Yep, pro-birth don’t give a damn about the mother, or the kid after its born
Or else they’d be pro-life and maybe do some stuff to guarantee maternal leaves/health care and what not, nah they just want her to have a baby and thats the end of their interest
Something I’ve been seeing pointed out, with regards to the cases Clarence Thomas listed, is that he left out the one that would probably effect him personally, Loving vs Virginia.
nooo. the face eating party definitely wouldn’t eat my face off!
Truth hurts.
I dunno, he seems like the type of dude who would repeal that instead of just divorcing his wife
still would be 5 to 4.
why the facepalm? they are correct.
banning abortion doesn’t stop abortions it just creates more crime and more importantly hurts women who have miscarried, this has happened historically before. Anyone who had an unplanned pregnancy and just so happens to have a miscarriage may now be subject to being called a murderer.
Welp that’s going to be an issue. I’m married, and currently in the process of legally updating my information next month. ~_~
depending on state you may be safe.
True but who knows for how long. I’m also looking at the bigger picture for those in a similar position, they may not be. );
Tell that to women who end up with ectopic pregnancies.
Might be financially advantageous for him if he were to go that route. 
gay marriage, gay relationships, access to contraceptives, all of that relies on the same interpretation of the 14th amendment as roe and, as was written in Clarence Thomas’s opinion, is next on the chopping block.
it’s sickening.
I don’t understand why this stuff is getting the Axe. Would contraceptives also include things for safe uh… relations? (I can’t say the word on the forums) not just birth control?
Don’t some people need birth control for hormone regulation? This is going to be a massive mess…
Griswold v. Connecticut stems from a Connecticut law passed in 1879 that banned the use of “any drug, medical device, or other instrument in furthering contraception.” this would cover things like condoms in addition to birth control instruments like medication or IUDs, although i’d wager the latter two are what would be focused upon because conservatives hate women.
Unpopular opinion maybe but SCOTUS itself is flawed. The way everyone is picked is flawed, the fact that the justices stay in forever is flawed. It’s always IMO been the odd one out, to me the idea of trying to stack something that’s supposedly about “interpreting the constitution” feels wrong.
oh yeah, i 100% agree. SCOTUS appoints are supposed to be non-partisan, but there’s really no such thing, nor has there ever been such a thing. the fact that we don’t get to vote them in is pretty awful, especially considering the power they wield. we need to vote them in (in addition to overhauling our voting system entirely, but maybe that’s a discussion for another time) and give them term limits.
Oof. =( ty for the info and hopefully things get balanced out in some way.
we still can get close to it though I think. way closer than we are now. these days they are one step away from being a politician of the president’s party that nominates them.
Sending love to people today.