Supreme Court ruling on VA disability benefits for mental health

[futureapppsy2]

Thought some posters might be interested in the George v. McDonough ruling of the Supreme Court today. This has links to the actual opinions and dissents, plus some good explainer articles: George v. McDonough - SCOTUSblog

Gist of the the case is that Kevin George enlisted in Marine Corps in 1975, did not disclose a prior history of psychotic episodes, had an episode at basic training, and was discharged for medical reasons after one week. He applied for VA disability benefits in 1975-1977, at which point the regulation relating to service connected conditions didn't extend benefits eligibility to pre-existing conditions aggravated by service (it now does). He was denied disability benefits. Once the regulation was revised to clearly include aggravated pre-existing conditions in the 2000s (maybe 2010s?--not sure), he argued that his case should be reconsidered and backpay be awarded because the previous regulation was "in clear and unmistakable error" by not including aggravated pre-existing conditions at the time. The Court ruled against him, 6-3 (but not along ideological lines, interestingly).

Thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

Thought some posters might be interested in the George v. McDonough ruling of the Supreme Court today. This has links to the actual opinions and dissents, plus some good explainer articles: George v. McDonough - SCOTUSblog

Gist of the the case is that Kevin George enlisted in Marine Corps in 1975, did not disclose a prior history of psychotic episodes, had an episode at basic training, and was discharged for medical reasons after one week. He applied for VA disability benefits in 1975-1977, at which point the regulation relating to service connected conditions didn't extend benefits eligibility to pre-existing conditions aggravated by service (it now does). He was denied disability benefits. Once the regulation was revised to clearly include aggravated pre-existing conditions in the 2000s (maybe 2010s?--not sure), he argued that his case should be reconsidered and backpay be awarded because the previous regulation was "in clear and unmistakable error" by not including aggravated pre-existing conditions at the time. The Court ruled against him, 6-3 (but not along ideological lines, interestingly).

Thoughts?

Probably a good thing in the broader scope of things. At least as of several years ago, the SC system essentially rubber stamped any and everything related to "aggravation of pre-existing" conditions regardless of what kind of evidence existed to support that claim.

 

[thebalmofhurtminds]

Probably a good thing in the broader scope of things. At least as of several years ago, the SC system essentially rubber stamped any and everything related to "aggravation of pre-existing" conditions regardless of what kind of evidence existed to support that claim.

Agreed. I wonder how much SC budget has increased in recent years. I can't imagine how funding can keep up.

 

[WisNeuro]

Agreed. I wonder how much SC budget has increased in recent years. I can't imagine how funding can keep up.

Easy, we just keep diverting funds from infrastructure, education, and other healthcare to keep funding this albatross.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Probably a good thing in the broader scope of things. At least as of several years ago, the SC system essentially rubber stamped any and everything related to "aggravation of pre-existing" conditions regardless of what kind of evidence existed to support that claim.

To be clear, this case wasn't disputing current practice regarding service-connectedness but the fact that past practice didn't explicitly include aggravated pre-existing conditions. The plantiff's argument that the original regulation was just an "error" on the part of the government seems like a weird/weak argument to me, honestly, but of course, the ruling is getting some read as the justices "treating veterans like trash."

 

[cara susanna]

Anyone able to explain in non-legalese what the rationale was for the ruling? I'm not disagreeing, of course! Just curious. I think I'm surprised some of these judges would go against the veteran.

 

[WisNeuro]

To be clear, this case wasn't disputing current practice regarding service-connectedness but the fact that past practice didn't explicitly include aggravated pre-existing conditions. The plantiff's argument that the original regulation was just an "error" on the part of the government seems like a weird/weak argument to me, honestly, but of course, the ruling is getting some read as the justices "treating veterans like trash."

True, this was a fairly narrow ruling on the "clear and unmistakable error" issue, but I imagine it will have farther implications beyond this. And, if people want to interpret it as treating vets like trash, then they can only blame Trump and McConnell seeing as who wrote the majority decision

 

[WisNeuro]

Anyone able to explain in non-legalese what the rationale was for the ruling? I'm not disagreeing, of course! Just curious. I think I'm surprised some of these judges would go against the veteran.

