GOP efforts to close early voting centers and institute voter ID laws come across as an electoral strategy to maximize their advantage in innate voter reliability.
---

Darkman124 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Something I've never understood about this line of reasoning: why does everyone assume that more voters means by default the country will shift left? Only about half the country votes, which I agree is bad, but the whole "vote to change" movement seems built entirely on the idea that the remaining 50% are democrats in red states that just can't bother. What if reality is the remaining 50% is republicans in major cities that think their vote doesn't matter, and an increased turnout drives the country far right?

Because the voting rates of population demographics are well-documented, and it's widely understood that youth, minorities, and poor people--who overwhelming vote democrat--vote far less reliably than whites, the elderly, and upper middle class people--who vote republican by a smallish margin.

I read a very interesting meta-analysis on the topic. Been trying to dig it up for a while. Will share and tag you when I find it.

I feel like this takes for granted the idea that non-voting minorities may be conservatives in cities, but I'll be interested to see the analysis. You're probably right, but intuitively I'm rallying against the assumption that "if they're black they must vote dem" is some sort of universal rule.
---

s0nicfan posted...

I feel like this takes for granted the idea that non-voting minorities may be conservatives in cities, but I'll be interested to see the analysis. You're probably right, but intuitively I'm rallying against the assumption that "if they're black they must vote dem" is some sort of universal rule.

Just keep in mind that the data on voter partisan preference is not just based on exit polls but on reliable random sampling surveys of the population at large.
---

So liberals get upset even when SCOTUS nominee supports their political views.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

I want attention!!!111

Coffeebeanz posted...

So liberals get upset even when SCOTUS nominee supports their political views.

My view is pro choice, not pro abortion.

Anything that restricts choice is bad.
---

Darkman124 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

I feel like this takes for granted the idea that non-voting minorities may be conservatives in cities, but I'll be interested to see the analysis. You're probably right, but intuitively I'm rallying against the assumption that "if they're black they must vote dem" is some sort of universal rule.

Just keep in mind that the data on voter partisan preference is not just based on exit polls but on reliable random sampling surveys of the population at large.

I assume it'll also depend on how you measure who "moderates" will vote for. For example, I found this gallup poll that puts conservatives up over liberals in terms of numbers by a solid 11%, but only because "moderates" made up a solid 36%

https://news.gallup.com/poll/201152/conservative-liberal-gap-continues-narrow-tuesday.aspx
---

Darkman124 posted...

The GOP victories are not absolute and unconditional but incremental and reversible.

If people fucking vote.

I mean, we don't have recalls of SCOTUS justices
---

Abyssea posted...

Nomadic View posted...

So? It was done for the health and well being of mentally disabled women.

so its okay to kill precious unborn babies if the mother is mentally handicapped but it isn't for any other reason? :v God makes a distinction?

Yes
---

Abyssea posted...

Nomadic View posted...

So? It was done for the health and well being of mentally disabled women.

so its okay to kill precious unborn babies if the mother is mentally handicapped but it isn't for any other reason? :v God makes a distinction?

The same God that gives babies cancer? Pretty sure He isn't involved in the day-to-day anymore