International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359834)

catsmate 25th June 2022 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13840727)
Oh, you’re expecting consistency with no hypocrisy?

Not from Republicans and the God botherers.

ChrisBFRPKY 25th June 2022 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig4 (Post 13841027)
The blame goes to a president who was a filthy Russian whore and its supporters who are nothing more the neglected dogs vying to be first in line to hump the leg of an indifferent master.

And it gets better! Kentucky had a trigger law set up so the moment the Supreme Court overturned Roe Vs Wade, abortion was banned in Kentucky.
Presto! Now you see it, now you don't!

I must say this is about the only "trigger law" I feel comfortable with. Great day for unborn children of the United States of America!

No more population control and systematic genocide of Minorities!

Leumas 25th June 2022 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY (Post 13841084)
Great day for unborn children of the United States of America!

HAHAHA.... unless they will need healthcare or an education or to earn a living.

lionking 25th June 2022 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY (Post 13841084)
And it gets better! Kentucky had a trigger law set up so the moment the Supreme Court overturned Roe Vs Wade, abortion was banned in Kentucky.
Presto! Now you see it, now you don't!

I must say this is about the only "trigger law" I feel comfortable with. Great day for unborn children of the United States of America!

No more population control and systematic genocide of Minorities!

You know, of course, that abortion will not reduce? the only thing which will reduce is safe abortions.

Parsman 25th June 2022 02:04 AM

For the terminally hard of thinking, yet again, when a foetus is aborted it is not a child, not a viable human being. As said above I'm glad that so far I live in a civilized western European nation and not the trash heap that is modern USA

ChrisBFRPKY 25th June 2022 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 13841094)
You know, of course, that abortion will not reduce? the only thing which will reduce is safe abortions.

Since it's now a state issue, there will still be many states where abortion will remain legal for those that choose abortion. I noticed California intends to be an abortion friendly state. Lots of minorities to stamp out.

ChrisBFRPKY 25th June 2022 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parsman (Post 13841100)
For the terminally hard of thinking, yet again, when a foetus is aborted it is not a child, not a viable human being. As said above I'm glad that so far I live in a civilized western European nation and not the trash heap that is modern USA

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.

Unborn "victim"?

Victim: a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action

Seems to me the law recognizes the unborn as a "person".

Upchurch 25th June 2022 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leumas (Post 13841000)
Actually I blame the democrats who have had many opportunities to make it law and failed to do it.

“I mean, did you see what she was wearing?”

Crazy Chainsaw 25th June 2022 04:30 AM

It's OK now you van get what you need to preform an Abortion at an auto parts store.

GaughEyad 25th June 2022 04:49 AM

Sad, sad day indeed.

All rights not directly stated verbatim in the constitution or amendments are now up for grabs. So... pretty much the constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on any longer. The confederates finally got what they wanted. They destroyed the union. They're really not going to like the eventual and inevitable outcome but what can you do. Spoiled children throwing temper tantrums never want to listen to reason.

Of course, the only bright side of this situation is that states can now outright ban guns. Remember, "gun" isn't written anywhere in the constitution or any of the amendments so they're now up for grabs as well. Let the Supreme Court throw its whole weight behind blocking any such laws and then we'll get to watch them slide into irrelevancy when the states tell them to try and stop them. After all, they're the ones that made up these new rules from whole cloth in the first place. It's going to be an ugly ride but I'll love watching Republicans having to deal with their own hypocrisy thrown right back into their faces.

California appears to be the only state that might actually do such a thing and I really do hope that they do. The governor here seems to be one of the only high ranking Democrats actually speaking out against all this Republican insanity. He hasn't actually done anything yet though, which is rather annoying to say the least.

C'mon! Let's get this **** show on the road already!

Remember, Rome wasn't sacked in a day!

lionking 25th June 2022 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GaughEyad (Post 13841232)
Sad, sad day indeed.

All rights not directly stated verbatim in the constitution or amendments are now up for grabs. So... pretty much the constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on any longer. The confederates finally got what they wanted. They destroyed the union. They're really not going to like the eventual and inevitable outcome but what can you do. Spoiled children throwing temper tantrums never want to listen to reason.

Of course, the only bright side of this situation is that states can now outright ban guns. Remember, "gun" isn't written anywhere in the constitution or any of the amendments so they're now up for grabs as well. Let the Supreme Court throw its whole weight behind blocking any such laws and then we'll get to watch them slide into irrelevancy when the states tell them to try and stop them. After all, they're the ones that made up these new rules from whole cloth in the first place. It's going to be an ugly ride but I'll love watching Republicans having to deal with their own hypocrisy thrown right back into their faces.

