The link contains the opinion. Looks like Don wrote it.
I find it interesting that in one decision, the court ruled that states cannot make their own rules and in the next they returned the question of abortion to the states. I am having a difficult time weighing these differences.
They decision stated that abortion is not a right that is in the Constitution. Neither is the right to ANY medical care. Based on what I read, states can now determine that treatment for cancers and other diseases can be denied. That may be a touch hyperbolic, but still…
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
And in less than 3 hours after release of the decision, Justice Thomas immediately calls for review of the rights that WE were told would not be affected by this decision.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3535841-thomas-calls-for-overturning-precedents-on-contraceptives-lgbtq-rights/
LikeLike
RE: “I find it interesting that in one decision, the court ruled that states cannot make their own rules and in the next they returned the question of abortion to the states. I am having a difficult time weighing these differences.”
It isn’t really accurate to say that states cannot make their own gun laws under the Bruen decision. The ruling merely says that states cannot make gun laws that violate the Constitution.
But neither can the federal government make laws that violate the Constitution. This, in fact, is the reason Roe v. Wade had to be overturned.
LikeLike
Roe did not violate the Constitution and the decision does not say it does. It did say, basically what Don has been saying all along: Roe was new law written by the Court. I can see from reading the decision that this court agrees with Don’s assessment, but I do not. But that is my opinion and I am sticking to it.
The NY law that was overturned was not a violation of the Constitution; it was state law REGULATING firearms. Very much in line with the actual words of the Second Amendment.
I am not surprised you don’t see the hypocrisy of the two decisions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “It did say, basically what Don has been saying all along: Roe was new law written by the Court.”
Roe violated the Constitution because SCOTUS has no authority to create new laws.
LikeLike
That is the opinion as expressed by the court. Bad decisions are still bad decisions. This was a bad decision. – IMO
LikeLike
And you are a better judge?
LikeLike
Better than the three lying pieces of crap Justices appointed in the last administration. – IMO
LikeLiked by 1 person
The decision to leave the fundamental rights of women up to the whims of extremists and politics is very bad news for women and girls and for anybody who cares about them. They are now officially second-class citizens whose bodies are the property of the state.
Now that states can make these decisions for women it will become a political issue like never before. The fanatics behind this travesty will not stop their campaign of subjugation. They will take it to extremes. That is what fanatics do. Resisting their extremism will be a political windfall for Democrats in every state. IMHO.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “They are now officially second-class citizens whose bodies are the property of the state.”
That’s how it should be. After all, you too, as a man, are officially a second-class citizen whose body is the property of the state. You can prove this to yourself simply by breaking a law and going to prison for it.
LikeLike
“That’s how it should be.”
See what I mean about these fanatics, folks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“You can prove this to yourself simply by breaking a law and going to prison for it.”
So by YOUR idiotic standard, getting pregnant is now a crime.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, but getting an abortion might be.
LikeLike
You are the one who criminalized it. Abortion can only occur if a pregnancy exists. And by this standard. getting cancer treatment could also be criminal. Tumors are living things too. I know; I’ve had a rather substantial one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A tumor has no potential to become an adult human being.
LikeLike
“… you too, as a man, are officially a second-class citizen whose body is the property of the state.”
If all men and women are second class citizens in America, who are the “full” or first class citizens?
We did have a legal second class citizen status before 1965. I thought that perhaps we had grown up since then.
LikeLiked by 2 people
We had grown up, Len. But The Heritage Foundation … I Mean SCOTUS has decided that we grew up too fast and need to be dragged back to the 19th century.
Several times Plessy v. Ferguson was brought up as a bad decision that awas later overturned. Here is the thing about that. Plessy TOOK away rights of citizens, Roe granted rights. This decision now takes those rights away from a woman and her god, and her doctor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “If all men and women are second class citizens in America, who are the ‘full’ or first class citizens?”
The phrase is Murphy’s, who used it to make an absurd point.
LikeLike
“The phrase is Murphy’s, who used it to make an absurd point.”
The point is hardly absurd. You are a man. You cannot be compelled to sacrifice your body in any way for the benefit of another person. Now, women can be compelled to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of another person. That makes them second class citizens. Typically, you do not understand a simple concept and offer a childish and totally unrelated counter-example of what happens to criminals.
LikeLike
RE: “You cannot be compelled to sacrifice your body in any way for the benefit of another person.”
Yes, i can, and many men are. Prison sentences are one example.
LikeLike
Someone who is sent to prison does so because of a … wait for it … CHOICE made. A choice to commit. crime. But the individual had the choice Pregnancy is not always a choice (ask a rape or incest victim, or someone who’s contraception failed). Now, in several of the states, because of bad decisions by the courts or minority elected legislatures, the woman no longer has a choice..
