|
Quote:
on people you have never met . have no insight with their situation or more than likely will never meet ..and will impact you NEVER! And this is the problem with the anti abortion crowd this Faux suggestion it's about the unborn it's just a lie woven into their narrative so they dont look like what they are the arrogant morality police ... So then what's next for the anti abortion GOP vote getter cause More CRT more Grooming and suggestions of pedophiles making it a crime for state residents from seeking Abortions in other states or Mail ordering the day after Pill . why stop their ban blow jobs and masterbation cant have all that potential life swirling down the drains of America ! they claim it's now a states right issue they will be attacking this next ... I am certain FYI I myself or my family do not promote Abortion nor have stood in the way of others if the thought that was best for them or their family .. I guess freedom has a different meaning in my house and the 54% of americans who think row shouldn't be struck down And here's a question I have no answer for why wouldn't States actually hold a referendum vote on Abortion in their state ? if they are 100% positive that's what the people Want... |
https://i1.wp.com/i.giphy.com/media/...0ig8/giphy.gif
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
many of my beliefs in others. But i’m comfortable trying to impose my opposition to mass infanticide, onto others When you express your opinions, that’s fine. When i do it, i’m trying to impose my morals on others. Do i have that right? Your opinion on abortion, has nothing to do with whether or not roe should be overturned. All that matters, is whether or not the case was constitutionally correct. If it gets overturned it goes to the states, and THERE is where we can debate the pros and cons. Supreme court decisions aren’t guided by popularity. You don’t seem to get that. Drawing a constitutional line from the protection against unreasonable search and seizure, to abortion, is a big, questionable leap. send it to the states. Why are you afraid to let democracy play out? big moral questions should be decided by our representatives. by people who we can vote out if they get it wrong. Even if roe is overturned,,people will be able to get abortions. the logistics will surely be harder for some, but not impossible. you can start a fund to help cover the costs to help women get to the closest Planned Parenthood clinic. abortion will be in pretty good shape after this. hundreds of thousands of unborn will still be brutally dismembered every year, through zero fault of their own, so that as GS said, “moms can go on with their lives as if nothing happened.”. that should make you happy. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
WDMSO, read this. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a big believer in abortion rights, but she had criticisms of the way SCOTUS decided Roe.
Being against Roe V Wade, and being against abortion, are not the same thing. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/why...-of-roe-v-wade Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Many don’t know this.
In 2018, the Government of Ireland put a Woman’s right to abortion up for the National vote. The Catholic Church fought it for years. As a compromise the Government put forward the vote BUT only Irish citizens who were in Ireland on the day of the vote could participate in the election. Sucks right? Well at the time, many of the younger Irish folks were working in Canada, Australia, the European continent and the US. So what happened? Well they got really pissed off that they couldn’t vote at the Irish Embassy. They planned and coordinated and 1,000s of Irish citizens especially the young, flew back to Ireland from points all over the world just to vote. The referendum passed overwhelmingly and a woman’s right to an abortion was enshrined in law. Young Americans will do the same here. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
interesting side effect, is what this means for Trump. Until monday night, i had held out hope that if he runs again, that there’s was a chance someone would beat him in the primary.
Now, there may not be any chance. He did this. The social conservatives will be worshipping the guy. if they werent already, there are now. He had already established himself as probably the best friend to the unborn that had ever been in the white house. This cements that. Not saying he did it for noble reasons, he may well have only done this only to tick off liberals more. but he did it nonetheless. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Republicans won’t hold a vote in red states . Oddly the majority of theses states houses are you guessed it men .. and abortion is about votes
They fear a referendum vote on the topic so it will never been on the ballot.. And sorry Jim actually suppressing someone’s Rights isn’t just having an opinion it’s actually causing tangible harm to those who are being denied the right they held for 50 years Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
What comical is you actually think he is sincere in those believes He’s a con telling the gullible what they want to hear . And if he thinks it benefits him the louder he gets Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Not sure how any human being could possibly conclude I believe he's sincere. In the post you replied to, I specifically said: "Not saying he did it for noble reasons," So when I say that, you somehow conclude that I believe he's genuine? How? You're either not very bright, or a liar. There simply isn't a third possibility. I specifically said, in a short sentence with very small words (8 words, 5 had only 1 syllable), that I question his intentions. And you believe I said the opposite. Talking with you is a complete waste. "He’s a con telling the gullible what they want to hear" A con man makes promises, and then doesn't keep them. He delivered, he didn't just promise. Social conservatives have been asking for this for 50 years, and it took him to do it. Others promised to try, he did it. Worth noting that liberals also asked for criminal justice reform for decades, and it also took Trump to do it. Obama had huge democratic majorities in congress for his first 2 years, he could have given liberals criminal justice reform in a day if he wanted to. Trump did it for them. |
The draft ruling renews debate over minority rule in the country
I guess I am not the only one thinking this :cheers2: |
Quote:
(1) 9 un-elected appointees deciding these things, or (2) the American people getting to decide for themselves? How will abortion be banned, in states where most people want it? If most people want it, they'll elect legislators who will vote that way. That's how our country works. |
Quote:
So your now suggesting Trump made what conservatives wanted for 50 years by stealing a SCJ nomination from Obama and nominating 2 conservatives Judges who were against Row on moral grounds and their religion . not the Law . and lied in their confirmation hearing about it I love your version of America could it get any more corrupt FYI Trump’s criminal justice reform bill becomes persona non grata among GOPers With rising crime and the approaching midterms, Republicans have moved far past the First Step Act. Three-and-a-half years later, few Republicans — Trump included — seem not at all interested in talking about it. |
1 Attachment(s)
a friend posted this. interesting
|
An abortion costs about $400.