Justices invoke practical considerations, legislative expectations, and more in veterans’ benefits case - SCOTUSblog

The justices on Tuesday delved into a dispute that may seem abstract: How should the “clear and unmistakable error” standard apply when military veterans seek to overturn certain decisions that denied them disability benefits? But during 75 minutes of oral argument in George v. McDonough, the practi

www.scotusblog.com

This post gets at some of the issues.

 

[cara susanna]

Justices invoke practical considerations, legislative expectations, and more in veterans’ benefits case - SCOTUSblog

The justices on Tuesday delved into a dispute that may seem abstract: How should the “clear and unmistakable error” standard apply when military veterans seek to overturn certain decisions that denied them disability benefits? But during 75 minutes of oral argument in George v. McDonough, the practi

www.scotusblog.com

This post gets at some of the issues.

Honestly, even ScotusBlog makes my eye glaze over. I just asked my friend who's a lawyer and follows SCOTUS pretty closely though!

 

[R. Matey]

To be clear, this case wasn't disputing current practice regarding service-connectedness but the fact that past practice didn't explicitly include aggravated pre-existing conditions. The plantiff's argument that the original regulation was just an "error" on the part of the government seems like a weird/weak argument to me, honestly, but of course, the ruling is getting some read as the justices "treating veterans like trash."

Idk, that part seems like a case of No True Scotsman to me. However, I am curious if any alternate ruling exists in precedent where SCOTUS invokes future laws to apply to situations where the law didn't exist yet. That might be a game changer.

True, this was a fairly narrow ruling on the "clear and unmistakable error" issue, but I imagine it will have farther implications beyond this. And, if people want to interpret it as treating vets like trash, then they can only blame Trump and McConnell seeing as who wrote the majority decision

Kagan and Roberts joined and Gorsuch dissented so not exactly. That probably won't stop them though...

 

[WisNeuro]

Idk, that part seems like a case of No True Scotsman to me. However, I am curious if any alternate ruling exists in precedent where SCOTUS invokes future laws to apply to situations where the law didn't exist yet. That might be a game changer.



Kagan and Roberts joined and Gorsuch dissented so not exactly. That probably won't stop them though...

Still, it was 2 liberal justices dissenting, so 5 of the conservatives affirmed the ruling. Also, with a super majority of far right justices on the Court, any decision is purely laid down at the feet of a right leaning partisan court.

 

[cara susanna]

That's why I'm surprised - I'm not convinced that legal justification reigns over ideology with some of these judges, and I would have thought they'd be scared to look "anti-veteran."

 

[WisNeuro]

That's why I'm surprised - I'm not convinced that legal justification reigns over ideology with some of these judges, and I would have thought they'd be scared to look "anti-veteran."

Yeah, SCOTUS had issues with legitimacy for some time now, but after the Garland/Gorsuch and Barrett shams, it removed any doubt that it is indeed an illegitimate body.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Still, it was 2 liberal justices dissenting, so 5 of the conservatives affirmed the ruling. Also, with a super majority of far right justices on the Court, any decision is purely laid down at the feet of a right leaning partisan court.

After the Dobbs leak, I read through the court's decisions since the current justices have been on the bench, and I was honestly surprised by a lot of the splits--both Barrett and Kavanaugh ruled in favor of the ACA, all but one of the justices ruled in favor of the HS cheerleader's free speech rights to say "**** cheer, **** school" and not be punished, the court as a whole ruled to keep the Texas social media law injunction (and Kagan dissented, which... huh). I definitely think some of the justices have strong partisan leans--and the appointment processes for the last three were sketchy as hell--but as a body, their rulings have been much less partisan than I would have expected. The 6 conservative justices do seem to really, really love the death penalty, though.

