Jump to content

[LSDailyNews] Resolution to Condemn Roe vs. Wade leaker enters the SA State Senate


Recommended Posts

LSDN%20Top.png

ads.png

NEWS • Politics

Written by Yunisa DELGADO-FLORES May 14th, 2022

Resolution to condemn Roe vs. Wade leaker enters the SA State Senate

 

The SAGOP shares their theories as to the leaker's identity, as well as expressing their stance on abortion following the Roe vs. Wade leak

 

 

vHw1ujP.png

The State Capitol building, May 13th, 2022 - Alan Kim.

 

Resolution 28, a resolution seeing to condemn the leaker of the Roe vs. Wade opinion draft, was recently introduced to the State Senate by Senator Adrian Rossi (R).

 

On May the 3rd, 2022 an opinion draft was leaked to the press regarding the overturning of the 1973 case Roe vs. Wade, a landmark case that secured a woman's right to access abortion clinics and treatments without government restrictions, as well as the 1993 case Planned Parenthood vs. Casey which disallowed states to place an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions.

 

The draft, written by Justice Alito of the US Supreme Court, contains

Quote

"Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.”

 

The removal of Roe vs. Wade would put a woman's right to abortion at risk across the nation. As it stands, there are 16 states that have the right to abortion enshrined in law, including the democrat-leaning states of Colorado, New Jersey and Illinois, and 14 states that have laws in place ready to restrict abortions following Roe vs. Wade's reversal, which include the republican-leaning states of Arkansas, Mississippi, and Oklahoma.

 

San Andreas, by the time this article has been released, has no law neither protecting a woman's access to abortion clinics nor any bill planning to restrict a woman's access to abortion treatments.

 

An attempt to pass a bill enshrining a woman's right to access safe and legal abortions was introduced by former senator Edward Ulf (D) in 2021. The Women's Health Act of 2021 would have secured the right of medical clinics across San Andreas to legally conduct abortions, while also enabling and supporting a woman's choice to either abort or keep the fetus in the legislature. It would have enshrined the Roe vs. Wade ruling into the San Andreas Legislature.

 

 

The Women's Health Act of 2021 failed to reach the floor. Sen. Rossi stated in an interview that the reason for this was due to other bills being "given priority", partially due to the ruling of Roe vs. Wade still standing.

 

ads.png

Resolution 28, named A Resolution to Condemn the U.S. Supreme Court Draft Leaker, was proposed by Sen. Rossi. The resolution claims that the leak was politically motivated and suggested it undermines the Justices' ability to act impartially. It calls for the leaker's immediate disbarment and removal from the US Supreme Court.

 

The resolution also commends Justice John Roberts for a "swift response" in confirming the validity of the leak. On the day of the leak, Justice Roberts directed the court marshal to launch an investigation into the identity and source of the leak.

 

If the resolution were to pass, the State Senate would officially condemn the leaker on the national stage.

 

The San Andreas GOP made a press release condemning the leaker as a party not long after the resolution was introduced to the Senate. The release states that the leakage should not be tolerated, and claims that the leaker is "undoubtedly" a "left-wing law clerk who's upset at the court's directive"

 

Jonathan Spencer, former republican senator and current chairman of the SAGOP, expanded upon the press releases' claims when asked for a comment. He stated that he believes the intent of the leak was to "put pressure" on the justices to "sway" their votes. Likewise, he also claims that the leak was orchestrated by a "left-wing group."

Quote

"What I believe happened was that a left-wing group wanted to bring political pressure on the five justices who supported the Court ’s ruling, and therefore, the leak was carried out. They wanted to put pressure on them, and they wanted to invoke politics as an attempt to sway them to change their vote."

 

As of May the 14th, the identity of the leaker is still unknown.

 

Sen. Rossi reaffirmed their party's beliefs in a brief interview with LSDN, where he stated that he was "shocked and deeply disappointed" in the culprit.

 

Quote

"It is unprecedented that the highest Court in our land would have such a draft leaked to the public before the verdict of the case. My reaction was simply the same as what I would expect the majority of Americans to have. I was simply shocked and also deeply disappointed in whoever is responsible for the leak"

 

Sen. Rossi connects the leak towards the protests, "calls to arms" across the nation - specifically noting Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot's tweet -  and alleged threats towards the Supreme Court Justices.

 

 

lori.thumb.jpg.533c2c1fad75c77e971ee7abefdd14f9.jpg

The "Call to Arms" in question, tweeted by Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot on May the 10th.

 

Sen. Rossi also told the Daily that there are plans by the SAGOP to introduce a bill related to women's abortion rights if Roe vs. Wade were to be repealed, however he was not at liberty to say what the bill would entail.

 

The SAGOP Chairman Spence likewise refused to comment on key details to what this bill may include, telling the Daily News that it was still in it's draft. However, he did note that the bill's draft includes "bipartisan points" with the expressed goal of making it "as fair as possible to men and women across San Andreas".

 

When Sen. Rossi was questioned on his views on a woman's access to abortion clinics, he stated women should be permitted access to abortion clinics under "right and lawful circumstances".