California appears to be the only state that might actually do such a thing and I really do hope that they do. The governor here seems to be one of the only high ranking Democrats actually speaking out against all this Republican insanity. He hasn't actually done anything yet though, which is rather annoying to say the least.

C'mon! Let's get this **** show on the road already!

Remember, Rome wasn't sacked in a day!

Hey GaughEyad, post more often. We need people like you on the forum, whether people like your opinion or not.

Beelzebuddy 25th June 2022 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13841215)
“I mean, did you see what she was wearing?”

He's got a point, though. Abortion rights are only a Democrat issue by default, because the other side has wanted so badly to outlaw it. As a party they aren't actually pro-choice. They've used abortion rights for campaign purposes, but have shied away from taking concrete steps to protect those rights, and they're always the first on the chopping block when compromise comes around.

Case in point: the day after the decision was leaked a few weeks ago, Nancy Pelosi and a couple of other prominent Democrats were due to fly out to Texas to campaign for Henry Cuellar, a conservative, rabidly anti-choice blue dog Democrat incumbent. With their help, he beat his progressive, pro-choice primary challenger by less than three hundred votes. They could have canceled their trip to support someone who is currently applauding this SCOTUS decision, for the optics if nothing else. They did not. That is how little abortion rights actually mean to them.

Delphic Oracle 25th June 2022 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy (Post 13841262)
He's got a point, though. Abortion rights are only a Democrat issue by default, because the other side has wanted so badly to outlaw it. As a party they aren't actually pro-choice. They've used abortion rights for campaign purposes, but have shied away from taking concrete steps to protect those rights, and they're always the first on the chopping block when compromise comes around.



Case in point: the day after the decision was leaked a few weeks ago, Nancy Pelosi and a couple of other prominent Democrats were due to fly out to Texas to campaign for Henry Cuellar, a conservative, rabidly anti-choice blue dog Democrat incumbent. With their help, he beat his progressive, pro-choice primary challenger by less than three hundred votes. They could have canceled their trip to support someone who is currently applauding this SCOTUS decision, for the optics if nothing else. They did not. That is how little abortion rights actually mean to them.

And on the very day of the decision, even as a swarm of protestors was descending on SCOTUS, they gathered to celebrate passage of a marginally effective gun control bill that will probably get slapped down by that same court anyways.

They sang "God Bless America" together.

My understanding is they were gathered on the steps on the east facing side of the capitol. The protest was happening in their field of few not a few hundred yards away.

Olmstead 25th June 2022 06:35 AM

Now we know the truth, there was more than one Reagan Youth.

Horatius 25th June 2022 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13840764)
How exactly do they do that?


They're the Supreme Court, and are dominated by people who really don't give a crap about the law. They'll make the ruling they want to make, and won't care that any legal reasoning behind the decision is nonsensical*.

And once that ruling is made, there is no one else in the US who can unmake it. You're stuck with it until you (somehow) completely change the makeup of the court.


*For example:

Quote:

Kavanaugh, in dissent, viewed the case through a different lens. Whereas Roberts began by noting that COVID-19 has “killed thousands of people in California and more than 100,000 nationwide,” Kavanaugh crafted a narrative of invidious religious discrimination. His dissent reads like a brief by the church, not a judicial opinion. Kavanaugh alleged that Newsom’s order “indisputably discriminates against religion” in violation of the free exercise clause. For support, the justice insisted that “comparable secular businesses,” like grocery stores and pharmacies, “are not subject” to the same restrictions imposed on churches. California must have a “compelling justification” for this disparate treatment, and he saw none.
Justice Beer Bong's "analysis" here just utterly ignores the facts of the case, and the justifications for treating churches differently from grocery stores, and essentially made the legal argument, "Nuh-un! I'm ruling the way I wanna rule!" He lost that time, but this is what you're going to see more of.

Parsman 25th June 2022 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY (Post 13841113)
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.

Unborn "victim"?

Victim: a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action

Seems to me the law recognizes the unborn as a "person".

The fact that your Christian Taliban says so doesn't change the science - a foetus is not a human being and only the religious right in their zeal ever try to pretend that it is. Of course once it is born and becomes a human being, the right don't want to help them anyway.

Leumas 25th June 2022 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13841215)
“I mean, did you see what she was wearing?”


