What Happens When People Won’t Accept a Supreme Court Decision?

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
71,357
50,943
113
By Peter Coy
Opinion Writer

You're reading the Peter Coy newsletter, for Times subscribers only. A veteran business and economics columnist unpacks the biggest headlines. Get it in your inbox.
“Legitimacy is for losers,” a political scientist once said. It’s a profound concept. The winning side in a decision will gladly accept it without asking why. But the losing side — whether the decision is made by a basketball referee or the Supreme Court — will accept defeat only if they believe the decision was made fairly and by the book.
That’s why the politicization of the U.S. Supreme Court is so alarming. People on the losing end of Supreme Court decisions increasingly feel that justice is not being served. That’s a scary situation for the high court, and for American democracy in general.
“The Supreme Court has no power to enforce its decisions,” Daniel Epps, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, told me on Friday. “It doesn’t have an army. The only thing it has power to do is write PDFs and put them up on its website.”
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story


All the Supreme Court really has to go on is the public’s acceptance of its rulings as legitimate. “Once you lose that, it’s not really clear what the stopping point is,” Epps said. “I see that as a fundamental threat to society.”

Epps is right. By one economic theory, the choice of whether to obey the law is like any other decision, a weighing of costs and benefits. But you know from personal experience that’s not true. There are plenty of times you could have lied, cheated or stolen with impunity. You did the right thing anyway because you more or less accepted the legitimacy of the laws, how they were enacted and how the people who enacted them were selected.
I’m not going to delve into the substance of the Supreme Court’s decision on Friday in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade. I’ll only point out that those on the losing side weren’t just disappointed. Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor went way beyond that, flatly stating in their dissent that the majority’s decision “undermines the court’s legitimacy.”
Sotomayor was even blunter in oral arguments in December. “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” she asked, before answering her own question: “I don’t see how it is possible.” Sadly, saying so out loud also undermines the court’s legitimacy.
For the losing side, the sting of the decision was made worse by the events that led to it. In 2016, Mitch McConnell, then the Senate majority leader, blocked a vote on President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, defending his action on the grounds that the nomination came just eight months before that year’s presidential election. But in 2020 McConnell hurried through President Donald Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, with the final confirmation vote coming just a week before that year’s election. That got Republicans what they wanted but tore a hole in the fabric of democracy.



In 2018, before the Senate vote on his Supreme Court nomination, Brett Kavanaugh worked hard to persuade Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, that he was no threat to Roe v. Wade. “Roe is 45 years old, it has been reaffirmed many times, lots of people care about it a great deal, and I’ve tried to demonstrate I understand real-world consequences,” he said in a meeting with Collins, according to notes kept by staff members, adding: “I am a don’t-rock-the-boat kind of judge. I believe in stability and in the Team of Nine.” Collins now says she feels she was misled.

The Supreme Court in some ways resembles the Federal Reserve. Its decision makers are unelected technocrats who use arcane methods and vocabularies (“stare decisis” for the court, “zero lower bound” for the Fed). The obscurity of what they do makes it all the more important for the public to trust that whatever is happening behind the curtain is on the up and up. Yet in the latest Gallup poll data, only 25 percent of Americans polled in the weeks before Dobbs said they had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the Supreme Court. That was a new low in nearly 50 years of polling.
There is no one on the court today like Justice Anthony Kennedy, who, despite being a Republican appointee, was independent and often unpredictable in his jurisprudence, Epps said. Kennedy retired in 2018. “The screening is far more rigorous” now than when Kennedy joined the court in 1988, so a freethinker such as he would never get on the bench, Epps said.
Of the Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court, only Chief Justice John Roberts seems greatly concerned with preserving the impression that the court is apolitical. In the Dobbs case he voted with the majority in upholding a Mississippi law restricting abortion but said he would have taken “a more measured course,” stopping short of overruling Roe outright.
The Dobbs decision came one day after the Supreme Court struck down New York’s limit on carrying guns outside the home. In Dobbs, the court upheld states’ rights to restrict their citizens’ behavior, while in the New York case it did the opposite. That may appear inconsistent to supporters of abortion rights, but it’s precisely what the average Republican voter wants, said Maya Sen, a professor at Harvard Kennedy School.
“We take as a given that political actors will want a judiciary that serves their interests,” said Sen, who is the co-author with Adam Bonica of a 2020 book, “The Judicial Tug of War: How Lawyers, Politicians, and Ideological Incentives Shape the American Judiciary.” “For many Republicans this is a day of celebration, of victory,” she said.
It was James Gibson, a colleague of Epps at Washington University who is an expert on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, who coined the “legitimacy is for losers” phrase. In a chapter in a 2015 book, he wrote: “Institutions do not require legitimacy when they are pleasing people with their policies. Legitimacy becomes crucial in the context of dissatisfaction.”
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story


Really, then, legitimacy isn’t just for losers. It’s for the court itself.

