Abortion—Roe v Wade


Active member
The United States Supreme Court has ruled.......UNANIMOUSLY......that 'hate speech' is protected speech by the First Amendment......that there is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment....See Here........And especially Here

Google is your friend if you feel you need more elaborate affirmations about https://tinyurl.com/ycez45k6'Hate Speech in the United States'

You will find you are free to yell fire in a jam packed theater, especially when you smell & see smoke......slander someone verbally or in print......you are free to do so as often as you wish, just as long as you realize that sometimes...though rarely...but sometimes there may be repercussions.......but only AFTER the fact your Free Speech has been exercised....like with 'fighting words' directed to a specific individual....speech that incites imminent lawless action by that specific individual the fighting words were directed to.....See Here........

The Supreme Court has time & time again ruled in favor of Expressing the “Thoughts That We Hate”
I don't remember mentioning "hate speech"(which is not legally defined). It is certainly protected speech under "free speech". But, I know that no speech is absolute. Therefore, both have some restrictions.

If you yell "fire" in a crowded theater(ONLY to express your right of free speech), and someone is trampled to death, you will be arrested and charged with negligent manslaughter. If you tell the mayor at a press conference, that if he doesn't stop sleeping with your wife, you are going to kill him, you will be sued for slander. If you put this in print, you will be sued for libel. If you tell people to go out and kill Black Americans, because they're all murderers, and someone does it, you WILL be arrested without the protection under free speech. Finally, I wouldn't threaten the President(which is a felony), and claim that it is your free speech right. Just some friendly advice.

Are you saying that your interpretation of free speech is unconditional?? That you can say anything you want, to anyone you want, at anytime you want, as long as you don't get caught? I agree with this. You can even rob a bank and call it your freedom of expression, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T GET CAUGHT!


Active member
.........Are you saying that your interpretation of free speech is unconditional??...........
Most everything you mentioned is 'YOUR OPINION', & at the very least, as it should be, is subject to case by case review, with the primary objective of protecting the Freedom of Speech, & Expression of the person exercising it.

Unconditional......your next breath, as well as mine, are both conditional, but the burden of proof on whether or not someones speech can be legitimately exercised falls squarely upon the accuser rather than the accused.

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it guarantee, defend, or protect anyone's right not to be offended, or have their feelings hurt.


Active member
Most everything you mentioned is 'YOUR OPINION', & at the very least, as it should be, is subject to case by case review, with the primary objective of protecting the Freedom of Speech, & Expression of the person exercising it.

Unconditional......your next breath, as well as mine, are both conditional, but the burden of proof on whether or not someones speech can be legitimately exercised falls squarely upon the accuser rather than the accused.

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it guarantee, defend, or protect anyone's right not to be offended, or have their feelings hurt.
Sorry DreamRyderX! Most things that I say are NOT my opinion. They are grounded in State and Federal statute. They are written as law. If you threaten to kill the President, you will be arrested. If someone is killed because you directly caused an unnecessary panic, you will be arrested. If you knowingly steal or uses someone's intellectual property(patents, copyright, etc.), without their permission or knowledge, you will incur a fine, imprisonment, or both. But you are correct. Everyone has the UNWRITTEN freedom/right to break the law, and the burden of proof does lie with the accuser. Just the same as anyone else who commits a criminal act.

Your interpretation of free speech has nothing to do with free speech. Or, about its protection. This is about violating the laws that limit free speech. No amount of laws can prevent ALL people from being hurt or offended, by all forms of speech/expression. But there ARE laws to protect all people from all the limitations of free speech/expression.
Last edited:


Active member

SCOTUS Decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization


The nation is eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court's opinion in a Mississippi abortion case that could overturn Roe v. Wade, but when exactly the decision will come is not yet clear.

The ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is expected before the high court recesses for the summer in late June. The case that could overturn the court's landmark 1973 ruling in Roe, which legalized abortion nationwide, involves a dispute over a Mississippi law that would ban most abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy.

Abortion rights activists have been bracing for Roe's fall after a leaked draft opinion published by Politico in May showed a conservative majority of justices appeared ready to use the case to undo almost five decades of precedent.

The court releases opinions on days that have been announced in advance, but the opinions to be released are not revealed ahead of time. The decision in Dobbs could come as early as Tuesday—one of two days left in June when the court has announced it will issue opinions, according to its calendar.

If it doesn't come then, it could come on Thursday—another day that has been designated as a day the court will release opinions.

But the ruling could also come at another time if additional days are designated "opinion issuance" days before the summer recess.............continued
Any day now......any day......
Last edited:
Heard this on ABC radio.

A draft ruling overturning Roe v Wade by a conservative SCOTUS judge was released.

Would make safe, legal, medically supervised abortion impossible to find in conservative states (e.g. backward places like Texas, Florida, Alabama etc.)

If successful issues like gay marriage will be revisited.

The US is a third world nation in many ways.
The US is absolutely a third world nation. And yes, they are targeting contraceptives and gay marriage


Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
After Roe v. Wade: US researchers warn of what’s to come
Years of studies point to the negative economic and health effects of restricting access to abortions. . . .

Public-health researchers and economists submitted evidence to the Supreme Court ahead of the case showing that restricting abortion access has negative consequences for pregnant people, who are at increased risk of physical and mental-health issues when they are denied an abortion, and for infant health. “We know from other severe restrictions in states like Texas what happens when abortion access is curtailed,” says Liza Fuentes, a senior research scientist at the Guttmacher Institute, based in New York City.

