Probable overturning of Roe v Wade

OUBubba said:
[lobs grenade]They should start by looking at all of the justices who perjured themselves during the appointment process.[/lobs grenade]
Click to expand...
There was no perjury committed.

Judges do not MAKE laws. They interpret the law using the Constitution as the guiding principle. New cases can sometimes give cause to re-evaluation of prior holdings.

Sadly, this reality is lost on far too many people. Just as laws are crafted to try and get around prior court holdings, some appeals are keyed towards finding some crack in an earlier holding that gives rise to a new look at an old issue. This is NOT unique to abortion.
 
OUBubba said:
Protesting outside of someone's home is protesting outside of someone's home. I could argue that a public servant has an expectation of "the public" wanting to have input in their daily activities and a clerk at a women's health clinic might have a presumption of some level of anonymity from "the public".
Click to expand...
A public official has the same right to keeping riff-raff out of their yard and non-office settings as a non-public individual. If these numb-nuts pulled this crap on a neighbor, I can assure you that it may be a good day to check the aim on the sprinkler system...for some reason, it can occasionally fire into the street.

I might even decide it was a good day to crank up the mosquito foggers or perhaps even set off some old M-80 sized smoke bombs with the water-proof fuses.

YOUR right to protest does NOT carry over into your right to disrupt my quiet home life.
 
bystander said:
It's bad. She's a liar and is now going to MSNBC. She is the epitome of Liberalism. DIsgustingly sanctimonious and dishonest.
Click to expand...
And the new one is even worse...to the extent of having supported the claims of prior elections being...umm...*checks notes* stolen because the Demonrat did not win.
 
mchammer said:
Click to expand...


"to protect a person's ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy"

Uh, might they want to add "within said person's own body"?

Otherwise, couldn't a dude use that law (if it made it into law) to force his baby momma into a decision? Or the obvious - change it to "protect a woman's ability to determine whether to continue or end her pregnancy"...
 
mb227 said:
A public official has the same right to keeping riff-raff out of their yard and non-office settings as a non-public individual. If these numb-nuts pulled this crap on a neighbor, I can assure you that it may be a good day to check the aim on the sprinkler system...for some reason, it can occasionally fire into the street.

I might even decide it was a good day to crank up the mosquito foggers or perhaps even set off some old M-80 sized smoke bombs with the water-proof fuses.

YOUR right to protest does NOT carry over into your right to disrupt my quiet home life.
Click to expand...

Maybe they should move to Texas... people don't congregate much on lawns out in the country down here unless it's a party and you were invited.
 
You want to read something from ground zero Liberal land (Hypercrites.com)? I once posted with these nuts but I couldn't take it anymore. They are as vile and arrogant as it gets. And they are Liberals. Real Liberals.

upload_2022-5-11_16-35-40.png
 
bystander said:
You want to read something from ground zero Liberal land (Hypercrites.com)? I once posted with these nuts but I couldn't take it anymore. They are as vile and arrogant as it gets. And they are Liberals. Real Liberals.

upload_2022-5-11_16-35-40.png
Click to expand...
It’s murder if you kill a fetus in a mother’s womb. Her whole argument falls apart when you know that.
 
So embarrassing. Isn’t men forcing women to have abortion the epitome of handmaid’s tale?

 
mchammer said:
Click to expand...


They just can't help but virtue signal even when writing legislation.

Frankly, this bill makes no strategic sense at all especially in an election year. They didn't just vote to codify Roe. They voted to nationally eliminate every abortion restriction putting them to the left of virtually every nation on earth on the issue. That's why pro-choicers like Sue Collins and Lisa Murkowski voted No. Every Democrat but Manchin signed onto not only being generally pro-choice but wildly radical on the issue, and there's no turning back or leaving room to moderate. They didn't have the votes to pass it, and it would have had zero chance of holding up in court.

So they embraced partial-birth abortion and children getting abortions without parental notification or consent needlessly in an election year. Are places like New Hampshire, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and other competitive states with senate races really that radical? I doubt it. Pretty dumb move.
 
I'm just going to say it:

1) Don't F with contraceptives. That is a death spiral for Republicans and it's just stupid to even discuss banning them.
2) Maybe the federal law (a new Roe v Wade of sorts) that legalizes it up to 20 weeks or so (I'm negotiable on that) and after that, the life of the woman must be at complete risk to extend it (of course, many Doctors will game this).

I just can't see a complete ban on abortion.

I'd like to ban these vile women who act like an abortion is a moral act. It's not that hard to not get pregnant. If you get drunk and F it up then why is it my problem? Why do I have to contribute my taxes to it?
 
Last edited:
bystander said:
I'm just going to say it:

1) Don't F with contraceptives. That is a death spiral for Republicans and it's just stupid to even discuss banning them.
2) Maybe the federal law (a new Roe v Wade of sorts) that legalizes it up to 20 weeks or so (I'm negotiable on that) and after that, the life of the woman must be at complete risk to extend it (of course, many Doctors will game this).

I just can't see a complete ban on abortion.

I'd like to ban these vile women who act like an abortion is a moral act. It's not that hard to not get pregnant. If you get drunk and F it up then why is it my problem? Why do I have to contribute my taxes to it?
Click to expand...
I have good news for you. The Hatch Act makes it a federal crime to spend tax dollars on abortion. States like ok and Texas have similar provisions, I do believe.
 
OUBubba said:
I have good news for you. The Hatch Act makes it a federal crime to spend tax dollars on abortion. States like ok and Texas have similar provisions, I do believe.
Click to expand...

Good. Is Planned Parenthood funded by the federal government?

I appreciate your knowledge on the facts. I hear a lot of noise about funding for poor women so I know it's batted around a lot.
 
bystander said:
Good. Is Planned Parenthood funded by the federal government?

I appreciate your knowledge on the facts. I hear a lot of noise about funding for poor women so I know it's batted around a lot.
Click to expand...
Good question. They may get funds through billing for medical services (paps, womens general health, etc.).
 
At least you don’t hear much anymore that Garland should be on the SCOTUS, just that McConnell stole a seat.
 
bystander said:
Good. Is Planned Parenthood funded by the federal government?

I appreciate your knowledge on the facts. I hear a lot of noise about funding for poor women so I know it's batted around a lot.
Click to expand...
Planned Deathhood relies heavily on government funding. They play accounting games so they can claim no government dollars go to abortions, but we all know money is fungible and these claims are flimsily supported at best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top