 

ft254

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jun 3, 2003
14,586
12,243
113
It's one thing for judges to refuse to simply answer questions. But when Judges promise you that something is decided and they wouldn't dare rock the boat and then immediately do it the first chance they get, then they should be removed from their office.

That was simply a lie. He had the opportunity to answer the question honestly. He should be impeached.
 

goldmom

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
19,747
23,040
113
They'll need to vote to pass legislation that overturns the judicial activism.
But isn’t that basically what the Court said?
They turned over the question of abortion to the 50 states and we the people get to vote on the representatives who will pass legislation the people of those states are in favor of.
I’m pro choice and won’t vote for some nutty Jesus freak who thinks women can’t control their own bodies. If that means I cross a party line then I will.
I am old enough to remember when there was no Roe v Wade and some states did permit abortion. And more young people practiced birth control.
 

goldmom

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
19,747
23,040
113
That was simply a lie. He had the opportunity to answer the question honestly. He should be impeached.

When he answered it was settled. If you fall to understand how the court works that’s your problem.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

ft254

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jun 3, 2003
14,586
12,243
113
When he answered it was settled. If you fall to understand how the court works that’s your problem.

You are playing with words. By turning it over to states it essentially put the final nails in the coffin and you know it. If the Republicans gain control of both houses their issue will be banning abortion. It has been a crusade of the religious right which has controlled the party in the background for decades.

I understand how the court works. I have seen how what we thought could not be possible, be possible. And it's just leaving the launching pad.

For the 1st time in my almost 73 years, I'm having grave doubts in my country. And in that time, I've seen a lol of trauma. The current Supreme Court is another example of what-else-could-possibly-get-worse.
 

ft254

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jun 3, 2003
14,586
12,243
113
But isn’t that basically what the Court said?
They turned over the question of abortion to the 50 states and we the people get to vote on the representatives who will pass legislation the people of those states are in favor of.
I’m pro choice and won’t vote for some nutty Jesus freak who thinks women can’t control their own bodies. If that means I cross a party line then I will.
I am old enough to remember when there was no Roe v Wade and some states did permit abortion. And more young people practiced birth control.

Practiced birth control is not the answer to abortion. Unwanted/unplanned pregnancies will occur. Period. It's a matter of and fact of life in our society, and all others. We are I believe one of 27 countries to adopt stringent abortion laws.

Pretty much in keeping in our radicalization of the Supreme Court and the trend towards right wing extremism in our political systems.
 

goldmom

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
19,747
23,040
113
Practiced birth control is not the answer to abortion. Unwanted/unplanned pregnancies will occur. Period. It's a matter of and fact of life in our society, and all others. We are I believe one of 27 countries to adopt stringent abortion laws.

Pretty much in keeping in our radicalization of the Supreme Court and the trend towards right wing extremism in our political systems.
As a woman I THINK I understand about birth control and pregnancy and abortions but thanks for the explanation.
We’ve had a society used to having women make their own individual and personal choices for 50 years.
Idiot legislators who think we’ll just roll over and do what some preacher or priest says will find out otherwise.
Polls show that the majority of Americans of all parties and religions are not opposed to termination in the first trimester or later in cases of rape, incest, or the Moms health.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
35,116
20,618
113
As a woman I THINK I understand about birth control and pregnancy and abortions but thanks for the explanation.
We’ve had a society used to having women make their own individual and personal choices for 50 years.
Idiot legislators who think we’ll just roll over and do what some preacher or priest says will find out otherwise.
Polls show that the majority of Americans of all parties and religions are not opposed to termination in the first trimester or later in cases of rape, incest, or the Moms health.
So will you not vote for Desantis since he opposes the right for women to have an abortion?

If not, you're a ****ing hypocrite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huey Grey

goldmom

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
19,747
23,040
113
So will you not vote for Desantis since he opposes the right for women to have an abortion?

If not, you're a ****ing hypocrite.
I intend to vote for any Republican not named Trump.
What you THINK that makes me is your problem. I couldn’t care less.
 