 

[WisNeuro]

After the Dobbs leak, I read through the court's decisions since the current justices have been on the bench, and I was honestly surprised by a lot of the splits--both Barrett and Kavanaugh ruled in favor of the ACA, all but one of the justices ruled in favor of the HS cheerleader's free speech rights to say "**** cheer, **** school" and not be punished, the court as a whole ruled to keep the Texas social media law injunction (and Kagan dissented, which... huh). I definitely think some of the justices have strong partisan leans--and the appointment processes for the last three were sketchy as hell--but as a body, their rulings have been much less partisan than I would have expected. The 6 conservative justices do seem to really, really love the death penalty, though.

Just wait til Roe is overturned, and we see that Kavanaugh cares a lot less about stare decisis than he has stated in the past.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Just wait til Roe is overturned, and we see that Kavanaugh cares a lot less about stare decisis than he has stated in the past.

Oh, I have no doubt that the justices were basically picked to overrule Roe v. Wade, and that's--IMHO---tragic and horrible for, well, everyone (especially women, of course). I'm just a bit surprised that their rulings as a whole haven't been more strictly partisan, especially around the ACA and Texas social media law.

 

[R. Matey]

Still, it was 2 liberal justices dissenting, so 5 of the conservatives affirmed the ruling. Also, with a super majority of far right justices on the Court, any decision is purely laid down at the feet of a right leaning partisan court.

Oh, sure. The court has a massive PR problem right now that will only be made much, much worse when they very likely overturn Roe v. Wade and I don't pretend that muscling in three justices appointed by a hugely unpopular president has nothing to do with that. It's more than there's a greater degree of nuance there than the media circus that surrounds the court suggests--and I say that as a regular NPR listener.

 

[WisNeuro]

Oh, sure. The court has a massive PR problem right now that will only be made much, much worse when they very likely overturn Roe v. Wade and I don't pretend that muscling in three justices appointed by a hugely unpopular president has nothing to do with that. It's more than there's a greater degree of nuance there than the media circus that surrounds the court suggests--and I say that as a regular NPR listener.

I'd say that the media focus is actually subdued somewhat. It's been a very conservative court for decades. We've just been conditioned to see some reliably conservative justices (e.g., Roberts, Kennedy) as moderates because they occasionally joined liberal justices in some ruling sthat garnered a lot of attention. The issue now is that we do not only have a conservative court, we have a conservative court with several members with far right leanings and a super majority. I'm sure on some rulings of procedural issues, they'll have some split votes, but on almost anything regarding social issues, we'll see a party line vote. In that way, SCOTUS is simply the semi-permanent legislative body for the modern GOP.

 

[futureapppsy2]

on almost anything regarding social issues, we'll see a party line vote.

I've don't think we've really seen that so far, though--I mean, the ACA and the Texas social media injunction were perfect opportunities for party-line votes, but neither were. Of course, the social/medical/civil rights damage from overturning Roe may/likely be will be so great that it wipes out other moderation on the court.

 

[R. Matey]

I'd say that the media focus is actually subdued somewhat. It's been a very conservative court for decades. We've just been conditioned to see some reliably conservative justices (e.g., Roberts, Kennedy) as moderates because they occasionally joined liberal justices in some ruling sthat garnered a lot of attention. The issue now is that we do not only have a conservative court, we have a conservative court with several members with far right leanings and a super majority. I'm sure on some rulings of procedural issues, they'll have some split votes, but on almost anything regarding social issues, we'll see a party line vote. In that way, SCOTUS is simply the semi-permanent legislative body for the modern GOP.

Idk Nina Totenburg's recent reporting on the so-called in-fighting between justices actually motivated Sotomayor and Gorsuch to do a joint press release stating the contrary, something I'm told is quite rare.

 

[WisNeuro]

I've don't think we've really seen that so far, though--I mean, the ACA and the Texas social media injunction were perfect opportunities for party-line votes, but neither were. Of course, the social/medical/civil rights damage from overturning Roe may/likely be will be so great that it wipes out other moderation on the court.

