Roe v Wade overturned ?

[jmdrake]

I agree with that Breitbart article about the reason for Garland's not enforcing this law is because he's pro-abortion. But I don't agree with the reasoning in the part I quoted.

If a law is unconstitutional, then Garland is obligated not to enforce it. It isn't to wait until the Court decides on the law's constitutionality, and then if the Court decides to lie and call an unconstitutional law constitutional just go on and keep enforcing an unconstitutional law, which he vowed not to do in your oath of office.

This passing of the buck is typical in both the executive and legislative branches. By the reasoning of the article, legislators are also well within their rights to pass unconstitutional laws and then have the executive branch enforce those laws until they eventually get challenged in court and ruled unconstitutional (or, as often happens, ruled constitutional even if they aren't). I have heard supposedly conservative legislators use this exact line of argument to defend their refusals to promise not to vote for unconstitutional laws.

If the article were right about this reasoning, then there really would be no point in having all members of the legislative and executive branches vow to uphold the Constitution.

Very good point! In fact conservatives usually praise "constitutional sheriffs" who say up front they will not enforce mass gun confiscation if that becomes "the law."

 

[jmdrake]

Because they know that, if they did, within 24 hours, they'd be cooling their heels for the next couple of years right alongside the 6 Jan protesters in some DC political prison.

I'm not certain of that. January 6th was an aberration and it's wrong to draw too many parallels from it. I know most people here support what happened. I do not. Some protesters were indeed peaceful. Others were literally kicking in doors, smashing windows and climbing through, running after police officers who were drawing them away from congress etc. If someone were kicking in Justice Thomas door that was barred with chairs on the other side, and some antifa goon with a backpack tried to crawl through after pipe bombs had been found that day....well forgive me for not wanting to arrest the secret service agent that shot the antifa goon in the head. Yet, for some odd reason, people want a different standard for Ashlii Babbitt. Sorry. I just can't be inconsistent like that. Yes I think there are January 6th protesters that were overcharged. But there are some who definitely crossed the line.

/rant.

Now back to my original point. If you do exactly the same thing that the other side does, you protest with sides outside the homes of the justices that voted to uphold Roe v. Wade, you don't kick in doors, you don't smash windows, then they come and arrest you? Okay. You've won at that point. Seriously you have. The main tactic of the civil rights movement was to plan to get arrested for things that most thinking people would think are not valid reasons for being arrested. Then force Garland to explain why one group of protesters are being arrested and another is not for doing the exact same thing and the exact same time in the exact same jurisdiction. Someone might ask "Well what about agent provocateurs." You have them on both sides of every issue. Police your own protest. If you can't control certain bad actors then people who are peaceful should simply leave. But it's best to control the bad actors.

(I know we're both aware of that, just wanted it on the record)

[MENTION=849]jmdrake[/MENTION]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall one of the Bundy people were charged with this law, or something similar to it.

Do you recall anything like that?

I don't recall that. I know Clive Bundy himself was never arrested in 2014 but later in 2016 when he was headed to assist in another standoff he was arrested on charges from his first standoff and those charges were ultimately dismissed.

 

[devil21]

SCOTUS sure has bailed out the Democratic Party for the mid-term election. Dems had precisely -zero- to run on before but now have the biggest of red meat emotional hot buttons to run on.

Every run up to an election invariably some hot button social issue is resurrected just in time for fundraising and soap-boxing.
I'm always reminded of this scene:

 

[CaptUSA]

SCOTUS sure has bailed out the Democratic Party for the mid-term election. Dems had precisely -zero- to run on before but now have the biggest of red meat emotional hot buttons to run on.

Every run up to an election invariably some hot button social issue is resurrected just in time for fundraising and soap-boxing.

It will help with their fundraising, I'm sure. But I think it's a miscalculation to think that this is a winning issue for them. Everyone draws this line in a different place and most people are comfortable with allowing each state to set their own policies.

