More abortion insanity

[bendog]

So we do not have a constitutional right to privacy??? Really????

Well the current SC appears to support a non-enumerated right to marriage at least for heteros, and that is based upon "history," and that the EP protects race but not orientation .... and don't ask me for the logic.

WE have a privacy right to contraception, or at least some forms. Some theocrats consider the IUD "murder."

WE have privacy right to "sodomy."

WE have a privacy right to procreate

We have a privacy right to terminate medical treatment.

WE have a privacy right to watch porn

Right to Privacy

Right to Privacy - Understand Right to Privacy, LAWS.COM - American Constitution 1789, its processes, and crucial LAWS.COM - American Constitution 1789 information needed.

constitution.laws.com

There are probably more.

jmo but we should have continued to have an abortion right to privacy, but for all practical purposes the US Sup Ct had allowed states to not allow access to clinics because states could regulate them out of existence. My guess is the Roe Justicses (bipartsan) thought that the vast maj would just accept it, as we support marriage and procreation as rights. There were only two dissenters. And Roe basically just "made the law" as it existed at the Founding. No abortion right after the fetus quickened.

in hindsight, we should have just let the politics work out, since in 1973 the momentum was to "liberalize" abortion laws, although I'd guess in Jesusland prohibitions would have continued. But the dogma of the catholic church, and their hypocrisy, and the misogyny of groups like Knights of Columbus would have been more ridiculed and they'd be taken seriously by even fewer people. And Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Cohen and Keggers are NOT mainstream in their religious views.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Better check that, my man. The right to use contraception was addressed by the SCOTUS. Not laws. The laws prevented people from using it. The SCOTUS provided relief from that religious horseshit.

That doesn't change anything I said

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That doesn't change anything I said

Right, it refutes it as nonsense.

 

[BlackSand]

It does seem that child support should be paid from the moment of conception.

.

In most cases, he started paying for the resulting pregnancy before he screwed her to start with.
He should send her a bill if she gets pregnant ...

(I mean shit ... if people are just going to be crazy, let's roll with it)

.​

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Right, it refutes it as nonsense.

Open up a dictionary and look up the definitions of the words "virtually" and "all." Until you do that stop wasting my time

 

[basquebromance]

Ohio bill would allow pregnant people to sue over unintended pregnancies - WOUB Public Media

COLUMBUS, Ohio (Statehouse News Bureau) — With Ohio’s new six-week abortion ban in place, a Democratic state lawmaker says it’s time for the Ohio Legislature to give consideration to her... Read More

woub.org

Sen. Tina Maharath (D-Canal Winchester) said her bill would allow anyone who becomes pregnant to file a civil suit against the person who impregnated them — even if it happened as a result of consensual sex.
“Regardless of the circumstances. I felt it was important to have that vague language due to the fact that abortion is now banned here in the state of Ohio,” Maharath said.

So much reactionary bullshit going on, NO ONE is thinking.
So does this mean males can sue birth control providers for not stopping the pregnancy?
WTF is wrong with people SMH

I'd lock this woman up if I were king ... maybe we need to start doing that

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Open up a dictionary and look up the definitions of the words "virtually" and "all." Until you do that stop wasting my time

You, as always, are free to dodge my points. Which you're certain to do.

 

[bendog]

You, as always, are free to dodge my points. Which you're certain to do.

He shud stop diggin!

 

[jc456]

So we do not have a constitutional right to privacy??? Really????

nope, not at all.

Why don't you post the constitutional amendment you feel gives you that right? You just spout off continuously like a fking parrot repeat and repeat and say fking nothing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He shud stop diggin!

He is trying to throw a blanket over the elephant in the room.
.these issues were absolutely NOT decided well by legislation, which is why relief had to be found in the SCOTUS.

It's literally the entire issue.

But he thinks what we are seeing and hearing is not what is happening. I heard that somewhere before...

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Well the current SC appears to support a non-enumerated right to marriage at least for heteros, and that is based upon "history," and that the EP protects race but not orientation .... and don't ask me for the logic.

WE have a privacy right to contraception, or at least some forms. Some theocrats consider the IUD "murder."

WE have privacy right to "sodomy."

WE have a privacy right to procreate

We have a privacy right to terminate medical treatment.