I believe the ACA ruling was not actually about the ACA, but was dismissed due to an issue with standing, correct? I haven't read the social media stuff yet.

Idk Nina Totenburg's recent reporting on the so-called in-fighting between justices actually motivated Sotomayor and Gorsuch to do a joint press release stating the contrary, something I'm told is quite rare.

Though, they did not actually refute her reporting, they danced around semantics for the most part. I think the Court is very aware of it's issue with legitimacy and is very motivated to appear more legitimate than the public perceives it.

 

[R. Matey]

Though, they did not actually refute her reporting, they danced around semantics for the most part. I think the Court is very aware of it's issue with legitimacy and is very motivated to appear more legitimate than the public perceives it.

“Reporting that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask surprised us,” the statement said. “It is false. While we may sometimes disagree about the law, we are warm colleagues and friends.” (in the link above)

 

[WisNeuro]

“Reporting that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask surprised us,” the statement said. “It is false. While we may sometimes disagree about the law, we are warm colleagues and friends.” (in the link above)

NPR reporting on Supreme Court mask controversy merits clarification

An inaccurate verb choice made the reporting unclear

www.npr.org

"Totenberg's story never claimed that Sotomayor directly asked Gorsuch to wear a mask."

"No one has challenged the broader focus of Totenberg's original story, which asserts that the justices in general are not getting along well. The controversy over the anecdotal lead, which was intended to be illustrative, has overwhelmed the uncontested premise of the story."

 

[R. Matey]

NPR reporting on Supreme Court mask controversy merits clarification

An inaccurate verb choice made the reporting unclear

www.npr.org

"Totenberg's story never claimed that Sotomayor directly asked Gorsuch to wear a mask."

"No one has challenged the broader focus of Totenberg's original story, which asserts that the justices in general are not getting along well. The controversy over the anecdotal lead, which was intended to be illustrative, has overwhelmed the uncontested premise of the story."

Oh, geez. This is what I get for being pedantic. Not directly sure, but it was heavily implied:

 

[WisNeuro]

Oh, geez. This is what I get for being pedantic. Not directly sure, but it was heavily implied:

I can see how it can be read with that implication, but they are still dancing around word choice/semantics, and I do believe that the overarching issue is still unaddressed.

 

[futureapppsy2]

NPR reporting on Supreme Court mask controversy merits clarification

An inaccurate verb choice made the reporting unclear

www.npr.org

"Totenberg's story never claimed that Sotomayor directly asked Gorsuch to wear a mask."

"No one has challenged the broader focus of Totenberg's original story, which asserts that the justices in general are not getting along well. The controversy over the anecdotal lead, which was intended to be illustrative, has overwhelmed the uncontested premise of the story."

Yeah, the mask thing is old news. I definitely think the leak plus the potential/likely ruling on Dobbs plus the issue of Thomas' wife being involved in the insurrection are probably raising a lot of tensions, especially the first two.

Re: the ACA--yes, it was technically on standing, but given that the lower court had overturned the law based on the suit, if the Supreme Court had wanted to use the case as a way to finally overturn the ACA, they definitely could have and chose not to. I mean, Trump openly told them to when he nominated Barrett, and they didn't.

Re: the social media law--it's definitely highly partisan. Texas is trying to legislate that large social media companies have no right to moderate speech on their platforms, as a pretty open backlash for Twitter banning Trump, neo-nazis, etc. Granted, the current ruling is just to maintain the injunction, but that represents a high degree of belief that the suit blocking the law will succeed on its merits. Kagan dissenting here is a head-scratcher, though I've read some theories that she dissented based on disliking the shadow docket as a concept when she saw that the injunction had enough votes without her.

Not saying that this court isn't quite conservative/quite partisan--it is--just that it's been surprising that they've passed on making some rather high-profile partisan rulings that Trump and the Republicans openly asked for in so many words.