West Dundee Hawkeye

HR All-American
Gold Member
Sep 28, 2003
2,701
1,182
113
By Peter Coy
Opinion Writer

You're reading the Peter Coy newsletter, for Times subscribers only. A veteran business and economics columnist unpacks the biggest headlines. Get it in your inbox.
“Legitimacy is for losers,” a political scientist once said. It’s a profound concept. The winning side in a decision will gladly accept it without asking why. But the losing side — whether the decision is made by a basketball referee or the Supreme Court — will accept defeat only if they believe the decision was made fairly and by the book.
That’s why the politicization of the U.S. Supreme Court is so alarming. People on the losing end of Supreme Court decisions increasingly feel that justice is not being served. That’s a scary situation for the high court, and for American democracy in general.
“The Supreme Court has no power to enforce its decisions,” Daniel Epps, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, told me on Friday. “It doesn’t have an army. The only thing it has power to do is write PDFs and put them up on its website.”
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story


All the Supreme Court really has to go on is the public’s acceptance of its rulings as legitimate. “Once you lose that, it’s not really clear what the stopping point is,” Epps said. “I see that as a fundamental threat to society.”

Epps is right. By one economic theory, the choice of whether to obey the law is like any other decision, a weighing of costs and benefits. But you know from personal experience that’s not true. There are plenty of times you could have lied, cheated or stolen with impunity. You did the right thing anyway because you more or less accepted the legitimacy of the laws, how they were enacted and how the people who enacted them were selected.
I’m not going to delve into the substance of the Supreme Court’s decision on Friday in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade. I’ll only point out that those on the losing side weren’t just disappointed. Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor went way beyond that, flatly stating in their dissent that the majority’s decision “undermines the court’s legitimacy.”
Sotomayor was even blunter in oral arguments in December. “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” she asked, before answering her own question: “I don’t see how it is possible.” Sadly, saying so out loud also undermines the court’s legitimacy.
For the losing side, the sting of the decision was made worse by the events that led to it. In 2016, Mitch McConnell, then the Senate majority leader, blocked a vote on President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, defending his action on the grounds that the nomination came just eight months before that year’s presidential election. But in 2020 McConnell hurried through President Donald Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, with the final confirmation vote coming just a week before that year’s election. That got Republicans what they wanted but tore a hole in the fabric of democracy.


In 2018, before the Senate vote on his Supreme Court nomination, Brett Kavanaugh worked hard to persuade Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, that he was no threat to Roe v. Wade. “Roe is 45 years old, it has been reaffirmed many times, lots of people care about it a great deal, and I’ve tried to demonstrate I understand real-world consequences,” he said in a meeting with Collins, according to notes kept by staff members, adding: “I am a don’t-rock-the-boat kind of judge. I believe in stability and in the Team of Nine.” Collins now says she feels she was misled.

The Supreme Court in some ways resembles the Federal Reserve. Its decision makers are unelected technocrats who use arcane methods and vocabularies (“stare decisis” for the court, “zero lower bound” for the Fed). The obscurity of what they do makes it all the more important for the public to trust that whatever is happening behind the curtain is on the up and up. Yet in the latest Gallup poll data, only 25 percent of Americans polled in the weeks before Dobbs said they had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the Supreme Court. That was a new low in nearly 50 years of polling.
There is no one on the court today like Justice Anthony Kennedy, who, despite being a Republican appointee, was independent and often unpredictable in his jurisprudence, Epps said. Kennedy retired in 2018. “The screening is far more rigorous” now than when Kennedy joined the court in 1988, so a freethinker such as he would never get on the bench, Epps said.
Of the Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court, only Chief Justice John Roberts seems greatly concerned with preserving the impression that the court is apolitical. In the Dobbs case he voted with the majority in upholding a Mississippi law restricting abortion but said he would have taken “a more measured course,” stopping short of overruling Roe outright.
The Dobbs decision came one day after the Supreme Court struck down New York’s limit on carrying guns outside the home. In Dobbs, the court upheld states’ rights to restrict their citizens’ behavior, while in the New York case it did the opposite. That may appear inconsistent to supporters of abortion rights, but it’s precisely what the average Republican voter wants, said Maya Sen, a professor at Harvard Kennedy School.
“We take as a given that political actors will want a judiciary that serves their interests,” said Sen, who is the co-author with Adam Bonica of a 2020 book, “The Judicial Tug of War: How Lawyers, Politicians, and Ideological Incentives Shape the American Judiciary.” “For many Republicans this is a day of celebration, of victory,” she said.
It was James Gibson, a colleague of Epps at Washington University who is an expert on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, who coined the “legitimacy is for losers” phrase. In a chapter in a 2015 book, he wrote: “Institutions do not require legitimacy when they are pleasing people with their policies. Legitimacy becomes crucial in the context of dissatisfaction.”
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story


Really, then, legitimacy isn’t just for losers. It’s for the court itself.

