I just don't understand why religious people can't just worship their god, whichever one it is, in peace. Why do they have to insist their religion on everyone else too? It's basically no different than a plague.

Also, can a Christian truly believe in democracy if a tyrant in the sky has final word over everything no matter who is elected?

Should we ban religious people from holding office? Feels like it is the only way to get any sort of common sense back into government.

I just don't understand why religious people can't just worship their god, whichever one it is, in peace. Why do they have to insist their religion on everyone else too? It's basically no different than a plague.

If there isn't even 50 senators who support banning abortion (let alone 60), maybe it shouldn't be?

Actually yeah, this has now given the Democrats a proper platform now going forward into the near future that voters can vote on that will actually have an effect. Democrats have long been a hodgepodge party of nothing, but this might make them popular again. This will be particularly interesting for Texas and Florida. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some shocking results come November.

When was she supposed to retire? Why wouldn't McConnel just block her replacement like he did with Merick? This is not RBG's fault, this is the Republicans fault.

A fair point, but given the Court’s recent reaction to gun laws I doubt a law would stand in the face of the court who is far more interested in pushing a fundamentalist agenda (not conservative which would imply keeping the status quo) that upholding precedent..

Is everyone on this site completely brain damaged? Not a single Democrat even once campaigned on "defunding the police". In fact, I'd say 90%+ of the country RAISED pay for police and increased police budgets.

Republicans have such a stranglehold on the media that you would believe the police are persecuted more than fucking Jesus.

If this was true they would have made a pro life ruling and forced California to ban abortion and used some part of it like "everyone has the right to life". But instead they just made themselves neutral based on how it's a reach to act like the constitution is more pro choice than pro life when you can cherry pick parts of it for either.

This conservative stacked Supreme Court made a big mistake today. I know it's not apples to apples, but Conservatives should know better than anyone how hard people are willing to fight to defend their rights. They do it all the time for the 2nd Amendment. Now, just when Dems seem to be really low going into midterms, this decision is made and it will unify them and make the elections this fall far more competitive than it looked like they would be. It gives Biden something to focus on besides fighting COVID and inflation. I would be surprised if his numbers don't go up now (though it would be hard for them to fall much further).

Is far leftists forcing their ideology on people any better than this? A lot of the time the last few years the right has been the one saying leave me alone.

Personally I don't support either making atheist kids read the bible, or making kids from conservative families forced to learn radical gender ideology. They're the same thing.

Sure! You act like pro life people wouldn't support this.

Boy do I have some news for you, dude.

What's done is done, for now, so what now? (Hint: There's no plan for what's next, but read if you like.)

Has everyone who worked toward this decision over the past 50 years determined how they'll support these women, or perhaps more importantly, handle the unwanted babies/kids they (some now unwillingly) birth? Are they just going to be tossed into the broken foster care system? I know school shootings are helping to free up some space, but it's not that much (yet).

As much as 50% of foster care children fall behind their classmates in school and don't graduate on time. We've done very little to help these kids already in the system, so I presume the same fate will fall upon future kids in the system. No plan to help better their education.

Nearly 1/5 of foster care children live in an overcrowded group home already, where needs and care are stretched far too thin and some receive little/nothing.

1/5 of the teens who age out of the system end up homeless. And around 30% of homeless people came from the foster system. Homelessness is a continuously growing (and unnecessary) problem in America already. This is bound to grow as more babies/toddlers entering the system = more teens that go unadopted and age out. Are we prepared to accept more homelessness? As a country, we care very little about it already.

What of the juvenile justice system? How much can it handle? Many suffer from overcrowding due to minor offences now. Almost 3/4 of the kids there came from the failing child welfare system.

Where are all the extra foster families, group care facilities, social workers, etc., coming from to handle the influx?

American's has a broken health care system (is it even one?), so who will be paying for all these extra bills? Children in foster care are more likely to have all sorts of health problems. The government? Yeah, no. They don't do that already. 1/3, for example, are unable to see a dentist at least once a year. Medicaid/CHIP only goes so far (not far enough), and Republicans often vote to prevent them from being expanded (and vote to roll back what they even provide now...).

Like, what's the plan? These are just a few things. Why isn't there already a plan? We've had 50 years to put some in place, right? I've seen basically nothing. In fact, I watched a pro-life activist say the details need to be "ironed out" when questioned on this issue today. She didn't know of a plan because there are none. Shouldn't this matters been "ironed out" beforehand?

Some might argue "at least they're alive and given a chance at life now!" Yeah, a life that's likely to be a struggle on every level possible, that may wind up with them being homeless, alone and forgotten. If you're going to "protect life", you have to do it through every stage of life, otherwise you're not "pro-life."

What's done is done, for now, so what now? (Hint: There's no plan for what's next, but read if you like.)

Has everyone who worked toward this decision over the past 50 years determined how they'll support these women, or perhaps more importantly, handle the unwanted babies/kids they (some now unwillingly) birth? Are they just going to be tossed into the broken foster care system? I know school shootings are helping to free up some space, but it's not that much (yet).

