Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1228725)

Said the guy debating fetus pain tolerance on the thread about the hearings.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1228437)

She’s far more of a realist than you.

Things have changed a lot since 1973. As a practical matter, it's a lot harder now for the government to block access to abortion.

So if states want to stop abortions – and they do – they're going to have to get a lot more invasive, and a lot more draconian, to do it.

The advocates of enforced gestation have at long last succeeded in stripping away Roe's Constitutional protections – only to find themselves in a world where, even after it's been outlawed, abortion care will still be available with a quick google search and a few mouse clicks.

Over half of all abortions are already done with medication that can be sent through the mail.

So, once abortions are made illegal, but most who seek abortion care are able to receive it anyway, are states like Texas and Georgia going to simply say, "oh well, we tried"?

To combat this, states are going to have to greatly expand the reach of their abortion prohibitions and the severity of the resulting punishments.

And they will likely try new ways to detect and investigate miscarriages – because every miscarriage is now a potential illegal act.

And that’s why MAGA states are no longer safe for women. Even women who would personally never have an abortion and oppose it. 1/4 of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Women of child bearing age are at risk of being treated like criminals or accused of a criminal act.

Don’t claim it won’t, because it already has happened.

This radical court will strip the right to privacy from every American eventually.

As far as your claim that the left is coming apart, Americans are coming together to deal with this radical MAGA court.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1228727)

Jim’s forgotten that I answered him days ago, meanwhile he’s melting down because he found an editorial and watched a video.

Now the extreme MAGA court has made it so the Blackstone River can run colors again and probably hastened the end of the world by removing clean air restrictions.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1228607)

I guess this is the reason many states aren't making an exception for rape. Maybe the woman should just "lay back and enjoy it"

A Republican nominee in a closely watched House race in Virginia made bizarre and false comments about rape victims, saying in leaked audio recordings that she wouldn’t be surprised if a woman’s body prevents pregnancies from rape because “it’s not something that’s happening organically,” and that the rapist is doing it “quickly.”
In the second clip, after the unidentified woman said she heard that it is “harder for a woman to get pregnant if she’s been raped,” Ms. Vega replied: “Well maybe, because there’s so much going on in the body, I don’t know. I haven’t, haven’t, you know, seen any studies but if I’m processing what you’re saying it wouldn’t surprise me, because it’s not something that’s happening organically, right? It’s forcing it.”

After the unidentified woman said the body “shuts down,” Ms. Vega replied: “Yeah, yeah, and then the individual, the male, is doing it as quickly, it’s not like, you know, and so I can see why maybe there’s truth to that.”

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1228728)

i was talking with wdmso.

what could i possibly have to melt down over? i’ve never been sitting as pretty, politically speaking, as i am right now. The GOP is poised to steamroll in november.

i converted almost all my holdings to cash at a very fortunate time, and the markets are dropping, and this is obviously just the beginning, as consumer spending hasnt meaningfully decreased yet, but it will. When the SP500 gets down to 3500, I’ll start getting back in, and i’ll do great eventually.

i’m poised to benefit nicely ( politically and economically) from current events, i have very little to melt down over.

another scotus decision today that’s a victory for democracy. If the feds want to impose intrusive mandates, those now have to come from congress ( where obviously they should come from), not from unelected beaurocrats. The EPA doesn’t have the right to make huge policy decisions that change our lives. Congress does that

I can see the headlines, “Supreme Court hates the environment! Read all about it!!”.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1228729)

I guess another reason not to worry about rape and pregnancy - it is not forced:

N.C. (WITN) - U.S. Congressman Greg Murphy is receiving backlash for a tweet he sent and then deleted a few hours later.

The tweet read: “No one forces anyone to have sex” and was sent just days after the overturning of Roe v. Wade removed the federal protection of abortions. (he did walk back the tweet later)

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1228735)

you’ve the fanatic extremist on this issue, you think it’s ok to abort into the 9th month and for any reason. St stop going to extremely rare extremes, and spend some time discussing what happens in 90% of abortions.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1228717)

wdmso, since you refused to comment on the topic of this thread, would you comment on the chicago mayor saying at a public event, “F—- clarence thomas”?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1228737)

Free speech wow that was hard

Are SC justices special ?

