Over 200 Lawmakers Ask SCOTUS to Reconsider Roe v Wade

[22lcidw]

Look, overturning RvW would be bad.You religious wacks think you have a monopoly on morals and ethic. Fact is you don’t. You’re not going to stop women from getting abortions, and banning abortions will just make some abortion providers criminals while endanger young women. Why don’t you put your efforts to making adoption more prevalent?

Because the goal isn't to stop women from having abortions. The goal is to punish women for having sex. To shame them for having their birth control fail.

Abortion shaming is the continuation of a long, long history of slut shaming by the male heirarchy which celebrates male sexual predators as heroes and role models for their nation, elevating them to the highest offices in the land, while saying that a woman who once had an affair with a much older man was unfit for public office.

If they truly cared about the children, the USA wouldn't have the highest rate of infant mortality in the first world.

Dragonlady you have all sorts of eloquent reasons why it should be legal to murder unborn babies.

Someday, you'll have to explain it again to Jesus.

But guess what? He's not going to buy that load of malarky.

Nor will he understand cutting people off of things like food stamps.

The food stamp program is a currency within the dollar based currency business in many areas. To clean it up would bring howls of hate. The corruption started as soon as it was started. There was 50 cents on a dollar's worth of food stamps many decades ago and different rates depending on the area. Limit what could be purchased to start. More healthy items as an example. What gauls me is that Progs leave areas of need to lower tax environs and then start the same behaviors and political persuasions that caused the depravity of many programs in the first place. Jesus is not going to understand why you leave these areas then infect others. The people at the Oscars rough it by drinking domestic champagne instead of imported to show their solidarity. There is an old testament also.The new one is a more benevolent God but he still has rules. You forget about that.

 

[Blackrook]

You can't murder unborn babies and think God's going to let it slide because you support food stamps.

 

[jwoodie]

I will not pass judgement on women deciding if they are up to the task, deciding it for them across the board, and neither should the government.

Up to the point of delivery (or after)?

 

[Blackrook]

Food stamps, it's always the excuse the liberals give for supporting abortion that conservatives oppose food stamps.

I would paper the entire world with fucking food stamps if it would save even one baby.

And most pro-lifers feel the same.

So, that's not it.

 

[whitehall]

It's not true. It's based on an op-ed blog by somebody named Darryl Cootes. The state lawmakers urged the Court to uphold a Louisiana law that has something to do with abortions and hospital admissions. The blog headline seems to be yet another dirty trick to alarm and mobilize mostly pro-abortion democrats in upcoming elections. There is no upcoming Roe v Wade decision envisioned in the S.C. schedule

To uphold the law would be to overturn RvW.

It's not true. It's based on an op-ed blog by somebody named Darryl Cootes. The state lawmakers urged the Court to uphold a Louisiana law that has something to do with abortions and hospital admissions. The blog headline seems to be yet another dirty trick to alarm and mobilize mostly pro-abortion democrats in upcoming elections. There is no upcoming Roe v Wade decision envisioned in the S.C. schedule

To uphold the law would be to overturn RvW.

How is that possible?

 

[White 6]

I will not pass judgement on women deciding if they are up to the task, deciding it for them across the board, and neither should the government.

Up to the point of delivery (or after)?

After the birth, I am pretty judgemental. Horrible child rearing is the biggest problem responsible for the state of decline in this country and that applies to all income levels, education level, and political or religious stripe. But, that's just my opinion, I'm officially old, and I will carry it to the grave.

 

[Dragonlady]

Food stamps, it's always the excuse the liberals give for supporting abortion that conservatives oppose food stamps.

I would paper the entire world with fucking food stamps if it would save even one baby.

And most pro-lifers feel the same.

So, that's not it.

So I take it you favour universal health care, geared to income child care, mandated paid maternity leave of up to 1 year, a raise in minimum wage to $15 per hour, and equal pay for work of equal value. Jurisidictions with all of othese things have an abortion rate which is half that of the USA.

Anything short of providing these protections for pregnant and working women is just paying lip service to the idea that this is all about saving babies. There are lots of ways to make it easier for women to keep their babies than to abort them, and right wingers refuse to have any part of doing them.

You care not for the children once they've drawn their first breaths. Republicans wouldn't even vote for aid for the children of Flint Michigan who were being poisoned by the water, until after Trump was elected. They actively voted AGAINST helping these children, multiple times, when Obama was President.

 

[pknopp]

Look, overturning RvW would be bad.You religious wacks think you have a monopoly on morals and ethic. Fact is you don’t. You’re not going to stop women from getting abortions, and banning abortions will just make some abortion providers criminals while endanger young women. Why don’t you put your efforts to making adoption more prevalent?

