Oklahoma Senator Introduces Bill to Criminalize Abortion as First-Degree Murder

[Skylar]

On an unrelated note, is anybody else amused that the Chuz Life guy has a quote of himself for his signature? lol

Its adorable.

On a related note, I don't blame people who are pro-life to constantly challenge Roe v. Wade. As an American, I'd actually consider it their civil duty to do so if they didn't believe in the legality / morality of the judgement. We live in a large nation with a diversity of opinions, it is to our benefit to allow those opinions to be challenged.

On a personal note, I'm certainly pro-choice. In my opinion, any argument on pro-life vs. pro-choice comes down to a belief in freedom of choice or sanctity of life. I simply believe stronger in the mother's right to choose what to do with her own body over how sacred the thing inside her body is. You can argue over "personhood" or how developed the fetus is, or throw religious arguments at the wall, but I'll always say that people should have a right to do what they want with their bodies. Unless you develop some way to suck the fetus out and develop it independent of a person, I really don't see any sort of logical counter to that basic belief that I hold.

Exactly. It doesn't matter how developed you think the fetus is. A woman has the right to deny the use of her body....to anyone. Or anything.

The Supreme Court said this: "If a state were to establish personhood for children in the womb - the case FOR abortion becomes nearly IMPOSSIBLE to make."

That's what the Supreme Court said. Not just me.

And, for what it's worth - the pro abortion attorney (Sarah Weddington) nervously AGREED with the court (Justice Potter Stewart) when he made the comment.

Since that time, many States (more than 30) have been incrementally implementing the very kind of language that Justice Potter speculated about in our fetal homicide laws.

Some libtardz won't acknowledge it until it is nailed to their foreheads with the aid of a Louisville slugger. . . but that's fine by me.

For as long as we have fetal homicide laws which define and establish the personhood of "children in the womb" as "human beings" the conflict between those laws and Roe will inevitably end up before the court for them to reconcile.

Every MURDER conviction under our fetal homicide laws will bring us closer and closer to a challenge to Roe as those murder convictions are appealed.

So far, the SCOTUS has refused to hear the challenges. . . I think because they are trying to find the right case for overturning Roe.

You realize that I literally stated that I simply don't care if the fetus has personhood. In fact, I don't actually disagree with this (when you think of murders of pregnant women or irresponsibility of pregnant women, it is really beneficial to give the fetus some rights so you can have legal leverage to take some sort of action).

On the other hand, as I stated I don't care. I'm not sure how thick you are, but whether or not you consider a fetus a person doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it's part of the mother's body? Until you can show, in a provable way, that the fetus isn't attached to the mother than you really can't argue against my belief in the mother's right to choose trumps the fetus's right to life.

I understand your wants and your beliefs but the SCOTUS has already rejected your claim. They are the ones who said that once personhood is established for the child in the womb, the case for abortion becomes near impossible to make.



The Supreme Court said that. Not me.

So, it's clear they have rejected YOUR claim that just because the child (put there by the actions of the mother and her partner) is attached that somehow she has a right to kill it.

I think the court rejects that argument at least in cases other than rape. . . because the child is only in the situation it is in because of the actions that the woman and her partner took to put it there.

No-one has the right to lure and entrap another person in a situation and then claim the right to kill them in an act of self defense.

Stewart didn't write the court's decision on Roe v. Wade. Blackmun did. Thus you're not citing the 'Supreme Court'. You're citing a single justice in the Supreme Court. With the claims you're citing NOT represented in the majority opinion.

Once again, you omit amazingly relevant details that are inconvenient to your argument.

As usual, your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.

 

[paulitician]

Sorry, Chuz....but the only double speak is yours. The Federal Fetal Protection laws make no mention of 'personhood' for any fetus at any state of development. Nor describe them as a person.

You were the one that insisted that the 'legal definition' of murder was a person criminally killing another person. With PERSON in all caps. Now you've completely abandoned your own imaginary citations, your own 'legal definitions'. And run from my cartoon simple question:

Who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

Not the law. Not the courts. Who then?