In any debate, the GOP candidate only has to ask the opposing candidate where they draw the line. If they draw the line at anything less than the first breath, they'll lose their base. If they do choose to take the hard stance and say it's the mother's choice until the cord is cut, they'll lose everyone else.

I think the electorate has had enough with the clown show for awhile - on all issues. The tide has turned.

 

[devil21]

It will help with their fundraising, I'm sure. But I think it's a miscalculation to think that this is a winning issue for them. Everyone draws this line in a different place and most people are comfortable with allowing each state to set their own policies.

In any debate, the GOP candidate only has to ask the opposing candidate where they draw the line. If they draw the line at anything less than the first breath, they'll lose their base. If they do choose to take the hard stance and say it's the mother's choice until the cord is cut, they'll lose everyone else.

I think the electorate has had enough with the clown show for awhile - on all issues. The tide has turned.

Not so much a winning issue, just something to run on and keep people continually divided into two camps while we're all collectively being looted and WEF'ed. Note the video I linked. It's not depicting one party or the other but rather both parties together and how they can manufacture interest/participation in an election when people are collectively overall disgusted with both parties year after year. Hope that makes sense.

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Ender]

Not so much a winning issue, just something to run on and keep people continually divided into two camps while we're all collectively being looted and WEF'ed. Note the video I linked. It's not depicting one party or the other but rather both parties together and how they can manufacture interest/participation in an election when people are collectively overall disgusted with both parties year after year. Hope that makes sense.

Perfect sense.

Plus if the Supreme Court overturns Roe & Wade, it just means that now the individual states can decide- which is what it should have been in the first place.

 

[Anti Globalist]

We all know that if the Democrats steal the midterms they'll claim that the win was legitimate because of overturning Roe v. Wade.

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[jmdrake]

SCOTUS sure has bailed out the Democratic Party for the mid-term election. Dems had precisely -zero- to run on before but now have the biggest of red meat emotional hot buttons to run on.

Every run up to an election invariably some hot button social issue is resurrected just in time for fundraising and soap-boxing.
I'm always reminded of this scene:

Wow! At 50 seconds in. "Outside the quarantine zone a new pathogen has killed 27 people." Sound familiar?

 

[jmdrake]

The irony of the ugly chick holding the "mandatory vascetomy law" sign is that:

1) The FDA for DECADES has blocked vasalgel, an easily reversible long term contraceptive for men.

https://www.revolutioncontraceptives.com/vasalgel/

https://www.parsemus.org/humanhealth/vasalgel/

https://medicaltrend.org/2021/03/11...ptive-needle-hasnt-been-approved-in-30-years/

All men have are vasectomies and condoms. And that's the way gold digger women like it. One such gold digger pulled the rapper Drake's condom out the trash and tried to seed herself with its contents only to get chemically burned because he put hot sauce in it before throwing it away.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/me...er-he-put-hot-sauce-in-used-condom/ar-AASHuIp

Oh, and the gold digger wants to sue Drake. LOL!

2) Under Roe v Wade it was still legal for liberal California to sterilize women without their knowledge or consent. So much for "my body my choice." So much for "reproductive rights."

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/wome...zation-female-inmates-without-consent-n212256

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...sterilizations-reportedly-echoes-eugenics-era

3) In California a drug addicted woman was convicted of manslaughter because she accidentally killed her fetus.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireS...rs-conviction-fetal-death-overturned-83516795

Yes the charges was later dismissed. But that shows how twisted the logic of "It's only a baby if it's wanted" is. If it's not a human being then nobody should ever be guilty of murdering it. Note the judge's twisted logic.

