Roe v. Wade abandoned by Supreme Court

[Ado Annie]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-eliminates-constitutional-right-to-abortion-11656080124

I guess even if some people end up going to jail over Trump's shenanigans the conservatives have won their long-sought prize and they will consider it worth the cost. 

[toomuchbaloney]

3 hours ago, Beerman said:

So, if those parties make such a decision, at anytime for any reason, that should be the mother's right.  Do I understand you correctly?

Warrants for private electronic communications are nothing new, or unique to this case.  I'm surprised you're not aware of that.

In this instance, possible crimes were being investigated.  The original charges were for abandoning a dead body, concealing a death, and false reporting.   Its then a warrant was obtained, the messages were seen, and the illegal abortion charge was added.  From that communication the warrant revealed it was found out that the mother and daughter planned the abortion and it was not a miscarriage as they had said.  They also found out they planned to burn the body, and when that didn't work they had an acquaintance bury it.

Some think the charge of illegal abortion won't hold up. We'll see.

Anyway, the garbage opinion piece another member posted seems to have some here believing the mother was being prosecuted simply for giving abortion info to her daughter.  

Yes, the piece seems to have stimulated some healthy discussion as well as some partisan misrepresentations.  We all understand that those opposed to abortion utilize all manner of laws to regulate women's rights to privacy and to obstruct their access to affordable birth control and reproductive healthcare.  This is but one example.  

[subee, MSN, CRNA]

This whole case is such an outlier that really doesn't configure into the abortion argument.  If the facts outlined here prove to be true, these people either performed a criminal act or they didn't.  Perhaps they are mentally incompetent.  We know NOTHING of the most basic of facts here so this shouldn't even be worthy of discussion.  

[Beerman, BSN]

1 hour ago, subee said:

This whole case is such an outlier that really doesn't configure into the abortion argument.  If the facts outlined here prove to be true, these people either performed a criminal act or they didn't.  Perhaps they are mentally incompetent.  We know NOTHING of the most basic of facts here so this shouldn't even be worthy of discussion.  

An article was shared that implied that a mother was being prosecuted for sharing with her daughter on how to do a abortion. 

The article omitted many important facts.  Notably, that the pregant mother was in her third trimester.  

That is why the case was being discussed.

Since you brought it up, what are you basing your claim on that this case is an "outlier"?

 

[nursej22, MSN, RN]

The "article" I posted was an opinion piece, not meant to be a thorough, detailed account of a mother and her daughter and terminating a pregnancy. It was an opinion, that gave examples of how overturning rights to privacy are being used to prosecute people seeking abortion. One poster here in particular, wanted to focus on one example of people's private communications being subpoenaed to support a prosecution, to crow about a late term abortion. 

I am not at all comfortable knowing that law enforcement has access to private conversations and communications. Are you?  I think it is too easy to take something out of context, like being able to fit into one's clothes.   

[Beerman, BSN]

9 hours ago, nursej22 said:

The "article" I posted was an opinion piece, not meant to be a thorough, detailed account of a mother and her daughter and terminating a pregnancy. It was an opinion, that gave examples of how overturning rights to privacy are being used to prosecute people seeking abortion. One poster here in particular, wanted to focus on one example of people's private communications being subpoenaed to support a prosecution, to crow about a late term abortion. 

I am not at all comfortable knowing that law enforcement has access to private conversations and communications. Are you?  I think it is too easy to take something out of context, like being able to fit into one's clothes.   

What article are you referring to?  Are you confused?

Because, it sounds like you're talking about the one TMB posted.

It indeed was an opinion piece.  And it was supported by a few cherry-picked facts while omitting many major ones.  

Law enforcement has long had the ability to access private communications by way of a warrant.  That is nothing new and not specific to illegal abortions.

That opinion piece was nothing but propagandist garbage meant to stir up the emotions of the pro abortion crowd, knowing that most of the readers won't bother to actually research the examples provided.

Mission accomplished. 

[nursej22, MSN, RN]

4 hours ago, Beerman said:

What article are you referring to?  Are you confused?

Because, it sounds like you're talking about the one TMB posted.

It indeed was an opinion piece.  And it was supported by a few cherry-picked facts while omitting many major ones.  

Law enforcement has long had the ability to access private communications by way of a warrant.  That is nothing new and not specific to illegal abortions.

That opinion piece was nothing but propagandist garbage meant to stir up the emotions of the pro abortion crowd, knowing that most of the readers won't bother to actually research the examples provided.

Mission accomplished. 

Yes, I made a mistake; I had meant to post it, TMB beat me to it. 
The authors are law professors, which to me, gives more weight to their arguments. How dare people who support the right to bodily autonomy have emotions. Or deserve warning about their means of communication or what they research. 

[Beerman, BSN]

23 hours ago, nursej22 said:

Yes, I made a mistake; I had meant to post it, TMB beat me to it. 
The authors are law professors, which to me, gives more weight to their arguments. How dare people who support the right to bodily autonomy have emotions. Or deserve warning about their means of communication or what they research. 

Lawyers are programmed to omit information that doesn't favor their argument.  I've shown that is exactly what happened in this opinion piece.

I'm surprised you're admitting you wanted to post it.  I'd been embarrassed.