As much as 50% of foster care children fall behind their classmates in school and don't graduate on time. We've done very little to help these kids already in the system, so I presume the same fate will fall upon future kids in the system. No plan to help better their education.

Nearly 1/5 of foster care children live in an overcrowded group home already, where needs and care are stretched far too thin and some receive little/nothing.

1/5 of the teens who age out of the system end up homeless. And around 30% of homeless people came from the foster system. Homelessness is a continuously growing (and unnecessary) problem in America already. This is bound to grow as more babies/toddlers entering the system = more teens that go unadopted and age out. Are we prepared to accept more homelessness? As a country, we care very little about it already.

What of the juvenile justice system? How much can it handle? Many suffer from overcrowding due to minor offences now. Almost 3/4 of the kids there came from the failing child welfare system.

Where are all the extra foster families, group care facilities, social workers, etc., coming from to handle the influx?

American's has a broken health care system (is it even one?), so who will be paying for all these extra bills? Children in foster care are more likely to have all sorts of health problems. The government? Yeah, no. They don't do that already. 1/3, for example, are unable to see a dentist at least once a year. Medicaid/CHIP only goes so far (not far enough), and Republicans often vote to prevent them from being expanded (and vote to roll back what they even provide now...).

Like, what's the plan? These are just a few things. Why isn't there already a plan? We've had 50 years to put some in place, right? I've seen basically nothing. In fact, I watched a pro-life activist say the details need to be "ironed out" when questioned on this issue today. She didn't know of a plan because there are none. Shouldn't this matters been "ironed out" beforehand?

Some might argue "at least they're alive and given a chance at life now!" Yeah, a life that's likely to be a struggle on every level possible, that may wind up with them being homeless, alone and forgotten. If you're going to "protect life", you have to do it through every stage of life, otherwise you're not "pro-life."

What's done is done, for now, so what now? (Hint: There's no plan for what's next, but read if you like.)

Has everyone who worked toward this decision over the past 50 years determined how they'll support these women, or perhaps more importantly, handle the unwanted babies/kids they (some now unwillingly) birth? Are they just going to be tossed into the broken foster care system? I know school shootings are helping to free up some space, but it's not that much (yet).

As much as 50% of foster care children fall behind their classmates in school and don't graduate on time. We've done very little to help these kids already in the system, so I presume the same fate will fall upon future kids in the system. No plan to help better their education.

Nearly 1/5 of foster care children live in an overcrowded group home already, where needs and care are stretched far too thin and some receive little/nothing.

1/5 of the teens who age out of the system end up homeless. And around 30% of homeless people came from the foster system. Homelessness is a continuously growing (and unnecessary) problem in America already. This is bound to grow as more babies/toddlers entering the system = more teens that go unadopted and age out. Are we prepared to accept more homelessness? As a country, we care very little about it already.

What of the juvenile justice system? How much can it handle? Many suffer from overcrowding due to minor offences now. Almost 3/4 of the kids there came from the failing child welfare system.

Where are all the extra foster families, group care facilities, social workers, etc., coming from to handle the influx?

American's has a broken health care system (is it even one?), so who will be paying for all these extra bills? Children in foster care are more likely to have all sorts of health problems. The government? Yeah, no. They don't do that already. 1/3, for example, are unable to see a dentist at least once a year. Medicaid/CHIP only goes so far (not far enough), and Republicans often vote to prevent them from being expanded (and vote to roll back what they even provide now...).

Like, what's the plan? These are just a few things. Why isn't there already a plan? We've had 50 years to put some in place, right? I've seen basically nothing. In fact, I watched a pro-life activist say the details need to be "ironed out" when questioned on this issue today. She didn't know of a plan because there are none. Shouldn't this matters been "ironed out" beforehand?

Some might argue "at least they're alive and given a chance at life now!" Yeah, a life that's likely to be a struggle on every level possible, that may wind up with them being homeless, alone and forgotten. If you're going to "protect life", you have to do it through every stage of life, otherwise you're not "pro-life."

Corpse is thus far the only one to elude to the exceptionally important dynamic which is the ridiculous see-saw this sets up. So if in a few years, we have a liberal majority, they are going to be able to reinstate Roe v. Wade? Nuts.

You know John Roberts is probably sick to his stomach over that element. The precent it sets means this type of stuff means everything they pass now is subject to change in the future. The concept of settled law is out the window.

This is a truly disgusting day in American history. I cannot and will not get over it.

Republicans should stop calling themselves pro life because they aren’t. If they were, they’d support easier access to health care and providing assistance to pregnant women who are too poor and disadvantaged to successfully raise children. These ghouls want to dictate what women are and are not allowed to do, and then when the child is born, they completely stop giving a shit. It’s not about babies, it’s about punishing people and maintaining control.

What’s the point? So much for vaccines and “my body, my choice.” Like, sorry. You’re hypocrites and full of shit.