Gay marriage, other rights at risk after U.S. Supreme Court abortion move.

[Davie]

Gay marriage, other rights at risk after U.S. Supreme Court abortion move. 

https://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-other-rights-risk-100328841.html

[Ivy]

I can envision a number of restrictions on transgender people.  Just look at what's already being said by certain politicians.

[Charlize]

One may think this won't affect the trans community but that may well not be the case.  In my case i've been married for 50+ years but now as a woman.  Who knows?  I had a chance to mention the problem to the head of the ACLU after he had made his presentation to the court.   He was interested not having considered the issue and only said it could be a problem.

 

Hugs,

 

Charlize

[KathyLauren]

There is no doubt that they will come for us sooner rather than later.  As soon as Obergefell v. Hodges is overturned, they will annul the marriages of those of us who ended up in same-sex marriages due to transition.  But then they will declare us to still be legally the sex we were assigned at birth, so our marriages will be okay after all.  What a mess!

 

I am so glad to be living on this side of the border, where our supreme court is non-political.

[VickySGV]

There is a cure for Roe, and that is a Federal Statute codifying the precepts of the case in FEDERAL LAW.  Even many conservative members of Congress are thawing out on the idea of cooperation to enact such a law.  There is even hope that this will elect enough new blood to the U.S. Senate and House to champion such a law.  The other decisions being touted as victims to come have been on the interpretation of existing Federal Law which is what the SCOTUS is fully in charge of. Our two recent favorable decisions for the Trans Community have come from the current SCOTUS because of how they were framed.  Roe was based on the overturning of ONE Texas law and had it been limited to Texas it would have more strength than it has had.  The problem is that Roe was not followed up with a valid Federal Statute making it the actual national law.  Justice RBG actually pointed this out in speeches she made to legal organizations and Law Conferences.  She had called the alarm on it, and nobody responded in the form of legislation even when it was likely to have been passed.  We had a chance with the Affordable care act and it did not happen.

 

That all said, flaws, and there are many, in Alito's "rough draft" are going to be hashed over before we get the official final decision which CAN BE less a full overturn of Roe.  One of my major fields of study in both undergraduate  schools was the U.S. Constitution and the workings of SCOTUS and while I do not in any way like to see this happen as it is, nor the ends that are imagined, I am not as worried as too many appear to be.  Sadly, too many of our elected representatives are dismally ill-prepared for the jobs we elect them to and do not perform the duties of education TO their constituents that are truly needed these days.  

[miz miranda]

@VickySGVYou're exactly correct that enacting a law is the necessary step. I studied claw for several years before becoming an engineer. Roe has been a time bomb as that ruling has always been considered flawed itself. It did not 'legalize' abortion but rather it ruled the federal government could overrule the regulation by states over it and created some arbitrary (in legal speak) constraints to apply as a standard. Strict reading of the constitution implies that the federal government only has the powers specifically itemized in the constitution and indicates that power belongs to the states. A law is a necessary step to enable a federal power. It will likely be challenged by the antiabortion zealot but it will create a test of political will. For all of the 'support' from Democrats they haven't had the political to legislate the issue at the federal level.

 

Although I am uncomfortable with Euthanasia, I believe we need to address this issue. I believe as society it has broader support than religious conservatives will admit but less than progressive liberals admit; i.e. the majority of people accept it as social need.

 

Roe survived until extreme partisan politics made cooperation and bipartisan support for nation first political part second a rarity.

[Ivy]

33 minutes ago, miz miranda said:

Although I am uncomfortable with Euthanasia, I believe we need to address this issue.

This is a good point.

I had a brother and a sister die from ALS.  It is a terrible way to go.  One fought it to the end.  I was a caregiver toward the end, and it was awful to watch.  The other took a different route.  I know which way I would go, legal or not.

[Marcie Jensen]

On 5/6/2022 at 8:27 AM, VickySGV said:

Sadly, too many of our elected representatives are dismally ill-prepared for the jobs we elect them to and do not perform the duties of education TO their constituents that are truly needed these days.  

You've got that right!

 

And, much as I hate to say this, it applies to both parties. When I was living in Sierra Vista and teaching at FT Huachuca, one of my colleagues decided to run for congress. In one of the primary debates, and this was about 10 years ago, he declared forcefully that the Constitution guaranteed "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Even when shown written proof that those words were actually from the Declaration of Independence, He lost the debate followed by the primary. It happens that he's a Democrat, but this applies to Republicans as well. Frankly, given what we're hearing from Washington, I don't think this was a unique incident. 

 

The point being that if our elected officials don't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration, this country is in a serious world of hurt.  Just sayin'.

[Ivy]

49 minutes ago, Marcie Jensen said:

Frankly, given what we're hearing from Washington, I don't think this was a unique incident.

I suspect they only bring up the Constitution when it is convenient for them.