RF Rules & Illegal Abortions

[Jayhawker Soule]

I just got up from a nap. I am totally lost.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's likely not a joking matter. There is no guarantee that an agenda-driven court will not broadly interpret "illegal sexual acts" as "illegal acts related to sexual activity."

Yup. It's probably safe to assume this SC will strip rights and shift America towards a theocracy. And considering these modern Conservative Republican MAGA nuts in many ways are more superstitious and scared of the dark than even many people living during the Medieval era I wouldn't be surprised if anti-semitism rages, witch hunts resume, and forced conversion if you want anything in life.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Rule 6, which prohibits promotion or discussion of personal engagement in illegal activity, is primarily intended to ensure that RF doesn't hold any legal liability for such posts. The default reference is federal law, which is why encouragement of, say, smoking weed is prohibited on the forums even though it is legal in multiple states. Support for legalizing an illegal action and discussion of the legality thereof is not against the RF rules, however.

If abortion became federally banned, RF would have to default to federal law in order to cover the forum's legal bases and protect it from any liability. However, discussions of the legality of abortion as well as support for legalizing it would still be allowed.

All of this is a preliminary answer, though, since judging such a situation and ruling on it would require further context and have more details and considerations that might not be apparent at this point.

Figured as much.

It's always the lawyers in today's society.

 

[Quetzal]

As well you should.
I'm always serious.
BTW, from what **** hole country do you hail?

Quetzalstan is an outstanding nation that would welcome anyone, regardless of what ****hole country you come, the US included!

 

[Revoltingest]

Quetzalstan is an outstanding nation that would welcome anyone, regardless of what ****hole country you come, the US included!

Ameristanians just might now consider Quetzalistan.
(We've begun having some especial trouble here.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No one has yet mentioned gay sex which the Texas AG is reported to being ready to go after. Texas AG Ken Paxton suggests defending sodomy law amid SCOTUS (reported by other sites with paywalls). we could see that mention of having had such an encounter would fall into the prohibition here as well.

Because Justice Thomas, being a virtual saint of a Christian, knows full well that what Jesus wants is for anybody who doesn't think exactly like he does to be squashed like the obnoxious bugs they are.

I say, "bring it on." We fought the battle once, we'll fight it again. And let me tell you this -- now that every family in the the US has its LGBTQ members (and they all do) -- voters will come out and the squashers better watch out for their legislative seats.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I say, "bring it on." We fought the battle once, we'll fight it again. And let me tell you this -- now that every family in the the US has its LGBTQ members (and they all do) -- voters will come out and the squashers better watch out for their legislative seats.

Of all the tools at our disposal, bravado ranks lower than most.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Of all the tools at our disposal, bravado ranks lower than most.

But not lower than the sheer bigotry that wants to make illegal everything one does not personally want to do, or to hate everybody who isn't just like oneself.

And having lived through the long fight (beginning in Canada with then-Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau saying "the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation") I do know that that is where so many of such efforts begin.

 

[Revoltingest]

But not lower than the sheer bigotry that wants to make illegal everything one does not personally want to do, or to hate everybody who isn't just like oneself.

And having lived through the long fight (beginning in Canada with then-Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau saying "the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation") I do know that that is where so many of such efforts begin.

I cut your type some slack when you get all emotional.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I cut your type some slack when you get all emotional.

Well, aren't you precious!

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, aren't you precious!

It's cuz I'm woke.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's cuz I'm woke.

Nobody's ever going to invent a frube for that one...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No one has yet mentioned gay sex which the Texas AG is reported to being ready to go after. Texas AG Ken Paxton suggests defending sodomy law amid SCOTUS (reported by other sites with paywalls). we could see that mention of having had such an encounter would fall into the prohibition here as well.

My previous post doesn't convey all of my feelings about this. This term of SCOTUS is over, but no question it was a blockbuster. But next term threatens (approx. 100% certainty) to be just as much a blockbuster.

Most importantly (to me, personally) "religious freedoms" are going to be weighed against "privacy (especially gay) rights." And what that means is the court will be ruling on whether the religious beliefs of some people get to decide what the personal behaviours of some other people get to be. Can anyone see how that might go just slightly wrong?

 

[Revoltingest]

Nobody's ever going to invent a frube for that one...

That explains why no one gave me one.

 

[sun rise]

My previous post doesn't convey all of my feelings about this. This term of SCOTUS is over, but no question it was a blockbuster. But next term threatens (approx. 100% certainty) to be just as much a blockbuster.

Most importantly (to me, personally) "religious freedoms" are going to be weighed against "privacy (especially gay) rights." And what that means is the court will be ruling on whether the religious beliefs of some people get to decide what the personal behaviours of some other people get to be. Can anyone see how that might go just slightly wrong?

There's a lawsuit by a Rabbi that says that outlawing abortion infringes on his view of Judaism. So it's not just religious beliefs but really about fundamentalist Christian religious beliefs.

Given that it's no longer a court of law where precedent has meaning but a politicized court, you betcha.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's a lawsuit by a Rabbi that says that outlawing abortion infringes on his view of Judaism.

I saw that earlier, but dismissed it as the weakest
argument of all. If the law treats abortion really as
murder, then no religious accommodation would
ever be made.
Hey, if it worked, I'd claim that paying income tax
is against my religion.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Hey, if it worked, I'd claim that paying income tax
is against my religion.

I thought it was!

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought it was!

Not in the government's opinion.

 

[Heyo]

I saw that earlier, but dismissed it as the weakest argument of all.

I think it is a creative argument as it pitches their values against each other. Religious freedom is the argument the religious right uses against having to bake a cake. (And it has also been successfully used to justify neglect homicide of children (real children), so it's not so benign.)
It's a lose-lose situation for the religious right. Either accept abortion as religious right or declare religious rights as secondary to other rights.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think it is a creative argument as it pitches their values against each other. Religious freedom is the argument the religious right uses against having to bake a cake. (And it has also been successfully used to justify neglect homicide of children (real children), so it's not so benign.)
It's a lose-lose situation for the religious right. Either accept abortion as religious right or declare religious rights as secondary to other rights.

A good idea would be to make referendums in those states. Kentucky, Tennessee, etc...
"Do you want an abortion ban? " "Yes or no?". The majority wins.
There, easy as pie.