 

[R. Matey]

I can see how it can be read with that implication, but they are still dancing around word choice/semantics, and I do believe that the overarching issue is still unaddressed.

Certainly, and the court's PR feels like a small matter to me though I don't fully trust the handwringing I've seen on the left, especially as it drifts into discussions of court-packing. That said, I do think that by-in-large the conservative super majority poses a huge threat (ironically) to many people's civil liberties.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I am not too surprised that the justices picked by Trump are not doing his bidding. I think that’s a feature of lifetime appointments ensuring some seals ration of powers. In these fiercely partisan times, I do worry about the ability of our country to keep from becoming more extreme and divided, but when I see Gorsuch and Sotomayor on the same side of a decision it does give me hope. They are definitely coming from different perspectives. Maybe they’re trying to keep the whole Ginsberg and Scalia amicable working relationship model going. I am worried that we won’t be able to patch up or reconcile the divisions that the Trump era has wrought and if Roe v Wade is overturned coupled with increasing economic pressures and these deep divisions, it does worry me as to how much turmoil and subsequent hardship for the average person and especially the more vulnerable is coming.

 

[WisNeuro]

Anyone else completely not surprised at how the votes shook out on recent cases involving separation of church and state and guns?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I believe the ACA ruling was not actually about the ACA, but was dismissed due to an issue with standing, correct? I haven't read the social media stuff yet.



Though, they did not actually refute her reporting, they danced around semantics for the most part. I think the Court is very aware of it's issue with legitimacy and is very motivated to appear more legitimate than the public perceives it.

It's hard to look "more legitimate" when 5 of the 6 conservative judges were appointed after the GOP LOST the presidency....so the opposite of having the majority rule, and w. McConnell lying to everyone and going back on his word to jam the last 2 through.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Anyone else completely not surprised at how the votes shook out on recent cases involving separation of church and state and guns?

Nope, though, IMO, both are relatively narrow in scope (and the Maine case just upholds precedent on the issue of state tuition assistance programs and religious schools--not sure why the liberal meltdown about that one, tbh). However, the "historical" language in the majority decision on the gun control case is scary in terms of precedent (and I wonder if Thomas has forgotten that, if we go back to when the Constitution was written, he would have no rights--it's so hypocritical). Dobbs is going to be a huge blow to civil and medical rights and is, IMO, the most concerning, followed by the EPA case and then maybe Kennedy if they rule in his favor (if you want a church-state case to meltdown about this term, pick that one).

 

[futureapppsy2]

On another gun control-related, though not SCOTUS-related, note, I'm really surprised this passed, especially with the "boyfriend loophole" closed: Senate passes first major federal gun safety legislation in decades

 

[smalltownpsych]

It's hard to look "more legitimate" when 5 of the 6 conservative judges were appointed after the GOP LOST the presidency....so the opposite of having the majority rule, and w. McConnell lying to everyone and going back on his word to jam the last 2 through.

For a minute, I was confused by this. We have a justice McConnell? I know a lot of new ones came in over the last few years, but I thought I was keeping track. Then I realized you were talking about the senator. Now I can't remember the newest one or has she been confirmed yet. I do find it funny to talk about a politician lying and going back on his word. Reminds me of a friend who had a dramatic realization that all the addicts in her family were lying. ”Oh my god! They lie!” Very funny moment.

On the more serious note, I live in a state where there is a trigger law that will go in effect if Roe v Wade is overturned. Not sure what that will look like. I haven’t dealt with unwanted pregnancy with any of my clients for a long time. I’m sure that if this happens then I’ll soon have a client show up who happens to be a pregnant teen who is at eight weeks and can’t terminate the pregnancy legally and I’ll have a new ethical dilemma to add to the list. Always seems to work that way.