Whaaat??:eek::confused::eye-poppi

What does that mean or even come close to having anything to do with the subject at hand???

cosmicaug 25th June 2022 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 13841073)
And Ron de Santis:

"The prayers of millions have been answered," DeSantis said in a statement posted on Twitter. "For nearly fifty years, the U.S. Supreme Court has prohibited virtually any meaningful pro-life protection, but this was not grounded in the text, history or structure of the Constitution."

He said Florida "will work to expand pro-life protections"

Expected to win the nomination now.

There's starting to be a lot of talk about that. It's not going to happen as long as Trump lives. Regardless of what the GOP establishment may wish, they are up against a personality cult and that's something that they are not going to break. De Santis can't even hope for a VP slot (with the potential of allowing him to become the power behind the feeble minded throne) because, if he runs a serious primary campaign against Trump, he'll eventually offend Trump and Trump will always hold a grudge against anyone he perceives as not being 100% loyal to the man.

In any case, this is not a Trump problem. This is a GOP rot problem. Any GOP candidate right now (and De Santis in particular) means the end of democracy in the USA. The goal of today's GOP is to retain power at all costs as a minority ruling party. Trump's example has shown them the way forward and they have no scruples in following through (now that they understand what is possible).

cosmicaug 25th June 2022 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 13841094)
You know, of course, that abortion will not reduce? the only thing which will reduce is safe abortions.

Nasty whores (that is, women a.k.a baby incubators) will be punished with babies. That's all that matters. Amirite, ChrisBFRPKY?

cosmicaug 25th June 2022 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GaughEyad (Post 13841232)
Of course, the only bright side of this situation is that states can now outright ban guns. Remember, "gun" isn't written anywhere in the constitution or any of the amendments so they're now up for grabs as well.

You must have missed the part about how one of the rulings from SCOTUS the very day before Dobbs dropped was about how states can regulate concealed carry. The TLDR; is that your premise of firearm regulation being turned into strictly a state concern is false. Also, any and all regulations at the state level in all 50 states are probably going to get tied up in the courts pretty much in perpetuity to figure out what is and what isn't constitutional.

Leumas 25th June 2022 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy (Post 13841262)
He's got a point, though. Abortion rights are only a Democrat issue by default, because the other side has wanted so badly to outlaw it. As a party they aren't actually pro-choice. They've used abortion rights for campaign purposes, but have shied away from taking concrete steps to protect those rights, and they're always the first on the chopping block when compromise comes around.

Case in point: the day after the decision was leaked a few weeks ago, Nancy Pelosi and a couple of other prominent Democrats were due to fly out to Texas to campaign for Henry Cuellar, a conservative, rabidly anti-choice blue dog Democrat incumbent. With their help, he beat his progressive, pro-choice primary challenger by less than three hundred votes. They could have canceled their trip to support someone who is currently applauding this SCOTUS decision, for the optics if nothing else. They did not. That is how little abortion rights actually mean to them.

On the news yesterday every single one of those "dems" used the tragedy to peddle and hawk for votes.... and what they do not tell you is that many of the very same people who are now the "dems" have had numerous opportunities in the past to make women's rights to decide their life trajectories into law... yet they never even tried... and that despite them being very cognizant of the relentless concerted organized insidious plot to stack the court of clowns in black robes with agents who will sabotage that human right and more to come.

cosmicaug 25th June 2022 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy (Post 13841262)
They could have canceled their trip to support someone who is currently applauding this SCOTUS decision, for the optics if nothing else. They did not. That is how little abortion rights actually mean to them.

This is radical centrism in action. The justification is that they want to be seen as the center so and therefore they don't want to back some "leftist" who may not appeal to some hypothetical moderate Republican voter who might be turned. Never mind that, when faced with the choice of voting for a Republican running as a Republican or a Republican running as a Democrat, those who may have been somewhat inclined to vote for a Republican running as a Democrat will be happier voting for the real thing every single time.

This strategy appeared to work during the Bill Clinton times and now it is the only electoral strategy they know. Ultimately, this is how Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at the national level even when they should have the numbers (it's been the case for 2 decades now).

Leumas 25th June 2022 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GaughEyad (Post 13841232)
Sad, sad day indeed.

All rights not directly stated verbatim in the constitution or amendments are now up for grabs. So... pretty much the constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on any longer. The confederates finally got what they wanted. They destroyed the union. They're really not going to like the eventual and inevitable outcome but what can you do. Spoiled children throwing temper tantrums never want to listen to reason.