The exceptions destroy your entire argument...as they explicitly remove abortion from any definition of 'criminal killing'. Or any application within fetal protection laws.

All of which you know. But really hope we don't.

If your argument had merit you wouldn't have had to withhold this incredibly relevant portion of the law. Your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.

That's not a legal argument.

By making it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in a criminal act, our fetal homicide laws are too establishing and recognizing the personhood of the children killed.

I don't need for you to agree with me on that when I already have Gloria Feldt (former president of Planned Parenthood) saying essentially the same thing.

It does no such thing. What it does recognize is a woman's right to choose for herself to terminate her pregnancy.

A woman's right, to kill a heartbeat, to kill a brain, to kill something that clings to her for life.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

No they don't.

Even in Roe, the Court ruled that the government has the right to intervention when there is a compelling interest.

That leaves the door wide open for what is and what is not a "compelling interest"

Right, and killing babies isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers just assumed people could never be that evil. But boy were they wrong. What a sad mess.

 

[Chuz Life]

And by 'double speak', you mean accurately quoting the law that *you* cited? The Federal Fetal protection laws do not say what you claim they say.

Sorry, Chuz....but the only double speak is yours. The Federal Fetal Protection laws make no mention of 'personhood' for any fetus at any state of development. Nor describe them as a person.

You were the one that insisted that the 'legal definition' of murder was a person criminally killing another person. With PERSON in all caps. Now you've completely abandoned your own imaginary citations, your own 'legal definitions'. And run from my cartoon simple question:

Who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

Not the law. Not the courts. Who then?

You can cling to the exceptions that the fetal homicide laws make to prohibit the prosecutions for abortions. . . But those exceptions are not infallible. They are the going to be challenged relentlessly until the personhood of children in the womb is fully recognized and not just selectively recognized.

The exceptions destroy your entire argument...as they explicitly remove abortion from any definition of 'criminal killing'. Or any application within fetal protection laws.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

All of which you know. But really hope we don't.

If your argument had merit you wouldn't have had to withhold this incredibly relevant portion of the law. Your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.

That's not a legal argument.

By making it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in a criminal act, our fetal homicide laws are too establishing and recognizing the personhood of the children killed.

I don't need for you to agree with me on that when I already have Gloria Feldt (former president of Planned Parenthood) saying essentially the same thing.

It does no such thing. What it does recognize is a woman's right to choose for herself to terminate her pregnancy.

Nobody has the right to violate the rights of a child.

And who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

There's you...citing you. And who else? Remembering of course that any law you pretend to cite I'm actually going to look up and check.

Our laws are not infallible. That's why they are being challenged.

Our fetal homicide laws define children in the womb as children and those laws recognize children in the womb as human beings.

Our fetal homicide laws also already make it a crime of murder to kill a "child in the womb" in a criminal act.

The legal definition for person is simply "a human being". Look it up.

So, your claim that a human being , a child in the womb that is a MURDER victim is not a PERSON. . . is more than a little ignorant of the facts.

 

[Skylar]

Sorry, Chuz....but the only double speak is yours. The Federal Fetal Protection laws make no mention of 'personhood' for any fetus at any state of development. Nor describe them as a person.

You were the one that insisted that the 'legal definition' of murder was a person criminally killing another person. With PERSON in all caps. Now you've completely abandoned your own imaginary citations, your own 'legal definitions'. And run from my cartoon simple question:

Who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

Not the law. Not the courts. Who then?

The exceptions destroy your entire argument...as they explicitly remove abortion from any definition of 'criminal killing'. Or any application within fetal protection laws.

All of which you know. But really hope we don't.

If your argument had merit you wouldn't have had to withhold this incredibly relevant portion of the law. Your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.

That's not a legal argument.

By making it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in a criminal act, our fetal homicide laws are too establishing and recognizing the personhood of the children killed.

I don't need for you to agree with me on that when I already have Gloria Feldt (former president of Planned Parenthood) saying essentially the same thing.

It does no such thing. What it does recognize is a woman's right to choose for herself to terminate her pregnancy.

