Gorsuch writes in his book: No constitutional basis for putting a mothers life in front of her child

[g5000]

The historical fact is that prior to Roe V Wade, the number of abortions was about what it is now.

That's because even in those states where abortion was illegal, most of them had provisions for rape, incest, and "health of the mother".

Doctors were given wide latitude in the "health of the mother" provision, and this provided a loophole to justify many an abortion for pregnancies which were in no way an actual threat to the life of the mother.

 

[JakeStarkey]

TN, if you can't see that it is wrong, that the mother's life always precedes that of the fetus, then there is no hope for your moral development. Gorsuch supports murders of mothers whose lives are endangered by a pregnancy.

Putting aside all the drama, there are many mothers that would chose their death over their child's death.

I agree. And of course that is their choice, not the state's.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There’s ‘No Constitutional Basis’ for Putting a Mother’s Life Ahead of the Child’s
Care to elaborate on how that is wrong?

There are reasons for abortions. Cancer and the sudden onset of type 1 diabetes that was brought on by a pregnancy.

You are getting desperate and looking more the fool.

The maternal mortality rate in the United States is 12.7 per 100,000 live births. That is NOT why women are getting abortions, retard.

And that does not invalidate their right to one either.

 

[oreo]

The historical fact is that prior to Roe V Wade, the number of abortions was about what it is now.

That's because even in those states where abortion was illegal, most of them had provisions for rape, incest, and "health of the mother".

Doctors were given wide latitude in the "health of the mother" provision, and this provided a loophole to justify many an abortion for pregnancies which were in no way an actual threat to the life of the mother.

There were several Knuckle dragging NEANDERTHALS that lined the Republican debate stage this year, that give no exceptions to the mothers life. They were Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, Ted Cruz (wouldn't give it for rape), Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, and Scott Walker.

Just don't vote for Republicans anymore--that's where this comes from, their side of the isle. It ALWAYS comes from their side of the isle.

 

[jc456]

I would say that a sitting president has the right to pick his justice if the justice is qualified.

but they didn't do that, did they?

and now they think they should get this religious nutter?

Yeah, it's just unfair of a judge that wants to use the the actual text of the law and Constitution applied to a decision instead of personal opinions, how dare he.

the constitution is not some fundie's bible.... we live in a common law nation. our caselaw defines our statutes.

you could try reading Marbury v Madison, which addressed the issue of constitutional construction during the founders' day.

but why would you do anything that might prove you don't know what you're talking about

What am I suppose to be impressed where the court granted itself powers not granted them by the Constitution?

it's settled law for over 200 years.

should that impress you? yes, unless you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

the point, is that our laws are INTENDED to be interpreted by courts. or they have no purpose.

and the founders clearly intended them to have purpose.

So was Dread Scott, everything is subject to change by a subsequent court. And no, laws were intended to be applied by the courts, if the law doesn't meet the standards of the Constitution they have an obligation to set aside the law and allow the legislative body that wrote it to fix it. The courts has no constitutional authority to tweak laws in any way shape or form, it is essentially enacting a law if a form not passed by the legislative body. That has become a common occurrence lately and it's NOT constitutional.

that's why roe v. wade is unconstitutional in my eyes.

The supreme court made a law and that isn't within its authority.

 

[yiostheoy]

I'm pretty sure that the next 2 SCOTUS appointments (replacing Scalia and Ginsberg) will be very anti Roe.

Roe is bad law.

 

[yiostheoy]

The historical fact is that prior to Roe V Wade, the number of abortions was about what it is now.

That's because even in those states where abortion was illegal, most of them had provisions for rape, incest, and "health of the mother".

Doctors were given wide latitude in the "health of the mother" provision, and this provided a loophole to justify many an abortion for pregnancies which were in no way an actual threat to the life of the mother.

Got any links?

Those are interesting data and conclusions.

But it would be nice to see it.

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah, it's just unfair of a judge that wants to use the the actual text of the law and Constitution applied to a decision instead of personal opinions, how dare he.

the constitution is not some fundie's bible.... we live in a common law nation. our caselaw defines our statutes.

you could try reading Marbury v Madison, which addressed the issue of constitutional construction during the founders' day.

but why would you do anything that might prove you don't know what you're talking about

What am I suppose to be impressed where the court granted itself powers not granted them by the Constitution?

it's settled law for over 200 years.

should that impress you? yes, unless you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

the point, is that our laws are INTENDED to be interpreted by courts. or they have no purpose.

and the founders clearly intended them to have purpose.

So was Dread Scott, everything is subject to change by a subsequent court. And no, laws were intended to be applied by the courts, if the law doesn't meet the standards of the Constitution they have an obligation to set aside the law and allow the legislative body that wrote it to fix it. The courts has no constitutional authority to tweak laws in any way shape or form, it is essentially enacting a law if a form not passed by the legislative body. That has become a common occurrence lately and it's NOT constitutional.

that's why roe v. wade is unconstitutional in my eyes.

The supreme court made a law and that isn't within its authority.

Actually you're incorrect, they created a right and used that right to strike down State laws that prohibited abortion. States have subsequently written new laws, some have passed muster with the court, some haven't.

 

[Papageorgio]

TN, if you can't see that it is wrong, that the mother's life always precedes that of the fetus, then there is no hope for your moral development. Gorsuch supports murders of mothers whose lives are endangered by a pregnancy.

Putting aside all the drama, there are many mothers that would chose their death over their child's death.

I agree. And of course that is their choice, not the state's.

You are the one that said "always", not me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

TN, if you can't see that it is wrong, that the mother's life always precedes that of the fetus, then there is no hope for your moral development. Gorsuch supports murders of mothers whose lives are endangered by a pregnancy.