Of course, the only bright side of this situation is that states can now outright ban guns. Remember, "gun" isn't written anywhere in the constitution or any of the amendments so they're now up for grabs as well. Let the Supreme Court throw its whole weight behind blocking any such laws and then we'll get to watch them slide into irrelevancy when the states tell them to try and stop them. After all, they're the ones that made up these new rules from whole cloth in the first place. It's going to be an ugly ride but I'll love watching Republicans having to deal with their own hypocrisy thrown right back into their faces.

California appears to be the only state that might actually do such a thing and I really do hope that they do. The governor here seems to be one of the only high ranking Democrats actually speaking out against all this Republican insanity. He hasn't actually done anything yet though, which is rather annoying to say the least.

C'mon! Let's get this **** show on the road already!

Remember, Rome wasn't sacked in a day!

I very much doubt that the corporate tools dems will ever in fact do that... they all serve the same master after all.... it is all a WWE show.

shuttlt 25th June 2022 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leumas (Post 13841001)
Actually ... not in America... they get what the Electoral College and gerrymandering chicanery gives them.

Edit to add: and of course the SCOTUS itself when they decide who is president.

In what sense doesn't it deserve those things? Every system is based on an elite group ruling. The founding fathers wrote about this. If you rely on passively voting, you get a choice between two flavours of whatever the non-passive, organised people decide you are going to get to choose between.

shuttlt 25th June 2022 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leumas (Post 13841339)
I very much doubt that the corporate tools dems will ever in fact do that... they all serve the same master after all.... it is all a WWE show.

Kayfabe all the way down.

cosmicaug 25th June 2022 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parsman (Post 13841312)
The fact that your Christian Taliban says so doesn't change the science - a foetus is not a human being and only the religious right in their zeal ever try to pretend that it is. Of course once it is born and becomes a human being, the right don't want to help them anyway.

Facts don't matter.

SCOTUS could potentially seize on such a piece of legislation & make the claim that it has legislated fetal personhood. If they do so, the claim that they are obligated (strictly as perfectly fair and impartial judicial actors, of course) to apply constitutional protections to anything from a zygote onward may follow. After that, it's a matter of picking your rights based justification to declare that allowing abortion anywhere in the country is unconstitutional (from 14th Amendment equal protection to 2nd Amendment not being born prevents persons from bearing arms —the specifics don't really matter & they can be all of the above).

cosmicaug 25th June 2022 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 13841037)
Which may be why NARAL was tweeting out that you are not a feminist if you don't support trans-rights. After the news was announced that Roe v. Wade was being overturned, when even a moron would realize that they needed every ally they could get?

What the **** do you even mean?

crescent 25th June 2022 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leumas (Post 13841330)

On the news yesterday every single one of those "dems" used the tragedy to peddle and hawk for votes.... and what they do not tell you is that many of the very same people who are now the "dems" have had numerous opportunities in the past to make women's rights to decide their life trajectories into law... yet they never even tried... and that despite them being very cognizant of the relentless concerted organized insidious plot to stack the court of clowns in black robes with agents who will sabotage that human right and more to come.

I agree. The legal justification for not banning abortion in the U.S. and the basis for the Roe v Wade decision was the right to privacy. Not reproductive freedom, bodily autonomy, nothing like that.

And that always seemed a thin twig to perch upon. The ERA languishes and there have been no serious attempts to reboot that effort. Dems could have pushed for legislation codifying the right to an abortion as federal law and used the supremacy clause to force states to allow abortions. But the have not made any serious effort in that regard for some time.

ZiprHead 25th June 2022 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY (Post 13841007)
Thanks Craig! I love cartoons! Though the credit for this decision likely goes to the best President we've ever had, President Donald J. Trump. Nothing Biden can do to placate his supporters now but attempt to stack the Supreme Court.
The popcorn is ready! (that's popcorn, not Biden's buddy Cornpop.)

You should get that looked at by a medical professional. It could get infected.

ZiprHead 25th June 2022 10:17 AM

The Dobbs v. Jackson Decision, Annotated

Notable in the above decision is it relies almost fully on historical references to state regulations during a time in our history where women had no right to vote, let alone sit on government seats.

Leumas 25th June 2022 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13841342)
In what sense doesn't it deserve those things? Every system is based on an elite group ruling. The founding fathers wrote about this. If you rely on passively voting, you get a choice between two flavours of whatever the non-passive, organised people decide you are going to get to choose between.

