IS_JESS_AN_ACCOUNT
Gold Member
- Jul 22, 2016
- 6,171
- 2,747
The USSC refused to grant an emergency stay.
Which is akin to approving said law, lefty.
What is your native language, Sahib? Swahili? Punjabi?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The USSC refused to grant an emergency stay.
Only to those ignorant of how the law works.Which is akin to approving said law,
Don't kill the baby. Simply remove it from mother.It doesn’t matter if the baby is dependent on the mother, it’s not the baby’s fault, and there’s no justification for killing an innocent human being, period.
You wrongly assume that the mother will feel any of that. The mother's feelings are irrelevant.You also wrongly assume that the mother is going to feel enslaved the whole way through. That is not what happens. Once the mother sees the baby growing, sees the beating heart in the ultrasound, feels the baby moving, etc, it is natural and inevitable that the mother will begin to love her baby. I have never once heard of a woman regretting choosing life, even if they gave the baby up for adoption. But I have heard tons and tons and tons of women regretting killing their baby.
As a fact of law, an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections, as a matter of law, there's no such thing as 'unborn.'Wtf?
You -do- agree, however: This law is constitutional.As a fact of law, an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections, as a matter of law, there's no such thing as 'unborn.'
He doesn't, that's the point; that the lawsuits are completely devoid of merit doesn't matter, they're intended to intimidate and one must still defend himself against them.How can a complete stranger have standing?
This law as it stands… gives them standing and that’s insaneHe doesn't, that's the point; that the lawsuits are completely devoid of merit doesn't matter, they're intended to intimidate and one must still defend himself against them.
Ok, Fidel, next time I need to find a hub cap for a 57 Chevy in Havana, I will knock on the door of your grass hut. For now, leave interpreting the law to those of us that walk upright and speak English.Only to those ignorant of how the law works.
Private individuals decide when life begins, not the state.You were once one of those....
The USSC refused to grant an emergency stay.
The case did not go to the USSC on appeal, and the USSC did not hear the case.
Thus, the USSC did not, in any way "approve" the law.
Commie.
That's fine, you're entitled to your beliefs.I am pro-life, and I think the Texas law is a little harsh. Particularly for not making exceptions for rape and incest.
However, rape and incest make up only about 1 percent of all abortions. I am weary of pro-abortion people using these victims of the most heinous of crimes as human shields to protect the 99 percent of abortions which are convenience abortions.
As for abortions due to rape, this can and is mitigated by the availability of the "morning after pill" which can be administered immediately following the rape.
I believe abortions would be greatly reduced if people would just use birth control. More than half of all abortions are the result of NO birth control being used or the improper use of birth control. This is flat out ridiculous considering the wide availability and low cost of birth control. Low income people can get birth control for free.
It is incredibly irresponsible to have sex without using birth control if you don't want to get pregnant. The onus of an unwanted pregnancy is entirely on the woman. There simply is no excuse, so I don't have much pity if they get pregnant and demand an abortion.
You -do- agree, however: This law is constitutional.Private individuals decide when life begins, not the state.
And this is going to spread to other red statesThey could have put a stay on the obviously unconstitutional law but choose to remain silent and allowed Texas Women to lose their rights. Texas women are second class citizens right now thanks to the inaction of this Court.
Fact remains:They could have put a stay
Absolutely not. This violates Roe which i contrast HAS been ruled to be Constitutional .You -do- agree, however: This law is constitutional.
You choose to be wrong.Ok, Fidel, next time I need to find a hub cap for a 57 Chevy in Havana, I will knock on the door of your grass hut. For now, leave interpreting the law to those of us that walk upright and speak English.
They “tacitly” ( gutlessly) did soFact remains:
The USSC did not, in any way "approve" the law.
I wasn't asking you.Absolutely not.
^^^^The SC declined to rule on it
^^^They “tacitly” ( gutlessly) did so
The women in Texas really should wake up.
The politicians in Texas are taking away their rights and our courts won't do anything about it.
The women and all intelligent people of Texas really should vote those republicans out of office.
The women of child bearing years in Texas will now have to take pregnancy tests monthly so they know if they are pregnant before that 6 week deadline.
We will see women leave Texas for their abortions. We will see women and young girls die or harmed because of this law. They will try to induce miscarriage or go on line to buy the abortion pill and take it without doctor to monitor the process for any complications. Women could end up bleeding which could cause infertility or even die.
This could cause backlash big time on the republicans.