“There is no crime in California of manslaughter of a fetus,” Judge Valerie R. Chrissakis wrote.​

And yet in the same article:

California's murder law was amended in 1970 to include the death of a fetus. In January, Bonta issued a legal interpretation that said the change was intended to criminalize violence done to pregnant women that caused fetal death. The intent, he said, was never to include a woman’s own actions that might result in a miscarriage or stillbirth.​

So...which is it? Does the murder law cover the fetus or not? If a fetus is not a person, and cannot be murdered, then if some evil man beats a pregnant woman in the stomach with a baseball bat he should only be liable for what he did to her and not to the fetus. So he should get an aggravated assault charge and not a manslaughter or murder charge.

Or how about this? A man who tricked his pregnant girlfriend to take abortion inducing pills had to plea bargain to avoid a murder charge.

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headli...mits-secretly-giving-girlfriend-abortion-pill

If it's not a human, then why was there any murder charge on the table?

 

[Anti Federalist]

The irony of the ugly chick holding the "mandatory vascetomy law" sign is that:

1) The FDA for DECADES has blocked vasalgel, an easily reversible long term contraceptive for men.

https://www.revolutioncontraceptives.com/vasalgel/

https://www.parsemus.org/humanhealth/vasalgel/

https://medicaltrend.org/2021/03/11...ptive-needle-hasnt-been-approved-in-30-years/

All men have are vasectomies and condoms. And that's the way gold digger women like it. One such gold digger pulled the rapper Drake's condom out the trash and tried to seed herself with its contents only to get chemically burned because he put hot sauce in it before throwing it away.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/me...er-he-put-hot-sauce-in-used-condom/ar-AASHuIp

Oh, and the gold digger wants to sue Drake. LOL!

2) Under Roe v Wade it was still legal for liberal California to sterilize women without their knowledge or consent. So much for "my body my choice." So much for "reproductive rights."

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/wome...zation-female-inmates-without-consent-n212256

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...sterilizations-reportedly-echoes-eugenics-era

3) In California a drug addicted woman was convicted of manslaughter because she accidentally killed her fetus.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireS...rs-conviction-fetal-death-overturned-83516795

Yes the charges was later dismissed. But that shows how twisted the logic of "It's only a baby if it's wanted" is. If it's not a human being then nobody should ever be guilty of murdering it. Note the judge's twisted logic.

“There is no crime in California of manslaughter of a fetus,” Judge Valerie R. Chrissakis wrote.​

And yet in the same article:

California's murder law was amended in 1970 to include the death of a fetus. In January, Bonta issued a legal interpretation that said the change was intended to criminalize violence done to pregnant women that caused fetal death. The intent, he said, was never to include a woman’s own actions that might result in a miscarriage or stillbirth.​

So...which is it? Does the murder law cover the fetus or not? If a fetus is not a person, and cannot be murdered, then if some evil man beats a pregnant woman in the stomach with a baseball bat he should only be liable for what he did to her and not to the fetus. So he should get an aggravated assault charge and not a manslaughter or murder charge.

Or how about this? A man who tricked his pregnant girlfriend to take abortion inducing pills had to plea bargain to avoid a murder charge.

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headli...mits-secretly-giving-girlfriend-abortion-pill

If it's not a human, then why was there any murder charge on the table?

I owe you a rep.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Wow! At 50 seconds in. "Outside the quarantine zone a new pathogen has killed 27 people." Sound familiar?

Way too much sounds familiar...

 

[ClaytonB]

Wow! At 50 seconds in. "Outside the quarantine zone a new pathogen has killed 27 people." Sound familiar?

The response is telling, also: "Can you believe this shit?"... which is how any rational human with more than two brain cells to rub together reacts to open propaganda. It's just a naked display of raw power...

