1ºThe COVID-19 Chinese omicron subvariant XBB.1.5 is quickly becoming the dominant strain in the United States. In the past week, it has doubled its spread. Now 41% of new COVID-19 cases in the U.S. consist of it.
CNBC reported Friday that the new variant is more effective at avoiding vaccine protection than other variants. The report notes that the XBB subvariant family has many mutations. And such mutations could render the COVID-19 vaccines, as well as the boosters designed to fight XBB or omicron, less effective.
Andrew Pekosz, a virologist at Johns Hopkins University, said XBB.1.5 differs from its family members because it has an additional mutation that binds it to cells better.
2ºMarc Filatova are you saying the conservative justices are "woke"? I'm all confused. But I don't care how you got there, at least it made you say they term limits. It was wrong to push judges through in three weeks. That is what made it political. They already had a majority. Greediness. But the court isn't political they like to say. That proved to the nation it is. And also made it lose legitimatacy. They wouldn't let Obama appoint a judge for years because of was only fair the next president got to do it. Then the set people who said that, push one through in three weeks. And it will be remembered in the future.
3ºSteve Leonard they decided. They made the decision to go against their vows. They decided to be bought. The have to pay the consequences. The national bar association should have stepped up. They didn't. This is why there is minimal rule of law. They are a huge disappointment. They chose. Today even judge Clarence 's wife said she is sorry for inciting an insurrection. If these judges stuck to the rule of law, if Bill barr would have stuck to the rule of law, we wouldn't be in this sucky mess. These people that are supposed to protect law, didnt.
4ºMary Johnson Yeah OK well it wasn’t the liberals that attack the capital was it now.  You should probably take a good long look in the mirror. Here I think because the liberal ones not being attacked is because they are doing what’s best for the people. 70% of the population wanted row to stay. That would mean 30% didn’t 30% isn’t the population. It’s not up to the conservatives or judges to decide what’s best who are they to say what’s right or wrong the job is to follow the laws in the constitution. Freedom of choice is in the constitution. So I’d have to say it is the conservative, radical religious fanatics, who are sick and twisted. Funny, they are the only ones that seem to have rights. If you’re not a conservative you don’t have rights guess what the constitution was written for all citizens of this country not just a 30%
5ºBrian Michaud-Keating Or maybe she just realizes that Roe and Dobbs had two completely different circumstances. Roe stipulated that a right existed, in defiance to a complete ban, but never said what the limits to that right could be. Dobbs was whether abortions could be regulated after the fetus develops to a certain age.
Many sources, including Joe Biden and RBG, stated that the Roe decision went too far. Congress had 50 years to pass a sensible law to fix Roe's shortcomings. Instead they sat on their hands and kicked the can down the road until another decision pushed abortion back to the states.
But even after Dobbs, not much is really changing. Abortions have been legally accessible in the USA since at least 1937 and Planned Parenthood is giving out free bus tickets.
6ºChris Fry But experts say Ginsburg’s criticism of Roe was only part of the story. The second woman to serve on the Supreme Court after Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Ginsburg was an ardent supporter of the right to abortion. She just thought that right should have been grounded in a different part of the Constitution.
“The portrayal of her as an opponent of constitutional protections for abortion reflected in Roe is a bit of a cheat,” said David Gans with the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center. “She was critical of the court’s reasoning but not the bottom-line conclusion that the right to abortion is guaranteed by the Constitution.”
7ºTHE SUPREME COURT ROE v. WADE DECISION HAS BACKFIRED FOR REPUBLICANS.
WOMEN ARE ENERGIZED. AND THEY VOTE.
WILL YOU TAKE YOUR ANGER TO THE POLLS?
Mike Bloomberg:
"The Supreme Court’s ruling is the worst attack on the rights of American women in generations – but it will not be the final word. We must make our voices heard at the ballot box."
Prince Harry said "and from the horrific war in Ukraine to the rolling back of constitutional rights here in the United States, we are witnessing a global assault on democracy and freedom, the cause of Nelson Mandela’s life.”
#GOPWarOnWomen
#VoteBlueIn2024
REMEMBER January 6, 2021
REMEMBER Supreme Court's Ruling
AND VOTE BLUE!
