# Justice Department sues Texas over restrictive abortion law



## NewsVine_Mariyam

On a different thread I indicated that I had always been taught that in order to sue someone in civil court you have to show how you were harmed as well as show that the defendant was the proximate cause of said harm and then ask for money damages to make one whole again.  

i then asked unless you're not the father of the child how have one, as a plaintiff been harmed?

The only reply I got back was that if the law provides for statutory damages then you can sue, apparently without having to show how you've been harmed (because you haven't been according to standard case law).  My next thought was that the law is clearly unconstitutional however until something is done to rescind it, a lot of harm to women in Texas and elsewhere can occur as it *is *the law for the present.



> Attorney General Merrick Garland said Thursday that the Justice Department filed the suit against Texas over its law, which he called “clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent.”​​"The United States has the authority and the responsibility to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights to a legislative scheme specifically designed to prevent the vindication of those rights," Garland said at a news conference.​​The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court in Texas, argues the law is unconstitutional and was enacted in open defiance of the Constitution.
> Justice Department sues Texas over restrictive abortion law​


----------



## miketx

Justice department? That's a joke.


----------



## lantern2814

Garland? Hahahaha! The same idiot who says it’s  okay to riot and commit crimes if you wait until after dark.


----------



## Rambunctious

The US UnJustice Dept. has no standing in this case....


----------



## Rambunctious

What a terrible butt licker Garland would have been as a supreme court judge....


----------



## skews13

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> On a different thread I indicated that I had always been taught that in order to sue someone in civil court you have to show how you were harmed as well as show that the defendant was the proximate cause of said harm and then ask for money damages to make one whole again.
> 
> i then asked unless you're not the father of the child how have one, as a plaintiff been harmed?
> 
> The only reply I got back was that if the law provides for statutory damages then you can sue, apparently without having to show how you've been harmed (because you haven't been according to standard case law).  My next thought was that the law is clearly unconstitutional however until something is done to rescind it, a lot of harm to women in Texas and elsewhere can occur as it *is *the law for the present.



If that logic stands. Every victim of gun violence has standing against gun manufacturers. All blue state governors should pass equal laws in those states.


----------



## Lysistrata

This Texas law is aimed at removing the First Amendment from the Constitution. No government at any level may remove an individual's right not only to exercise a constitutional right, but also to freely discuss a topic, associate freely with others, exercise religious liberty. The legal doctrine of standing is a backbone of our legal system. According to abbott and the Texas legislature, I can sit back and sue any damned Texan I want to while sitting back next to the Potomac. The legal doctrine of standing apparently does not exist anymore.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Biden breaks another campaign promise, in 2020 the senile dumb fck said he wouldn't instruct the DoJ, who to prosecute, what to prosecute or how to prosecute


----------



## beagle9

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> On a different thread I indicated that I had always been taught that in order to sue someone in civil court you have to show how you were harmed as well as show that the defendant was the proximate cause of said harm and then ask for money damages to make one whole again.
> 
> i then asked unless you're not the father of the child how have one, as a plaintiff been harmed?
> 
> The only reply I got back was that if the law provides for statutory damages then you can sue, apparently without having to show how you've been harmed (because you haven't been according to standard case law).  My next thought was that the law is clearly unconstitutional however until something is done to rescind it, a lot of harm to women in Texas and elsewhere can occur as it *is *the law for the present.


Alot of harm to women can occur eh ??? Are you serious ??? So to hell with the poor baby that is alive with a beating heartbeat eh ? You are one sick human being just saying.

Infact it appears more and more that most leftist are misguided human beings that will face the consequences for their unholy reckless stance's in which they've taken up in this world.


----------



## beagle9

SassyIrishLass said:


> Biden breaks another campaign promise, in 2020 the senile dumb fck said he wouldn't instruct the DoJ, who to prosecute, what to prosecute or how to prosecute


The man is an opportunistic extreme liar.

Most see it now, but they ignore it because of party. When you have a party that is filled with mental instability, then the only thing they can do is circle the wagons in hopes to remain legit somehow. That's what the nation is dealing with now.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> "The United States has the authority and the responsibility to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights to a legislative scheme specifically designed to prevent the vindication of those rights," Garland said at a news conference.


Exactly. 

See: _Aaron v Cooper_ (1958).


----------



## LA RAM FAN

miketx said:


> Justice department? That's a joke.


 Indeed, put the letters IN before that word and then you are talking truth.


----------



## DGS49

There is no "Constitutional right" to kill your baby, whether born or not.  The existence of this right is a fiction peddled for so long that most accept its existence in spite of no support for this "right" in the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution may I confirm the existence of this right?  (I won't hold my breath).

Messrs. Biden and Garland wouldn't know a legitimate Constitutional issue if it bit them on the balls.


----------



## Stann

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> On a different thread I indicated that I had always been taught that in order to sue someone in civil court you have to show how you were harmed as well as show that the defendant was the proximate cause of said harm and then ask for money damages to make one whole again.
> 
> i then asked unless you're not the father of the child how have one, as a plaintiff been harmed?
> 
> The only reply I got back was that if the law provides for statutory damages then you can sue, apparently without having to show how you've been harmed (because you haven't been according to standard case law).  My next thought was that the law is clearly unconstitutional however until something is done to rescind it, a lot of harm to women in Texas and elsewhere can occur as it *is *the law for the present.


Thank God somebody has come to their senses. This type of insane legislation needs to be stopped right now. Our laws cannot be based on emotions. the pro-life case is nothing but an emotional issue, abortion should have never been a political issue. It's a medical procedure. A difficult choice at best for those who are faced with it, and should be addressed by the woman, husband, if there is one, and her doctor. No one else should be involved, especially not government.


----------



## justinacolmena

skews13 said:


> If that logic stands. Every victim of gun violence has standing against gun manufacturers. All blue state governors should pass equal laws in those states.


Someone makes consecutive decisions to load the gun with ammunition, take the safety off, aim, and pull the trigger. The gun manufacturer is not responsible for these decisions. The shooter is.

The governors need to get out of our gun cabinets.


----------



## Stann

justinacolmena said:


> Someone makes consecutive decisions to load the gun with ammunition, take the safety off, aim, and pull the trigger. The gun manufacturer is not responsible for these decisions. The shooter is.
> 
> The governors need to get out of our gun cabinets.


More importantly, the governors need to get out of women's vaginas.


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

Rambunctious said:


> What a terrible butt licker Garland would have been as a supreme court judge....


I actually agree with that now. I thought he got shafted under McConnell's leadership in the Obama Administration. But as Biden's AG, I must say I'm pretty unimpressed.


----------



## DudleySmith

beagle9 said:


> Alot of harm to women can occur eh ??? Are you serious ??? So to hell with the poor baby that is alive with a beating heartbeat eh ? You are one sick human being just saying.
> 
> Infact it appears more and more that most leftist are misguided human beings that will face the consequences for their unholy reckless stance's in which they've taken up in this world.



they're not 'misguided', they're sick little mentally defective gimps, almost always sexual deviants of some disgusting flavor or others, who glory in anti-social psychotic behavior, incapable of human empathy , so they band together with the other freaks and outliers nobody else likes, even their own families don't like most of them, and they run supporting any ridiculous sick thing they know the sane people find repulsive, including homicidal mass murders of babies, as revenge for not being 'accepted' except in prisons and street gangs and other bands of filthy feral animals.


----------



## DudleySmith

Stann said:


> More importantly, the governors need to get out of women's vaginas.



Women need to keep men out of their vaginas if they don't like getting pregnant. The stupid claim making abortions illegal volates their 'freedom of choice' is silly and ridiculous, and patently false. The way to avoid 'unwanted pregnancies' is well known and 100% effective, and entirely a personal decision. If its a case of rape or a medical issue for the mother, then yes, she gets another choice. Otherwise, the baby has rights to life.


----------



## beagle9

Stann said:


> More importantly, the governors need to get out of women's vaginas.


Pfft. One minute y'all can't get enough government, then the next minute y'all hate government... Make up your minds already.


----------



## beagle9

DudleySmith said:


> Women need to keep men out of their vaginas if they don't like getting pregnant. The stupid claim making abortions illegal volates their 'freedom of choice' is silly and ridiculous, and patently false. The way to avoid 'unwanted pregnancies' is well known and 100% effective, and entirely a personal decision. If its a case of rape or a medical issue for the mother, then yes, she gets another choice. Otherwise, the baby has rights to life.


When one reduces themselves to having an animal mentality, then just as animals do, they do also.


----------



## Stann

DudleySmith said:


> they're not 'misguided', they're sick little mentally defective gimps, almost always sexual deviants of some disgusting flavor or others, who glory in anti-social psychotic behavior, incapable of human empathy , so they band together with the other freaks and outliers nobody else likes, even their own families don't like most of them, and they run supporting any ridiculous sick thing they know the sane people find repulsive, including homicidal mass murders of babies, as revenge for not being 'accepted' except in prisons and street gangs and other bands of filthy feral animals.


Talk about sick, you two sound like you're beyond help. What judgmental bastards you two are. Will sound like morons, with a sick of moral code. Read what you wrote and then ask yourself why anyone pay any attention to you, other than be repulsed by what you said here. You are the sick ones


----------



## Stann

beagle9 said:


> Pfft. One minute y'all can't get enough government, then the next minute y'all hate government... Make up your minds already.


You idiots want the government to keep out of your guns ( which murder ) but you see nothing wrong with the government taking over women's bodies. That's just sick.


----------



## Stann

beagle9 said:


> When one reduces themselves to having an animal mentality, then just as animals do, they do also.


You're the only animal I see here.


----------



## DudleySmith

Stann said:


> Talk about sick, you two sound like you're beyond help. What judgmental bastards you two are. Will sound like morons, with a sick of moral code. Read what you wrote and then ask yourself why anyone pay any attention to you, other than be repulsed by what you said here. You are the sick ones.



So fuck off; I don't take anything you sick fucks say seriously. Everything I said has been verified over and over and over for the last 60 years or more, gimp.


----------



## Quasar44

NewsVine_Mariyam 
DOJ is run by a Jewish Trotsky


----------



## Stann

DudleySmith said:


> So fuck off; I don't take anything you sick fucks say seriously. Everything I said has been verified over and over and over for the last 60 years or more, gimp.


You are real sick one. Why would anyone listen to someone like you ? You obviously have no respect for women at all.


----------



## Stann

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> On a different thread I indicated that I had always been taught that in order to sue someone in civil court you have to show how you were harmed as well as show that the defendant was the proximate cause of said harm and then ask for money damages to make one whole again.
> 
> i then asked unless you're not the father of the child how have one, as a plaintiff been harmed?
> 
> The only reply I got back was that if the law provides for statutory damages then you can sue, apparently without having to show how you've been harmed (because you haven't been according to standard case law).  My next thought was that the law is clearly unconstitutional however until something is done to rescind it, a lot of harm to women in Texas and elsewhere can occur as it *is *the law for the present.


At 6 weeks is a human embryo looks more like a tadpole or a salamander it is  0.13 in Long and Weighs .04 Oz. This is why many women don't even know they're pregnant yet, it's nothing, only a " potential " human being. Definitely not viable on its own. It has a tail and see shaped doesn't even have arms or legs yet he has pads forming where the arms will be. This is what we're fighting over,  it's ridiculous. The reason why heart has begun working is because the tissues have become differentiated.


----------



## DudleySmith

Stann said:


> At 6 weeks is a human embryo looks more like a tadpole or a salamander it is  0.13 in Long and Weighs .04 Oz. This is why many women don't even know they're pregnant yet, it's nothing, only a " potential " human being. Definitely not viable on its own. It has a tail and see shaped doesn't even have arms or legs yet he has pads forming where the arms will be. This is what we're fighting over,  it's ridiculous. The reason why heart has begun working is because the tissues have become differentiated.



lol a sociopath tries to claim it's about 'science n stuff'.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Stann said:


> At 6 weeks is a human embryo looks more like a tadpole or a salamander it is  0.13 in Long and Weighs .04 Oz. This is why many women don't even know they're pregnant yet, it's nothing, only a " potential " human being. Definitely not viable on its own. It has a tail and see shaped doesn't even have arms or legs yet he has pads forming where the arms will be. This is what we're fighting over,  it's ridiculous. The reason why heart has begun working is because the tissues have become differentiated.


So you agree that when the child can live outside the womb it is alive? so 20 weeks and no more abortions?


----------



## DudleySmith

Stann said:


> You are real sick one. Why would anyone listen to someone like you ? You obviously have no respect for women at all.



Women who get knocked up 'by accident' aren't 'victims', tard. You obviously never heard about heterosexual sex.


----------



## Stann

DudleySmith said:


> lol a sociopath tries to claim it's about 'science n stuff'.


I don't sound like a sociopath but you sure do. The process of debate can only occur with civilized people you are definitely not civilized.


----------



## Stann

DudleySmith said:


> Women who get knocked up 'by accident' aren't 'victims', tard. You obviously never heard about heterosexual sex.


How ignorant can you be, are you able to tie your shoes. Women are victimized all the time especially by people like you I'm sure I'm certain of that show no respect for women. And you seem to know nothing about them.


----------



## DudleySmith

Stann said:


> How ignorant can you be, are you able to tie your shoes. Women are victimized all the time especially by people like you I'm sure I'm certain of that show no respect for women. And you seem to know nothing about them.



lol another tard trying to be 'speshul'; too bad you're pretty lame as a troll. You really think you're some kind of 'intellect'??? lol that's rich. You're a pathetic puppet shill. Next you freak sickos will demand Biden start televising abortions on PBS channels so you can wank off to them. You're already stumping for post natal abortions up to two years old.


----------



## DudleySmith

Stann said:


> I don't sound like a sociopath but you sure do. The process of debate can only occur with civilized people you are definitely not civilized.



True, you loons and gimps never think you're scum, and in fact Democrats encourage you to think you're 'normal', so it's not like you would ever voluntarily seek help, which is why I endorse going back to our Founding Fathers' policy of deporting crazies and freak shows like yourself.


----------



## Stann

DudleySmith said:


> lol another tard trying to be 'speshul'; too bad you're pretty lame as a troll. You really think you're some kind of 'intellect'??? lol that's rich. You're a pathetic puppet shill. Next you freak sickos will demand Biden start televising abortions on pay channels so you can wank off to them.


like I said there's no talking to you I'm not going to respond to your idiotic posts anymore try to have a great day I plan on it. I can't believe you can stand to be ignorant fool you are. I mean you have to live with this everyday. I pity you.


