The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

Are elective abortions covered by insurance?

I have no idea what being on state insurance would cover . That’s just the only way I could think of that they would know , if it was filed ti be paid . Thinking about it more You can’t get a state insurance to pay another Dr out of state right ?
 
I have no idea what being on state insurance would cover . That’s just the only way I could think of that they would know , if it was filed ti be paid . Thinking about it more You can’t get a state insurance to pay another Dr out of state right ?

No idea.
 
It's kind of amazing to think that this ruling really rests on the shoulders of one person: Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If she'd listened to Obama back in 2013, there is almost no chance that this is the decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
I went to another state for cancer surgery. I'm not sure Tennessee or Maryland (Johns Hopkins) would have any reason to prevent me from doing that.
It will most likely have to do with establishing an age of the fetus and then everything after that is considered murder. Probably try to gen up something around going to another state to take a life.
 
Can't comment on the legal justification for Roe which I have always heard was suspect. In general though taking away a "found" freedom is always going to have a high bar in my book.
Long post incoming.

Yesterday, the court said that efforts to stop urban gun crime had to be “analogous” to those in place at a time when NYC’s population was about on par with a Pruitt era UT game, and reasoned that this was acceptable because there was gun violence in densely populated areas at the time of the founding. Regardless of what you think of the outcome, that reasoning is absurd.

Personally, I’m more than okay with some oddball reasoning that expands limits on government. If it doesn’t interfere with another person’s rights, the government should stay out of it, regardless of how moral or socially acceptable a given behavior is. Laws should exist to govern disputes between people, not to regulate how people live when it doesn’t affect others. Abortion is one of the few issues that seems to fall along that line, rather than to one side of it. It seems fair to leave that issue up to individual states to codify or enshrine in their own constitutions.

But I have a tremendous problem with the flip side of originalism, which is that it tethers our understanding of liberty to a point in time when it was acceptable to make people property and when even women who weren’t property weren’t viewed as much better than. We shouldn’t be forced to amend the constitution for things like recognition of marriage, access to contraception, the right to raise our children as we see fit because we know that the 9th Amendment was put in there for the express purpose of making sure that 1-8 weren’t seen as an exhaustive list.

So yeah, ambivalent about abortion but still see this case as indicating that Alito and Thomas are a problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandman 423
We may need a June 24 Commission

Oh my.......

tenor.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
So... to recap Pelosi.... The Supremes said the states have no say in the constitutional right of the 2A, but are saying that they don't have a say in the constitutional right for women to have abortions.

LG... you are supposedly a lawyer. Can you point me to the part of the Constitution where they addressed abortion?


Had to with right to privacy which while not expressed in that term exactly, exists in for example the right to be secure in your person or home. Thomas .... I don't know what to say. He's out there. On the extreme of the extreme. What he's talking about overruling is indescribable in its breadth.
 

VN Store



Back
Top