Actually, Lincoln ignored the Taney Supreme Court while he was President. Taney passed away in 1864 so for the first few years Lincoln ignored Taney.
 
Last edited:

BioHawk

HR Legend
Sep 21, 2005
38,905
39,984
113
I intend to vote for any Republican not named Trump.
What you THINK that makes me is your problem. I couldn’t care less.
I can respect the "anyone but Trump" point of view, but DeSantis is Trump with a nicer suit. If you hate Trump, then you need to look for someone other than DeSantis. He's a greater threat to our form of government than Trump is because DeSantis is actually disciplined enough to pull his stuff off.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
123,343
117,636
113
I can respect the "anyone but Trump" point of view, but DeSantis is Trump with a nicer suit. If you hate Trump, then you need to look for someone other than DeSantis. He's a greater threat to our form of government than Trump is because DeSantis is actually disciplined enough to pull his stuff off.

When you're supporting an entire party loaded with racists and bigots, you just might want to look inward at what you really stand for, if you do not consider yourself either a racist or a bigot.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
123,343
117,636
113
I intend to vote for any Republican not named Trump.


I refuse to vote for any party that affiliates itself with this kind of stuff.
You? Maybe.

But for me, one Holocaust is one too many.

Until the GOP eradicates this element from being a significant minority (even possibly now a majority) of their party, I'm out. 100%.
 

West Dundee Hawkeye

HR All-American
Gold Member
Sep 28, 2003
2,701
1,182
113


I refuse to vote for any party that affiliates itself with this kind of stuff.
You? Maybe.

But for me, one Holocaust is one too many.

Until the GOP eradicates this element from being a significant minority (even possibly now a majority) of their party, I'm out. 100%.
I despise Trump and his disciples but no way in hell I can support Dems 100% with their woke crap and their destroy the working class mentality.

Come to Illinois to see what happens when the Dems have total control.

I just read Mayor Lightfoot decided in 2020 to index property taxes to inflation. That is going to wipe out those that can least afford it. If you are a North Shore Liberal living on the Gold Coast, it is no big deal but for Joe Sixpack it may force him/her to leave Illinois.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
123,343
117,636
113
I despise Trump and his disciples but no way in hell I can support Dems 100% with their woke crap and their destroy the working class mentality.
How do they "destroy the working class"?

I agree, that lack of political competition leads to corruption. But from what I see, Dems hold their own accountable to Rule of Law far more often than those in the GOP
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
123,343
117,636
113
I just read Mayor Lightfoot decided in 2020 to index property taxes to inflation.
You realize, that property values (and generally, property taxes with them) have actually exceeded inflation over the past decades, right?

Tying (or limiting) property taxes to inflation indexes means lower property taxes in the long haul.
 

BioHawk

HR Legend
Sep 21, 2005
38,905
39,984
113
I despise Trump and his disciples but no way in hell I can support Dems 100% with their woke crap and their destroy the working class mentality.

Come to Illinois to see what happens when the Dems have total control.

I just read Mayor Lightfoot decided in 2020 to index property taxes to inflation. That is going to wipe out those that can least afford it. If you are a North Shore Liberal living on the Gold Coast, it is no big deal but for Joe Sixpack it may force him/her to leave Illinois.
So....you are applying Mayor Lightfoot's local city policies to Democrats nationally? I don't even know if this is a valid policy or not (something like this you would think would get more mention with local news) nor do I know much about its impacts but let's assume it is real, where has tying property taxes to inflation been pushed literally anywhere else?
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
123,343
117,636
113
So....you are applying Mayor Lightfoot's local city policies to Democrats nationally? I don't even know if this is a valid policy or not (something like this you would think would get more mention with local news) nor do I know much about its impacts but let's assume it is real, where has tying property taxes to inflation been pushed literally anywhere else?

Home values have far exceeded inflation rate increases over time. By a lot.