----------



## Stann

DudleySmith said:


> True, you loons and gimps never think you're scum, and in fact Democrats encourage you to think you're 'normal', so it's not like you would ever voluntarily seek help, which is why I endorse going back to our Founding Fathers' policy of deporting crazies and freak shows like yourself.


You are really sick, but that's your problem,  not mine. Try to have a good day, I plan on it. Done trying to talk with you, there's obviously no one home.


----------



## DudleySmith

Stann said:


> like I said there's no talking to you I'm not going to respond to your idiotic posts anymore try to have a great day I plan on it. I can't believe you can stand to be ignorant fool you are. I mean you have to live with this everyday. I pity you.



So you're just now taking the hint, dumbass sicko gimp? lol good riddance; the fewer sicko vermin who trip my alerts notifications the better.


----------



## Stann

RetiredGySgt said:


> So you agree that when the child can live outside the womb it is alive? so 20 weeks and no more abortions?


I never said that, you're trying to say that. Viability means it has a chance of survival, there are no guarantees that early on.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> I never said that, you're trying to say that. Viability means it has a chance of survival, there are no guarantees that early on.


Abortion needs to remain the decision the woman has to make. No one no person no entity government Court can decide that for her. Who'd want to make that decision. But sometimes it's necessary to make the hard decisions. I work with a forty-three-year-old woman she's married and has four children she recently found out she was pregnant to her disbelief. The CVS testing at 12 weeks proved the fetus she was carrying was positive for Down's Syndrome. Her and her husband and their doctor all agreed abortion was best in this case. It wasn't just the Downs there were other complications but I'm not going to get into all that. I agreed with her decision.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> I never said that, you're trying to say that. Viability means it has a chance of survival, there are no guarantees that early on.


I just did some reading, the viability for a fetus under 24 weeks is less than 50%. What you're looking for a one-size-fit-all solution. Reproduction is one of the most complex issues we face. There is no one-size-fits-all. Complications can occur at any time. As the state of Texas will no doubt find out during their numerous multimillion-dollar cases against the state filed by people wronged by this bill, if it is allowed to stand.


----------



## Rambunctious

Stann said:


> Thank God somebody has come to their senses. This type of insane legislation needs to be stopped right now. Our laws cannot be based on emotions. the pro-life case is nothing but an emotional issue, abortion should have never been a political issue. It's a medical procedure. A difficult choice at best for those who are faced with it, and should be addressed by the woman, husband, if there is one, and her doctor. No one else should be involved, especially not government.


Thank God we have a supreme court that will stop the killing of living unborn babies....


----------



## bravoactual

Stann said:


> Abortion needs to remain the decision the woman has to make. No one no person no entity government Court can decide that for her. Who'd want to make that decision. But sometimes it's necessary to make the hard decisions. I work with a forty-three-year-old woman she's married and has four children she recently found out she was pregnant to her disbelief. The CVS testing at 12 weeks proved the fetus she was carrying was positive for Down's Syndrome. Her and her husband and their doctor all agreed abortion was best in this case. It wasn't just the Downs there were other complications but I'm not going to get into all that. I agreed with her decision.



All these Cons who bloviate about how wearing a fucking mask and cry on about "*My Body, My Choice*" are the same Cons who refuse to accept that Women have that same "*My  Body, My Choice*" over their body.

There is no fetal heart beat at 6-Weeks.  Mainly because there is no heart or no brain.  

This whole thing is about Controlling Women's Bodies.  I am looking forward to assisting Women in Texas needing an abortion and helping travel to California, where they can get one.


----------



## beagle9

Stann said:


> Abortion needs to remain the decision the woman has to make. No one no person no entity government Court can decide that for her. Who'd want to make that decision. But sometimes it's necessary to make the hard decisions. I work with a forty-three-year-old woman she's married and has four children she recently found out she was pregnant to her disbelief. The CVS testing at 12 weeks proved the fetus she was carrying was positive for Down's Syndrome. Her and her husband and their doctor all agreed abortion was best in this case. It wasn't just the Downs there were other complications but I'm not going to get into all that. I agreed with her decision.


In this s case you say, but your problem is that you want abortion across the board, and that's where you lose the argument.


----------



## beagle9

Rambunctious said:


> Thank God we have a supreme court that will stop the killing of living unborn babies....


That's right, living beings inside of a womb that are in critical stages of development. A miracle for sure. How human beings became so disrespectful of such a process and creation is unbelievable.


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Exactly.
> See: _Aaron v Cooper_ (1958).


The TX abortion law is constitutional.
^^^
You agree with this statement


----------



## M14 Shooter

"The United States has the authority and the responsibility to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights to a legislative scheme specifically designed to prevent the vindication of those rights," Garland said at a news conference."

Why then hasn't Garland sued the states of CA and NJ and NY and MD and HI for their legislative schemes specifically designed to prevent the vindication of the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms?


----------



## Stann

beagle9 said:


> In this s case you say, but your problem is that you want abortion across the board, and that's where you lose the argument.


Well the Texas cases totally idiotic, any limitations on abortions have to be rational and realistic.


----------



## Stann

M14 Shooter said:


> "The United States has the authority and the responsibility to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights to a legislative scheme specifically designed to prevent the vindication of those rights," Garland said at a news conference."
> 
> Why then hasn't Garland sued the states of CA and NJ and NY and MD and HI for their legislative schemes specifically designed to prevent the vindication of the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms?


Obviously the legislation did not impede gun ownership, simply qualified it and regulate it like it needs to be.


----------



## Stann

M14 Shooter said:


> The TX abortion law is constitutional.
> ^^^
> You agree with this statement


Absolutely not. It's a feel-good effort on the part of the pro-life sector, there is no a competent or legal legislation.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Stann said:


> Obviously the legislation did not impede gun ownership, simply qualified it and regulate it like it needs to be.


Just as obviously, you can still have an abortion in TX; this law only adds common sense restrictions, like there needs to be.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Stann said:


> Absolutely not. It's a feel-good effort on the part of the pro-life sector, there is no a competent or legal legislation.


You'll have to argue the point with Clayton.


----------



## Stann

M14 Shooter said:


> Just as obviously, you can still have an abortion in TX; this law only adds common sense restrictions, like there needs to be.


That's incorrect, most women don't even know if they're pregnant or not by 6 weeks, a fetus is not a viable entity until after 24 weeks and then is still iffy before that point likelihood of survival is less than 50%. The law does not take into account rape or incest, nor does it take into consideration the many third term trimester abortions that married women have to have in order to save their lives or because the child is born we have multiple problems and most likely die anyway. these aren't decisions that should be made by the state these are decisions that have to be made by the mother the father if there if there is a husband involved and her doctor. No one else should be impeding the process. They aren't helping the issue they're hurting it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Stann said:


> That's incorrect.


No.  Its is -absolutely- correct -- it is still legal to get an abortion in TX.
If, as long as you can still own a gun, your right to keep and bear arms is not impeded, then as long as you can get an abortion,  your right to an aborrtion is not impeded.

Fact is if a quarter of the restrictions laid upon the right to keep and bear arm were similarly laid on the right to an abortion, the pro-abortion crown would die of apoplectic shock.

Thus, Garland's  statement is nothing but partisan hoqwash, to be consumed and repeated by useful idiots.


----------



## Stann

M14 Shooter said:


> No.  Its is -absolutely- correct -- it is still legal to get an abortion in TX.
> If, as long as you can still own a gun, your right to keep and bear arms is not impeded, then as long as you can get an abortion,  your right to an aborrtion is not impeded.
> 
> Fact is if a quarter of the restrictions laid upon the right to keep and bear arm were similarly laid on the right to an abortion, the pro-abortion crown would die of apoplectic shock.
> 
> Thus, Garland's  statement is nothing but partisan hoqwash, to be consumed and repeated by useful idiots.


No, the law is not legal. It does not allow for exceptions. Reproductive cycle in humans has complications built in throughout the entire pregnancy.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Stann said:


> No, the law is not legal. It does not allow for exceptions.


Aside form being wrong your statement does nothing to diminish- or even address - what i said.
"There is an exception for medical emergencies."








						Gov. Greg Abbott signs into law one of nation’s strictest abortion measures, banning procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy
					

The signing of the bill opens a new frontier in the battle over abortion restrictions as first-of-its-kind legal provisions intended to make the law harder to challenge are poised to be tested in the courts.




					www.texastribune.org
				




Abortion is legal in TX; you can still legally get an abortion in TX.
According to the standard set by the anti-gun loons, as long as you can still get one, your rights have not been impeded.

If Garland actually believed what he said, he would have already sued the states of CA and NJ and NY and MD and HI for their legislative schemes specifically designed to prevent the vindication of the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms; if you actually belive what he said, you would insist that he does so.


----------



## Stann

M14 Shooter said:


> Aside form being wrong your statement does nothing to diminish- or even address - what i said.
> "There is an exception for medical emergencies."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gov. Greg Abbott signs into law one of nation’s strictest abortion measures, banning procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy
> 
> 
> The signing of the bill opens a new frontier in the battle over abortion restrictions as first-of-its-kind legal provisions intended to make the law harder to challenge are poised to be tested in the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is legal in TX; you can still legally get an abortion in TX.
> According to the standard set by the anti-gun loons, as long as you can still get one, your rights have not been impeded.
> 
> If Garland actually believed what he said, he would have already sued the states of CA and NJ and NY and MD and HI for their legislative schemes specifically designed to prevent the vindication of the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms; if you actually belive what he said, you would insist that he does so.


This is an example of the most twisted legislation I've ever heard of. you could do something like this in a communist state like Russia or North Korea that you can't do it in the United States of America. All our people have rights. Not just the favored few.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Stann said:


> This is an example of the most twisted legislation I've ever heard of....


You failure to meaningfully respond to the points I made says all that need be said.
Neither you, nor Garland, believe a word he said.


----------



## Stann

M14 Shooter said:


> You failure to meaningfully respond to the points I made says all that need be said.
> Neither you, nor Garland, believe a word he said.


Your points are useless, meaningless. It would have to be based on reasonable, rational legislation. This legislation was designed to create a feel-good moment for the pro-life crowd. It's based on emotions not facts. Sorry you are so disillusioned you can't understand that.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Stann said:


> Your points are useless, meaningless.


Translation:
You know you have no capacity to make a sound counterpoint.
Disagree?
Then proceed.


----------



## Stann

M14 Shooter said:


> Translation:
> You know you have no capacity to make a sound counterpoint.
> Disagree?
> Then proceed.


Reasonable people do not respond to nonsense. I am done with you. Enough is enough already you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Hope you can live with yourself, I am not adversely affecting other people's lives I am proud of who I am. Wish you could say the same. Try to have a nice day I plan on it goodbye. The biggest problem with abortion is people like you thinking it's any of your business when it isn't. It is and should always be the decision made by the woman involved her husband if there is one and her doctor no one else.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> Reasonable people do not respond to nonsense. I am done with you. Enough is enough already you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Hope you can live with yourself, I am not adversely affecting other people's lives I am proud of who I am. Wish you could say the same. Try to have a nice day I plan on it goodbye. The biggest problem with abortion is people like you thinking it's any of your business when it isn't. It is and should always be the decision made by the woman involved her husband if there is one and her doctor no one else.


A bunch of politicians, a bunch of lawyers; neither group should be dictating what doctor should or shouldn't be doing.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Stann said:


> Reasonable people do not respond to nonsense.



Just one question, before you tuck tail and run:
Do you agree that so long as a person can still buy/own/posses a gun, his right right to keep and bear arms is not impeded?


----------



## Stann

M14 Shooter said:


> Just one question, before you tuck tail and run:
> Do you agree that so long as a person can still buy/own/posses a gun, his right right to keep and bear arms is not impeded?


I understand where this idiotic argument is going. As I already said, throughout pregnancy there can be complications, since this was not addressed at all by the Texas law it makes the whole point moot. Can you at least comprehend that ? If not I feel sorry for you. Your capacity for reason is very limited.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Stann said:


> I understand where this idiotic argument is going.


I don't see your answer to my question.
Do you agree that so long as a person can still buy/own/posses a gun, his right right to keep and bear arms is not impeded?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Stann said:


> As I already said, throughout pregnancy there can be complications, since this was not addressed at all by the Texas law


As I already pointed out, your statement, above, is false.
"There is an exception for medical emergencies.:








						Gov. Greg Abbott signs into law one of nation’s strictest abortion measures, banning procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy
					

The signing of the bill opens a new frontier in the battle over abortion restrictions as first-of-its-kind legal provisions intended to make the law harder to challenge are poised to be tested in the courts.




					www.texastribune.org


----------



## Stann

M14 Shooter said:


> I don't see your answer to my question.
> Do you agree that so long as a person can still buy/own/posses a gun, his right right to keep and bear arms is not impeded?


You are truly some kind of idiot. I gave you your answer, you do have comprehension problems. When a person goes to buy a gun they know they want a gun. 6 weeks into her pregnancy the fetus is 0.13 in Long and Weighs 0.04 Oz, it develops a primitive heart because the teachers have now become differentiated. It looks more like a tadpole or a salamander it's c-shaped and as to club shaped objects where the arms will form. The tale is 1/3 the length of the body. This is why most women don't even know they're pregnant at that point.  Plus as I've already said it again and again the complications of pregnancy occur throughout the pregnancy. The law made no exceptions for this, blatantly disregarded women who are raped or victims of incest. and I pity any man married woman who finds out in the third trimester of their pregnancy that they need an abortion or they risked their lives to carry that fetus to maturity. I'm tired of trying to explain the facts to you, try to have a nice day. I'm not answering any more of your asinine questions.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Stann said:


> You are truly some kind of idiot. I gave you your answer,


You did?  Where ?  What post?
What was your asnswer?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Stann said:


> The law made no exceptions for this,...


It does not matter how many times you repeat this lie, it remains a lie.


----------



## bravoactual

Stann said:


> No, the law is not legal. It does not allow for exceptions. Reproductive cycle in humans has complications built in throughout the entire pregnancy.



Correct.  Also the law itself will not up judicial review coming at it from the DOJ.  Women in Texas still have the right to an Abortion.  My idea would be pass a law requiring men to wear a rubber, thus endeth the problem.


----------



## lantern2814

Stann said:


> How ignorant can you be, are you able to tie your shoes. Women are victimized all the time especially by people like you I'm sure I'm certain of that show no respect for women. And you seem to know nothing about them.


So you’re a “man” who identifies as a woman so you know all about them right? Seems you view women as objects to dump your load in, then if she gets pregnant, just kill the child, rinse and repeat. Here’s the thing. Women don’t all walk in lockstep with you loons.


