Abortion Is Finally Illegal -- And I Can't Wait To Sue

Perhaps you would not listen, but we must understand that most Leftists support murdering unborn babies, and many have murdered their own unborn.
You think this is a "baby". :rolleyes:

Image
 
True!

But there might be consequences for filing bullshit lawsuits.
Very expensive to defend even if it gets dismissed it's a civil issue. Get caught doing illegal abortion …. Jail time is the deterent.
Texas women are not Feminazis like the dumbasses in the Democrat big city shitholes.

They love children and don't want them killed, unlike you immoral soulless Moon Bats in the Commie areas.

If a woman doesn't want to get knocked up then they shouldn't let a guy fuck her without protection. Condoms are free almost anywhere in the US.

If she does get knocked up then she (along with the father) should take responsibility. There are many families that are looking to adopt unwanted children if the couple don't want the child.

Killing children should never be the alternative to responsible parenting.
Maybe they woke up and elected non baby killers to represent them. You really are blind aren't you
The women of Texas better start voting to protect .. .. their rights.

Women can no longer depend on the Supreme Court to uphold our rights so women better learn that ave to make a second life altering decision. vote for a republican is a vote to take away her reproductive rights.

I mean anyone can sue a woman or a doctor without any evidence and if the woman or doctor wins they still have to pay all the court costs.

It's disgusting.

I seriously don't understand why any woman would vote for politicians who would pass laws like these.
An easy solution is don't get illegal abortions in Texas. Considering the consequences before you make a life altering decision is a good idea. Try that and you won't have to make a second life altering decision. Can these accidentally pregnant women even spell Contraception
 
It’s such a weird bill. A private individual can now sue another private individual for $10k if that private individual helped someone get an abortion.

I dare anyone to make a case that this is logical.
I think the fathers should be able to be sued too. they helped creat the problem. But first you have to find them. If the woman won't say charge her with obstruction of justice1 that'll teach em to keep the ole legs crossed. So funny to watch the heads explode when the courts slap the left around. PRICELESS like.... LIFE
 
The logic is that it makes it almost impossible to file suit in opposition to the measure.

As we know, only government has the potential to violate citizens’ rights, not private persons.

Because the measure is being ‘enforced’ by private persons through civil suits and not agents of the state, the claim can be made that the right to privacy has not been violated and the courts have no authority to enjoin the implementation of the measure.


How can a complete stranger have standing?
 
This is why I was never worried about the Afghanistan withdrawal.

If it's one thing you can always count on, is a dumbass righty to shoot himself in both feet.


The Taliban threaten to turn back womens rights.

Texas says, 'Hold my beer'

To you.....

Texas says.....kiss my ass.
 
Wrong.

Prior to birth, an embryo/fetus possesses no ‘rights’; the protected liberties of the woman are paramount:

‘… an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.’



The person you're replying to opposes the right of innocent human beings to life.

You have to remember that this is a person who refuses to use a mask, refuses to vaccinate. Supports the bans on mask and vaccination mandates.

Even in the schools.

Children are dying. The person you replied to and those like that person have absolutely no problem with opposing their right to life. They are just innocent children but they happen to be alive and walking around on the planet just like all living human beings.

Anyone who doesn't support mask mandates, especially in schools, and refuses to get vaccinated, is pro death NOT pro life and certainly opposes the right of innocent human beings to life.

They have absolutely no problem with over 600 thousand Americans dead and are very happy to add to it. In fact, they are proud to add to it.
 
Do you call acorns ungrown trees?
4i6Ckte.gif

Yeah, you idiot. We know what they will grow into if nurtured and cared for properly.

Same concept with, you know, an unborn baby.

It's the same reason we identify flower and vegetable seeds by what they will grow into, not by what they are in their present state. Sure they aren't flowers or vegetables now, but when nurtured, we know exactly what they will be.

Why is this so f**king hard for you?
 
the abortion rights protesters ...... all fat an ugly
hjkjnmnmkjkjnmnm.jpeg


abortion is still legal whats the problem ...6 weeks to commit murder is plenty of time

hands off our bodies eh ?

lkjhkyrtkjgutfhmhvhcbkhjhhxxjhhxgrjklh.jpeg
 
No. The law clearly violates the precedent set in 1973. By silently allowing the law to go into effect they are allowing the denial of Texas citizens rights by that precedent setting decision without the justification of a ruling of their own reversing that precedent.


WTF are you talking about? This is one of 666 laws passed by the last regular legislative session in TX, that took effect 1 Sep. There was nothing silent about it.

.
 
And as for the rest of you pro-choicers

Stop acting like women are incapable of making the same stupid decisions men make. Because they are. Stupidity is universal, it knows no gender.

It might be her body and her choice, but nobody says it can't be a stupid choice. Ergo, her gender should not spare her from the consequences of her choice, just as with a man. It's that simple. She is just as capable of asking the man to wear a condom as the man is to remember wearing one.

If the woman does not want the inconvenience of a child, don't have unprotected sex. If the man doesn't want the inconvenience of a child, wear a damn condom. Or live the celibate life. I don't care. There are plenty of ways to avoid having children without having to kill one growing in the womb because two idiots couldn't exercise their better judgment in a sexual situation.

Only have unprotected sex when you both are ready and prepared for the rigors of such a commitment!

Egads.

Common sense might as well be dead in this day and age.
 

Forum List

Back
Top