8ºJoey Rettinghaus I THINK YOU SHOULD GO BACK AND REREAD MY COMMENT
“A JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OR SUB COMMITTEE IN CONGRESS”
THESE BRANCHES ARE SUPPOSED TO CHECK EACH OTHER
NEITHER CONGRESS OR THE WHITE HOUSE IS PUTTING THE SUPREME COURT IN CHECK
A SUPREME COURT THAT OVERSTEPS THEIR AUTHORITY IS NOT A COURT OF THE PEOPLE NOR IS NEUTRAL
THERE NEEDS TO BE PENALTIES ON THE JUSTICES WHEN THEY PUT THEIR OWN INTERESTS AHEAD OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHEN THEY PUT PARTISAN POLITICS INTO THEIR RULINGS WHEN THEIR NEUTRALITY HAS BEEN COMPROMISED BY OUTSIDE INFLUENCES ETC
THEY CAN’T LEGALLY BE JAILED BUT THEY CAN BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE
CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT CAN EXPAND THE COURT
A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE OR SUB COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY ETHICS CAN BE MADE
WHAT I AM DESCRIBING IS PUTTING CHECKS ON THE JUSTICES
9ºCharles Swartout abortion was not a common practice in America at the time the constitution was written. What cultures did in other countries 4000 years had no bearing on the constitution or America in 1776. You're grasping at every straw you can to prove you're right about something that documented supreme court rulings spells out perfectly and proves that you're completely wrong. It doesn't matter how many times you lie or distract from the truth, you're wrong. And if you were right you wouldn't try so hard to distract from facts, nitpick words and blatantly disregard president rulings. Also if what you said were true the SC wouldn't even had taken the time to hear a case concerning abortion because according to you it didn't exist. You just want a platform to impose your religious beliefs, your Christian nationalism and your fascism. It won't work. That line has already been drawn and everyone has already picked a side.
10ºCharles Swartout Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),[1] was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States conferred the right to have an abortion. The decision struck down many federal and state abortion laws,[2][3] and caused an ongoing abortion debate in the United States about whether, or to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, and what the role of moral and religious views in the political sphere should be. The decision also shaped debate concerning which methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication.
Roe v. Wade
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 13, 1971
Reargued October 11, 1972
Decided January 22, 1973
Full case name
Jane Roe, et al. v. Henry Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County
Citations
410 U.S. 113 (more)
93 S. Ct. 705; 35 L. Ed. 2d 147; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 159
Argument
Oral argument
Reargument
Reargument
Decision
Opinion
Case history
Prior
Judgment for plaintiffs, injunction denied, 314 F. Supp. 1217 (N.D. Tex. 1970); probable jurisdiction noted, 402 U.S. 941 (1971); set for reargument, 408 U.S. 919 (1972)
Subsequent
Rehearing denied, 410 U.S. 959 (1973)
Holding
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to abort her fetus. This right is not absolute, and has to be balanced against the government's interest in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. Texas's statutes making it a crime to procure an abortion violated this right.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William O. Douglas · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist
Case opinions
Majority
Blackmun, joined by Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell
Concurrence
Burger
Concurrence
Douglas
Concurrence
Stewart
Dissent
White, joined by Rehnquist
Dissent
Rehnquist
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV;
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 1191–94, 1196
Overruled by
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992, in part)
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022, in full)
The case was brought by Norma McCorvey—known by the legal pseudonym "Jane Roe"—who, in 1969, became pregnant with her third child. McCorvey wanted an abortion, but she lived in Texas where abortion was illegal, except when necessary to save the mother's life. Her attorneys, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, filed a lawsuit on her behalf in U.S. federal court against her local district attorney, Henry Wade, alleging that Texas's abortion laws were unconstitutional. A special three-judge court of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas heard the case and ruled in her favor.[4] The parties appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court.
On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy", which protects a pregnant woman's right to an abortion. The Court also held that the right to abortion is not absolute and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life.[5][6] The Court resolved these competing interests by announcing a pregnancy trimester timetable to govern all abortion regulations in the United States. The Court also classified the right to abortion as "fundamental", which required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the most stringent level of judicial review in the United States.[7]