----------



## Stann

bravoactual said:


> Correct.  Also the law itself will not up judicial review coming at it from the DOJ.  Women in Texas still have the right to an Abortion.  My idea would be pass a law requiring men to wear a rubber, thus endeth the problem.


That would be too complicated for republicans. If the governor was serious about getting rid of all the rapists in the state ( before they rape - exactly how he thinks ? that's even possible is beyond me ), he should make rape punishable by the death penalty. He would probably be the first one put to death. But at least he'd be keeping in line with his Draconian thinking.


----------



## bravoactual

Stann said:


> That would be too complicated for republicans. If the governor was serious about getting rid of all the rapists in the state ( before they rape - exactly how he thinks ? that's even possible is beyond me ), he should make rape punishable by the death penalty. He would probably be the first one put to death. But at least he'd be keeping in line with his Draconian thinking.



Texas will have it's own version of "*The Department of Pre-Crime*."


----------



## OldLady

DudleySmith said:


> they're not 'misguided', they're sick little mentally defective gimps, almost always sexual deviants of some disgusting flavor or others, who glory in anti-social psychotic behavior, incapable of human empathy , so they band together with the other freaks and outliers nobody else likes, even their own families don't like most of them, and they run supporting any ridiculous sick thing they know the sane people find repulsive, including homicidal mass murders of babies, as revenge for not being 'accepted' except in prisons and street gangs and other bands of filthy feral animals.


Good gravy.


----------



## Stann

bravoactual said:


> Texas will have it's own version of "*The Department of Pre-Crime*."


They better start hiring a whole bunch of lawyers to defend their stupid law from the from the multimillion-dollar cases that are coming which will probably bankrupt the state. And since the State assumed the responsibility of all these unwanted new lives, many of which will be on unadoptable because they have such a low chance of survival and multiple problems. They will require very expensive long-term care by the state. Better start building more state-run facilities for babies and children. Conversely, they will need to build a lot more prisons for the would-be rapists, the doctors who performed abortions because they were necessary, the nursing staff involved, and of course the women. Texas could change the prison makeup entirely, mostly female and mostly professionals. Isn't that just great.


----------



## DudleySmith

The SC has already refused to even hear the snivelings and whinings of the baby butcher cults.


----------



## Stann

DudleySmith said:


> The SC has already refused to even hear the snivelings and whinings of the baby butcher cults.





DudleySmith said:


> The SC has already refused to even hear the snivelings and whinings of the baby butcher cults.


I have no doubt that those " so-called " conservative judges appointed by Trump I really fanatics of the far right and as being such will be subject to review for their actions in this case. No one is above the law, especially Supreme Court Judges. Their actions were despicable.


----------



## San Souci

lantern2814 said:


> Garland? Hahahaha! The same idiot who says it’s  okay to riot and commit crimes if you wait until after dark.


And Libs wonder why Commie Garland is NOT on SCOTUS.


----------



## Stann

San Souci said:


> And Libs wonder why Commie Garland is NOT on SCOTUS.


Garland is not a supreme Court Justice because of Republican trickery and deceit. They are all about lies now, so far from the truth that don't even understand what it is anymore and why it's important to the future of the United States.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Stann said:


> No one is above the law, especially Supreme Court Judges. Their actions were despicable.


Ah.   Not only can you not asnwer a simple question, you do not understand what the USSC did in relation to this law.
And you say -I'm- devoid of reason.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Stann said:


> They are all about lies now, so far from the truth...


Speaking of lies...
Tell us again for the TX abortion law does not make esceptions for the health of the mother.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Stann said:


> Garland is not a supreme Court Justice because of Republican trickery and deceit.


Translation:
You're unhappy with the fact Republicans did sometting you;d take no issue with of the Democrats did it.


----------



## talksalot

Stann said:


> Thank God somebody has come to their senses. This type of insane legislation needs to be stopped right now. Our laws cannot be based on emotions. the pro-life case is nothing but an emotional issue, abortion should have never been a political issue. It's a medical procedure. A difficult choice at best for those who are faced with it, and should be addressed by the woman, husband, if there is one, and her doctor. No one else should be involved, especially not government.


What makes it a difficult _choice?_   Is it because she's ending the life of her own child?  Abortion pushers act like an abortion is just like cutting your nails or trimming your hair because it's a _woman's body._

The truth is, it's *not a woman's body*. Abortion destroys a separate and unique human body.
The truth is, it's *living human being.  *It's your own child.

The government is up to it's neck in abortion already.  SCOTUS made it legal to kill the unborn based on their own liberal ideas, not on Constitutional law.  There is no right to murder in the Constitution.


----------



## Stann

M14 Shooter said:


> Ah.   Not only can you not asnwer a simple question, you do not understand what the USSC did in relation to this law.
> And you say -I'm- devoid of reason.


If a Supreme Court Judge is not able to see the unconstitutionality of the Texas bill they don't deserve to be a Supreme Court Judge. It's that simple keep laughing your fool head off. No matter how the state of Texas crafted the bill it won't stand up to constitutionality. Incentivizing spying on your neighbors is something that the Soviet Union encouraged, it is not something that should be allowed anywhere in the United States. The Republicans who sponsored this bill and the governor should be ashamed of themselves. This is such a violation of American rights it isn't funny.


----------



## beagle9

Stann said:


> That's incorrect, most women don't even know if they're pregnant or not by 6 weeks, a fetus is not a viable entity until after 24 weeks and then is still iffy before that point likelihood of survival is less than 50%. The law does not take into account rape or incest, nor does it take into consideration the many third term trimester abortions that married women have to have in order to save their lives or because the child is born we have multiple problems and most likely die anyway. these aren't decisions that should be made by the state these are decisions that have to be made by the mother the father if there if there is a husband involved and her doctor. No one else should be impeding the process. They aren't helping the issue they're hurting it.


You can use as many excuses as you want, but in the amounts of abortion's that have been taking place, said abortion's don't fall within the slim categories that you attempt to put them in, otherwise like you are doing in trying to justify the practice somehow. 

Abortion sadly became a money making thing, and many are using it for contraceptive purposes after the fact. It's got to stop or be regulated out of existence because of what it had turned into over time.


----------



## DudleySmith

San Souci said:


> And Libs wonder why Commie Garland is NOT on SCOTUS.



He's already blatantly violated the Bar Association's Code of Ethics via drawing up some of those 'executive orders' he writes up for his gangster boss.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Justice Department sues Texas over restrictive abortion law


And appropriately so.

It’s both the role and responsibility of the DOJ to protect and defend the rights of the people from the tyranny of Republican authoritarianism.


----------



## Stann

beagle9 said:


> You can use as many excuses as you want, but in the amounts of abortion's that have been taking place, said abortion's don't fall within the slim categories that you attempt to put them in, otherwise like you are doing in trying to justify the practice somehow.
> 
> Abortion sadly became a money making thing, and many are using it for contraceptive purposes after the fact. It's got to stop or be regulated out of existence because of what it had turned into over time.


You are a very sick person, if this law and adversely affects anyone it is a bad law.my Hope is that the federal government will step in and stop it before can hurt people. Texas does not want to be a national disgrace. Law is unacceptable period. Draconian laws are thing of the past and have no place in the future of the United States. The governor and the Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And appropriately so.
> 
> It’s both the role and responsibility of the DOJ to protect and defend the rights of the people from the tyranny of Republican authoritarianism.


Where do you stand on the rights of individual's to not have government put medicine in their bodies by illegal mandates, even though they're immune to the virus per powerful natural immunity after contacting the virus ???? I can't wait to hear your idiotic response.


----------



## beagle9

Stann said:


> You are a very sick person, if this law and adversely affects anyone it is a bad law.my Hope is that the federal government will step in and stop it before can hurt people. Texas does not want to be a national disgrace. Law is unacceptable period. Draconian laws are thing of the past and have no place in the future of the United States. The governor and the Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.


You are a barrel of laughs I tell ya... ROTFLMBO.


----------



## DudleySmith

Stann said:


> You are a very sick person, if this law and adversely affects anyone it is a bad law.my Hope is that the federal government will step in and stop it before can hurt people. Texas does not want to be a national disgrace. Law is unacceptable period. Draconian laws are thing of the past and have no place in the future of the United States. The governor and the Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.



lol you've never even read it, so keep on proving you're just a stupid dumbass tool like the rest of your peer group, a mindless little sniveling parrot.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Stann said:


> If a Supreme Court Judge is not able to see the unconstitutionality of the Texas bill they don't deserve to be a Supreme Court Judge


Thank you for the confirmation that you do not understand what the USSC did in relation to this law.
Te;l; us:    What case regarding the TX abortion law was appealed to the USSC, and from what court?


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And appropriately so.
> It’s both the role and responsibility of the DOJ to protect and defend the rights of the people from the tyranny of Republican authoritarianism.


But you DO agree:   The TX abortion law is constitutional.
Why won;t you admit it?


----------



## two_iron

Rambunctious said:


> What a terrible butt licker Garland would have been as a supreme court judge....


We dodged a communist missile there.... hmm?

That soulless shitstain seems to be bitter and even more unstable about it too.... which suits me just fine. The Turtle got one attaboy on that one. Still doesn't make up for the 300 "aw shits"...


----------



## bravoactual

Stann said:


> They better start hiring a whole bunch of lawyers to defend their stupid law from the from the multimillion-dollar cases that are coming which will probably bankrupt the state. And since the State assumed the responsibility of all these unwanted new lives, many of which will be on unadoptable because they have such a low chance of survival and multiple problems. They will require very expensive long-term care by the state. Better start building more state-run facilities for babies and children. Conversely, they will need to build a lot more prisons for the would-be rapists, the doctors who performed abortions because they were necessary, the nursing staff involved, and of course the women. Texas could change the prison makeup entirely, mostly female and mostly professionals. Isn't that just great.



In a ZOOM meeting with members of the local Democratic Committee, one of female members put forward as a joke the following as a means to discourage people seeking a bounty on any Woman Texas who receives an Abortion and it be a great deterrent.  The Federal Government should tax the *$10,000.00* at *100%*.   

Me, I think that is a great idea.


----------



## bravoactual

M14 Shooter said:


> But you DO agree:   The TX abortion law is constitutional.
> Why won;t you admit it?



No it is not.


----------



## bravoactual

talksalot said:


> What makes it a difficult _choice?_   Is it because she's ending the life of her own child?  Abortion pushers act like an abortion is just like cutting your nails or trimming your hair because it's a _woman's body._
> 
> The truth is, it's *not a woman's body*. Abortion destroys a separate and unique human body.
> The truth is, it's *living human being.  *It's your own child.
> 
> The government is up to it's neck in abortion already.  SCOTUS made it legal to kill the unborn based on their own liberal ideas, not on Constitutional law.  There is no right to murder in the Constitution.



In truth, your are a lying sack of liquid crap.

This law is about controlling Woman's Reproductive Rights.  There no heart beat at 6-Weeks.  There is no heart, no lungs, no brain.


----------



## Donald H

beagle9 said:


> That's right, living beings inside of a womb that are in critical stages of development. A miracle for sure. How human beings became so disrespectful of such a process and creation is unbelievable.


The creation myth can't be respected but the process and motherhood can be.


----------



## Donald H

The Texas nonsense can't possibly stand, but other lesser restrictions can come out of it that might. America's politicians already know that it's too far afield for America to adopt on a wide scale.

This conversation should be more about the consequences of extremism against abortion and how America would will suffer if calmer heads don't prevail. 

Separation of church and state will have to take this nonsense down at the Scotus level.

On the positive side, the country will be further divided along religious lines and that's most likely the quickest way to rise above religious myths interfering in law.


----------



## beagle9

Donald H said:


> The creation myth can't be respected but the process and motherhood can be.


Can't have either without the other.


----------



## Donald H

beagle9 said:


> Can't have either without the other.


Atheists can and do my friend.
And I believe that even in America the atheist faction is larger than any single Christian sect. Perhaps even bigger than all of them together?
Can you  tell me if either is true?
In any case atheists form a larger group than 'some' or even 'many' Christian groups.


----------



## M14 Shooter

bravoactual said:


> No it is not.


It certainly is.
Ask Clayton.  He'll tell you.


----------



## beagle9

Donald H said:


> Atheists can and do my friend.
> And I believe that even in America the atheist faction is larger than any single Christian sect. Perhaps even bigger than all of them together?
> Can you  tell me if either is true?
> In any case atheists form a larger group than 'some' or even 'many' Christian groups.


If you consider the sleeper group's in America (those that don't get involved until it hits home), then you'll find out that the atheist are a super minority that has been swollen up in number by media lie's, and other manipulated bullcrap.


----------



## DudleySmith

Donald H said:


> The Texas nonsense can't possibly stand, but other lesser restrictions can come out of it that might. America's politicians already know that it's too far afield for America to adopt on a wide scale.
> 
> This conversation should be more about the consequences of extremism against abortion and how America would will suffer if calmer heads don't prevail.
> 
> Separation of church and state will have to take this nonsense down at the Scotus level.
> 
> On the positive side, the country will be further divided along religious lines and that's most likely the quickest way to rise above religious myths interfering in law.



Yet none of you baby butcher fans can tell us what is unconstitutional about it. lol you're just parroting rubbish you heard from some hack farm.


----------



## DudleySmith

Donald H said:


> Atheists can and do my friend.
> And I believe that even in America the atheist faction is larger than any single Christian sect. Perhaps even bigger than all of them together?
> Can you  tell me if either is true?
> In any case atheists form a larger group than 'some' or even 'many' Christian groups.



Most of you aren't actually atheists, you're pagan materialist cultists, which is why you wet yourselves over the Xians.


----------



## Donald H

DudleySmith said:


> Most of you aren't actually atheists, you're pagan materialist cultists, which is why you wet yourselves over the Xians.


We're all different as atheists. Atheism isn't a religion but the title, 'atheists' cover all of us who don't believe in supernatural sky fairies.


----------



## Donald H

beagle9 said:


> If you consider the sleeper group's in America (those that don't get involved until it hits home), then you'll find out that the atheist are a super minority that has been swollen up in number by media lie's, and other manipulated bullcrap.


You don't seem to have grasped the meaning of the word 'atheist' 
It simply means that we aren't theists. That could include sleeper groups (whatever they are?), media, or any other people or groups who don't fit the title of 'theists'.


----------



## beagle9

Donald H said:


> You don't seem to have grasped the meaning of the word 'atheist'
> It simply means that we aren't theists. That could include sleeper groups (whatever they are?), media, or any other people or groups who don't fit the title of 'theists'.