In the U.S., the average cost of a vaginal birth is $13,024, including standard predelivery and postdelivery expenses such as facility fees and doctor fees. A cesarean section (C-section) is much more expensive, costing an average of $22,646 Who do you think pays for this? if they have no insurance According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average cost of raising a child to age 18 was $233,610 as of 2015. 1 With an annual adjustment for inflation of 2.2% each year factored in, the lifetime cost of raising a child born in 2022 could be estimated at $272,049. Hard to earn a living trying to raise a child you weren't expecting and your choices were removed by people claiming they care .. then claim we are a welfare state |
Quote:
I'm "all over the map", because I'm not a thoughtless simpleton. You, like many people, think it's all or nothing. This is why you never criticize liberals, never agree with conservatives. It has to be all or nothing. I see that life isn't that simple. Trump is a disgusting human being, who nonetheless achieved some terrific policy results. And he had some dismal policy failures. Unlike you, I can judge politicians on everything they actually do, good and bad. You can only see good in liberals, can only see bad in conservatives. "your all over the map" I am actually relieved to hear you say that. yes, I'm all over the map. Because even though you won't admit this, there are good ideas and bad ideas on both sides. There are god people and bad people on both sides. It's confusing to you that I'm "all over the map". You are firmly planted on the left side of the map, with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears. It's a good thing, not a bad thing, to be all over the map. Trump gave conservatives a huge win with Roe, which conservatives wanted for decades. He also gave liberals a big win with criminal justice reform, which liberals wanted for decades. Trump (1) is a disgusting individual, who (2) did do some things to help both sides. Both of those things are true. |
Quote:
How on Earth, did Trump steal that nomination from Obama? He was a private citizen. Lord is he living rent free in your head. I agree Garland should have been given a hearing (and then rejected). Here's what you won't admit...what McConnell did, was invoke the "Biden Rule", that's actually what it was called. When Bush Sr was POTUS, Biden famously said that if Bush tried to nominate a justice, the democrat-controlled senate should stop him. Biden said it, they call it the "Biden Rule". Now, the democrats never acted on that, but Biden suggested it was appropriate. What's good for the goose... Also, the American people chose to give Senate control to Republicans at that time. They didn't do that, because they all wanted Garland to replace Scalia. Elections have consequences. "and nominating 2 conservatives Judges who were against Row on moral grounds and their religion . not the Law" So in addition to macroeconomics, you're also an expert on Constitutionjal law. There's no way you read that draft opinion. So you have no clue what their legal basis was. There are many legal scholars who believe Roe was wrongly decided. "and lied in their confirmation hearing about it " Show me video where one of them promised never to repeal Roe. They dodged a little for sure. Again, it was Ginsburg who set the precedent during her confirmation, she refused to get specific about how she'd vote on future cases. All others after her, have followed suit. Do you aver answer any of my questions? Ever? |
Quote:
And "prisoners, immigrants, the sick, the poor, widows, orphans, all get thrown under the bus for the unborn"--really? I've not seen this phenomenon. Whenever a woman gets pregnant all those groups are thrown under a bus? Wait . . . I thought this traditional pastor said the unborn "never make demands of you." Sounds like this traditional pastor is demanding that his pregnant parishioners keep pouring money into his coffers for all those groups without detracting a bit for the expense of the babies in the womb who "never make demands of you." |
Quote:
accounting. anyone can go to a catholic hospital, give birth, and pay nothing if you can’t afford it. lots of people make a good living while raising children. there’s also adoption. again, all your side ever does, is focus on the mother. the baby is the other side. can you discuss abortion from the baby’s perspective, for a sentence or two? Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Well, in that case, it's no burden asking pregnant mother to carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption. My god, man, where do you get this stuff. Do you subscribe to some low IQ lefty news service? |
Altio's draft opinion is policy masquerading as constitutional law. At critical points in the argument, Alito abandons legal analysis for pure policy preference. At other points, his argument relies on weak evidence.