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Upon looking at the people in the picture, I conclude that those people should not have children. I support their right to abortion and am against their right to deliver live children. Are contraceptives that ineffective? I don't buy the unplanned accident theories. Are these sleazebags so incompetent that they cannot remember to take a pill? Does a diabetic forget to take insulin? I am on a once a day eye drop for glaucoma. I do not forget. Do Transgender people forget to take their hormones? How many days a month/year is a woman fertile? How many days a month are these sluts having sex? Take some responsibility for "your body" and your choice. It is "your choice" to have unprotected sex. I as a male never had children that were unintended and never had unprotected sex. I didn't want to father and or pay for children that I did not intend to have. Any male that impregnates these fleabags are at the bottom of the gene pool solidifying my stance that this world doesn't need their offspring. @jmdrake if the fetus is a life than all mothers and health care providers, or vacuum cleaner/coathanger abortionists should be tried and convicted of murder. If a fetus is not life, then abort away.

Screw Roe vs Wade. SCOTUS needs to rule on when life begins. That ruling will be very telling about SCOTUS. I call BS on leaving it up to states. Is it life or not? If it is life it is murder.

WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN? SCOTUS?

 

[jmdrake]

Upon looking at the people in the picture, I conclude that those people should not have children. I support their right to abortion and am against their right to deliver live children. Are contraceptives that ineffective? I don't buy the unplanned accident theories. Are these sleazebags so incompetent that they cannot remember to take a pill? Does a diabetic forget to take insulin? I am on a once a day eye drop for glaucoma. I do not forget. Do Transgender people forget to take their hormones? How many days a month/year is a woman fertile? How many days a month are these sluts having sex? Take some responsibility for "your body" and your choice. It is "your choice" to have unprotected sex. I as a male never had children that were unintended and never had unprotected sex. I didn't want to father and or pay for children that I did not intend to have. Any male that impregnates these fleabags are at the bottom of the gene pool solidifying my stance that this world doesn't need their offspring. @jmdrake if the fetus is a life than all mothers and health care providers, or vacuum cleaner/coathanger abortionists should be tried and convicted of murder. If a fetus is not life, then abort away.

Screw Roe vs Wade. SCOTUS needs to rule on when life begins. That ruling will be very telling about SCOTUS. I call BS on leaving it up to states. Is it life or not? If it is life it is murder.

WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN? SCOTUS?

Why are you looking to SCOTUS to answer that question? Why don't find out the answer to the question yourself? Then when you find out an answer that makes sense have discussions with people on the other side of the issue. Don't tell them the answer. Ask them the question. Dr. Kermit Gossling was convicted of murder for killing babies who survived abortion. His lawyer argued at one point that it should have not been considered murder because it wouldn't have been murder if it has been completed while the baby was still in the womb. Ask people if they agreed with his lawyer. Most people will say no. Then ask "Well should the late term abortion, one done post fetal viability, been allowed?" Some will say "If the mother and doctor agreed." Others will say no. And then ask those people when they would draw the line and why. And yes. This process takes work. Talking to strangers (or to your friends and family on hot button issues) is outside of most people's comfort zones. And you will run into people you can reason with. Ignore those people and move on. You will eventually run into someone that CAN be reasoned with. If that ONE person changes his mind about abortion you've won. This is a battle that is won one person at a time.

Now, here's where my line is. I disagree with the "life begins at conception" line. If I agreed with it then I would be against in vitro fertilization. The overwhelming majority of those embryos will never be born. I don't know what will happen to them. I don't care what will happen to them. They have no heartbeat. They have no electrical impulses going across their brain cells. At that point you have what I would call a "proto-human." At some point that changes. I now believe the change happens sometime in the first trimester. The Texas "heartbeat" bill is where I would draw the line. That's at 10 weeks. Note that the abortion pill, RU 486, only works for the first 10 weeks. Women still have to choice to abort, they just need to make that choice in a reasonable amount of time. (Ten weeks).

There are about 10,000 abortions that happen late, as in past 20 weeks. A handful of them are actually medically necessary. But many are falsely called medically necessary. The law should enumerate which medical conditions actually warrant an abortion.