Whatever, it isn't worth it dude. Just go on being whatever you are because frankly no body cares. It's your sword to fall on in the end.


----------



## Donald H

beagle9 said:


> Whatever, it isn't worth it dude. Just go on being whatever you are because frankly no body cares. It's your sword to fall on in the end.


I feel quite confident that Christianity is supernatural nonsense. 
Things could be better for Americans is they didn't care nearly as much. Government could truly be separated from the church and the threat would no longer be held over the heads of athesists in government who are oblige to pretend to be Christians.

That break is currently happening with the acceptance of others who practice different religions, and should extend to acceptance of atheists in no more than another ten years.


----------



## beagle9

Donald H said:


> I feel quite confident that Christianity is supernatural nonsense.
> Things could be better for Americans is they didn't care nearly as much. Government could truly be separated from the church and the threat would no longer be held over the heads of athesists in government who are oblige to pretend to be Christians.
> 
> That break is currently happening with the acceptance of others who practice different religions, and should extend to acceptance of atheists in no more than another ten years.


Sounds like a rotten agenda to me, but it's your sword to fall upon. No one is stopping you.


----------



## Donald H

beagle9 said:


> Sounds like a rotten agenda to me, but it's your sword to fall upon. No one is stopping you.


Get back to me when you are able to accept that I'm an atheist.


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It’s both the role and responsibility of the DOJ to protect and defend the rights of the people from the tyranny of Republican authoritarianism.


But you DO agree:   The TX abortion law is constitutional.
Why won;t you admit it?


----------



## BlueGin

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> I hear a Brownie can’t become a Girl Scout until she’s had an abortion.
> On a side note, a Cub Scout can’t become a Boy Scout until he’s eaten his first Brownie.


I thought Boy Scouts were Girl Scouts now. Since girls need to feel entitled to take over everything these days.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

M14 Shooter said:


> "The United States has the authority and the responsibility to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights to a legislative scheme specifically designed to prevent the vindication of those rights," Garland said at a news conference."
> 
> Why then hasn't Garland sued the states of CA and NJ and NY and MD and HI for their legislative schemes specifically designed to prevent the vindication of the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms?


Because the Supreme Court has never ruled as to the constitutionality of state AWBs.

That’s not the case with laws banning abortion, where the Supreme Court has long ruled that such measures are un-Constitutional.

AWBs are Constitutional; laws banning abortion are not.

In its lawsuit, therefore, Justice is following settled, accepted privacy rights jurisprudence as determined by the Supreme Court – and appropriately so.

It would be inappropriate for Justice to sue states concerning their AWBs as those measures are perfectly lawful and consistent with the Second Amendment.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Stann said:


> If a Supreme Court Judge is not able to see the unconstitutionality of the Texas bill they don't deserve to be a Supreme Court Judge. It's that simple keep laughing your fool head off. No matter how the state of Texas crafted the bill it won't stand up to constitutionality. Incentivizing spying on your neighbors is something that the Soviet Union encouraged, it is not something that should be allowed anywhere in the United States. The Republicans who sponsored this bill and the governor should be ashamed of themselves. This is such a violation of American rights it isn't funny.


The Supreme Court will likely uphold the Texas anti-choice law – or the similar measure in Mississippi – allowing the states to violate the right to privacy and compel women to give birth against their will.

In time the Court will likely invalidate state AWBs as well, which would be appropriate given such bans are an example of government excess and overreach.

Indeed, laws banning both abortion and assault weapons should be invalidated as un-Constitutional increases of government authority at the expense of individual liberty.

This also illustrates the hypocrisy of conservatives – if the states have the right to ban abortion, they should likewise have the right to ban assault weapons.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That’s not the case with laws banning abortion, where the Supreme Court has long ruled that such measures are un-Constitutional.


Why isn't the TX abortion law - like all other laws - assumed constitutional until it, specifically, is ruled unconstitutional?


----------



## ThisIsMe

Its not about controlling women's bodies, never has been. If you are a woman, and want to punch yourself in the face for 4 hours straight, nobody is going to try and stop you and "control" you. Its only when a baby is involved that they want to protect THAT life. 

I've never seen any republican have any issue with a woman doing what they want with their body, except in the case of abortion, and the presence of another life. 
But, this whole narrative of "repubs just want to control women" just isn't true.


----------



## ThisIsMe

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Supreme Court will likely uphold the Texas anti-choice law – or the similar measure in Mississippi – allowing the states to violate the right to privacy and compel women to give birth against their will.
> 
> In time the Court will likely invalidate state AWBs as well, which would be appropriate given such bans are an example of government excess and overreach.
> 
> Indeed, laws banning both abortion and assault weapons should be invalidated as un-Constitutional increases of government authority at the expense of individual liberty.
> 
> This also illustrates the hypocrisy of conservatives – if the states have the right to ban abortion, they should likewise have the right to ban assault weapons.
> 
> Conservatives can’t have it both ways.


So, put pressure on Manchin and sinema, end the filibuster, pack the courts, and then pass all the laws you guys want.

I don't understand it. The left has the power to do this, yet they are dragging their feet. I'm sure there is SOME way to get Manchin and sinema to vote your way. 

You folks could have EVERYTHING you want, in a short amount of time. What is the hold up?


----------



## miketx

Lysistrata said:


> This Texas law is aimed at removing the First Amendment from the Constitution. No government at any level may remove an individual's right not only to exercise a constitutional right, but also to freely discuss a topic, associate freely with others, exercise religious liberty. The legal doctrine of standing is a backbone of our legal system. According to abbott and the Texas legislature, I can sit back and sue any damned Texan I want to while sitting back next to the Potomac. The legal doctrine of standing apparently does not exist anymore.


Insane-ism for today.


----------



## DudleySmith

Donald H said:


> We're all different as atheists. Atheism isn't a religion but the title, 'atheists' cover all of us who don't believe in supernatural sky fairies.



lol the fact that you had to throw in a shot like 'sky fairies' shows you're terrified of them. They seem on the verge of taking away your right to mass human sacrifices your cult demands.


----------



## DudleySmith

BlueGin said:


> I thought Boy Scouts were Girl Scouts now. Since girls need to feel entitled to take over everything these days.



Biden and Pelosi's faggot pedo  judges will probably make the Scouts offer a Tranny Merit Badge for those kids whose parents make them freaks as part of their bankruptcy settlements.


----------



## San Souci

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And appropriately so.
> 
> It’s both the role and responsibility of the DOJ to protect and defend the rights of the people from the tyranny of Republican authoritarianism.


What a diaper load. It ain't Repubs limiting our freedoms with Executive orders.


----------



## San Souci

Stann said:


> Garland is not a supreme Court Justice because of Republican trickery and deceit. They are all about lies now, so far from the truth that don't even understand what it is anymore and why it's important to the future of the United States.


They had the RIGHT not to hear him. Look it up. They already APPROVED two dirty Liberals that Osama put up.


----------



## San Souci

San Souci said:


> They had the RIGHT not to hear him. Look it up. They already APPROVED two dirty Liberals that Osama put up.


PS--I am GLAD RBG croaked before Trump left office. Serves her right for being a baby killer.


----------



## Lysistrata

miketx said:


> Insane-ism for today.


I take it that you don't accept the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. The reason for the standing doctrine is to keep people from inserting themselves in someone else's business without having any personal interest in it. Would you like to be sued by some stranger over something that is of no concern of their's, even if this stranger doesn't even live in your state? 

It's pretty cowardly and irresponsible to pass a law that sets up an enforcement scheme that avoids or seeks to avoid lawsuits when the state government is ultimately responsible. The Texas officials are grossly irresponsible but they seem to be a bunch of low-lifes in the first place, probably drunks and such.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lysistrata said:


> I take it that you don't accept the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. The reason for the standing doctrine is to keep people from inserting themselves in someone else's business without having any personal interest in it.


According to the law - the constitution is silent on this - standing can be granted by law, as is the case here.


----------



## Lysistrata

M14 Shooter said:


> According to the law - the constitution is silent on this - standing can be granted by law, as is the case here.



There is no legitimate reason to grant standing here. There is no compelling government interest present. Abortion is an issue that depends on an individual's personal religious/ideological beliefs. This has absolutely nothing to do with the government.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lysistrata said:


> There is no legitimate reason to grant standing here.


Your opinion does not change the fact the law grants standing.


----------



## Donald H

DudleySmith said:


> lol the fact that you had to throw in a shot like 'sky fairies' shows you're terrified of them. They seem on the verge of taking away your right to mass human sacrifices your cult demands.


Easter bunny's teeth are terrifying.


----------



## DudleySmith

Lysistrata said:


> I take it that you don't accept the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. The reason for the standing doctrine is to keep people from inserting themselves in someone else's business without having any personal interest in it. Would you like to be sued by some stranger over something that is of no concern of their's, even if this stranger doesn't even live in your state?
> 
> It's pretty cowardly and irresponsible to pass a law that sets up an enforcement scheme that avoids or seeks to avoid lawsuits when the state government is ultimately responsible. The Texas officials are grossly irresponsible but they seem to be a bunch of low-lifes in the first place, probably drunks and such.



Are you seriously trying to claim you and your fellow commies and deviants 'respect Constitutional Law N Stuff' ???

lol now it's a full on comedy thread for sure .


----------



## DudleySmith

Donald H said:


> Easter bunny's teeth are terrifying.



So you tried to read it and saw you were just an idiot, or you couldn't even find it at all. 

Thanks for playing.


----------



## DudleySmith

San Souci said:


> PS--I am GLAD RBG croaked before Trump left office. Serves her right for being a baby killer.



Careful, WinterBorn here is a big giant hunter/killer sniper guarding her grave and stuff.


----------



## miketx

Lysistrata said:


> I take it that you don't accept the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law.


Classic leftist stain-oid babble speak.


----------



## Lysistrata

DudleySmith said:


> Are you seriously trying to claim you and your fellow commies and deviants 'respect Constitutional Law N Stuff' ???
> 
> lol now it's a full on comedy thread for sure .



Who is "commie" or a "deviant"? I was channel-surfing and found some guy on Fox named Levin, with some poster behind him that seemed to be a book titled "American Marxism." Is this where you get this stuff? 

I notice that your comment contains no substance. How much have you studied the Constitution?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

skews13 said:


> If that logic stands. Every victim of gun violence has standing against gun manufacturers. All blue state governors should pass equal laws in those states.


Why would that logic pass off culpability for misuse of one's product to the manufacturer instead of it remaining on the party who misused the firearm to cause harm?

By the logic you're suggesting, car manufacturers could be held liable for when a person uses one of their vehicle ti either intentionally or accidentally cause harm or death to pedestrians or other motorists by driving under the influence of intentionally using a motor vehicle as a device of mass destruction (Timothy McVeigh and Ryder trucks as one example, anyone who uses a vehicle to drive into a crowd of people as another example)


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

beagle9 said:


> Alot of harm to women can occur eh ??? Are you serious ??? So to hell with the poor baby that is alive with a beating heartbeat eh ? You are one sick human being just saying.
> 
> Infact it appears more and more that most leftist are misguided human beings that will face the consequences for their unholy reckless stance's in which they've taken up in this world.


Is your life more important than mine?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

DudleySmith said:


> they're not 'misguided', they're sick little mentally defective gimps, almost always sexual deviants of some disgusting flavor or others, who glory in anti-social psychotic behavior, incapable of human empathy , so they band together with the other freaks and outliers nobody else likes, even their own families don't like most of them, and they run supporting any ridiculous sick thing they know the sane people find repulsive, including homicidal mass murders of babies, as revenge for not being 'accepted' except in prisons and street gangs and other bands of filthy feral animals.


You're as ignorant as she is.  "Babies" are not being murdered and even if they were, it's not like you care about the lives of the fetuses, you all only care about attempting to control the lives of the mothers faced with a difficult choice.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

DudleySmith said:


> lol another tard trying to be 'speshul'; too bad you're pretty lame as a troll. You really think you're some kind of 'intellect'??? lol that's rich. You're a pathetic puppet shill. Next you freak sickos will demand Biden start televising abortions on PBS channels so you can wank off to them. You're already stumping for post natal abortions up to two years old.


Reported for trolling


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

M14 Shooter said:


> Just as obviously, you can still have an abortion in TX; this law only adds common sense restrictions, like there needs to be.


The most idiotic part of this law is that private citizens can attempt to personally enrich themselves to the tune of $10,000 per claim by further traumatizing women and dragging them and their business into open court simply because they've exercised their right to terminate a pregnancy.

I find it extremely interesting that his law passed around the same time that Texas went to Constitutional carry. I don't know about anyone else but I would be documenting all the violations of the criminal codes that the wanna-be plaintiffs would have to engage in in order to pursue a case of this nature and do everything I could to see that they're in jail instead and unable to participate in the civil process.

If all else fails, isn't Texas a stand your ground state?  I think most women would be alarmed by being followed around by a bunch of strange men and/or women who may just want to sue them but you really can't be too sure.  I sure wouldn't want to be a process server in that state anymore.


----------



## lantern2814

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> You're as ignorant as she is.  "Babies" are not being murdered and even if they were, it's not like you care about the lives of the fetuses, you all only care about attempting to control the lives of the mothers faced with a difficult choice.


Lies as usual. We care about the unborn children a lot more than idiots like you do. Nobody is controlling the lives of women (or in your case one identifying as a woman). Merely not allowing murder of an unborn child with a heartbeat.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Stann said:


> That's incorrect, most women don't even know if they're pregnant or not by 6 weeks, a fetus is not a viable entity until after 24 weeks and then is still iffy before that point likelihood of survival is less than 50%. The law does not take into account rape or incest, nor does it take into consideration the many third term trimester abortions that married women have to have in order to save their lives or because the child is born we have multiple problems and most likely die anyway. these aren't decisions that should be made by the state these are decisions that have to be made by the mother the father if there if there is a husband involved and her doctor. No one else should be impeding the process. They aren't helping the issue they're hurting it.


Honestly, it's no one else's fucking business whether a woman wants to or gets an abortion, yet this law makes it *anyone's* business who wants to take the time out of their day to make it theirs.

The defendants should *ALWAYS *file a counter claim.


----------



## lantern2814

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Honestly, it's no one else's fucking business whether a woman wants to or gets an abortion, yet this law makes it *anyone's* business who wants to take the time out of their day to make it theirs.
> 
> The defendants should *ALWAYS *file a counter claim.


Thus it is nobody’s business whether or  not I get a vaccine. Checkmate.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

lantern2814 said:


> Lies as usual. We care about the unborn children a lot more than idiots like you do. Nobody is controlling the lives of women (or in your case one identifying as a woman). Merely not allowing murder of an unborn child with a heartbeat.