A woman's right, to kill a heartbeat, to kill a brain, to kill something that clings to her for life.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

No they don't.

Even in Roe, the Court ruled that the government has the right to intervention when there is a compelling interest.

That leaves the door wide open for what is and what is not a "compelling interest"

Not that wide at all. Remember, we can read the ruling. And it doesn't say what you do:

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins....

In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches [p163] term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

The court is very specific about the compelling interests of the State that it considers valid. And reject the 'life of the child' argument as overriding the rights of pregnant women. With the state's authority to regulate to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health

You know this. But again, you intentionally omit these amazingly relevant facts pretending that the 'compelling interests' of the state are 'wide open'.

No, they're not.

Once again your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience. Anyone with an even passing familiarity with the actual case (like say, any judge adjudicating it) will see that you are intentionally misrepresenting the case. There's a reason why your argument has such an abysmal record of failure in the courts.

 

[paulitician]

If you damand others pay for your decisions, then yes, those others do have the right to scream 'Baby Killers, Baby Killers', and demand women 'keep their legs closed.' This ain't no free-for-all. You force your life on others, they do have the right to speak up.

You can speak up all ya want. Tax dollars are still going to feed kids. We don't let kids starve in America.

Then you support some freeloading mother telling you to butt out then making you look like a dumbass by having you pay for a choice she said was none of your business. I choose not to be an idiot. You do.

I choose to not let kids starve, regardless of their parents' decisions. If left to you, there would be homeless kids starving on the streets.

I choose not to be an idiot and let someone tell me what they do is their business then support the choices they made. Apparently you do.

If they are, it's your fault. You think it's OK for someone to tell you to butt out then you're willing to pay for a choice you were told is none of your business. If you think that's OK, prove it by finding all those in that situation and paying them with YOUR money. I don't think it's OK. I, unlike you, am not stupid.

More evidence that if left up to you and your ilk, kids would be starving in the street, wasn't really necessary. But thanks anyway.

Take responsibility for your decisions in life. It's not everyone else's fault. Think very deeply and intelligently before shitting out 5-6 kids. And don't demand Taxpayers pay for you killing your babies. Most Americans don't wanna be forced to pay for dumb sluts being dumb sluts. Being a dumb slut is a choice. But I'll mind my own business if you allow me to.

 

[Skylar]

Sorry, Chuz....but the only double speak is yours. The Federal Fetal Protection laws make no mention of 'personhood' for any fetus at any state of development. Nor describe them as a person.

You were the one that insisted that the 'legal definition' of murder was a person criminally killing another person. With PERSON in all caps. Now you've completely abandoned your own imaginary citations, your own 'legal definitions'. And run from my cartoon simple question:

Who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

Not the law. Not the courts. Who then?

The exceptions destroy your entire argument...as they explicitly remove abortion from any definition of 'criminal killing'. Or any application within fetal protection laws.

All of which you know. But really hope we don't.

If your argument had merit you wouldn't have had to withhold this incredibly relevant portion of the law. Your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.

That's not a legal argument.

By making it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in a criminal act, our fetal homicide laws are too establishing and recognizing the personhood of the children killed.

I don't need for you to agree with me on that when I already have Gloria Feldt (former president of Planned Parenthood) saying essentially the same thing.

It does no such thing. What it does recognize is a woman's right to choose for herself to terminate her pregnancy.

Nobody has the right to violate the rights of a child.

And who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

There's you...citing you. And who else? Remembering of course that any law you pretend to cite I'm actually going to look up and check.

Our laws are not infallible. That's why they are being challenged.

The law need not be 'infallible' to preserve the rights of pregnant women.

Our fetal homicide laws define children in the womb as children and those laws recognize children in the womb as human beings.

It does not recognize them as persons. You've changed your argument. Did the law change since yesterday.....or are you just scrambling to a new claim when your old one was demonstrated to be nonsense by the very law you cited?

Our fetal homicide laws also already make it a crime of murder to kill a "child in the womb" in a criminal act.

The legal definition for person is simply "a human being". Look it up.