See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6457018/

A more recent Guttmacher study focused on abortion after 20 weeks of gestation and similarly concluded that women seeking late-term abortions were not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. The study further concluded that late-term abortion seekers were younger and more likely to be unemployed than those seeking earlier abortions.4 It is estimated that about 1% of all abortions in the United States are performed after 20 weeks, or approximately 10 000 to 15 000 annually. Since the Roe framework essentially medicalized abortion decisions beyond the first trimester, and since abortions in the United States are now performed on demand and only rarely for medical reasons which could end the life of the mother, what can we conclude about the value and impact of medical necessity determination in the case of induced abortion? A prescient proabortion author predicted today’s events with remarkable foresight when he concluded that the “rhetoric of medical necessity” is a mistaken strategy because “it is not the empirical evidence of what is or is not medically necessary which is important,” but rather “who possesses the ability to interpret necessity within key political contexts.”5 When viewed from this perspective, it is possible to see the recent New York and Virginia legislation as a signal that politics, not science, is the most powerful influence on abortion issues and legislation.​

Note warping science to fit a political agenda happens in other areas as well. Thirty years ago I was solidly pro choice. I came to that conclusion thinking to myself about the issue when I was in elementary school. The conclusion I came to was wrong. It took a long time for me to be convinced I was wrong. Actually....TBH, my instincts were correct. I knew that at SOME point it was a baby and couldn't be justifiably killed other than to save the life of the mother. But I didn't realize how early that point is.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Why are you looking to SCOTUS to answer that question? Why don't find out the answer to the question yourself? Then when you find out an answer that makes sense have discussions with people on the other side of the issue. Don't tell them the answer. Ask them the question. Dr. Kermit Gossling was convicted of murder for killing babies who survived abortion. His lawyer argued at one point that it should have not been considered murder because it wouldn't have been murder if it has been completed while the baby was still in the womb. Ask people if they agreed with his lawyer. Most people will say no. Then ask "Well should the late term abortion, one done post fetal viability, been allowed?" Some will say "If the mother and doctor agreed." Others will say no. And then ask those people when they would draw the line and why. And yes. This process takes work. Talking to strangers (or to your friends and family on hot button issues) is outside of most people's comfort zones. And you will run into people you can reason with. Ignore those people and move on. You will eventually run into someone that CAN be reasoned with. If that ONE person changes his mind about abortion you've won. This is a battle that is won one person at a time.

Now, here's where my line is. I disagree with the "life begins at conception" line. If I agreed with it then I would be against in vitro fertilization. The overwhelming majority of those embryos will never be born. I don't know what will happen to them. I don't care what will happen to them. They have no heartbeat. They have no electrical impulses going across their brain cells. At that point you have what I would call a "proto-human." At some point that changes. I now believe the change happens sometime in the first trimester. The Texas "heartbeat" bill is where I would draw the line. That's at 10 weeks. Note that the abortion pill, RU 486, only works for the first 10 weeks. Women still have to choice to abort, they just need to make that choice in a reasonable amount of time. (Ten weeks).

Thirty years ago I was solidly pro choice. I came to that conclusion thinking to myself about the issue when I was in elementary school. The conclusion I came to was wrong. It took a long time for me to be convinced I was wrong. Actually....TBH, my instincts were correct. I knew that at SOME point it was a baby and couldn't be justifiably killed other than to save the life of the mother. But I didn't realize how early that point is.

I agree and I use a similar line of Socratic questioning: when does life end?

If we all agree life ends at the cessation of pulse, respiration and brain waves, and if any of those still exist that person is not truly "dead", then it only makes sense that is when life starts as well.

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

God is not constrained by the biological quirks of his own creation.

He knows your soul and can pick you, before any of it, including conception, happens.

 

[donnay]

Psalm 127:3
Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

 

[phill4paul]

I don't think a single one of them needs to worry about becoming impregnated.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I don't think a single one of them needs to worry about becoming impregnated.

LOL - I think the few Charlie males I see drifting around in that pic, like a runty rooster, do not even know how.