Putting aside all the drama, there are many mothers that would chose their death over their child's death.

I agree. And of course that is their choice, not the state's.

You are the one that said "always", not me.

Yup. It is the mother's choice.

 

[miketx]

TN, if you can't see that it is wrong, that the mother's life always precedes that of the fetus, then there is no hope for your moral development. Gorsuch supports murders of mothers whose lives are endangered by a pregnancy.

The lies are flowing hard today!

 

[JakeStarkey]

TN, if you can't see that it is wrong, that the mother's life always precedes that of the fetus, then there is no hope for your moral development. Gorsuch supports murders of mothers whose lives are endangered by a pregnancy.

The lies are flowing hard today!

The mother's life precedes the child if there is a choice. To force a mother to have a child if it kills her is first degree murder.

 

[Papageorgio]

TN, if you can't see that it is wrong, that the mother's life always precedes that of the fetus, then there is no hope for your moral development. Gorsuch supports murders of mothers whose lives are endangered by a pregnancy.

Putting aside all the drama, there are many mothers that would chose their death over their child's death.

I agree. And of course that is their choice, not the state's.

You are the one that said "always", not me.

Yup. It is the mother's choice.

That is correct however, you said "that the mother's life always precedes that of the fetus," and that is not true.

 

[JakeStarkey]

TN, if you can't see that it is wrong, that the mother's life always precedes that of the fetus, then there is no hope for your moral development. Gorsuch supports murders of mothers whose lives are endangered by a pregnancy.

Putting aside all the drama, there are many mothers that would chose their death over their child's death.

I agree. And of course that is their choice, not the state's.

You are the one that said "always", not me.

Yup. It is the mother's choice.

That is correct however, you said "that the mother's life always precedes that of the fetus," and that is not true.

That's your opinion. And can you show me where you are right?

 

[miketx]

TN, if you can't see that it is wrong, that the mother's life always precedes that of the fetus, then there is no hope for your moral development. Gorsuch supports murders of mothers whose lives are endangered by a pregnancy.

Putting aside all the drama, there are many mothers that would chose their death over their child's death.

I agree. And of course that is their choice, not the state's.

You are the one that said "always", not me.

Yup. It is the mother's choice.

Y

TN, if you can't see that it is wrong, that the mother's life always precedes that of the fetus, then there is no hope for your moral development. Gorsuch supports murders of mothers whose lives are endangered by a pregnancy.

The lies are flowing hard today!

The mother's life precedes the child if there is a choice. To force a mother to have a child if it kills her is first degree murder.

I get it, just murder the child.

 

[JakeStarkey]

TN, if you can't see that it is wrong, that the mother's life always precedes that of the fetus, then there is no hope for your moral development. Gorsuch supports murders of mothers whose lives are endangered by a pregnancy.

Putting aside all the drama, there are many mothers that would chose their death over their child's death.

I agree. And of course that is their choice, not the state's.

You are the one that said "always", not me.

Yup. It is the mother's choice.

Y

TN, if you can't see that it is wrong, that the mother's life always precedes that of the fetus, then there is no hope for your moral development. Gorsuch supports murders of mothers whose lives are endangered by a pregnancy.

The lies are flowing hard today!

The mother's life precedes the child if there is a choice. To force a mother to have a child if it kills her is first degree murder.

I get it, just murder the child.

So I get it, just murder the mother.

 

[kaz]

TN, if you can't see that it is wrong, that the mother's life always precedes that of the fetus, then there is no hope for your moral development. Gorsuch supports murders of mothers whose lives are endangered by a pregnancy.

Putting aside all the drama, there are many mothers that would chose their death over their child's death.

I agree. And of course that is their choice, not the state's.

You are the one that said "always", not me.

Yup. It is the mother's choice.

That is correct however, you said "that the mother's life always precedes that of the fetus," and that is not true.

Fair point, "always" is a strong word and nothing says that specifically

 

[AvgGuyIA]

he has no business being on the court

Get use to saying SCOTUS judge Gorsuch as we get use to you gnashing your teeth as Liberlism in all its forms is stricken from the land.

Btw...you might want to google "The Lord's Prayer". You'll need to bone up on it in case ou forgot it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here is a case to study. Is it ethical to terminate pregnancy to save the mother?

A Catholic medical team followed the mother's wish to terminate the pregnancy because she would surely die (her death was imminent) if the pregnancy continued. The Catholic Bishop morally chastised the medical team and said the mother was "automatically excommunicated." She would have died, and the Bishop is saying 'tough luck.'

I think the Bishop is always wrong in this situation.

 

[oreo]

TN, if you can't see that it is wrong, that the mother's life always precedes that of the fetus, then there is no hope for your moral development. Gorsuch supports murders of mothers whose lives are endangered by a pregnancy.

The lies are flowing hard today!

TN, if you can't see that it is wrong, that the mother's life always precedes that of the fetus, then there is no hope for your moral development. Gorsuch supports murders of mothers whose lives are endangered by a pregnancy.

Putting aside all the drama, there are many mothers that would chose their death over their child's death.

I agree. And of course that is their choice, not the state's.

You are the one that said "always", not me.

Yup. It is the mother's choice.

Y

TN, if you can't see that it is wrong, that the mother's life always precedes that of the fetus, then there is no hope for your moral development. Gorsuch supports murders of mothers whose lives are endangered by a pregnancy.

The lies are flowing hard today!

The mother's life precedes the child if there is a choice. To force a mother to have a child if it kills her is first degree murder.

I get it, just murder the child.

Are you prepared to tell a woman who may have two kids at home to raise along with husband that she needs to die, to give birth, & her husband can raise the two kids and baby by himself?

If not, shut the fuck up!