So, if a state is tying your assessed value to inflation, rather than the home's actual value, that assessed rate will be much much lower over time. Now, the millage rate they set will ultimately dictate your property tax payments, so if they did this and your assessed value is artificially low due to being tied to inflation instead of the actual property value, then they'll just "up" millage rates to cover budget requirements.

Seems like a whole "smoke and mirrors" thing to me - political stunt.
 

BioHawk

HR Legend
Sep 21, 2005
38,905
39,984
113
Home values have far exceeded inflation rate increases over time. By a lot.

So, if a state is tying your assessed value to inflation, rather than the home's actual value, that assessed rate will be much much lower over time. Now, the millage rate they set will ultimately dictate your property tax payments, so if they did this and your assessed value is artificially low due to being tied to inflation instead of the actual property value, then they'll just "up" millage rates to cover budget requirements.

Seems like a whole "smoke and mirrors" thing to me - political stunt.
This is a major change to the tax code and it is something that would be being discussed at length on local news and television shows. I have not heard a word of this stuff so if this is real, I'm guessing it was an idea that was just thrown out there and hasn't been seriously considered as a path, or at the least is something they are in the process of studying to see the impacts.
 

West Dundee Hawkeye

HR All-American
Gold Member
Sep 28, 2003
2,701
1,182
113
So....you are applying Mayor Lightfoot's local city policies to Democrats nationally? I don't even know if this is a valid policy or not (something like this you would think would get more mention with local news) nor do I know much about its impacts but let's assume it is real, where has tying property taxes to inflation been pushed literally anywhere else?
When you live in Illinois, the Democrats dominate the news/policy. The problem is that Illinois has a massive over $100 billion pension deficit. It is the biggest in the US and the Dems have enshrined in the Illinois State Constitution that it can't be reformed.

The avg. family in Iowa has about $3,000 of public pension liability. The avg. family in Illinois has about $100,000 of public pension liability. Some of the public pensions have paid over $300,000 a year to an individual beneficiary.

With all of this pension liability, rather than try to help the taxpayer, Illinois also has more public gov entities than California. Illinois has City, County, State & Township Gov.

The corruption in Illinois was big. Madigan was the Speaker of the House every year but 2 from 1983 - 2021. He is now under indictment.

We need an active 2 party system.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

BioHawk

HR Legend
Sep 21, 2005
38,905
39,984
113
When you live in Illinois, the Democrats dominate the news/policy. The problem is that Illinois has a massive over $100 billion pension deficit. It is the biggest in the US and the Dems have enshrined in the Illinois State Constitution that it can't be reformed.

The avg. family in Iowa has about $3,000 of public pension liability. The avg. family in Illinois has about $100,000 of public pension liability. Some of the public pensions have paid over $300,000 a year to an individual beneficiary.

With all of this pension liability, rather than try to help the taxpayer, Illinois also has more public gov entities than California. Illinois has City, County, State & Township Gov.

The corruption in Illinois was big. Madigan was the Speaker of the House every year but 2 from 1983 - 2021. He is now under indictment.

We need an active 2 party system.
There was a plan to address pensions, but it required a constitutional change and it got voted down. So, Illinois is stuck with a flat tax that doesn't work. Instead, the only plan conservatives in the state seem to have is to stick it to the people who are the victims in all of this (because of course that's what conservatives do). People didn't complain when the pension fund was raided to balance the budgets in the 80's, 90's, 2000's, and 2010's. It was all glory days then, but now that the bill is coming due suddenly the victims have to pay for it.

While I agree that Madigan was central to this process, Pritzker actually has been able to put money back into the pension fund, something no other governor has been able to do. It's not a coincidence that Madigan lost power when Pritzker rose to power. It's not enough to fix the problem, but at least he is making an effort.

As for a 2 party system in Illinois, until a non-white christian nationalist party rises to replace what used to be the Republican Party then that just isn't a viable solution. Illinois Nazis are supposed to be an internet meme, not an actual political force with power. Fortunately, they are no where near having influence here (but they certainly do still exist). Like many midwest retirees, it seems they've moved to Florida.
 

ft254

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jun 3, 2003
14,586
12,243
113
As a woman I THINK I understand about birth control and pregnancy and abortions but thanks for the explanation.
We’ve had a society used to having women make their own individual and personal choices for 50 years.
Idiot legislators who think we’ll just roll over and do what some preacher or priest says will find out otherwise.
Polls show that the majority of Americans of all parties and religions are not opposed to termination in the first trimester or later in cases of rape, incest, or the Moms health.

Birth control has not controlled the problem, has it? I'm not a woman but made this observation.

