Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS

[The Great Zaganza]

the narrative that Dems didn't take this seriously enough is misguided, as not even women's health care workers and most Republicans didn't take it seriously. A year ago, the vast, vast majority where expecting a hollowing out, not a removal of Roe v. Wade.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

Roe VS Wade overturned on Biden's watch. Congrats?

In fact this is the culmination of decades of strategic planning and it just happens that they just now accomplished the total unashamed chutzpah to reveal their insidious long-running chicanery after achieving the last three pretend judges who lied under oath to attain their positions.

And I have been warning about this (amongst others) for years...

Originally Posted by Leumas

...

While you are busy fighting against "strident atheists", this stuff is going on:

Vision America's Rick Scarborough was a guest on Gordon Klingenschmitt's "Pray In Jesus Name" program recently, where he explained that God is blessing the state of Texas because "Christians have infiltrated" and taken over the state GOP. Scarborough was discussing his efforts to mobilize right-wing pastors to get involved in politics across the nation and noting that he has had a great deal of success in Texas; so much so that if one now attends an annual Republican Party convention in Texas, it feels as if one is attending a revival meeting.

It is not "strident atheists" who are trying to enforce their world view wherever they can.

It is not "strident atheists" who are insidiously trying to dominate the "seven mountains of power" and take over the country.

While you are fighting so hard on the side of theists fending off those damned "strident atheists", theists are pressing on quietly with their strategic plans.

From Here

The George Grant quote cited below comes from a book he published in 1987 with Dominion Press, entitled The Changing of the Guard. Yes, they have been aiming for this for a very long time. And for a very long time they have worked under the cover of our ignorance. Who could have predicted a few nut cases could ever acquire such influence in our politics and our military? (No apologies to Condoleeza Rice).

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ-to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.

It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.

If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says, and if our commission is to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship, as the Bible says, then all our activities, all our witnessing, all our preaching, all our craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our political action will aim at nothing short of that sacred purpose.

Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land – of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God’s Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations."

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Originally Posted by Craig4

Look up the School House Rock, "Three Ring Circus" Video. It will explain the the branches of government. I could suggest some other books but a children's cartoon with catchy music seems more your speed.

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.)

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

the narrative that Dems didn't take this seriously enough is misguided, as not even women's health care workers and most Republicans didn't take it seriously. A year ago, the vast, vast majority where expecting a hollowing out, not a removal of Roe v. Wade.

And that still should have been a reason for the dems to have made it law... they have had numerous opportunities to do so and never bothered... and of course this is because they did not want to since most of them are staunchly religious themselves.

[gabeygoat]

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

Roe VS Wade overturned on Biden's watch. Congrats?

C’mon man, you’re not this dumb

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

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.)

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.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

the narrative that Dems didn't take this seriously enough is misguided, as not even women's health care workers and most Republicans didn't take it seriously. A year ago, the vast, vast majority where expecting a hollowing out, not a removal of Roe v. Wade.

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?

[Joecool]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

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.

I thought you were better than that?

Doesn't SCOTUS rule on law and the constitution? Were they wrong or do you disagree simply because you don't like the ruling?

When the same sex marriage law was passed, I heard that it's the law of the land and the courts have spoken so everyone needs to be an adult and accept the ruling of the high court.

Does the ruling of the high court only count if you and yours agree with it?

Is that why democrats are now whining and moaning that the court is not legitimate and it must be dismantled or left members added to make the decision "right"?

And democrats complain that the GOP is a threat to democracy.

Suck it up buttercup. Law of the land. The court has spoken.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Joecool

I thought you were better than that?

Doesn't SCOTUS rule on law and the constitution? Were they wrong or do you disagree simply because you don't like the ruling?

When the same sex marriage law was passed, I heard that it's the law of the land and the courts have spoken so everyone needs to be an adult and accept the ruling of the high court.

Does the ruling of the high court only count if you and yours agree with it?

Is that why democrats are now whining and moaning that the court is not legitimate and it must be dismantled or left members added to make the decision "right"?

And democrats complain that the GOP is a threat to democracy.

Suck it up buttercup. Law of the land. The court has spoken.

As someone from a civilised country where abortion is available to all women, I find posts like very, very amusing. The US is now ******.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by lionking

As someone from a civilised country where abortion is available to all women, I find posts like very, very amusing. The US is now ******.

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.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Oh, you’re expecting consistency with no hypocrisy?

Not from Republicans and the God botherers.

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Originally Posted by Craig4

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]

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

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]

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

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]

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]

Originally Posted by lionking

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]

Originally Posted by Parsman

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]

Originally Posted by Leumas

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]

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

[GaughEyad]

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]

Originally Posted by GaughEyad

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]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

“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]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

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]

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

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

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]

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

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]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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

Whaaat??

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

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by Samson

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]

Originally Posted by lionking

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]

Originally Posted by GaughEyad

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]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

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]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

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]

Originally Posted by GaughEyad

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]

Originally Posted by Leumas

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]

Originally Posted by Leumas

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]

Originally Posted by Parsman

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]

Originally Posted by Brainster

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]

Originally Posted by Leumas

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]

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

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]

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.