Because the goal isn't to stop women from having abortions. The goal is to punish women for having sex. To shame them for having their birth control fail.

Abortion shaming is the continuation of a long, long history of slut shaming by the male heirarchy which celebrates male sexual predators as heroes and role models for their nation, elevating them to the highest offices in the land, while saying that a woman who once had an affair with a much older man was unfit for public office.

If they truly cared about the children, the USA wouldn't have the highest rate of infant mortality in the first world.

Dragonlady you have all sorts of eloquent reasons why it should be legal to murder unborn babies.

Someday, you'll have to explain it again to Jesus.

But guess what? He's not going to buy that load of malarky.

Nor will he understand cutting people off of things like food stamps.

The food stamp program is a currency within the dollar based currency business in many areas. To clean it up would bring howls of hate. The corruption started as soon as it was started. There was 50 cents on a dollar's worth of food stamps many decades ago and different rates depending on the area. Limit what could be purchased to start. More healthy items as an example. What gauls me is that Progs leave areas of need to lower tax environs and then start the same behaviors and political persuasions that caused the depravity of many programs in the first place. Jesus is not going to understand why you leave these areas then infect others. The people at the Oscars rough it by drinking domestic champagne instead of imported to show their solidarity. There is an old testament also.The new one is a more benevolent God but he still has rules. You forget about that.

The old Testament rules were negated with the birth of Jesus. You can try and defend your hate with me and it doesn't matter much I suppose......

 

[pknopp]

It's not true. It's based on an op-ed blog by somebody named Darryl Cootes. The state lawmakers urged the Court to uphold a Louisiana law that has something to do with abortions and hospital admissions. The blog headline seems to be yet another dirty trick to alarm and mobilize mostly pro-abortion democrats in upcoming elections. There is no upcoming Roe v Wade decision envisioned in the S.C. schedule

To uphold the law would be to overturn RvW.

It's not true. It's based on an op-ed blog by somebody named Darryl Cootes. The state lawmakers urged the Court to uphold a Louisiana law that has something to do with abortions and hospital admissions. The blog headline seems to be yet another dirty trick to alarm and mobilize mostly pro-abortion democrats in upcoming elections. There is no upcoming Roe v Wade decision envisioned in the S.C. schedule

To uphold the law would be to overturn RvW.

How is that possible?

The law that is before the court would be overturned if ruled with the guidance of RvW. The only way to uphold is to overturn that.

 

[JLW]

I guess all these boobs crying for the overturning of Roe v. Wade don’t realize that nearly all our private rights stem from that case. If Roe falls, so will nearly all the cases that rely on Roe including those cases that protect our privacy from government intrusion. Roe found privacy in the “penumbra of rights” under the constitution, such as the fourth and fifth amendments.

As they say be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

 

[Dragonlady]

I won’t have to defend myself to Jesus. I have never had an abortion, nor have I ever encouraged anyone to have one. Women I know who have made that choice have all told me how difficult it was and how they wished things were different.

The only woman I know who treated abortion as a form of birth control had multiple abortions throughout her life - most the result of affairs with married men. She was a staunch conservative who railed at me for marching in pro-choice marches.

 

[pknopp]

I guess all these boobs crying for the overturning of Roe v. Wade don’t realize that nearly all our private rights stem from that case. If Roe falls, so will nearly all the cases that rely on Roe including those cases that protect our privacy from government intrusion. Roe found privacy in the “penumbra of rights” under the constitution, such as the fourth and fifth amendments.

As they say be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

We most certainly had privacy rights pre RvW.

 

[JLW]

I guess all these boobs crying for the overturning of Roe v. Wade don’t realize that nearly all our private rights stem from that case. If Roe falls, so will nearly all the cases that rely on Roe including those cases that protect our privacy from government intrusion. Roe found privacy in the “penumbra of rights” under the constitution, such as the fourth and fifth amendments.

As they say be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

We most certainly had privacy rights pre RvW.

There is no explicit right to privacy in the US Constitution. There are constitutional amendments that infer a right to Privacy. It was Roe that made a right to privacy a fundamental right.

Roe v. Wade in 1972 firmly established the right to privacy as fundamental, and required that any governmental infringement of that right to be justified by a compelling state interest. In Roe, the court ruled that the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy only after viability. Before viability, the mother's right to privacy limits state interference due to the lack of a compelling state interest.

Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws | Live Science

 

[pknopp]

I guess all these boobs crying for the overturning of Roe v. Wade don’t realize that nearly all our private rights stem from that case. If Roe falls, so will nearly all the cases that rely on Roe including those cases that protect our privacy from government intrusion. Roe found privacy in the “penumbra of rights” under the constitution, such as the fourth and fifth amendments.