In 2013, when Texas passed legislation including a ban on most abortion procedures after 20 weeks of pregnancy, the state’s abortion rate dropped by 13%1. Scaled up, that represents more than 100,000 people in the United States being denied an abortion post-Roe and having the potential for negative outcomes, Fuentes says. “And that’s a pretty conservative estimate.”

Solid evidence
A substantial proportion of people who want abortion services but don’t have access to them will end up carrying their pregnancies to term. The consequences of this have been documented thoroughly by research. One of the most comprehensive studies examining the effects of abortion access is the Turnaway Study, an effort that followed about 1,000 US women for five years after they sought abortions and either received or were denied them.

Once people who are denied an abortion go through the experience of giving birth, they rarely choose to place the child for adoption, the Turnaway Study showed. “It means that poor families will have kids before they’re ready,” Greene Foster says. “And all the health and economic costs that we documented in the Turnaway Study will happen for these people.” She is currently working on a new national study to investigate what will happen to the people denied an abortion after their states’ laws change abruptly post-Roe.

Mary Faith Marshall, a biomedical ethicist at the University of Virginia School of Medicine in Charlottesville, says that, on the basis of data collected over years, the upcoming abortion restrictions will have their deepest impacts on people of colour and poor communities. “Being forced to have a child when it is not the right time puts people who are already in poverty further into poverty.”

The obstacle of travel
One of the most immediate consequences of Roe’s demise is that many people seeking an abortion will now need to travel significant distances to receive care. Myers has estimated that, within a few months of Roe being overturned, 54% of US women seeking abortions will have to travel farther than they would have previously to reach their nearest abortion provider. For these women, travel distance will increase from about 58 kilometres (36 miles) on average to about 441 kilometres (274 miles) on average. These numbers haven’t been published yet, but they closely follow results that Myers and her colleagues published in the journal Contraception in 20193.

The US Supreme Court is wrong to disregard evidence on the harm of banning abortion

“Based on what we know about how women respond to travel distance, about three-quarters of them are still going to manage to get out and reach a provider, and about a quarter of them won’t,” Myers says. This quarter represents the poorest and most vulnerable people, she adds.

Overturning Roe will also affect the states where abortion remains legal. “What’s going to happen in the immediate aftermath is there’s going to be an enormous outflow of hundreds of thousands of women from the states that ban to the states where abortion is still legal,” Myers says. “My belief is those providers are not currently prepared to fully absorb that huge increase in demand.”

Self-managing abortion
Another potential consequence of restricting access to abortion is that people might try to end their pregnancies without clinical supervision. Some are likely to do this with abortion medications, which are safe and effective, according to the World Health Organization.

The problem is that many people don’t know much about abortion medication, says Heidi Moseson, an epidemiologist based in Oakland, California, who works at Ibis Reproductive Health, a global research organization that supports abortion rights. She and her colleagues have studied4 abortion attempts among transgender, non-binary and gender-expansive people in the United States. One in five people in their study who had ever been pregnant tried to self-manage an abortion. “Unfortunately, no one reported using medication abortion,” Moseson says. “They reported things like physical trauma, inserting objects into the vagina and ingesting substances that are harmful.”

This US Supreme Court decision could derail Biden’s climate plan

To bridge that information gap, Ibis and partner organizations developed an app, called Euki, that provides people with information on sexual and reproductive health, including how to have an abortion using medication. What can be more difficult to deal with, Moseson says, are the legal risks of obtaining abortion pills in the United States.

“People have been prosecuted for self-managing their abortion, and some laws have been applied outside of their intended scope to criminalize people,” Moseson says.

Marshall notes that the consequences of overturning Roe will fall on all pregnant people, not only on those seeking an abortion. In a June article in The American Journal of Bioethics5, she and her co-authors highlighted that people with pregnancy complications or adverse pregnancy outcomes such as miscarriages or stillbirths might become vulnerable to legal surveillance and criminal prosecution.

Roe cemented that pregnant people had constitutional rights,” Marshall says. “Now, they will no longer have these legal protections and will not be full persons under the US Constitution, which I think is a travesty.”

Clearly, overturning Roe v Wade is about power over women, not concern for life.


Active member
States prohibit abortion—a woman has a miscarriage: what odds she will end up in prison for “procuring an abortion?” Bet this will happen.
Interesting point Monk! I bet they will class it as either pre med murder or mansaughter unless medically proven otherwise.
I’m not of much understanding about laws except that they are trying to outlaw abortions… as a mother and I did have a miscarriage once (spontaneous abortion it was called) so I was in hospital when it happened and thankful for that… as it was horrid.
I know of women that had backyard abortion 40-60 years ago because it was all they could get.
No medical care at all.
I’m not a fan of abortion except for those pregnancies that are from rape, or pregnancies that would compromise the health or life of the woman….but, having said that…. I much prefer legalised abortion for any female with proper access to medical care than going backwards to backyard abortions.
Each has to consider that decision within their conscience for their life. And yes I know of one elder woman (she has since passed away) how she had much remorse for an abortion when they couldn’t afford a baby after they came to Australia from England. What triggered her to breakdown and confess her regret… her eldest daughter was 21 and died. So sad.
It just brought up so much in her grieving mind… and that is what I meant by whatever abortion a female has…will have it on her conscience for life. That’s enough punishment in itself and don’t need old men picking backward laws for modern day women and their right to how they treat their body.


Staff member
Interesting point Monk! I bet they will class it as either pre med murder or mansaughter unless medically proven otherwise.

Not just them. In some states anyone who drives her to the hospital can face criminal charges, as can the doctor seeing her.