Then why didn't the law recognize them as a person? Why does no court recognize a fertilized egg as a person?

And of course, the very law you claim to cite *explicitly* exempts abortion from anything in the law. Destroying your entire argument. You're both citing and ignoring the exact same law on the exact same issue. Either the law is authoritative, or it isn't. You can't cite one portion and ignore others.

And yet your entire argument hinges on doing exactly that.

Can you understand why the legal record of your argument is so horrid and that of nearly perfect failure?

 

[hazlnut]

Why is it so hard for Republicans to stay out of people's personal business? Even if this law manages to pass, which I doubt, the state will then end up spending tens of thousands of dollars failing to defend it from court challenges. This issue was settled in 1973. Don't like abortion? Don't have one.

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — In a move that is unprecedented nationwide, an Oklahoma Senator has introduced a bill that would criminalize abortion as first-degree murder.

Sen. Joe Silk, R-Broken Bow, recently introduced S.B. 1118 which adds killing an unborn child to existing murder statutes.

“No person shall perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion after conception,” it reads. “A person commits murder in the first degree when that person performs an abortion as defined by Section 1-745.5 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes.”

Oklahoma Senator Introduces Bill to Criminalize Abortion as First-Degree Murder

So far, I Support this bill 100%

It is going to take bills like this one to finally get the Supreme Court to reconcile the legal status of "children in the womb" as set by our State and Federal "fetal homicide " laws with the Court's previous rulings on cases like Roe v Wade.

My money is on the Court's eventual overturning of Roe.

Conservative, always moving backwards...

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and Chuz.....are you still going to try and misrepresent Stewart as 'the Supreme Court'? Remember, we can read the Roe v. Wade ruling. We can see that it was Blackmun that wrote the majority opinion. And that the majority opinion is the Supreme Court. Not an individual justice.

We can also see that the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade didn't include *anything* you're citing.

Did you honestly think we wouldn't notice? Or that none of us had read the Roe v. Wade ruling?

Again, your argument only works with those who know shit about the ruling and the law. Which is why your ilk keep failing over and over and over in court. As the judges you have to get your pseudo-legal horseshit past.......aren't ignorant of the rulings.

 

[Chuz Life]

Oh, and Chuz.....are you still going to try and misrepresent Stewart as 'the Supreme Court'? Remember, we can read the Roe v. Wade ruling. We can see that it was Blackmun that wrote the majority opinion. And that the majority opinion is the Supreme Court. Not an individual justice.

We can also see that the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade didn't include *anything* you're citing.

Did you honestly think we wouldn't notice? Or that none of us had read the Roe v. Wade ruling?

Again, your argument only works with those who know shit about the ruling and the law. Which is why your ilk keep failing over and over and over in court. As the judges you have to get your pseudo-legal horseshit past.......aren't ignorant of the rulings.

I appreciate your want to help me refine my arguments but seriously, this is only an online forum and I am posting from a cell phone with only limited abilities to clarify and support my posts.

If you want to pretend that there is no recognition of personhood in a law that makes it a crime of murder to kill a CHILD in the womb? That's fine with me.

Likewise if you want to believe that there is no conflict between Roe and any of out fetal homicide laws.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and Chuz.....are you still going to try and misrepresent Stewart as 'the Supreme Court'? Remember, we can read the Roe v. Wade ruling. We can see that it was Blackmun that wrote the majority opinion. And that the majority opinion is the Supreme Court. Not an individual justice.

We can also see that the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade didn't include *anything* you're citing.

Did you honestly think we wouldn't notice? Or that none of us had read the Roe v. Wade ruling?

Again, your argument only works with those who know shit about the ruling and the law. Which is why your ilk keep failing over and over and over in court. As the judges you have to get your pseudo-legal horseshit past.......aren't ignorant of the rulings.

I appreciate your want to help me refine my arguments but seriously, this is only an online forum and I am posting from a cell phone with only limited abilities to clarify and support my posts.