 

The SAGOP chairman Spencer however took a more hard-line stance where he told the Daily News of his belief that abortion is "murder". Describing themselves as a Christian, they note how in the bible a child is recognized upon conception, as said in Jeremiah 1:15. and that the bible doesn't distinguish between an unborn fetus and an infant.

 

He also explained how the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 recognizes fetuses as human beings and grants them personhood in the eyes of the law.

 

Under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, if a fetus were to be killed due to an act of violence against the mother, the culprit would be charged with the death as if they killed a person.

 

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act contains provisions that specifically exclude abortions from it's rulings, where neither the mother nor the medical practitioner can be charged for choosing to abort the baby. However, if Roe vs. Wade were to be repealed, the Senate and Congress would be free to be amended the bill to remove these provisions.

  ads.png

If Roe vs. Wade is reversed, then abortion clinics will continue to be permitted to operate and provide services in Los Santos and throughout San Andreas, providing no legislation changes that. Women would also be free to seek out legal methods of abortion throughout the state.

 

If the possible repeal of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey's ruling goes through too, there would be no requirement of the state, clinics nor cities to ensure there isn't an "undue burden" in seeking abortions. This means that women, while legally having access to abortions, may find the process harder or more costly. This could be due to new laws brought forth in the senate or changes in policies at medical clinics.

 

Minority Leader Diana Jones declined to comment, saying that they will be expressing their views on the matter during the next senate hearing; it is scheduled to take place next week. They have expressed their interest in sharing their thoughts and answering questions after the hearing.

 

The Los Santos Daily News is awaiting further comments from a number of Democrat Senators who have also stated that they are interested in sharing their thoughts and beliefs with us.

 

 

Comments are enabled:

 

Username:

Comment:

 

 

ads.png

uPNOUtG.png

 

((all mother that is holy i want bbcode))


 

 

 

 
 
 
Edited by Los Santos Daily News
taggin and baggin
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment

Username: Downwiththegovt

Comment: It's funny how the GOP cares about abortion now and not then when it was and still is relevant to so many women in this state and countrywide so they blame it on some evil lefty court clerk that leaked the Roe v. Wade ignoring the actual message of it with Alito quoting men from England that said things like women are subservient to men in marriage and must *obey* everything they tell you.

 

The GOP wants you to be misinformed, they want to ban everything they do not like whilst claiming to care about the people. They do not. No politician does.

  • Applaud 1
Link to comment

Username: Raptors2k19Champions

Comment:  This wasn’t journalism; this was a Republican mouthpiece masquerading as journalism. Some of the bias is glaring.  For e.g., the mention of “alleged threats against Supreme Court justices” while failing to provide a single example, and, instead, providing Mayor Lightfoot’s tweet calling on the LGBTQ+ community to (figuratively) take up arms.  Before anyone tries, it was a figure of speech.  Mayor Lightfoot was speaking figuratively when they called for LGBTQ+ activism and voter mobilization.  Any other interpretation would be disingenuous. 

 

I’m also wondering why the SA GOP Chairman was publicly speculating about the political  identity of the leaker.  What does the political leaning  matter if the problem is the fact of the leak — or is the SA GOP manufacturing alarm, pretending to care only about the fact of the leak over the identity of the leaker? It appears from Chairman Spencer’s statement that they care more about the identity of the leaker.  

And towards what end? The usual inflammatory and insidious politicking?

 

@Downwiththegovt:  Nothing scares these “men” more than women having the capacity to determine and realizing a future without them.   The result is that they try to control that empowerment by seizing their reproductive rights and Bible-thumping.  Some, Evangelicals in particular, Bible-thump quite loudly thinking it will conceal their hypocrisy if they do it loud enough — but, sometimes, despite it all, the truth comes out with glorious and devastating effect.

 


 

 

Edited by Midsummer Night's Dream
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

Username: ProtonElectronNeutron
Comment:

Whenever liberals are presented with the statement that it will go into the trash can of history with a very black and shameful file full of attempts to redefine humanity as alienated machines/beasts and then convince everyone that they were never human to begin with, they spew out the hackneyed excuse that its intentions are as pure as the driven snow. Ironically, such screwball logic is likely to convince even more people that liberals’ desire to achieve total world domination is the chief sign that it’s a wild soi-disant do-gooder. (The second sign is that liberals feel obliged to allow federally funded research to mushroom into a barbaric, grossly inefficient system, hampered by scrofulous dorks and unholy mooks.) One can examine this from another angle and plainly see that what liberals are doing is not an innocent, recreational sort of thing. It is a criminal activity; it is an immoral activity; it is a socially destructive activity; and it is a profoundly phlegmatic activity. Even without the humorless ideology of Cæsarism in the picture, we can still say that liberals say that it possesses an innate, fixed, pure, and essential identity that makes it superior to the rest of us. If that’s the limit of their perception, acumen, and intelligence, then God help it. Unless liberals value our perspectives, it is simply wrong to conclude that we’re supposed to shut up and smile when liberals say sick, infantile things. Finally, nothing about liberals would be complete without mention of some of the thoroughly nerdy schemes that they themselves support. Although there are a plenitude of examples from which to choose, the most nerdy would have to be their proposal to create a new fundamentalism based not on religion but on an orthodoxy of racism. That’s the sort of thing that keeps me up at night.

Edited by H04X
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
  • Create New...