Nobody is murdering children.  Murder is a legal term that indicates the *unlawful *killing of a human being by another human being.  An abortion is a *lawful *medical procedure.
You don't approve or believe in abortion, simple solution is don't ever have one or risk impregnating someone who might feel differently than you do.

People who are such control freaks that they have this compelling need to try to control what other people do to the point that they harass women at medical clinics or elsewhere are the real head cases here.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

lantern2814 said:


> Thus it is nobody’s business whether or  not I get a vaccine. Checkmate.


You know what, I really don't care if you get the vaccine or not, if you get COVID or not, if you die or not.

Honestly.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

M14 Shooter said:


> I don't see your answer to my question.
> Do you agree that so long as a person can still buy/own/posses a gun, his right right to keep and bear arms is not impeded?


Nope


----------



## M14 Shooter

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> The most idiotic part of this law is that private citizens can attempt to personally enrich themselves to the tune of $10,000 per claim by further traumatizing women and dragging them and their business into open court simply because they've exercised their right to terminate a pregnancy.


If the abortion was illegal, they they had no right to terminate the pregnancy,


NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> I find it extremely interesting that his law passed around the same time that Texas went to Constitutional carry.


A prime example of a _non seq_.  Well done.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

M14 Shooter said:


> Why isn't the TX abortion law - like all other laws - assumed constitutional until it, specifically, is ruled unconstitutional?


because it's unconstitutional on it's face?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

ThisIsMe said:


> Its not about controlling women's bodies, never has been. If you are a woman, and want to punch yourself in the face for 4 hours straight, nobody is going to try and stop you and "control" you. Its only when a baby is involved that they want to protect THAT life.
> 
> I've never seen any republican have any issue with a woman doing what they want with their body, except in the case of abortion, and the presence of another life.
> But, this whole narrative of "repubs just want to control women" just isn't true.


But why do you believe you have the right to do that, particularly if it's not your child?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

M14 Shooter said:


> Your opinion does not change the fact the law grants standing.


It doing so violates the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## M14 Shooter

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> because it's unconstitutional on it's face?


That;s not how it works.
Like all other laws, it is assumed constitutional until it, specifically, is ruled unconstitutional.
Ask Clayton.  He'll tell you.

Right, Clayton?
C'mon son - man up.


----------



## M14 Shooter

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> It doing so violates the U.S. Constitution.


How does granting someone standing to sue violate the US constitution?


----------



## lantern2814

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Nobody is murdering children.  Murder is a legal term that indicates the *unlawful *killing of a human being by another human being.  An abortion is a *lawful *medical procedure.
> You don't approve or believe in abortion, simple solution is don't ever have one or risk impregnating someone who might feel differently than you do.
> 
> People who are such control freaks that they have this compelling need to try to control what other people do to the point that they harass women at medical clinics or elsewhere are the real head cases here.


Yet freaks like you want the right to murder unborn children. Nobody here has harassed women at clinics Karen. Head cases are people like you who celebrate murder of unborn children.


----------



## lantern2814

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> You know what, I really don't care if you get the vaccine or not, if you get COVID or not, if you die or not.
> 
> Honestly.


Am i supposed to care soy boi? Your overinflated ego just makes you blind to reality loser. Guess what? Nobody here cares if you live or die either.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

M14 Shooter said:


> If the abortion was illegal, they they had no right to terminate the pregnancy,
> 
> A prime example of a _non seq_.  Well done.


Women have been getting abortions, legal or not for as long as they've been getting pregnant.  

Changing the amount of time in which she can obtain one in order to make it harder to stay under the lawful limit is inexcusable meddling.  We know that the powers that be are not satisfied just with PREVENTING abortions, they want to punish women who GET or INQUIRE about OBTAINING abortions.

You can't know unless you work in the doctor's office what's going on and within what time frame and there is no way to do any of this without invading the woman's privacy.  And suing her for money damages for a harm that one hasn't suffered in order to put her medical information and personal business in the public domain is nothing but a evil, vindictive scheme, a scheme to punish women for doing something that has been legal but that certain members of society do not agree with.  These people are so fucked up that they can't be satisfied with not having an abortion themselves, they have to actively interfer in the rights of others in order to do what they can to prevent them from not having one either.



M14 Shooter said:


> A prime example of a _non seq_.  Well done.


That's not a non seq, I'm pointing out that the stalkers may start getting shot.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

lantern2814 said:


> Yet freaks like you want the right to murder unborn children. Nobody here has harassed women at clinics Karen. Head cases are people like you who celebrate murder of unborn children.


Well you think Ashli Babbett was mudered so you've already demonstrated your lack of critical thinking abilities.

Wow you're stupid and just piling it on, but that's okay.  Has your wife ever aborted any of your spawn?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

lantern2814 said:


> Am i supposed to care soy boi? Your overinflated ego just makes you blind to reality loser. Guess what? Nobody here cares if you live or die either.


Well you may not care if I live or not but it's not true that NOBODY cares lol.  On the other hand, it's very much true that I probably wouldn't even notice if you suddenly disappeared.

Soy boi?  Really lol?  So earlier you claimed I "identify" as female so that means you think I'm a transgenered female or a transgendered male?


----------



## M14 Shooter

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Women have been getting abortions, legal or not for as long as they've been getting pregnant.


Doesn't change the fact that if the abortion is illegal they do not have an right to terminate the pregnancy.
As we all know, no right is unlimited; all rights are subject to restrictions.


----------



## toobfreak

miketx said:


> Justice department? That's a joke.



Someone please explain to me how the Fed with no legal say in how states legislate their own abortion laws can sue a state for exercising state privilege?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

M14 Shooter said:


> How does granting someone standing to sue violate the US constitution?


I haven't read the law only the analysis of it and I believe that a law granting private citizens standing to enforce criminal law as well as providing a cause of action that allows them to enrich themselves at the expense of another without having been personally harmed, violates the rights of the women involved.  

I'm not making a case but this one place I believe one could start (and one of the rights that is protected under "all civil rights") as in *18 U.S. Code § 248 *-  Freedom of access to clinic entrances 
(a) Prohibited Activities.—Whoever—
(1)
by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services;​
There are a lot of people who hate the fact that I carry a weapon but there is nothing that they can do about it other than harass me and complain, they can't prevent me from carrying but let's say that they changed the laws so that ever time they saw me in public they could snap a picture and go and file a civil complaint against me and get a judgment for $10,000.  I have the constitutional right to carry but if my state were crazy enough to create a cause of action that allows individual citizens to punish me for exercising my 2nd amendment right, which is protected, then that new state law would allow violation of my Constitutional rights not even  by the government, but a bunch of busy bodies.  Are these people now agents of the state of Texas and they can be arrested and sued as agents under Code 1983 Color of Law Act?

I looked up another analysis with reference to the law itself and it reads in part as follows (the patients can not be sued, apparently only the health care providers and assistants, and parents any anyone else who holds her hands or gives her a ride, etc.)  This is just *BAD *law:


> Aside from showing that no banned abortion occurred, the only valid argument for defendants appears to be if they acted on the belief, “after conducting a reasonable investigation, that the physician performing or inducing the abortion had complied or would comply” with the ban. The law does not say what constitutes a reasonable investigation.
> 
> Defendants could be liable if they act in accordance with a court ruling that is subsequently overturned. In other words, if an appellate court were to find S.B. 8 unconstitutional, abortions resumed, and the Supreme Court later overruled the appellate court, *people could be sued for actions taken while the law was suspended*.
> 
> *Notably, the burden is on defendants to prove they did not break the law, not on the plaintiffs to prove that the law was broken — the opposite of normal legal practice*.
> 
> The standard of proof is “a preponderance of the evidence,” meaning defendants must show a greater than 50 percent chance that they are right. That is the normal standard in civil trials (in contrast to the stricter “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in criminal trials),* but the burden normally belongs to the accuser, not the accused*.


----------



## M14 Shooter

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> I haven't read the law only the analysis of it and I believe that a law granting private citizens standing to enforce criminal law as well as providing a cause of action that allows them to enrich themselves at the expense of another without having been personally harmed, violates the rights of the women involved.


The lawsuit comes after the woman has an illegal abortion.
A woman has no right to an illegal abortion.


NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> I'm not making a case...


You're right - a lawsuit specifically allowed by law is not, under any legal definition, intimidation.
if it were, thenno one coudl ever threaten to sue anyone,.


> There are a lot of people who hate the fact that I carry a weapon but there is nothing that they can do about it other than harass me and complain, they can't prevent me from carrying but let's say that they changed the laws so that ever time they saw me in public they could snap a picture and go and file a civil complaint against me and get a judgment for $10,000.


_Non seq_ - it is legal for you to carry a weapon.


----------



## john doe 101

toobfreak said:


> Someone please explain to me how the Fed with no legal say in how states legislate their own abortion laws can sue a state for exercising state privilege?


"The Justice Department argues the law unlawfully infringes on the constitutional rights of women and violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which says federal law supersedes state law. Federal officials are also concerned other states could enact similar laws that would “deprive their citizens of their constitutional rights,” he said.

It is settled constitutional law that ‘a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability"-----"    Justice Dept. sues Texas over state's new abortion law

Just to spell it out for you because I know you need that done for you, the Fed's believe Texas is violating its citizens constitutional rights.

That's how, dumbass.


----------



## Lysistrata

M14 Shooter said:


> Your opinion does not change the fact the law grants standing.


It is a poorly written law that arguably violates the Constitution in several ways. Moreover, one thing that the right-wingers have taught us all is that there is no obligation to follow a law that one objects to.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lysistrata said:


> It is a poorly written law that arguably violates the Constitution in several ways.


Like all other laws, it is assumed constitutional until it, specifically, is ruled unconstitutional.
Ask Clayton.  He'll tell you.
Right, Clayton?
C'mon son - man up.


Lysistrata said:


> Moreover, one thing that the right-wingers have taught us all is that there is no obligation to follow a law that one objects to.


All rights are subject to restrictions; no right is unlimited.  
Or so we are told by the left.
You may very well choose to have an illegal abortion; you then open youself to the legal consequences of same.


----------



## Lysistrata

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> The most idiotic part of this law is that private citizens can attempt to personally enrich themselves to the tune of $10,000 per claim by further traumatizing women and dragging them and their business into open court simply because they've exercised their right to terminate a pregnancy.
> 
> I find it extremely interesting that his law passed around the same time that Texas went to Constitutional carry. I don't know about anyone else but I would be documenting all the violations of the criminal codes that the wanna-be plaintiffs would have to engage in in order to pursue a case of this nature and do everything I could to see that they're in jail instead and unable to participate in the civil process.
> 
> If all else fails, isn't Texas a stand your ground state?  I think most women would be alarmed by being followed around by a bunch of strange men and/or women who may just want to sue them but you really can't be too sure.  I sure wouldn't want to be a process server in that state anymore.



Don't forget the torts! Any bounty hunter who attempts to dig up dirt on a neighbor probably will be committing several.


----------



## Lysistrata

lantern2814 said:


> Lies as usual. We care about the unborn children a lot more than idiots like you do. Nobody is controlling the lives of women (or in your case one identifying as a woman). Merely not allowing murder of an unborn child with a heartbeat.


This is a belief in your religion. It obviously is not a universally held belief.


----------



## Lysistrata

M14 Shooter said:


> Like all other laws, it is assumed constitutional until it, specifically, is ruled unconstitutional.
> Ask Clayton.  He'll tell you.
> Right, Clayton?
> C'mon son - man up.
> 
> All rights are subject to restrictions; no right is unlimited.
> Or so we are told by the left.
> You may very well choose to have an illegal abortion; you then open youself to the legal consequences of same.



This law must be ignored. Time is of the essence. And it was designed to target the rights of a specific group of citizens when there is no legitimate government interest. Remember that we are talking about _civil law_, not the rules of your particular religious group.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

M14 Shooter said:


> Doesn't change the fact that if the abortion is illegal they do not have an right to terminate the pregnancy.
> As we all know, no right is unlimited; all rights are subject to restrictions.


There is no way to know whether or not an abortion is illegal without violating some serious rights and laws. 

Let's say a woman knows when she got pregnant because she only had sex once yet the provider uses the date from her last period which is earlier than the date on which she actually conceived.  If the provider starts counting 6 weeks from her last period yet the woman knows that the conception didn't happened until say 3 1/2 weeks after her last period then you have two different dates on which the termination allegedly becomes unlawful.  The earlier date which the provider uses and is entered into her medical records is incorrect but I guaranteed you, that's the date they're going to use because it's a part of her medical history and record.

Furthermore this law doesn't include instruction on how one can determine if the law has been violated other than to say "after investigation".  Investigations are by their very nature intrusive and can be a violation of the subject's right to privacy, even if it's a *lawful *violation. And what recourse does the defendant have when it's determined that the plaintiff was mistaken?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

M14 Shooter said:


> Like all other laws, it is assumed constitutional until it, specifically, is ruled unconstitutional.
> Ask Clayton.  He'll tell you.
> Right, Clayton?
> C'mon son - man up.
> 
> All rights are subject to restrictions; no right is unlimited.
> Or so we are told by the left.
> You may very well choose to have an illegal abortion; you then open youself to the legal consequences of same.


The patients aren't the ones who can be sued, another swing and miss of the anti-choice crowd


----------



## Rawley

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> I haven't read the law only the analysis of it and I believe that a law granting private citizens standing to enforce criminal law as well as providing a cause of action that allows them to enrich themselves at the expense of another without having been personally harmed, violates the rights of the women involved.



You should probably read the law for yourself.  Someone is feeding you bad analysis.









						Texas SB8 | 2021-2022 | 87th Legislature
					

Bill Text (2021-05-19) Relating to abortion, including abortions after detection of an unborn child's heartbeat; authorizing a private civil right of action. [Effective on 9/1/21]




					legiscan.com
				




It doesn't give "private citizens standing to enforce criminal law"


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lysistrata said:


> This law must be ignored.


You may very well choose to have an illegal abortion; you then open yourself to the legal consequences of same.

All rights are subject to restrictions; no right is unlimited.  
Or so we are told by the left.
Why do you disagree?


----------



## M14 Shooter

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> There is no way to know whether or not an abortion is illegal without violating some serious rights and laws.


Nothing here changes the fact the law is constitutional.


----------



## M14 Shooter

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> The patients aren't the ones who can be sued,


I know.  The provider gets sued.


NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> another swing and miss of the anti-choice crowd


Really?   Seems to me like the very possibility of getting sued means providers will be rather hesitant to perform an abortion except under the most obvious exigency.   "Sorry ma'am -- if I do this, I'll get sued and may lose my license".