In a way you are right... but... G.W. Bush won by the supreme court of partisans ruling despite losing the majority votes of the people.... and Trump won by the electoral college ruse despite loosing the majority votes of the people.

Also the number of senators being set to two per state is an abject atrocity of undemocratic representation... since some states with a handful of people get two senatorial votes out of 100 while ones with millions of people get the same.

And the gerrymandering chicanery is making sure that despite the majority votes for one party the minority party still gets more congress representatives than the one with the majority of votes.

So the people of the USA are cheated out of their votes all the time.

And that is on the federal level... on the state level there is even more shenanigans that take place... like voting booths not being available in certain areas and striking out piles of votes by some guy deciding to do so... etc. etc.

It is a Banana Republic in many ways.

Leumas 25th June 2022 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZiprHead (Post 13841403)
The Dobbs v. Jackson Decision, Annotated

Notable in the above decision is it relies almost fully on historical references to state regulations during a time in our history where women had no right to vote, let alone sit on government seats.

I think that is exactly what they mean by chanting "make America great again"... and not just about women's emancipation.

What always make me ponder... is how can there be any (sane) women republicans... let alone the other groups.

cosmicaug 25th June 2022 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leumas (Post 13841440)
In a way you are right... but... G.W. Bush won by the supreme court of partisans ruling despite losing the majority votes of the people.... and Trump won by the electoral college ruse despite loosing the majority votes of the people.

Also the number of senators being set to two per state is an abject atrocity of undemocratic representation... since some states with a handful of people get two senatorial votes out of 100 while ones with millions of people get the same.

And the gerrymandering chicanery is making sure that despite the majority votes for one party the minority party still gets more congress representatives than the one with the majority of votes.

So the people of the USA are cheated out of their votes all the time.

And that is on the federal level... on the state level there is even more shenanigans that take place... like voting booths not being available in certain areas and striking out piles of votes by some guy deciding to do so... etc. etc.

It is a Banana Republic in many ways.

When organizations send election observers to other countries they are looking for standards to be followed that are not followed in the USA and when they are not followed in these emerging democracies, they call it electoral chicanery.

zorro99 25th June 2022 11:19 AM

Trump said God said abortion issues should be resolved by states.

Steve 25th June 2022 11:27 AM

Lovely country you have there, America. The idea that peoples’ rights are protected, or important, is a blatant lie. I am wondering, as an old fart, whether the USA will become recognized as the theocracy it is becoming while I am still alive.

Leumas 25th June 2022 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 13841458)
Lovely country you have there, America. The idea that peoples’ rights are protected, or important, is a blatant lie. I am wondering, as an old fart, whether the USA will become recognized as the theocracy it is becoming while I am still alive.

The American FARM is good pastures for its sheep... so long as they keep grazing with their heads in the grass... and not ever notice that the FARMER is not there to take care of them but rather to milk fleece and consume them... and when he protects them from the "wolves" it is not out of love for them.. but rather for his property.

Now of course this has been the state of humanity since farming started... but not many farmers throughout history have been as nice to their sheep as the American farmers... and not many farms have had as good pastures as the American farm.

--- with apologies to George Orwell.

Leumas 25th June 2022 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13841451)
When organizations send election observers to other countries they are looking for standards to be followed that are not followed in the USA and when they are not followed in these emerging democracies, they call it electoral chicanery.


Of course... the rules do not apply to the rules' enforcers and their masters.

Joecool 25th June 2022 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13840609)
You gotta love these morons on the court. Gun violence is a problem. So what do they do? Make the problem worse.

The number of homeless is growing. Resources are limited. And what do they do? Make the problem worse.

Maybe you don't know this, but SCOTUS isn't there to legislate. They exist to determine if the constitution and US laws have been properly interpreted and/or implemented.

Leumas 25th June 2022 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joecool (Post 13841470)
Maybe you don't know this, but SCOTUS isn't there to legislate. They exist to determine if the constitution and US laws have been properly interpreted and/or implemented.


Unless they are a bunch of unqualified lying partisans who lied under oath to gain entry so as to sabotage the constitution in service of their sky daddy and TRIBE.

Hercules56 25th June 2022 11:57 AM

I think the SCOTUS decision was legally correct, but morally reprehensible.

:(

If the last three justices lied about their abortion stances during confirmation hearings, they should be impeached.

Joecool 25th June 2022 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercules56 (Post 13841475)
I think the SCOTUS decision was legally correct

That's the end of story. States are free to implement abortion laws as they see fit.

I don't see that as a bad thing.