BTW, forget trimesters and rape. It is a decision for the mother and physician in all cases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlickShagwell

goldmom

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
19,747
23,040
113
Birth control has not controlled the problem, has it? I'm not a woman but made this observation.

BTW, forget trimesters and rape. It is a decision for the mother and physician in all cases.
And there are more women (and men) today who grew up with the notion that abortion is another form of birth control.

I’ve shared this before but I personally know someone who had FIVE abortions (yes she was a dummy) and when she wanted to have a family she couldn’t get pregnant. The rampant growth in STD’s shows that a lot of very “careless coitus” is goin on.

You may be in favor of partial birth abortion and that’s your personal choice, but I am not.
 

goldmom

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
19,747
23,040
113
I can respect the "anyone but Trump" point of view, but DeSantis is Trump with a nicer suit. If you hate Trump, then you need to look for someone other than DeSantis. He's a greater threat to our form of government than Trump is because DeSantis is actually disciplined enough to pull his stuff off.

I love it when a “party line parrot”. Repeats what he or she has read in the MSM and social media.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
111,875
84,434
113
If enough people "won't accept" the court's decision, then they'll elect representatives who share their views and a law will be passed, or even an amendment if enough people are passionate about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom

ft254

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jun 3, 2003
14,586
12,243
113
And there are more women (and men) today who grew up with the notion that abortion is another form of birth control.

I’ve shared this before but I personally know someone who had FIVE abortions (yes she was a dummy) and when she wanted to have a family she couldn’t get pregnant. The rampant growth in STD’s shows that a lot of very “careless coitus” is goin on.

You may be in favor of partial birth abortion and that’s your personal choice, but I am not.

I'm not in favor of it. I'm saying its reality. And partial birth is a procedure in which the fetus's skull is deformed making it too dangerous to pass through the uterus, so get off that train. Estimated .002% of abortions.
 

goldmom

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
19,747
23,040
113
I'm not in favor of it. I'm saying its reality. And partial birth is a procedure in which the fetus's skull is deformed making it too dangerous to pass through the uterus, so get off that train. Estimated .002% of abortions.
It is a tiny number I agree, but I don’t think it’s entirely a “deformed skull issue”.
 

ft254

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jun 3, 2003
14,586
12,243
113
Correct. Examples; Decisions are made If fetus is not viable, or the mother's life or safety is at risk or other reasons.

Edit: the point is "partial birth" is an inaccurate descriptor. It was a phrase produced to generate a horrific description by an anti-abortion Republican politician.
 
Last edited:

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
123,343
117,636
113
Correct. Examples; Decisions are made If fetus is not viable, or the mother's life or safety is at risk or other reasons.

The "at risk" stuff is nonsense.

That is what is making women who have miscarried to wait a week or more in the hospital while in constant discomfort and bleeding UNTIL their condition becomes "a risk" to them, at which point things can go south, quickly.

If you are pregnant, your health is "at risk". Full Stop.

Abortion should be legal up to week 24. People should be discouraged from using it as birth control, because it is NOT a "zero risk" procedure, and using drugs or IUDs, etc is far safer and more effective. That's the sex ed people should be getting, but the Religious Right denies the distribution of that information because it is "sinful" to them.
 

BioHawk

HR Legend
Sep 21, 2005
38,905
39,984
113
I love it when a “party line parrot”. Repeats what he or she has read in the MSM and social media.
I have no idea what you are talking about as from my seat it looks like the "MSM" is pretty much ignoring DeSantis and giving him a free ride right now. My opinions of him are based on the fascist legislation after fascist legislation that he has passed and signed with great fanfair. DeSantis is working damn hard for the fascist label. If you don't see that then you either aren't paying attention or you actually support these laws but won't come out and say it.

So here it is, you ignored us with Trump, twice, and we're telling you now, do NOT SUPPORT DeSantis. He will finish tearing this country apart and wear the resulting split as a badge of honor.
 

Slappy Pappy

HR Heisman
Nov 24, 2007
5,923
6,431
113
This is from the CDC website regarding 2019 abortions:

"Similar to previous years, in 2019, women in their twenties accounted for the majority of abortions (56.9%). The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation"

So almost 93% of abortions are first trimester, and 50% of all abortions are non-surgical using pills. I know there are tests that are only available in the second semester that detect serious fetal abnormalities, so it is likely most of the 7% of all abortions that occur after week 13 have to do with risks to the mother and fetus.
 

Latest posts