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

M14 Shooter said:


> I know.  The provider gets sued.
> 
> Really?   Seems to me like the very possibility of getting sued means providers will be rather hesitant to perform an abortion except under the most obvious exigency.   "Sorry ma'am -- if I do this, I'll get sued and may lose my license".


Sure, scaring off all of the providers is the indirect method of preventing abortions.  Are we to believe now that suddenly they care about the women affected and ONLY want to punish the providers - they still have to name who they provided an abortion to, thereby placing what is normally confidential medical information into the public domain.


----------



## toobfreak

john doe 101 said:


> "The Justice Department argues the law unlawfully infringes on the constitutional rights of women and violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which says federal law supersedes state law. Federal officials are also concerned other states could enact similar laws that would “deprive their citizens of their constitutional rights,” he said.



In other words, shithead, the federal government once again made up a law all by themselves giving THEMSELVES manifest destiny over the very states from which they derive their powers!  Even though the constitution gives them no such right nor power.  Worse, women have no constitutional "right" to murder a life on their whim just because it turns out inconvenient to do so, idiot.

Put another way, the Fed has interpreted a woman killing her unborn children as a "federally protected constitutional right" to give themselves the power and justification to spend vast amounts of other people's money so they can tell others how to run their lives and you can't wait to buy into it!  

COMMIE FASCIST SUCKER.

You're even more stupid and FU than I thought before.


----------



## ThisIsMe

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> But why do you believe you have the right to do that, particularly if it's not your child?


I'm not saying I necessarily agree fully with all aspects of anti abortion, I'm kinda torn on some aspects of it. 

I don't agree with the Texas law, but I do think it's a baby and at a certain point. Before that, I'm kinda fuzzy on the issue. 

My point was, however, that at the end of it all, republican anti abortion has never been about controlling women. That narrative just isn't true. If it were, you'd see more of their attempts to "control", but, as far as I can see, you don't have that. It's always been about their respect for the life of the baby. You may not agree with their definition of life, but it's always been about saving babies, and not controlling women.


----------



## Stann

M14 Shooter said:


> Translation:
> You're unhappy with the fact Republicans did sometting you;d take no issue with of the Democrats did it.


But they didn't, they didn't want to stoop as low as Republicans.


----------



## Stann

DGS49 said:


> There is no "Constitutional right" to kill your baby, whether born or not.  The existence of this right is a fiction peddled for so long that most accept its existence in spite of no support for this "right" in the Constitution.
> 
> Where in the Constitution may I confirm the existence of this right?  (I won't hold my breath).
> 
> Messrs. Biden and Garland wouldn't know a legitimate Constitutional issue if it bit them on the balls





DGS49 said:


> There is no "Constitutional right" to kill your baby, whether born or not.  The existence of this right is a fiction peddled for so long that most accept its existence in spite of no support for this "right" in the Constitution.
> 
> Where in the Constitution may I confirm the existence of this right?  (I won't hold my breath).
> 
> Messrs. Biden and Garland wouldn't know a legitimate Constitutional issue if it bit them on the balls.


----------



## beagle9

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Is your life more important than mine?


Huh ?


----------



## Stann

Do you even know what a human embryo looks like at 6 weeks. It is less than 1/2 inch long, for all practical purposes that looks like a tadpole, a third of its body length is in its tail. It tissues have become differentiated and organs are forming. It has a newly beating heart, the neural tube cord the starting to form the brain in the spinal column, structures necessary to the formation of the eyes and ears are developing, small buds appear that will soon become the arms. In two more weeks it will probably be developed enough to be called a fetus. Throughout all of this, it is not a baby or a child. I understand you want it to be a child, but it is not. No matter how many times you say it, no matter how much you want it to be true, it isn't.


----------



## beagle9

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> The most idiotic part of this law is that private citizens can attempt to personally enrich themselves to the tune of $10,000 per claim by further traumatizing women and dragging them and their business into open court simply because they've exercised their right to terminate a pregnancy.
> 
> I find it extremely interesting that his law passed around the same time that Texas went to Constitutional carry. I don't know about anyone else but I would be documenting all the violations of the criminal codes that the wanna-be plaintiffs would have to engage in in order to pursue a case of this nature and do everything I could to see that they're in jail instead and unable to participate in the civil process.
> 
> If all else fails, isn't Texas a stand your ground state?  I think most women would be alarmed by being followed around by a bunch of strange men and/or women who may just want to sue them but you really can't be too sure.  I sure wouldn't want to be a process server in that state anymore.


Following people around ? I thouguht that was only Maxine Waters game ?

I think they're talking about people suing the company (the so called Planned Parenthood), for violating the law, and not this harassing or following the women around or chastising them like you are inferring. Am I wrong ?


----------



## beagle9

Stann said:


> Do you even know what a human embryo looks like at 6 weeks. It is less than 1/2 inch long, for all practical purposes that looks like a tadpole, a third of its body length is in its tail. It tissues have become differentiated and organs are forming. It has a newly beating heart, the neural tube cord the starting to form the brain in the spinal column, structures necessary to the formation of the eyes and ears are developing, small buds appear that will soon become the arms. In two more weeks it will probably be developed enough to be called a fetus. Throughout all of this, it is not a baby or a child. I understand you want it to be a child, but it is not. No matter how many times you say it, no matter how much you want it to be true, it isn't.


Becareful splaing all that, because you might slip up and dial in on just how bad abortion has always been in America.

When the evil practice got started, it should have never gained traction in America.


----------



## Stann

beagle9 said:


> Following people around ? I thouguht that was only Maxine Waters game ?
> 
> I think they're talking about people suing the company (the so called Planned Parenthood), for violating the law, and not this harassing or following the women around or chastising them like you are inferring. Am I wrong ?


One thing for sure, the Republicans in Texas opened this can of worms or more fittingly pit of snakes and I'm afraid they're going to get bitten very badly. Lies, Deceit and Trickery have a habit a haunting those who use it. Prime example, does Trump ever look happy to you ? I mean other then when he's perpetrating evil and misery on others. God doesn't like psychopaths.


----------



## Stann

beagle9 said:


> Becareful splaing all that, because you might slip up and dial in on just how bad abortion has always been in America.
> 
> When the evil practice got started, it should have never gained traction in America.


Abortion is a necessary part of life. I know you don't understand it, but in the big picture, abortion has played a part a in preventing us from completely destroying the planet. It's all part of God's plan.


----------



## Stann

beagle9 said:


> Becareful splaing all that, because you might slip up and dial in on just how bad abortion has always been in America.
> 
> When the evil practice got started, it should have never gained traction in America.


Abortion started with the Egyptians the ancient Egyptians.


----------



## john doe 101

toobfreak said:


> In other words, shithead, the federal government once again made up a law all by themselves giving THEMSELVES manifest destiny over the very states from which they derive their powers!  Even though the constitution gives them no such right nor power.  Worse, women have no constitutional "right" to murder a life on their whim just because it turns out inconvenient to do so, idiot.
> 
> Put another way, the Fed has interpreted a woman killing her unborn children as a "federally protected constitutional right" to give themselves the power and justification to spend vast amounts of other people's money so they can tell others how to run their lives and you can't wait to buy into it!
> 
> COMMIE FASCIST SUCKER.
> 
> You're even more stupid and FU than I thought before.  View attachment 538935


Hey dumbass you asked a question I gave you an answer, quoted directly from the people making the court filing.  If you dont like it I could care less.  Neither you nor I will decide this case.  Yet you sit there as if you know everything about interpreting the Constitution when it's highly likely you've never seen a Constitutional Law text book, let alone opened one and read it.  I didnt even give my opinion yet being the dummy you are found a way to try to attack the answer you were seeking.  You wanted to know the basis for the filing I gave it to you.  Then you go off on some unhinged rant and call me a "commie fascist" whatever that is lol.

Between you getting duped by a satire website today and now this, dont you think you've made enough of a fool out of yourself for one day?


----------



## Stann

toobfreak said:


> In other words, shithead, the federal government once again made up a law all by themselves giving THEMSELVES manifest destiny over the very states from which they derive their powers!  Even though the constitution gives them no such right nor power.  Worse, women have no constitutional "right" to murder a life on their whim just because it turns out inconvenient to do so, idiot.
> 
> Put another way, the Fed has interpreted a woman killing her unborn children as a "federally protected constitutional right" to give themselves the power and justification to spend vast amounts of other people's money so they can tell others how to run their lives and you can't wait to buy into it!
> 
> COMMIE FASCIST SUCKER.
> 
> You're even more stupid and FU than I thought before.  View attachment 538935


I usually don't respond to idiotic posts, but in your case I'll make an exception. I'm glad you can laugh at yourself you're not the only one laughing about what you say. Try to keep laughing and have a good night, I plan on it. There's nothing else noteworthy to respond to other than the sheer audacity you have I'm just playing idiotic thoughts.


----------



## toobfreak

john doe 101 said:


> Hey dumbass you asked a question I gave you an answer



If you have the guts to call that an answer!   You ignore 95% of the stuff I brought up you have no reply to then cherrypick some weak-ass lame bullshit instead to push a say-nothing agenda.


----------



## San Souci

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Nobody is murdering children.  Murder is a legal term that indicates the *unlawful *killing of a human being by another human being.  An abortion is a *lawful *medical procedure.
> You don't approve or believe in abortion, simple solution is don't ever have one or risk impregnating someone who might feel differently than you do.
> 
> People who are such control freaks that they have this compelling need to try to control what other people do to the point that they harass women at medical clinics or elsewhere are the real head cases here.


Yes. 60 Million babies have been murdered.


----------



## toobfreak

Stann said:


> I usually don't respond to idiotic posts, but in your case I'll make an exception. I'm glad you can laugh at yourself you're not the only one laughing about what you say. Try to keep laughing and have a good night, I plan on it. There's nothing else noteworthy to respond to other than the sheer audacity you have I'm just playing idiotic thoughts.




In other words, you usually don't respond to posts except by responding to them to say you have nothing to respond to or say?  

Wow.  We must be getting shipments in from the Bidenista drooling pinhead leftist brigade by the gross now.  What do they do, send you losers picked from the bottom of the barrel in groups now hoping at least one of you dregs can say something halfway intelligent for an imbecile?


----------



## Stann

San Souci said:


> Yes. 60 Million babies have been murdered.


If an abortion ( medical or natural ) occurs before 8 weeks it has ended the life of an embryo. If an abortion occurs ay anytime after 8 weeks it has ended the life of a fetus. It is never murder because a child is not involved. Only the potential of a child exists in either case. You are allowed to think of it as a baby if you wish but you cannot take that as a fact.


----------



## Stann

toobfreak said:


> In other words, you usually don't respond to posts except by responding to them to say you have nothing to respond to or say?
> 
> Wow.  We must be getting shipments in from the Bidenista drooling pinhead leftist brigade by the gross now.  What do they do, send you losers picked from the bottom of the barrel in groups now hoping at least one of you dregs can say something halfway intelligent for an imbecile?


I think you chose the words correctly you are an imbecile.


----------



## toobfreak

Stann said:


> I think you chose the words correctly you are an imbecile.


Having another bad Biddum In Afghanistan Bumbling Boob day I see.


----------



## Stann

toobfreak said:


> Having another bad Biddum In Afghanistan Bumbling Boob day I see.


Imbecile, bumbling fool, you keep describing yourself. Sorry I'm not going to reply to you anymore; I hate the way you're insulting yourself. Try to have a good night, I plan on it. Goodbye !


----------



## toobfreak

Stann said:


> Imbecile, bumbling fool



Take it easy there, Stan!  You are da man, but please, try to go easy on poor Joe.

It was dark and Joe never saw the pooch coming.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Stann said:


> Do you even know what a human embryo looks like at 6 weeks. It is less than 1/2 inch long, for all practical purposes that looks like a tadpole, a third of its body length is in its tail. It tissues have become differentiated and organs are forming. It has a newly beating heart, the neural tube cord the starting to form the brain in the spinal column, structures necessary to the formation of the eyes and ears are developing, small buds appear that will soon become the arms. In two more weeks it will probably be developed enough to be called a fetus. Throughout all of this, it is not a baby or a child. I understand you want it to be a child, but it is not. No matter how many times you say it, no matter how much you want it to be true, it isn't.


so at 20 weeks when the child can survive outside the womb is it a child then?


----------



## beagle9

Stann said:


> One thing for sure, the Republicans in Texas opened this can of worms or more fittingly pit of snakes and I'm afraid they're going to get bitten very badly. Lies, Deceit and Trickery have a habit a haunting those who use it. Prime example, does Trump ever look happy to you ? I mean other then when he's perpetrating evil and misery on others. God doesn't like psychopaths.


Would you be happy if you had demoncrats swarming all around you trying to protect their hive ?


----------



## M14 Shooter

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Sure, scaring off all of the providers is the indirect method of preventing abortions.


And thus, you agree that you your 'swing and miss' comment was misplaced.


----------



## San Souci

Stann said:


> If an abortion ( medical or natural ) occurs before 8 weeks it has ended the life of an embryo. If an abortion occurs ay anytime after 8 weeks it has ended the life of a fetus. It is never murder because a child is not involved. Only the potential of a child exists in either case. You are allowed to think of it as a baby if you wish but you cannot take that as a fact.


Why doesn't the tramp use CONDOMS? Promiscuous sex causes conception. Also spreads VD and AIDS. Have you forgotten AIDS?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

San Souci said:


> Yes. 60 Million babies have been murdered.


No babies have been murdered.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> No babies have been murdered.


what does human pregnancy make?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

M14 Shooter said:


> And thus, you agree that you your 'swing and miss' comment was misplaced.


No, I stand by my statement.  Women have always been the ultimate target and if the anti-choice crowd cannot attack them directly, possibly because they have rights which can not be violated, then they take the indirect route, by harassing and now suing the providers into oblivion. This legislation forces the providers to take on unnecessary financial burdens and the resultant expenditures for legal consultations and time spent on fighting to defend themselves for things that they in all likelihood are not doing.  

And I reiterate, all of this is very intrusive into the medical lives of women.  The new law says the women can't be sued or prosecuted however you know how people are.  If they can't get them legally they are not above harassing them or doxxing them or others forms of illegal activity.

If I weren't so busy currently there are things I could develop to assist them with dealing with this particular type of psychological and emotional harassment although The first thing I'd advise them to do *BEFORE *ever needing services if possible, is to get the hell out of Texas.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

RetiredGySgt said:


> what does human pregnancy make?