 

[WisNeuro]

Nope, though, IMO, both are relatively narrow in scope (and the Maine case just upholds precedent on the issue of state tuition assistance programs and religious schools--not sure why the liberal meltdown about that one, tbh). However, the "historical" language in the majority decision on the gun control case is scary in terms of precedent (and I wonder if Thomas has forgotten that, if we go back to when the Constitution was written, he would have no rights--it's so hypocritical). Dobbs is going to be a huge blow to civil and medical rights and is, IMO, the most concerning, followed by the EPA case and then maybe Kennedy if they rule in his favor (if you want a church-state case to meltdown about this term, pick that one).

The former, slightly narrow, though I am not a fan of any subsidy of religion using tax dollars, so this one irks me especially. The latter, I believe is much less narrow than some would lead to believe. Bottom-line, though, on consequential cases, political ideology is clearly playing a role. I can't see how anyone can look at SCOTUS and claim they are a neutral body with a straight face.

 

[PsyDr]

1) Easiest gun control ever: make the VA abide by federal NICs reporting laws. You know… the law created because a vet shot a President.

2) Does anyone know how long you have to occupy a country, until it becomes yours? Liechtenstein had that entire "rent our entire country for $70k/night" thing. Is this like one of those Air BNB scams, where you get in, claim residence?

 

[WisNeuro]

Adios Roe V. Wade. Definitely not a narrow ruling here.

 

[borne_before]

Adios Roe V. Wade. Definitely not a narrow ruling here.

God... just what this country needs - babies having more unwanted little babies. Expect a huge uptick in crime in about 14 years. I hope my daughter never loses control of her body. Thankfully, we have the means to travel for an abortion. I hope this won't affect my wife's job (she works in the field of IVF/embryology. They passed a law in Mississippi a few years ago that effectively made her a criminal because embryologists sometimes have to discard a few cells here and there.

However, this will exacerbate current polarization. I'm wondering if, as Ginsburg once opined, if the more narrow interpretation of Roe vs. Wade will ultimately serve to depoliticize the issue. Meaning that states that allow abortions will continue to, and those that won't will have that issue settled.

Are there any charities that we can donate to that will allow women seeking abortions some access to transportation and lodging aid?

 

[WisNeuro]

God... just what this country needs - babies having more unwanted little bastards. Expect a huge uptick in crime in about 14 years. I hope my daughter never loses control of her body. Thankfully, we have the means to travel for an abortion. I hope this won't affect my wife's job (she works in the field of IVF/embryology. They passed a law in Mississippi a few years ago that effectively made her a criminal because embryologists sometimes have to discard a few cells here and there.

However, this will exacerbate current polarization. I'm wondering if, as Ginsburg once opined, if the more narrow interpretation of Roe vs. Wade will ultimately serve to depoliticize the issue. Meaning that states that allow abortions will continue to, and those that won't will have that issue settled.

Are there any charities that we can donate to that will allow women seeking abortions some access to transportation and lodging aid?

There is always Planned Parenthood. My spouse actually has training in abortion care. Our state, which has abortion protections already written in law, has a PP organization that is already planning on setting up clinics closer to some of our red neighbors who already have trigger laws on the books. She is already planning on doing some extra work here and there to help. Though, now I'm more concerned about some radicalized right wingnuts targeting abortion providers in abortion safe states with violence.

 

[borne_before]

There is always Planned Parenthood. My spouse actually has training in abortion care. Our state, which has abortion protections already written in law, has a PP organization that is already planning on setting up clinics closer to some of our red neighbors who already have trigger laws on the books. She is already planning on doing some extra work here and there to help. Though, now I'm more concerned about some radicalized right wingnuts targeting abortion providers in abortion safe states with violence.

Hopefully this reversal will let some of that pressure off. You know, the "I only care about things that happen in my backyard" radical?

 

[WisNeuro]

Hopefully this reversal will let some of that pressure off. You know, the "I only care about things that happen in my backyard" radical?

Doubtful, the right has always been hypocritical about that point and states rights. Just look at the brewing legislation in the trigger law states that are also looking to criminalize going out of state for an abortion as well.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Saying it's disappointing and disheartening (even if not unexpected after the leak) is putting it lightly. I took the bit of money I received from the first COVID stimulus check and donated it all, with the largest chunk going to PP. I'll likely be making another donation in additional to my regular one soon. May throw some more money at my state psych association's professional advocacy fund as well, for good measure.

