Roe V Wade has been overturned.

floridafan said:
Do you recall the bill which may be passed in MO, where any woman who goes out of state for an abortion will face severe consequences in MO.
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard that. I question its constitutionality assuming abortion is legal in the state she got the procedure. States have generally avoided punishing the mother.

Some TX legislators are talking about punishing Amazon and the other company(ies) that said they will help. That does not fit the Texas business friendly atmosphere reputation since several high tech and other companies have just announced plans to move some of their operations to TX--Caterpillar, Hewlett Packard, Tesla, Oracle....
 
Stringfellow Hawk said:
It was a good call, MG has proven himself to be a piece of shit under Biden with low integrity and principles
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Garland was considered a moderate and a centrist, and he had more federal judicial experience than any other Supreme Court nominee in history. Repugs loved him before they lost their marbles and hated him.

"After winning the November 1996 presidential election, Clinton renominated Garland on January 7, 1997.[SUP][35][/SUP] Garland's confirmation vote came to the floor of the Republican-controlled Senate on March 19, 1997. He was confirmed in a 76–23 vote and received his judicial commission the next day.[SUP][36][/SUP] The majority of Republican senators voted to confirm Garland, including Senators John McCain, Orrin Hatch, Susan Collins, and Jim Inhofe."[SUP][37]

We will never know what kind of justice Garland would have been because repugs denied him a hearing, for strictly partisan reasons. McConnell blatantly abused constitutional norms. He's a p.o.s.[/SUP]
 
Earl said:
There was never a Constitutional right to abortion.

The S. C. just said so.

Tape that to your forehead.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Constitutions don't give rights. That is not their purpose. The purpose of a constitution is to define and declare a government and to give it certain limited powers, each specifically described in that constitution. That government simply has no other powers or authority.

For example, the right of self defense is inherent. No constitution is needed for that right to exist. It exists no matter how oppressive a government is. Our constitution contains a specific clause that forbids the federal or State governments from messing with this right.

Certainly murdering one's own offspring is not a right of any kind. It's murder. It's a criminal act. Doing it for the sake of convenience is literally killing for the sake of convenience. Murder. Premeditated. Planned. Intentional. 1st degree murder.

The only exceptions would be killing to protect yourself from the results of a criminal act (such as rape), or to protect yourself from death, should the choice come down to saving the child or saving the mother. These exceptions are both part of the inherent right of self defense.
 
LurchAddams said:
You will never know the pleasure of a woman's touch.

Meanwhile, I still have the scent of the one I was with on me from last night.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Are you THAT desperate in need of a women's company?????!? The only 'women' YOU were with last night requires a tire pump.
 
dukkha said:
But abortion in demand or even the "right to abortion" is simply not a constitutional right
It was torturous to use the 4th -about papers and effects, and government needing search warrants to seize them as somehow an inherent right to an abortion.

Im a libertarian, and I hate the constant undermining of individual sovereignty.
("my body my choice" on ALL matters is how I look at it) but the same LW goons that are constantly imposing fed regulations by commecre clause or bureaucratic over-reach
got their bad karma back at them
Click to expand...

I consider it a natural right for all people, not only women, to have control over their own bodies. And I don't consider it legal or constitutional to put an extra burden on women re: choices they make. I can't think of any similar burden put on men about their reproductive choices.
 
christiefan915 said:
^ Get this master of logic using hyperbole to make a point. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So over 625,000 abortions a year and statistically half of those are females. So you want the right to destroy the lives of over 300,000 females a year. It is probably better to be more responsible and use effective birth control.
 
ExpressLane said:
So over 625,000 abortions a year and statistically half of those are females. So you want the right to destroy the lives of over 300,000 females a year. It is probably better to be more responsible and use effective birth control.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: That's what I've been saying about men and women both.
 
Earl said:
It appears that the far left Democrat Socialist loons do not want to protect conservative Supreme Court Justices.

Perhaps there should be no prosecution of protestors at liberal justices’ homes.

Fair is fair.
Click to expand...

Protected speech. First Amendment, baby.
 
TOP said:
They're planning on it here.. the local fire starter forgot she was on probation so her protest didn't last long...;)
Click to expand...

Out here like in Seattle and Portland the police departments (and at least Seattle the fire department as well) have been decimated, and the state officials will refuse to call in the national guard almost certainly.....there almost nothing to stop the "BURN IT ALL DOWN!" faction
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top