A human pregnancy, depending on which stage of development we're discussing creates first it makes a zygote (a fertilized ovum), then an embryo, then a fetus and ultimately if the pregnancy goes to full term, a human baby, although it does become a baby before reaching the full term.

As has been previously stated, murder is a legal term which indicates the unlawful killing of one human being by another.  An abortion is a medical procedure which *terminates *the *development *of the zygote, embryo or fetus.  

I understand how that may not make a difference to you but there does exist a difference and as repugnant as the thought of this may be to you, the thought of attempting to force a woman under penalty of jail or lawsuit if she does not give birth to a child which she did not intend to conceive is just as repugnant, if not more so to so many others.


​​
Embryo, the *early developmental stage of an animal while it is in the egg or within the uterus of the mother*. In humans the term is applied to the unborn child until the end of the seventh week following conception; from the eighth week the unborn child is called a fetus.
Embryo | human and animal​


----------



## San Souci

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> No, I stand by my statement.  Women have always been the ultimate target and if the anti-choice crowd cannot attack them directly, possibly because they have rights which can not be violated, then they take the indirect route, by harassing and now suing the providers into oblivion. This legislation forces the providers to take on unnecessary financial burdens and the resultant expenditures for legal consultations and time spent on fighting to defend themselves for things that they in all likelihood are not doing.
> 
> And I reiterate, all of this is very intrusive into the medical lives of women.  The new law says the women can't be sued or prosecuted however you know how people are.  If they can't get them legally they are not above harassing them or doxxing them or others forms of illegal activity.
> 
> If I weren't so busy currently there are things I could develop to assist them with dealing with this particular type of psychological and emotional harassment although The first thing I'd advise them to do *BEFORE *ever needing services if possible, is to get the hell out of Texas.


Well ,they shouldn't tramp around. But if they have to be tramps ,condoms should be used. I bet Planned Parenthood EATS the aborted babies. Pizza toppings.


----------



## Colin norris

beagle9 said:


> Alot of harm to women can occur eh ??? Are you serious ??? So to hell with the poor baby that is alive with a beating heartbeat eh ? You are one sick human being just saying.
> 
> Infact it appears more and more that most leftist are misguided human beings that will face the consequences for their unholy reckless stance's in which they've taken up in this world.



Unit reckless stance.  
Wow.  Let the godbotherers run the country.  Maybe God will strike them all dead. 
Fellow Americans, expect fire and brimstone soon. The big Jesus guy is furious. 

Lol


----------



## RetiredGySgt

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> A human pregnancy, depending on which stage of development we're discussing creates first it makes a zygote (a fertilized ovum), then an embryo, then a fetus and ultimately if the pregnancy goes to full term, a human baby, although it does become a baby before reaching the full term.
> 
> As has been previously stated, murder is a legal term which indicates the unlawful killing of one human being by another.  An abortion is a medical procedure which *terminates *the *development *of the zygote, embryo or fetus.
> 
> I understand how that may not make a difference to you but there does exist a difference and as repugnant as the thought of this may be to you, the thought of attempting to force a woman under penalty of jail or lawsuit if she does not give birth to a child which she did not intend to conceive is just as repugnant, if not more so to so many others.
> 
> View attachment 539473​View attachment 539477​
> View attachment 539472​
> Embryo, the *early developmental stage of an animal while it is in the egg or within the uterus of the mother*. In humans the term is applied to the unborn child until the end of the seventh week following conception; from the eighth week the unborn child is called a fetus.​Embryo | human and animal​


At 20 weeks the infant can live outside the womb.. is that a baby?


----------



## Dr Grump

San Souci said:


> 'tWell ,they shouldn't tramp around. But if they have to be tramps ,condoms should be used. I bet Planned Parenthood EATS the aborted babies. Pizza toppings.


Just because men vomit at the sight of your fat arse, doesn't mean women cant' fuck who they want, when they want. Both parties need to take responsibility for contraception. And if the law says they can take the morning after pill, or get an abortion before the FOETUS (that's right, not a baby - words have meanings) is legitimately a baby, then that's on them. 

The worst part about this shit is that the vast majority - VAST MAJORITY - who are anti-abortion are god botherers. Go peddle your fairy tale elsewhere.


----------



## Dr Grump

RetiredGySgt said:


> At 20 weeks the infant can live outside the womb.. is that a baby?


Really? What percentage without intensive care intervention?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Dr Grump said:


> Really? What percentage without intensive care intervention?


Who cares it can live and thus is a baby. A living human.


----------



## Dr Grump

RetiredGySgt said:


> Who cares it can live and thus is a baby. A living human.


Of course it matters. It is not a baby. It is a foetus. End of story.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Dr Grump said:


> Of course it matters. It is not a baby. It is a foetus. End of story.


And that is why you loons lose, you think abortion on demand is good all the way to the 9th month


----------



## M14 Shooter

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> No, I stand by my statement.


Your statement:
_The patients aren't the ones who can be sued, another swing and miss of the anti-choice crowd_
The reality:
Suing the providers is a means to an end; few will be willing to perform unnecessary abortions - else they be sued.

As the law is intended to halt unnecessary abortions, how is greatly reducing the number of doctors willing to perform such abortions a swing and a miss?


NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Women have always been the ultimate target


Obviously not.


----------



## San Souci

Dr Grump said:


> Just because men vomit at the sight of your fat arse, doesn't mean women cant' fuck who they want, when they want. Both parties need to take responsibility for contraception. And if the law says they can take the morning after pill, or get an abortion before the FOETUS (that's right, not a baby - words have meanings) is legitimately a baby, then that's on them.
> 
> The worst part about this shit is that the vast majority - VAST MAJORITY - who are anti-abortion are god botherers. Go peddle your fairy tale elsewhere.


Still spreads VD and AIDS. Tramping around .


----------



## Dr Grump

RetiredGySgt said:


> And that is why you loons lose, you think abortion on demand is good all the way to the 9th month


Totally untrue. I am against abortion. But I'm not that fussed about it either. ie, if a woman asks me for my opinion, I'd say keep it. Put it up for adoption if you don't want it. That would be my advice. If she had an abortion, I wouldn't really give a crap. And no, the VAST majority of people on the choice side don't think abortion on demand is a good idea, especially at 9 months. That's a myth created by the loony Christian lobby to make them feel good and make pro choice people look like they are nuts. Nice try, but no cigar. You take the most extreme example and make out it is the norm, when even those who are pro choice don't agree with abortion at that late stage (unless the mother might die - and if you think it is okay for the mother to die, then you're a special kind of fuckwit).


----------



## Dr Grump

San Souci said:


> Still spreads VD and AIDS. Tramping around .


Vast majority don't. Vast majority....
And don't fuck anybody you don't want to and you'll be fine...


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

RetiredGySgt said:


> At 20 weeks the infant can live outside the womb.. is that a baby?


The state of Texas's cutoff for the termination being unlawful is after six weeks.  Where are you getting 20 weeks from?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

M14 Shooter said:


> Your statement:
> _The patients aren't the ones who can be sued, another swing and miss of the anti-choice crowd_
> The reality:
> Suing the providers is a means to an end; few will be willing to perform unnecessary abortions - else they be sued.
> 
> As the law is intended to halt unnecessary abortions, how is greatly reducing the number of doctors willing to perform such abortions a swing and a miss?
> 
> Obviously not.


How is this any different than allowing victims of gun violence to sue the manufacturers instead of going after the criminals, who generally have no assets to attach?

If the goal is to create an environment so hostile to "keeping and bearing arms" then causing problems for the suppliers of the weapons is one way to do it however by creating a shortage of firearms if the manufacturers pull out of the state,  if affects everyone that uses or needs firearms, including law enforcement.

And what is your opinion is an "unnecessary" abortion, which is what you claim you're trying to reduce or eliminate.  It's not the state's business and it's highly suspect that what is legal in many if not most states, is now only unlawful in Texas.

They did the same thing with laws against miscegenation - interracial marriages.  The concept and act is not illegal, however the various states made them illegal.


----------



## Plow Boy

skews13 said:


> If that logic stands. Every victim of gun violence has standing against gun manufacturers. All blue state governors should pass equal laws in those states.


The Second Amendment protects gun makers, and there are federal statutes that are usually used to defend it.

The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, protects lawful commerce as well.

The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

Commerce Clause


----------



## justinacolmena

Stann said:


> More importantly, the governors need to get out of women's vaginas.


I assume you mean the ones who are male and unfaithful to their own wives, of which I am sure there are a few, but promoting and compelling abortion, mayhem and infanticide as a substitute for healthcare is not a stand-in or a substitute for gun rights.


----------



## DukeU

DudleySmith said:


> *they're not 'misguided', they're sick little mentally defective gimps*, almost always sexual deviants of some disgusting flavor or others, who glory in anti-social psychotic behavior, incapable of human empathy , so they band together with the other freaks and outliers nobody else likes, even their own families don't like most of them, and they run supporting any ridiculous sick thing they know the sane people find repulsive, including homicidal mass murders of babies, as revenge for not being 'accepted' except in prisons and street gangs and other bands of filthy feral animals.


----------



## M14 Shooter

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> How is this any different than allowing victims of gun violence...


And there's the red herring.
Good of you to admit you have no rational basis for your "swing and a miss" comment.


NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> to sue the manufacturers instead of going after the criminals,


For the parallel to work, you first have to make guns illegal.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Plow Boy said:


> The Second Amendment protects gun makers,


Actually, common law - and common sense - protects gun makers.

S&W makes a legal product.  
It legally sells that product to a wholesaler, who legally sells it to a retailer
That retailer legally sells that product to a consumner who.. well...no one knows.
Somwhere down the line, someone steals that product and shoots up a school with it.

Similarly...
Ford makes a legal product.
It legally sells that product to a dealer, who legally sells it to  consumer who.. well. no one knows.
Somwhere down the line, someone steals that product, gets drunk and runs a loaded school bus over a cliff.

S&W and Ford have exactly the same legal liability here - zero.


----------



## Plow Boy

M14 Shooter said:


> Actually, common law protects gun makers.
> 
> S&W makes a legal product.
> It legally sells that product to a wholesaler, who legally sells it to a retailer
> That retailer legally sells that product to a consumner who.. well...no one knows.
> Somwhere down the line, someone steals that product and shoots up a school with it.
> 
> Similarly...
> Ford makes a legal product.
> It legally sells that product to a dealer, who legally sells it to  consumer who.. well. no one knows.
> Somwhere down the line, someone steals that product, gets drunk and runs a loaded school bus over a cliff.
> 
> S&W and Ford have exactly the same legal liability here - zero.


If there were no US Constitution, there wouldn’t be any guns to start with.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Plow Boy said:


> If there were no US Constitution, there wouldn’t be any guns to start with.


True - the anti-gun loons would have outlawed them by now.


----------



## lantern2814

Lysistrata said:


> This is a belief in your religion. It obviously is not a universally held belief.


Yes, we’re well aware that howling lunatics like you love seeing unborn babies murdered.


----------



## lantern2814

Stann said:


> If an abortion ( medical or natural ) occurs before 8 weeks it has ended the life of an embryo. If an abortion occurs ay anytime after 8 weeks it has ended the life of a fetus. It is never murder because a child is not involved. Only the potential of a child exists in either case. You are allowed to think of it as a baby if you wish but you cannot take that as a fact.


Oh, just shut the hell up you broken record. We know it gives you and every leftard here a tingle up your leg just thinking about murdering an unborn child.


----------



## lantern2814

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> No babies have been murdered.


Yes they have retard. No matter how much joy you get from it, it’s still murder.


----------



## San Souci

Dr Grump said:


> Vast majority don't. Vast majority....
> And don't fuck anybody you don't want to and you'll be fine...


So what? Libbers turned women into tramps.


----------



## Plow Boy

M14 Shooter said:


> True - the anti-gun loons would have outlawed them by now.


Australia outlawed semi auto almost overnight, guns like the Mini 14 and AR 15 we’re confiscated by the govt. They can’t even have a 1911 .45 now.


----------



## Plow Boy

Stann said:


> If an abortion ( medical or natural ) occurs before 8 weeks it has ended the life of an embryo. If an abortion occurs ay anytime after 8 weeks it has ended the life of a fetus. It is never murder because a child is not involved. Only the potential of a child exists in either case. You are allowed to think of it as a baby if you wish but you cannot take that as a fact.


If the embryo is left in peace, it comes out as a baby in 9 months total. And that is universal, anywhere in the world.

You are allowed to think of it as an embryo, for now anyway.
There is a Judgement Day when everyone will see what God has to say about it. And the half wits that have killed babies in the womb will pay for it.


----------



## Plow Boy

Dr Grump said:


> Of course it matters. It is not a baby. It is a foetus. End of story.


End of story…ha, ha, ha…yowsa massa.


----------



## Dr Grump

San Souci said:


> So what? Libbers turned women into tramps.


Why are they tramps and men are studs?


----------



## Dr Grump

Plow Boy said:


> Australia outlawed semi auto almost overnight, guns like the Mini 14 and AR 15 we’re confiscated by the govt. They can’t even have a 1911 .45 now.


Good job too.


----------



## Plow Boy

Dr Grump said:


> Good job too.


Just so that you know, that’s not gonna happen here.


----------



## Faun

Plow Boy said:


> If the embryo is left in peace, it comes out as a baby in 9 months total. And that is universal, anywhere in the world.
> 
> You are allowed to think of it as an embryo, for now anyway.
> There is a Judgement Day when everyone will see what God has to say about it. And the half wits that have killed babies in the womb will pay for it.


Oh? Where does the Bible ban abortion?


----------



## Plow Boy

Faun said:


> Oh? Where does the Bible ban abortion?


I am going to quietly bide my time and wait for Judgement Day.
Then we will know what God thinks of abortion.


----------



## Faun

Plow Boy said:


> I am going to quietly bide my time and wait for Judgement Day.
> Then we will know what God thinks of abortion.


So... nothing. Thanks for agreeing g with what I already knew.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Lysistrata said:


> I take it that you don't accept the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law.


Correct.

Indeed, conservatives have nothing but contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.


----------



## beagle9

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> No, I stand by my statement.  Women have always been the ultimate target and if the anti-choice crowd cannot attack them directly, possibly because they have rights which can not be violated, then they take the indirect route, by harassing and now suing the providers into oblivion. This legislation forces the providers to take on unnecessary financial burdens and the resultant expenditures for legal consultations and time spent on fighting to defend themselves for things that they in all likelihood are not doing.
> 
> And I reiterate, all of this is very intrusive into the medical lives of women.  The new law says the women can't be sued or prosecuted however you know how people are.  If they can't get them legally they are not above harassing them or doxxing them or others forms of illegal activity.
> 
> If I weren't so busy currently there are things I could develop to assist them with dealing with this particular type of psychological and emotional harassment although The first thing I'd advise them to do *BEFORE *ever needing services if possible, is to get the hell out of Texas.