You described your quote as the 'Supreme Court'. Despite the fact that you knew that wasn't the case. You know that nothing you've cited in is the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade. And you know that only the majority opinion speaks for the 'Supreme Court.'

Problem with your 'legal' argument...is that any judge reviewing the case would know that you're not citing the Supreme Court. So why misrepresent your sources? What the purpose? Its not like you're going to trick a judge into believing your pseudo-legal horseshit.

If you want to pretend that there is no recognition of personhood in a law that makes it a crime of murder to kill a CHILD in the womb? That's fine with me.

Show me any mention of 'personhood' in the Federal Fetal Protection laws. There is none. And you know that these same laws explicitly exempt abortion from anything in the law. You're literally citing and ignoring the same source on the same topic. That's pseudo-legal nonsense.

Either the law you're citing is valid or it isn't. You can't arbitrarily pretend that certain *portions* of the law magically disappear just because they destroy your argument.

Again, any judge reviewing the law would know that it doesn't apply to abortion.

What's the point of a 'legal argument' that isn't recognized as valid by either the law or the courts?

Likewise if you want to believe that there is no conflict between Roe and any of out fetal homicide laws.

Show me the conflict.in the actual Roe V. Wade majority decision. The ONLY decision that is legally enforceable and creates binding precedent.

You can't. As nothing you've cited is part of the majority decision. And you know this.

You just really hope we don't. Your arguments, as always, are layered pseudo-legal horseshit that rely on an ignorant audience who doesn't know the laws you pretend to 'cite' nor has ever read the ruling you pretend to 'quote'.

And any judge would know both. There's a reason why your arguments have a near perfect record of failure in the courts.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and are you still going to claim that the 'compelling interests' of the State are 'wide open' as it pertains to abortion? Because I've got the actual quotes of Roe V. Wade right here to demonstrate again....that your claims are just more pseudo-legal gibberish.

Care to dance?

Or are you going to try and blame your cell phone again for why you keep misrepresenting the rulings?

 

[Chuz Life]

It's hilarious how the proaborts like yourself opposed our fetal homicide laws when they were being proposed under the auspicious claims that they would undermine Roe but now that those laws are passed. . . You see no conflict at all. .

Keep pretending there is no conflict between them. I like it.

 

[Skylar]

And as an aside, Chuz.....I get the impression that you're not used to talking to anyone who has an even passing famimliarity

It's hilarious how the proaborts like yourself opposed our fetal homicide laws when they were being proposed under the auspicious claims that they would undermine Roe but now that those laws are passed. . . You see no conflict at all. .

Keep pretending there is no conflict between them. I like it.

Laughing......show us the conflicts with the Roe decision. The majority opinion, of course. The only one that creates binding precedent.

Or you can keep *talking* about the conflict rather than showing us. And we'll keep pointing and laughing.

Its your choice.

 

[Chuz Life]

And as an aside, Chuz.....I get the impression that you're not used to talking to anyone who has an even passing famimliarity

It's hilarious how the proaborts like yourself opposed our fetal homicide laws when they were being proposed under the auspicious claims that they would undermine Roe but now that those laws are passed. . . You see no conflict at all. .

Keep pretending there is no conflict between them. I like it.

Laughing......show us the conflicts with the Roe decision. The majority opinion, of course. The only one that creates binding precedent.

Or you can keep *talking* about the conflict rather than showing us. And we'll keep pointing and laughing.

Its your choice.

Why did planned parenthood and the aclu oppose our federal fetal homicide laws and the 30 plus State fetal homicide laws which followed it, sky?

You tell me.

 

[Chuz Life]

By the way, I don't care if you laugh at me. The collision course between Roe and our fetal homicide laws is already in motion. I provided the link earlier about how those convicted are appealing on the basis that the fetal homicide laws conflict with Roe.

You can take me completely out of the picture and that process will continue to unfold as more cases are made and presented.

 

[elektra]

Again, thanks for nothing.

Do you often struggle with responding to posts?

No problem, a struggle? Hardly, maybe my pocket did it, i am on the telephone.

 

[elektra]

Again, thanks for nothing.

Do you often struggle with responding to posts?