 

[MAClinician]

Hopefully this reversal will let some of that pressure off. You know, the "I only care about things that happen in my backyard" radical?

TX essentially legalized bounty hunting on people who seek abortion so I wouldn’t hold your breath on that.

 

[Shiori]

Saying it's disappointing and disheartening (even if not unexpected after the leak) is putting it lightly. I took the bit of money I received from the first COVID stimulus check and donated it all, with the largest chunk going to PP. I'll likely be making another donation in additional to my regular one soon. May throw some more money at my state psych association's professional advocacy fund as well, for good measure.

I also donated money today. I'm researching ways to get more involved locally.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Yeah, this sucks, and like I said, pretty much undoes all glimpses of moderation from the court. It will kill women, point-blank.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Doubtful, the right has always been hypocritical about that point and states rights. Just look at the brewing legislation in the trigger law states that are also looking to criminalize going out of state for an abortion as well.

Yeah, I usually think it's massively overstating things when people say this, but I legitimately think another civil war could arise from this, especially if states start banning travel.

 

[foreverbull]

I’d suggest also donating to organizations that help women in all states get access and funding for travel (across state lines), not just Planned Parenthood.

A few additional options that provide funding (including travel aid) or resources for funding locally by state:

Home - National Abortion Federation

The National Abortion Federation (NAF) is the professional association of abortion providers in North America. We believe that women should be trusted to make private medical decisions in consultation with their health care providers.

prochoice.org

National Network of Abortion Funds

abortionfunds.org

 

[foreverbull]

Adios Roe V. Wade. Definitely not a narrow ruling here.

Thomas is also targeting same-sex marriage and contraception via his opinion in the brief as the next precedents that should fall. It may be happening in the next year or two.

My wife and I started the process of getting our infant a passport, getting a will in place, and will be consulting a lawyer about legal adoption to insure that if we leave the state, one of us parents won’t be denied access to our child in an emergency. I didn’t quite envision that all of these would be among my tasks as a new parent so quickly (or at all with the adoption piece)…..but I’m not taking chances in this volatile political environment.

Sad we’ve come to this.

 

[WisNeuro]

Thomas is also targeting same-sex marriage and contraception via his opinion in the brief as the next precedents that should fall. It may be happening in the next year or two.

My wife and I started the process of getting our infant a passport, getting a will in place, and will be consulting a lawyer about legal adoption to insure that if we leave the state, one of us parents won’t be denied access to our child in an emergency. I didn’t quite envision that all of these would be among my tasks as a new parent so quickly (or at all with the adoption piece)…..but I’m not taking chances in this volatile political environment.

Sad we’ve come to this.

Yeah, I was a bit surprised at the defense of the court in this thread. People are definitely underestimating just how radically right leaning this court is, and how important stare decisis was as an institution within the court. Particularly now that the concept has been dragged out and stomped to death.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Easy, we just keep diverting funds from infrastructure, education, and other healthcare to keep funding this albatross.

I hate that we can’t say this too loudly lest we be stoned and banished from the village in tattered clothing

 

[futureapppsy2]

Thomas is also targeting same-sex marriage and contraception via his opinion in the brief as the next precedents that should fall. It may be happening in the next year or two.

My wife and I started the process of getting our infant a passport, getting a will in place, and will be consulting a lawyer about legal adoption to insure that if we leave the state, one of us parents won’t be denied access to our child in an emergency. I didn’t quite envision that all of these would be among my tasks as a new parent so quickly (or at all with the adoption piece)…..but I’m not taking chances in this volatile political environment.

Sad we’ve come to this.

Yep, I was planning on moving to the West Coast/Hawaii this summer after my tenure goes through, but those plans will likely be sped up significantly. Also looking at immigration options, though having a disability complicates that.