If suing them for things that they are in all likelihood not doing, then they have nothing to worry about, but you know what they're doing, and that's what worries you huh ?? Oh and people have been harassing and doxing people these days as if it's been something normal now forever, and yes it's illegal but they get away with it in this new woke bullcrap society that is lived in now. 

Killing your unborn child is a sin, and Texas finally realized that something has to be done about it, and they've done something.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Faun said:


> Oh? Where does the Bible ban abortion?


Even if the bible does ‘ban’ abortion, it’s legally and Constitutionally irrelevant; subjective religious dogma in no manner ‘justifies’ the state violating a woman’s right to privacy.


----------



## beagle9

Plow Boy said:


> If the embryo is left in peace, it comes out as a baby in 9 months total. And that is universal, anywhere in the world.
> 
> You are allowed to think of it as an embryo, for now anyway.
> There is a Judgement Day when everyone will see what God has to say about it. And the half wits that have killed babies in the womb will pay for it.


Especially the one's who've used abortion as a solution for their accidental pregnancies. Last I heard condom's were cheap. I guess animalistic sex is the best though, so no standard's equal well "NO STANDARDS". We need standard's to be a civilized society. What we're seeing is the results of either losing our standard's or having no standard's at all anymore.


----------



## Dr Grump

Plow Boy said:


> Just so that you know, that’s not gonna happen here.


I know. And the US is a lot poorer for it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Plow Boy said:


> Australia outlawed semi auto almost overnight, guns like the Mini 14 and AR 15 we’re confiscated by the govt. They can’t even have a 1911 .45 now.


Sad state of affaris.


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> Indeed, conservatives have nothing but contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.


And yet, you agree:   the TX abortion is constitutional.
Why won't you admit this?
Can't muster the intellectual honesty?


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Even if the bible does ‘ban’ abortion, it’s legally and Constitutionally irrelevant; subjective religious dogma in no manner ‘justifies’ the state violating a woman’s right to privacy.


And yet, you agree:  the TX abortion law is constitutional.


----------



## Donald H

It sounds like both sides here on this forum just want a fight and could care less about women and unborn babies.


----------



## San Souci

Dr Grump said:


> Why are they tramps and men are studs?


God made it that way.


----------



## Dr Grump

San Souci said:


> God made it that way.


Which one?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Dr Grump said:


> Which one?


There is only One GOD.


----------



## San Souci

Dr Grump said:


> Which one?


"He who HAS no Name".


----------



## Osiris-ODS

Stann said:


> I don't sound like a sociopath but you sure do. The process of debate can only occur with civilized people you are definitely not civilized.



You actually do sound like a sociopath. You sound positively off your rocker in this thread. Sorry to break it to you.


----------



## Dr Grump

Osiris-ODS said:


> You actually do sound like a sociopath. You sound positively off your rocker in this thread. Sorry to break it to you


Total BS. He is the only bringing science to the table. You're just flaming.


----------



## Rogue AI

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Even if the bible does ‘ban’ abortion, it’s legally and Constitutionally irrelevant; subjective religious dogma in no manner ‘justifies’ the state violating a woman’s right to privacy.


Your problem is that Constitutional protection for killing the unborn is an interpreted 'right'. Meaning it is subject to a new interpretation at any time. The protection you want requires an amendment. Since Roe, an entire body of law has arisen to protect the unborn, you folks are in a losing battle and just don't see it yet.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rogue AI said:


> Your problem is that Constitutional protection for killing the unborn is an interpreted 'right'


Clayton believes the TX abortion law is constitutional.
Ask him.
He'll tell you.


----------



## beagle9

Rogue AI said:


> Your problem is that Constitutional protection for killing the unborn is an interpreted 'right'. Meaning it is subject to a new interpretation at any time. The protection you want requires an amendment. Since Roe, an entire body of law has arisen to protect the unborn, you folks are in a losing battle and just don't see it yet.


Let's hope so.


----------



## Bezukhov

Maybe the people will finally learn the beauty of jury nullification. Imagine if no one is ever successfully sued under this.


----------



## Stann

RetiredGySgt said:


> so at 20 weeks when the child can survive outside the womb is it a child then?


It isn't a child till it's born, at 20 weeks it's a fetus. With the potential to become a child, only the potential.


----------



## Stann

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> No babies have been murdered.


The people you are arguing with are most likely also the ones who fear more immigrants. They don't want actual people to live here, but they're trying to defend potential people. There's a big disconnect here. The reason isn't based on reality, it's based on emotions.


----------



## Stann

RetiredGySgt said:


> what does human pregnancy make?


A lot of problems.


----------



## Stann

San Souci said:


> Why doesn't the tramp use CONDOMS? Promiscuous sex causes conception. Also spreads VD and AIDS. Have you forgotten AIDS?


The " tramp " ? Just a little prejudiced and misogynist aren't you !


----------



## beautress

miketx said:


> Justice department? That's a joke.


You nailed it, Mr Mike. The Clintons stacked the Justice deck with their own ilk. They got 70 million future Americans killed. Time to restack the deck in favor of the founder's erudite faith in their descendants. And we have 70 million reasons to do just that.


----------



## Stann

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> No babies have been murdered.


If those 60 million ? had lived, would they be welcomed ? I don't think so, one poster on here called any woman who would consider having an abortion a " tramp ". Be careful what you ask for, if you get it, you actually have to live up to your end of the bargain. I doubt if it would have been enough people to adopt these children, institutionalized children do not fare well. We have a host of new problems dealing with this surplus population.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> If those 60 million ? had lived, would they be welcomed ? I don't think so, one poster on here called any woman who would consider having an abortion a " tramp ". Be careful what you ask for, if you get it, you actually have to live up to your end of the bargain. I doubt if it would have been enough people to adopt these children, institutionalized children do not fare well. We have a host of new problems dealing with this surplus population.


Another poster just said it was 70 million. You guys get to need to agree on the numbers before you post them.


----------



## Iamartiewhitefox

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> On a different thread I indicated that I had always been taught that in order to sue someone in civil court you have to show how you were harmed as well as show that the defendant was the proximate cause of said harm and then ask for money damages to make one whole again.
> 
> i then asked unless you're not the father of the child how have one, as a plaintiff been harmed?
> 
> The only reply I got back was that if the law provides for statutory damages then you can sue, apparently without having to show how you've been harmed (because you haven't been according to standard case law).  My next thought was that the law is clearly unconstitutional however until something is done to rescind it, a lot of harm to women in Texas and elsewhere can occur as it *is *the law for the present.


Mammon used world wide is the problem. Money says love me, not giving two cents with the two knocked off regarding people. God gifted us with whatever. God wants his children to be the same way with others.. God knows this world is fallen into sin. That is why he will not try to gather all that is unto himself, through a person.


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> Indeed, conservatives have nothing but contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.


And yet, you agree:   the TX abortion is constitutional.
Why won't you admit this?
Can't muster the intellectual honesty?


----------



## beagle9

Stann said:


> It isn't a child till it's born, at 20 weeks it's a fetus. With the potential to become a child, only the potential.


It is a life form (human being/God's creation), that begins inside of a woman as soon as her egg is fertilized, and excepts the life form process to begin. Once life is detected, then it is life, otherwise to be protected by the host at all cost because it is the miracle of God's creation process. To snuff that life form out for reason's unheard of or for unethical reasons, then it is wrong period. The conscience, if one still has one should tell the person that very thing, but if brainwashed enough the conscience dies, and the lie's take over.


----------



## beagle9

Stann said:


> If those 60 million ? had lived, would they be welcomed ? I don't think so, one poster on here called any woman who would consider having an abortion a " tramp ". Be careful what you ask for, if you get it, you actually have to live up to your end of the bargain. I doubt if it would have been enough people to adopt these children, institutionalized children do not fare well. We have a host of new problems dealing with this surplus population.


So just kill them eh ? What a hypocrite you are.


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Exactly.
> See: _Aaron v Cooper_ (1958).


And yet, you agree:   the TX abortion is constitutional.
Why won't you admit this?
Can't muster the intellectual honesty?
Why do you stand on a lie of omission?


----------



## The Original Tree

Lysistrata said:


> This Texas law is aimed at removing the First Amendment from the Constitution. No government at any level may remove an individual's right not only to exercise a constitutional right, but also to freely discuss a topic, associate freely with others, exercise religious liberty. The legal doctrine of standing is a backbone of our legal system. According to abbott and the Texas legislature, I can sit back and sue any damned Texan I want to while sitting back next to the Potomac. The legal doctrine of standing apparently does not exist anymore.


Yet where is the ACLU defending American Liberties when it comes to The Left's censorship of Free Speech?


----------



## Esdraelon

skews13 said:


> If that logic stands. Every victim of gun violence has standing against gun manufacturers. All blue state governors should pass equal laws in those states.


Let them.  Aborted babies can't fight back, but gun owners can.


----------



## beautress

Stann said:


> Another poster just said it was 70 million. You guys get to need to agree on the numbers before you post them.


My figure of 70 million was a lowball estimate due to chemical abortions are not counted by proponents of abortion. In recent years, chemical abortion is popular because there is little chance of a woman of childbearing years showing hospital evidence that she killed her baby. I am hearing through educated guesstimates that last year 70% of all abortions were chemically induced. Abortion by chemical means is as sneaky as the mass cancellation of Trump votes and transferring millions of illegal votes to Democrat candidates to be used to institute a socialistic republic since socialists do not show any compunctions for fair play for a number of years. And the socialists of this era want to kill off generations of free people so the Democrats can control everything and everyone which smells like getting even with people who beat them but were cheated out of their Congressional seat or Presidential reelection. The deep state operatives need to be identified, tried for treason and quarantined on Mars.


----------



## Rigby5

M14 Shooter said:


> And yet, you agree:   the TX abortion is constitutional.
> Why won't you admit this?
> Can't muster the intellectual honesty?



No the TX abortion law can not possibly be legal even by TX law, much less the federal constitution.
It evades the RvWade ruling by allowing individuals to sue those who get or give abortions, instead of being done by government.
But individuals have no standing.
Their rights are not being infringed upon, so there is no legal basis for them to be able to sue.

The TX law is as legal as if a state passed a law saying that anyone could sue a person with more money than they have.
Individual has no legal standing in either case.


----------



## Rigby5

beautress said:


> My figure of 70 million was a lowball estimate due to chemical abortions are not counted by proponents of abortion. In recent years, chemical abortion is popular because there is little chance of a woman of childbearing years showing hospital evidence that she killed her baby. I am hearing through educated guesstimates that last year 70% of all abortions were chemically induced. Abortion by chemical means is as sneaky as the mass cancellation of Trump votes and transferring millions of illegal votes to Democrat candidates to be used to institute a socialistic republic since socialists do not show any compunctions for fair play for a number of years. And the socialists of this era want to kill off generations of free people so the Democrats can control everything and everyone which smells like getting even with people who beat them but were cheated out of their Congressional seat or Presidential reelection. The deep state operatives need to be identified, tried for treason and quarantined on Mars.



And it should be obvious the US has about 3 times the population it can support for any length of time.
And it will only get much worse in 50 years when fossil fuels start to run out.
Humans have a high reproduction rate because we are inherently prey, not predators.
We only became predators in the last 100,000 years.
Therefore, we instead must artificially keep our population growth down.


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Exactly.
> See: _Aaron v Cooper_ (1958).


And yet, you agree:   the TX abortion is constitutional.
Why won't you admit this?
Can't muster the intellectual honesty?
Why do you stand on a lie of omission?


----------



## FRIKSHUN

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> On a different thread I indicated that I had always been taught that in order to sue someone in civil court you have to show how you were harmed as well as show that the defendant was the proximate cause of said harm and then ask for money damages to make one whole again.
> 
> i then asked unless you're not the father of the child how have one, as a plaintiff been harmed?
> 
> The only reply I got back was that if the law provides for statutory damages then you can sue, apparently without having to show how you've been harmed (because you haven't been according to standard case law).  My next thought was that the law is clearly unconstitutional however until something is done to rescind it, a lot of harm to women in Texas and elsewhere can occur as it *is *the law for the present.


I agree, I'm a Paralegal for the Attorney Generals office in the State of Montana and it is a joke...... this is happening all over the country.
Just saying.


----------



## beautress

Rigby5 said:


> And it should be obvious the US has about 3 times the population it can support for any length of time.
> And it will only get much worse in 50 years when fossil fuels start to run out.
> Humans have a high reproduction rate because we are inherently prey, not predators.
> We only became predators in the last 100,000 years.
> Therefore, we instead must artificially keep our population growth down.


Prayers sent up to God will save those who truly seek God's guidance in the name of Jesus Christ his son and my Savior. God will provide his people sustenance, safety, and best of all his blessings. IOW, he will take care his beloved. Hallelujia.


----------



## playtime

this should be on flying on the new tx flag:


----------



## beautress

playtime said:


> this should be on flying on the new tx flag:
> 
> View attachment 561854


That is much more true of those whose souls are troubled when the young woman becomes an adult and realizes how selfish it is to take one's own child to be handed over to those who get rich out of killing unborn human beings who lost their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness the day of their dismemberment and remains placed where people poop and are flushed down or worse yet are burned up at the city or county dump with not so much as a prayer for God to receive their deprived little spirits. They are indeed orphans of the most pathetic types. 

This is giving me a sick stomach and a headache that I don,t need.


----------



## playtime

beautress said:


> That is much more true of those whose souls are troubled when the young woman becomes an adult and realizes how selfish it is to take one's own child to be handed over to those who get rich out of killing unborn human beings who lost their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness the day of their dismemberment and remains placed where people poop and are flushed down or worse yet are burned up at the city or county dump with not so much as a prayer for God to receive their deprived little spirits. They are indeed orphans of the most pathetic types.
> 
> This is giving me a sick stomach and a headache that I don,t need.


----------



## beautress

playtime said:


>


If you don't understand it yet God does not tolerate killing one's own issue. Now that you know that, best wishes on making your personal apology to God. I will give a thumbs up if you humble yourself enough to be sorry for spreading wrongful information to your fellow human beings. Only best wishes.


----------



## playtime

beautress said:


> If you don't understand it yet God does not tolerate killing one's own issue.



that is false.  the bible is chock full of killing.

you best get acquainted with numbers 5:11-31

that's a real eye opener  for sure.


----------