As they say be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

We most certainly had privacy rights pre RvW.

There is no explicit right to privacy in the US Constitution. There are constitutional amendments that infer a right to Privacy. It was Roe that made a right to privacy a fundamental right.

Roe v. Wade in 1972 firmly established the right to privacy as fundamental, and required that any governmental infringement of that right to be justified by a compelling state interest. In Roe, the court ruled that the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy only after viability. Before viability, the mother's right to privacy limits state interference due to the lack of a compelling state interest.

Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws | Live Science

I don't think it will be overturned but we had these rights pre-RvW.

 

[Crepitus]

The time is nigh.

200 lawmakers urge Supreme Court to reconsider Roe vs. Wade

View attachment 298168

Only 200? Seems like if it was a popular idea they would have been able to find thousands.

 

[rightwinger]

Look, overturning RvW would be bad.You religious wacks think you have a monopoly on morals and ethic. Fact is you don’t. You’re not going to stop women from getting abortions, and banning abortions will just make some abortion providers criminals while endanger young women. Why don’t you put your efforts to making adoption more prevalent?

Because the goal isn't to stop women from having abortions. The goal is to punish women for having sex. To shame them for having their birth control fail.

Abortion shaming is the continuation of a long, long history of slut shaming by the male heirarchy which celebrates male sexual predators as heroes and role models for their nation, elevating them to the highest offices in the land, while saying that a woman who once had an affair with a much older man was unfit for public office.

If they truly cared about the children, the USA wouldn't have the highest rate of infant mortality in the first world.

Dragonlady you have all sorts of eloquent reasons why it should be legal to murder unborn babies.

Someday, you'll have to explain it again to Jesus.

But guess what? He's not going to buy that load of malarky.

Abortion is legal
She doesn’t need an eloquent reason

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Look, overturning RvW would be bad.You religious wacks think you have a monopoly on morals and ethic. Fact is you don’t. You’re not going to stop women from getting abortions, and banning abortions will just make some abortion providers criminals while endanger young women. Why don’t you put your efforts to making adoption more prevalent?

A few will still get abortions but most women will have the child, regardless if she is financially or emotionally equipped to make the lifelong commitment to parenthood, and it will invariably reshape her entire life (seldom for the better) and be less than ideal for the child growing up in her care.
But who cares about the quality of life for the kid or the mother? I too would prefer the government put money and effort toward better adoption services and reversible u birth control procedures until abortion is an option far down the list when an unplanned pregnancy occurs. But

I agree with everything in your post with one caveat- the FEDERAL government should not be at all involved in abortion or adoption. Neither is within the purview of the federal government per the constitution. Let the states deal with abortion/adoption.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Look, overturning RvW would be bad.You religious wacks think you have a monopoly on morals and ethic. Fact is you don’t. You’re not going to stop women from getting abortions, and banning abortions will just make some abortion providers criminals while endanger young women. Why don’t you put your efforts to making adoption more prevalent?

Because the goal isn't to stop women from having abortions. The goal is to punish women for having sex. To shame them for having their birth control fail.

Abortion shaming is the continuation of a long, long history of slut shaming by the male heirarchy which celebrates male sexual predators as heroes and role models for their nation, elevating them to the highest offices in the land, while saying that a woman who once had an affair with a much older man was unfit for public office.

If they truly cared about the children, the USA wouldn't have the highest rate of infant mortality in the first world.

Wow.....sounds like somebodies had more than a few abortions after drunken sex with strangers.

 

[OldLady]

I will not pass judgement on women deciding if they are up to the task, deciding it for them across the board, and neither should the government.

Up to the point of delivery (or after)?

If it was up to 24 weeks, would that satisfy you?

 

[OldLady]

Look, overturning RvW would be bad.You religious wacks think you have a monopoly on morals and ethic. Fact is you don’t. You’re not going to stop women from getting abortions, and banning abortions will just make some abortion providers criminals while endanger young women. Why don’t you put your efforts to making adoption more prevalent?

Because the goal isn't to stop women from having abortions. The goal is to punish women for having sex. To shame them for having their birth control fail.

Abortion shaming is the continuation of a long, long history of slut shaming by the male heirarchy which celebrates male sexual predators as heroes and role models for their nation, elevating them to the highest offices in the land, while saying that a woman who once had an affair with a much older man was unfit for public office.

If they truly cared about the children, the USA wouldn't have the highest rate of infant mortality in the first world.

Wow.....sounds like somebodies had more than a few abortions after drunken sex with strangers.

Careful now with that slut shaming, BuckTooth.