No problem, a struggle? Hardly, maybe my pocket did it, i am on the telephone.

 

[Faun]

No, they don't. They never once use 'person' or 'personhood' to describe a fetus at any stage of development. And explicitly exempts abortion from anything in the section.

So, for the fourth time, who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

This question isn't going away.


Your double speak is not going to change that fact.

And by 'double speak', you mean accurately quoting the law that *you* cited? The Federal Fetal protection laws do not say what you claim they say.

Sorry, Chuz....but the only double speak is yours. The Federal Fetal Protection laws make no mention of 'personhood' for any fetus at any state of development. Nor describe them as a person.

You were the one that insisted that the 'legal definition' of murder was a person criminally killing another person. With PERSON in all caps. Now you've completely abandoned your own imaginary citations, your own 'legal definitions'. And run from my cartoon simple question:

Who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

Not the law. Not the courts. Who then?

You can cling to the exceptions that the fetal homicide laws make to prohibit the prosecutions for abortions. . . But those exceptions are not infallible. They are the going to be challenged relentlessly until the personhood of children in the womb is fully recognized and not just selectively recognized.

The exceptions destroy your entire argument...as they explicitly remove abortion from any definition of 'criminal killing'. Or any application within fetal protection laws.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

All of which you know. But really hope we don't.

If your argument had merit you wouldn't have had to withhold this incredibly relevant portion of the law. Your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.

That's not a legal argument.

By making it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in a criminal act, our fetal homicide laws are too establishing and recognizing the personhood of the children killed.

I don't need for you to agree with me on that when I already have Gloria Feldt (former president of Planned Parenthood) saying essentially the same thing.

It does no such thing. What it does recognize is a woman's right to choose for herself to terminate her pregnancy.

Nobody has the right to violate the rights of a child.

Your opinion is noted.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

 

[Faun]

You can speak up all ya want. Tax dollars are still going to feed kids. We don't let kids starve in America.

Then you support some freeloading mother telling you to butt out then making you look like a dumbass by having you pay for a choice she said was none of your business. I choose not to be an idiot. You do.

I choose to not let kids starve, regardless of their parents' decisions. If left to you, there would be homeless kids starving on the streets.

I didn't say that. I said i have the right to speak up. The moment you demand i pay for your children and you killing your babies, your life became my business. You forced it on me. Therefore i do have a say. I won't mind my business.

I will tell you to make better decisions and keep your damn legs closed. And i will push for more requirements of you for you receiving Tax Dollars. It's not a free-for-all. I will demand such things as Community Service and so on. You don't like that, too bad. Don't take the money. I'm not just gonna shut up and pay up. I'll be in your business. Deal with it.

Like I said, you have the right to speak up.

No one has to listen to you.

But rant away anyway, if it makes ya feel better.

Oh they'll listen. Because now we're in their business. It's what they demanded. We'll work tirelessly to add restrictions and requirements for their Entitlement mooching. It won't be a free-for-all anymore.

They're not gonna listen to you. How fucking retarded are you? They don't give two shits about you. So rant away, you'll feel better.

 

[Skylar]

And as an aside, Chuz.....I get the impression that you're not used to talking to anyone who has an even passing famimliarity

It's hilarious how the proaborts like yourself opposed our fetal homicide laws when they were being proposed under the auspicious claims that they would undermine Roe but now that those laws are passed. . . You see no conflict at all. .

Keep pretending there is no conflict between them. I like it.

Laughing......show us the conflicts with the Roe decision. The majority opinion, of course. The only one that creates binding precedent.

Or you can keep *talking* about the conflict rather than showing us. And we'll keep pointing and laughing.

Its your choice.

Why did planned parenthood and the aclu oppose our federal fetal homicide laws and the 30 plus State fetal homicide laws which followed it, sky?

You tell me.

Ask them.

Where did the Federal Fetal protection law mention personhood?

Where did the Roe v. Wade decision say what you've attributed to it?

And why would any rational person ignore the fact that the very law you cite exempts all abortions from any part of the law?

You're not very good at this.