WE have a privacy right to watch porn

Right to Privacy

Right to Privacy - Understand Right to Privacy, LAWS.COM - American Constitution 1789, its processes, and crucial LAWS.COM - American Constitution 1789 information needed.

constitution.laws.com

There are probably more.

jmo but we should have continued to have an abortion right to privacy, but for all practical purposes the US Sup Ct had allowed states to not allow access to clinics because states could regulate them out of existence. My guess is the Roe Justicses (bipartsan) thought that the vast maj would just accept it, as we support marriage and procreation as rights. There were only two dissenters. And Roe basically just "made the law" as it existed at the Founding. No abortion right after the fetus quickened.

in hindsight, we should have just let the politics work out, since in 1973 the momentum was to "liberalize" abortion laws, although I'd guess in Jesusland prohibitions would have continued. But the dogma of the catholic church, and their hypocrisy, and the misogyny of groups like Knights of Columbus would have been more ridiculed and they'd be taken seriously by even fewer people. And Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Cohen and Keggers are NOT mainstream in their religious views.

Had SCOTUS kicked it to Congress like they should have we almost certainly would have had legalized abortion nationwide decades ago through Federal law. Even if they had left it up to the states, with the exception of maybe Utah because of the Mormons, we'd likely have it available nationwide.

Because they didn't do that and took it upon themselves to change the Constitution every election in my lifetime and every Supreme Court nomination has been a battle of monkeys throwing shit at each other over abortion, abortion, abortion. It's fucking nauseating.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

nope, not at all.

I would consider the Fourth Amendment a form of protection of privacy, but not in the way Roe was decided.

 

[Orangecat]

Ohio bill would allow pregnant people to sue over unintended pregnancies - WOUB Public Media

COLUMBUS, Ohio (Statehouse News Bureau) — With Ohio’s new six-week abortion ban in place, a Democratic state lawmaker says it’s time for the Ohio Legislature to give consideration to her... Read More

woub.org

Sen. Tina Maharath (D-Canal Winchester) said her bill would allow anyone who becomes pregnant to file a civil suit against the person who impregnated them — even if it happened as a result of consensual sex.
“Regardless of the circumstances. I felt it was important to have that vague language due to the fact that abortion is now banned here in the state of Ohio,” Maharath said.

So much reactionary bullshit going on, NO ONE is thinking.
So does this mean males can sue birth control providers for not stopping the pregnancy?
WTF is wrong with people SMH

Can men sue women who get pregnant, too? Lol.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Had SCOTUS kicked it to Congress like they should have we almost certainly would have had legalized abortion nationwide decades ago through Federal law.

Such complete nonsense.

At any time in the last 50 years anyone could have introduced that bill.

Through all the times the right to abortion was relitigated and reaffirmed, anyone could have sponsored such a bill. Any congress could have passed it, and any president could then have signed it.

There was no political will to do so. Not enough, anyway.

You would have to find me an instance of 67 democrat senators and a Democrat president, in the last 50 years. Which you cannot do, because it never happened.

Because, as I am sure you know, the republicans spent 50 years trying to relitigate it and to restrict it.

They eventually had to lie and cheat to get their way.

 

[jc456]

I would consider the Fourth Amendment a form of protection of privacy, but not in the way Roe was decided.

Fourth Amendment​

Fourth Amendment Explained


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

one can get a warrant and get all your information and take your possessions. So technically, up to the point of a warrant you do, but then, nope.

 

[jc456]

Can men sue women who get pregnant, too? Lol.

DOH!!!!!!

 

[Orangecat]

I would consider the Fourth Amendment a form of protection of privacy, but not in the way Roe was decided.

If privacy trumped murder, you would be able to kill your houseguests with impunity. Mother in-laws (I mean birthing-people in-laws) would be pruned nationwide.

 

[jc456]

Such complete nonsense.

At any rime I. The last 50 years anyone could have introduced that bill.

Through all the times the right to abortion was relitigated and reaffirmed, anyone could have sponsored such a bill. Any congress could have passed it, and any president could then have signed it.

There was no political will to do so. Not enough, anyway.

You would have to find me an instance of 67 democrat senators and a Democrat president, in the last 50 years. Which you cannot do, because it never happened.

what doe that tell you.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Fourth Amendment​

Fourth Amendment Explained


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

one can get a warrant and get all your information and take your possessions. So technically, up to the point of a warrant you do, but then, nope.

It's limited, of course, but there has to be a valid reason for a warrant. My brother is a cop. He just can't request a warrant for my next door neighbor simply because we don't like the bitch. There has to be reasonable suspicion and just cause.

 

[Orangecat]

At any rime I.

Any rhyme eye, or select rhyme eyes?