Forum Overview :: Tansin A. Darcos's Alter Ego :: Overturning Roe v. Wade had nothing to do with "returning the issue to states"

[quote name="Commander Tansin A. Darcos"]Supposedly the decision in <i>Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Center</i> overturning <i>Roe v. Wade</i> was to return the issue of whether abortion should be prohibited back to the states, had nothing to do with that. It was the first salvo in the war to make abortion illegal from conception in <u>all</u> cases, nationwide. The extremely short allowable time to obtain one - 16 weeks in Mississippi, 6 weeks in Texas - first make it extremely likely that a woman that was raped or had contraceptive failure won't even know they are pregnant until it's too late to do something about it. These limits are there so that they can be ratcheted downward, to eventually make it possible to prohibit all abortions. They do not even want to allow a woman who will <i>die</i> if required to give birth to be able to get one. The recent efforts by republicans to have a law to prohibit abortions nationwide is the direction they want to go. The claim that the issue should be returned to the states was just a pretext. The mention JusticeClarence Thomas made in the <i>Dobbs</i> case stating that it may be time to revisit <i>Obergefell</i><sup>[1]</sup> and <i>Griswold</i><sup>[2]</sup> make the religious far right's agenda clear. So they want to limit marriages to men and women only. I wonder if Justice Thomas, who is a negro married to a white woman, would be interested in "revisiting" <i>Loving v. Virginia</i> which legalized marriage between people of different races. But if it's considered that the right to contraception is going to be revoked - and when those who oppose these things say they want to, believe them - what they want is a fundamental change in the rights of women. Eliminating any form of safe and effective birth control or contraception mostly hurts poor women, who may not have any choices. The intent is clear: they want to turn women back into brood mares who have no control over their own lives. The number of politicians - astonishingly including allegedly female ones - who actually think that women who are raped can't get pregnant sickens me. There are politicians who, when shown the effects of their decisions, are perfectly willing to allow horrible incidents to take place, show they have no empathy or concern for others. Like the one who said, when asked hypothetically their opinion, that it would be a wonderful thing for a 13-year-old to be forced to give birth if raped and or victim of incest. Anyone who has the unmitigated gall to say a rape victim and/or a child should be forced to give birth is subhuman, as far as I'm concerned. The hollow and self-serving claimsby these people that they think life is sacred, are made obious to be mere cant, by their failure to (1) support better pre-natal and post-natal care (they are almost always opposed to providing funds for these purposes; (2) opposing the death penalty<sup>[3]</sup>. <sup>[1]</sup><i>Obergefell v. Hodges</i> was the decision that legalized same-sex marriages nationwide. <sup>[2]</sup><i>Griswold v Connecticut</i> was the decision that allowed legal access to contraception. <sup>[1]</sup>I happen to support capital punishment in certain cases. [/quote]