But the press is the enemy of the people and Republicans cheer!

Which ones is the greatest threat to America calling Thomas a name or calling the press enemy of the people orTrump trying to steal a us election or abortion? I’ll wait
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1228740)

Hopefully you’ll be happy

A clearly angry Kagan pulling no punches: "The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it. When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the 'major questions doctrine' magically appear as get out-of-text-free cards"

These opinions will be read by historians--if we are lucky enough to have historians in the future--as the desperate warnings of good people as the country is overrun and destroyed by bad people supported by people who refuse to understand that our lot is theirs, too.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1228741)

the court was liberal for 50 years. It’s not carved in stone it must be so forever. Elections have consequences.

Why are you ok with unelected bureaucrats setting national policy? isn’t it better if elected legislators enact policy, so that we can respond at election time?

Again, you seem to have a real issue with the conceit of a representative democratic republic.

if everyone agrees with you in abortion,,it will be available in all 50 states. If not, it won’t be available in all 50 states.

I don’t think CT should have an income tax, but not nearly a majority agrees with me, so i don’t get my way. and why should i? who am i to be able to impose my beliefs on others?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1228742)

Antiabortion lawmakers want to block patients from crossing state lines

This pic sums it up ..

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1228743)

Let's be clear: the Court can talk all it like about the alleged democratic deficiency of administrative agencies (although: pot, kettle), but this is fundamentally a Congress-disempowering doctrine. It makes it nearly impossible for Congress to pass laws accomplishing its goals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1228737)

Free speech wow that was hard

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1228748)

Glad it wasn’t a tweet, different set of rules for those :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1228753)

Shocking no examples
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1228754)

you missed his point completely. you guys go berserk over trump’s tweets, you’d never dismiss any of his tweets by saying “free speech.”

He proved you’re a hypocrite.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1228755)

Yep tweets from a mayor are the same as tweets from the POTUS

The false equivalence king strikes again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1228746)

that’s not even close to being true. it empowers the legislature.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1228761)

You can regulate a pregnant body but not a coal plant. You can control the free speech of a teacher but not the money-as-speech of a corporation. You can coerce a child to pray in school but you can’t keep guns out of their classroom. What a world this Supreme Court is making.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1228763)

right, i’m
sure there are zero regulations on coal plants

there are all kinds of laws in the books that limit what folks can do with their bodies. Boils
down to, you can’t hurt someone else.

Where’s the evidence kids were pressured to pray? that would be illegal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1228775)

THIS IS THE FUTURE THAT CONSERVATIVES WANT

The Christian Republic of Texas.
The Catholic State of Missouri.
The Evangelical Commonwealth of Virginia.

This is it. This is where it's all been going, and at this pace they could have it by the end of the next SCOTUS term.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1228776)

pretty sure the Court's adherence to the Constitution would not allow that...but keep fantasizing...

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1228777)

The Supreme Court agreed to hear Moore v Harper, an appeal advocating for extreme interpretation of the Constitution that could make it easier for state legislatures to suppress the vote, draw unfair election districts, enable partisan interference in ballot counting.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1228801)

Wiman and their magic vaginas

In the aftermath of the US supreme court decision that ended the right to abortion, amid nationwide protests over the removal of women’s control over their own bodies, one Utah Republican said women could “control [their] intake of semen”.

The comment by Karianne Lisonbee, a state representative, came in response to an assertion that men should be held accountable for unwanted pregnancies, not just pregnant women, the Salt Lake Tribune reported.

“I got a text message today saying I should seek to control men’s ejaculations and not women’s pregnancies,” Lisonbee said.

She added: “I do trust women enough to control when they allow a man to ejaculate inside of them and to control that intake of semen.”

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1228803)

Am I responsible for what a Utah state senator says Paul? Did I ever claim you were? If so, are t you responsible for US Rep Hank Johnson saying Guam
might tip over if we build on it? Or for Hilary saying that her husbands victims were looney tunes narcissists? Or for biden saying republicans want to put blacks in chains?

Either we’re responsible for the lunatics in our side, or we’re not. But it applies equally to both of us.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1228804)

Let's not forget who started the thread

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1228804)

Let's not forget who started the thread