You prison analogy is a crock!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Prison sentences are one example.”
Good grief. You are disappearing into that hole of stupidity you are digging. The punishment for crime is not an analogy for compelling health decisions and violating bodily autonomy. You are a man. You cannot be forced to suffer even a pinprick to save the life of another person but now a woman can be forced endure pain, disfigurement, and risk of death to benefit someone else.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I am having a difficult time weighing these differences.”
It’s easy. They start with the decision they want to make and work backwards from there. And reading some of these recent decisions, they’re really just phoning it in at this point.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I forgot the endorsement on the decision:
Brought to you in whole by The Heritage Foundation – Dragging American rights back to the 19th Century for over 5 decades.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I left out The Federalist Society.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s actually very easy to discern the differences. As the decision holds, there is nothing in the constitution that protects abortion so states have to enact law that covers what is acceptable taking both the mother’s and baby’s rights into consideration. There will be caterwauling from the extremes of both sides, especially liberals, but they are TWO separate and distinct lives at some point that has to be decided. The “my” body argument rightfully becomes “our” body at that point and I think the saner minds in the middle will prevail in deciding when that occurs.
As far as NY, the right to keep and “bear” arms shall not be infringed is indeed in the constitution and NY was infringing on those constitutional rights.
See? Easy peasy lemon squeezy…
LikeLike
…”there is nothing in the constitution that protects abortion ”
There is also nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing medical care. The argument is bogus.
“NY was infringing on those constitutional rights.”
I disagree. As usual, the right wing gun zealots refuse to accept the term well regulated.
LikeLike
RE: “As usual, the right wing gun zealots refuse to accept the term well regulated.”
Perhaps you can explain it to us. As I understand it, it means that a well governed militia can be made up of citizens who own their own weapons.
LikeLike
AT the time of the writing there was no standing army and the only way the states could defend themselves, individually or collectively, was thru well regulated militias. When it was written, it made sense. But in today’s world, the need for state militias are no longer needed due to the National Guard and the US Army. Unless of course, because they were NOT in the Constitution, they should be abolished.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You seem confused. Most people would describe the National Guard as the descendant of state militias.
LikeLike
Yes it is. But it also partially funded by the DOD. And those who join the several NG’s go to training at boot camps for regular Army and AF personnel. They are not the citizen soldiers of the 18th century.
LikeLike
If you actually read it, a militia, if needed, is dependant on the right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms is not dependant on the existence of a militia. Commas add context to sentences and in this case it separates the right to keep and bear arms as not a condition of the other.
LikeLike
You interpret differently than some.
LikeLike
The Supreme Court has ruled with my interpretation so many times during its existance it isnt funny.
LikeLike
There is nothing in the constitution guaranteeing food, transportation or candy either. What’s your point?
LikeLike
The we should all starve, walk and not eat sugar. What’s your point?
If a right, per this decision is not EXPLICITLY in the Constitution, then it does not exist.
LikeLike
Not exactly.
If a natural, not delineated, right was not generally accepted as such at the time the Constitution was written, or amended, then it cannot be presumed.
But that isn’t the basis if the decision, it is that the legislatures determine when a person worthy of protection of the Rule of Law exists, not the courts. The woman’s right to her own body is not questioned, it is the right of the child, as defined by the legislature, to live.
LikeLike
I said that you could have written the decision. 😉
Leaving a decision of when life begins to the several states is an issue in my thoughts. In New York it could be 26 weeks. In Ohio, it could be at viability (I believe you said around 15 weeks?). In Alabama it could be legislated at conception (which I don’t THINK you would agree with). The competing laws of the several states is one of the reasons SOCTUS exists. – IMO And brought to the fore in Marbury v. Madison.
That is why I believe todays’ decision is incorrect. I understand their reasoning, but I disagree with it on its face.
And if you think that the issue can be solved in a fair and impartial manner in states where the minority of the population is represented by a majority of the legislature (I’m thinking Wisconsin here, but I am sure there are others), then there is a problem that can only be solved by the end of gerrymandering and fair districts drawn.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re right, I wouldn’t agree if Alabama decided personhood begins at birth,
But it’s not up to me, or you, or SCOTUS, it’s up to the people of Alabama speaking through their legislature.
With 50 states setting their own rules, they can compare and see just where the best balance between the burden on the mother and the safety of the child is to be found.
When Roe was decided, birth control was not nearly as available as it is now, so it might well be had it been left to the states, that balance would have evolved with the changes in health care.
LikeLike
Protected by thhe federal government , that would be correct but rights outside of the constitution are legislated by states.
LikeLike
And what rights are outside the Constitution that are legislated by the states?
LikeLike
The worry about violence is real. Of course, it was a truck driving through pre-choice protesters.
LikeLike