The most obvious resort to policy over constitutional analysis in Alito's opinion is where he tries to assure that overturning Roe will not impact other privacy rights, like interracial marriage. Alito says abortion is different than other privacy rights because there is a fetal life involved. But that isn't a constitutional basis for distinguishing those other rights. It is not based on history & tradition or the nature of constitutional rights. Many rights have negative consequences on third parties, including most obviously the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The unwritten right to contraception can be said to have a similar third-party impact as abortion. All the other privacy rights are clearly in jeopardy, despite Alito's assurance. Contraception, interracial marriage, sexual intimacy -- none of those rights could withstand Alito's history and tradition test that looks only to the law existing before the 14th amendment. Alito also departs from standard constitutional practice by disregarding decades of precedent (over an above Roe) on due process. Obergefell, Lawrence, Harlan in Poe, early incorporation cases -- all said history is a guide but not the only basis for finding of a right. Yet Alito says that a strictly historical understanding of liberty is the settled way of doing due process analysis. In fact, that approach was explicitly rejected in Obergefell and other cases. Alito's argument about how the common law treated abortion is also remarkably weak. Nearly all the evidence that he cites shows that *pre-quickening* (about 16 weeks), abortion was not criminalized. Alito cites one source for saying that person who unlawfully kills a fetus before quickening by giving the woman an elixir would be guilty of murder if the woman dies. Note what is missing: The historical source did NOT say that the delivery of an elixir that kills the fetus would be guilty of murder. No law that Alito cites says that. Alito offers no history to support pre-quickening illegality, other than a seemingly offhand use of the word "unlawfully" by one source -- who wasn't even discussing abortion by choice. Perhaps a good decision could be written overturning Roe & Casey, one based on strictly constitutional reasoning rather than hidden policy choices. But Alito hasn't written it. His analysis gives history and tradition a bad name. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Does vaginal delivery fall within the scope of the Interstate Commerce Clause or the Welfare Clause or any other federal enumerated power in the Constitution? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
"Come for the abortions, stay for the insurance!" |
Quote:
When you willfully ignore the impact to the babies, abortion doesn't seem so bad. Which is like saying if you ignore the iceberg, the maiden voyage of the Titanic doesn't seem so bad. |
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
yep that's about right
|
Quote:
ever heard of robert bork? the american people freely chose to give senate control to republicans. America wanted a republican senate. and look up “The Biden rule”. that’s literally, exactly what McCinnell did. He enacted The Biden Rule. Why was it ok for biden to say the senate should block SCOTUS nominees late in the term of a potus in the other party? if that was ok, why was what McConnell did, wrong? Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Thanks TDF. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
but, you know what the biden rule is. What McCinnell did, literally and exactly, was to enact the Biden Rule. if it was swell for biden, please explain why it was bad for McConnell. Spence here’s a very simple question. Do you think i oppose abortion because i want to enslave women, or because I’m a racist? or because i’d prefer babies be born, to their being slaughtered by the tens of millions? Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
can any of the lefties here, please tell us where the constitution says that we the people, through our elected officials in the states, cannot regulate abortion as we wish? some will wish to restrict it, some will wish to provide it at will.
democracy will dictate this, if the draft holds. The left is appalled at the thought of democracy. It horrifies them. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
It's right there next to "filibuster," after the section where it says the Supreme Court can only have nine Justices.
Before the section that limits the House to 435 members? Or the section that prohibits DC statehood? Or the one that says a sitting President is immune from criminal prosecution? It would also be hard to find abortion in the constitution because it doesn’t mention woman at all nor anyone who wasn’t a white male as having rights so not the best document to look at for words like that. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
And are afraid it would pass .. but be sure they would disregarded it , McConnell Explains How He’ll Steal Another Supreme Court Pick From Another Democratic President The Republican signals that if his party retakes the Senate, he’ll block Biden’s high court nominees in 2024—and very probably in 2023. Yep rule of law , court precedent All forsaken for power vis the minority Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Please tell us, in a statewide election/referendum, what effect gerrymandering has? Answer - none. It makes zero difference in a statewide contest, because every vote counts the same, regardless of which district it's in. Where do you get the idea that democrats don't gerrymander? When CT lost a congressional seat a few years ago, they re-drew the one conservative district (rural) in the state, and re-defined it to include enough of Waterbury (urban) to make it reliably blue. Gerrymandering helps you win statewide contests. Honest to god... "McConnell Explains How He’ll Steal Another Supreme Court Pick From Another Democratic President" Did the democrats in the senate steal Bork's seat when they rejected him? Why is it OK for senate democrats to block a republican nominee, but "stealing" when senate republicans block a democrat nominee? The Biden Rule. If it was OK for Biden, it's OK for McConnell. What's good for the goose... |
Quote:
Look up Plessy V Ferguson. There, the SCOTUS said segregation was legal. Then, 50 years later, SCOTUS reversed that in Brown V Board of Ed. Decisions sometimes get reversed. It's not a crisis when a decision gets reversed. |
Question doses anyone honestly think that if Roe is struck down and becomes a State rights issue as suggested by those on the Right ..
That those states or the anti Abortion activists are going to stop ? And go home . They will be after a National ban next Rubio targets 'woke executives' covering travel for employees to get abortions Sen. Marco Rubio's new bill wouldn't let employers deduct travel expenses that pay for abortion or trans care for minors I guess this is how Republicans respect the privacy and freedoms of companies and their employees Freedom for me not for thee because I disagree Little Marco is appealing to you guessed the rabid MAGA base not the avg American… just like the SC Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com