Olmstead 25th June 2022 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joecool (Post 13841470)
Maybe you don't know this, but SCOTUS isn't there to legislate. They exist to determine if the constitution and US laws have been properly interpreted and/or implemented.

In that case, why do the judges disagree, and why is this disagreement based on their ideology?

Hercules56 25th June 2022 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joecool (Post 13841479)
That's the end of story. States are free to implement abortion laws as they see fit.

I don't see that as a bad thing.

Are you ok with States deciding for themselves whether or not to ban discrimination in housing, education, employment and stores?

Leumas 25th June 2022 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joecool (Post 13841479)
That's the end of story. States are free to implement abortion laws as they see fit.

I don't see that as a bad thing.


It is bad on economic, moral, constitutional and nationalism levels.

Leumas 25th June 2022 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercules56 (Post 13841475)
I think the SCOTUS decision was legally correct, but morally reprehensible.

:(

If the last three justices lied about their abortion stances during confirmation hearings, they should be impeached.


Actually it is not... also even the clowns themselves swore under oath that it is not legally correct... and the arguments they used are against other laws.

Leumas 25th June 2022 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercules56 (Post 13841489)
Are you ok with States deciding for themselves whether or not to ban discrimination in housing, education, employment and stores?

his ilk are HOPING FOR IT.

Hans 25th June 2022 03:28 PM

It will be like prohibition; on the outside the conservatives will act happy but if the situation arises they will get abortions. Just like when their grandparents wanted a drink - they did so. A system based on states still providing abortions will grow up. Some die hards will try and interfere with that system and most police departments will 'not prioritize' anti-abortion' investigations.

bruto 25th June 2022 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hans (Post 13841579)
It will be like prohibition; on the outside the conservatives will act happy but if the situation arises they will get abortions. Just like when their grandparents wanted a drink - they did so. A system based on states still providing abortions will grow up. Some die hards will try and interfere with that system and most police departments will 'not prioritize' anti-abortion' investigations.

I've been thinking a bit about this, and I think this is an important point. Much of conservative support comes from those who are convinced that "liberal" government is meddlesome, complex, and expensive. But that's really because repression is applied only to certain parties.

I think one way around this would be malicious compliance. If the state owns your uterus, demand in writing permission to use it. Demand written guarantees that your gynecologist may have access to government property. Demand that, if it's illegal to cross state lines for an abortion, the state issue a paper granting you permission to cross state lines without search and seizure. Demand a written declaration of what measures are required or forbidden for a fertile woman to perform on her body in anticipation that an embryo that does not exist but might at some future time will find a welcome. Everything should be in writing. If the state wants to own our bodies, then it damned well better put its money where its mouth is. That should include by default that any medical procedure involving the reproductive system that is required for the health of any person should be the sole responsibility of the government that has asserted ownership.

In a state like Texas, where every neighbor of every potentially pregnant woman apparently has standing to initiate a lawsuit based on the suspicion of abortion, every potentially pregnant woman who is not planning an abortion should be able to phone every neighbor every night to assure them of this fact.

If birth control is made illegal, men should demand in writing permission to wear socks to bed. Demand written codes on what it is and is not legal to wear in case of sex, and be prepared to file complaints against anyone suspected of not following the codes. Hat colors, pajama styles. There should be a written guarantee that premature ejaculation, for example, is not grounds for criminal charges. Demand written clarification of whether vasectomy is permitted. After all, vasectomy is as much a physical barrier to the passage of sperm as other birth control.

Demand that agencies be established to codify and issue permits for activities, and that specifics be established for all of them, and printed. The administration of these laws should be expensive and complex.

If stupidity carried a financial or inconvenience expense to its promoters even a fraction of the emotional, spiritual, cultural expense it imposes on its victims, it would be dead in the water.

Stacyhs 25th June 2022 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13840627)
I saw a couple of these, I didn't realize it was quite that wide spread.

Governor Dip****, of my home state of Missouri, is bragging that we are the first state in the nation to outlaw abortions. I'm contemplating whether it is better to fight or flight.

Thank goodness I have no family in a red state except for my 'niece' in TX who is really my BF's daughter. I've never set foot in TX and never will. When my parents retired to Spokane in 1984 and my sister moved there after getting back from working in Saudi Arabia, they all moved to OR because they couldn't take the redneck culture there. Spokane is just 20 miles from Idaho, which is ruby red.

Stacyhs 25th June 2022 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY (Post 13840954)
Roe VS Wade overturned on Biden's watch. Congrats?

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse........


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.