Over 200 Lawmakers Ask SCOTUS to Reconsider Roe v Wade

[Chuz Life]

Overturning RvW doesnt make abortions illegal.

Wanna bet?

Read my signature.

Yeah, I'll bet. All it does is send it back to the States.

You'll see.

 

[Chuz Life]

The time is nigh.

200 lawmakers urge Supreme Court to reconsider Roe vs. Wade

View attachment 298168

I'm against abortion, but since it is not mentioned in the Constitution the citizens of each State should decide.

Same as Slavery and Gay marriage?

Wait. . . .

 

[pknopp]

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

So you're solution is to kill them?

No idea what you are rambling about.

 

[pknopp]

Overturning RvW doesnt make abortions illegal.

Wanna bet?

Read my signature.

Yeah, I'll bet. All it does is send it back to the States.

Ummmmmmm


Did Slavery revert back to the States when the SCOTUS reversed its decision on Dred Scott?

The 13th Amendment did that.

 

[Chuz Life]

Overturning RvW doesnt make abortions illegal.

Wanna bet?

Read my signature.

Yeah, I'll bet. All it does is send it back to the States.

Ummmmmmm


Did Slavery revert back to the States when the SCOTUS reversed its decision on Dred Scott?

The 13th Amendment did that.

IX
The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade

 

[pknopp]

Overturning RvW doesnt make abortions illegal.

Wanna bet?

Read my signature.

Yeah, I'll bet. All it does is send it back to the States.

You'll see.

I thought you wanted to bet?

 

[Chuz Life]

Overturning RvW doesnt make abortions illegal.

Wanna bet?

Read my signature.

Yeah, I'll bet. All it does is send it back to the States.

You'll see.

I thought you wanted to bet?

I do.

Feel Free to explain how this could revert back to the States.

 

[pknopp]

Overturning RvW doesnt make abortions illegal.

Wanna bet?

Read my signature.

Yeah, I'll bet. All it does is send it back to the States.

You'll see.

I thought you wanted to bet?

I do.

Feel Free to explain how this could revert back to the States.

That's not how the Supreme Court works. I'm pro-life (but probably a different kind of pro-life than you as I am from most who call themselves pro-life but are not.)

I hate that the court does this but when the court rules on something they almost invariably rule as narrow as they can.

 

[Chuz Life]

Wanna bet?

Read my signature.

Yeah, I'll bet. All it does is send it back to the States.

You'll see.

I thought you wanted to bet?

I do.

Feel Free to explain how this could revert back to the States.

That's not how the Supreme Court works. I'm pro-life (but probably a different kind of pro-life than you as I am from most who call themselves pro-life but are not.)

I hate that the court does this but when the court rules on something they almost invariably rule as narrow as they can.

I'll ask again.

Please explain how the Supreme Court of the United States can rule that a child's life begins at conception, recognize said children as "persons" and acknowledge that "children in the womb" are Constitutionally entitled to the "equal protections of our laws" and then leave it for the individual States to decide whether they want to Keep abortions legal and DENY those protections to children in the womb.

I'm waiting.

 

[beautress]

The time is nigh.

200 lawmakers urge Supreme Court to reconsider Roe vs. Wade

View attachment 298168

 

[beautress]

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?

Californians can continue to butcher babies if it’s overturned.

They have a different attitude out west. They think murder is a woman's choice.
I think they're animals when they murder the child inside their womb. From the time it is anchored in the womb, that child is a human being. It's ok to murder a child, but it's not okay to execute a serial rapist and murderer. Got it.

 

[pknopp]

Yeah, I'll bet. All it does is send it back to the States.

You'll see.

I thought you wanted to bet?

I do.

Feel Free to explain how this could revert back to the States.

That's not how the Supreme Court works. I'm pro-life (but probably a different kind of pro-life than you as I am from most who call themselves pro-life but are not.)

I hate that the court does this but when the court rules on something they almost invariably rule as narrow as they can.

I'll ask again.

Please explain how the Supreme Court of the United States can rule that a child's life begins at conception, recognize said children as "persons" and acknowledge that "children in the womb" are Constitutionally entitled to the "equal protections of our laws" and then leave it for the individual States to decide whether they want to Keep abortions legal and DENY those protections to children in the womb.

I'm waiting.

They aren't going to do that.

 

[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?

Californians can continue to butcher babies if it’s overturned.

They have a different attitude out west. They think murder is a woman's choice.
I think they're animals when they murder the child inside their womb. From the time it is anchored in the womb, that child is a human being. It's ok to murder a child, but it's not okay to execute a serial rapist and murderer. Got it.

Seems it's perfectly fine to drop a bomb on their heads while asleep in their beds.

It's not OK to do any of it.

 

[beautress]

No one said it's perfectly fine to drop a bomb on a baby's head while its asleep in its bed.

 

[pknopp]

No one said it's perfectly fine to drop a bomb on a baby's head while its asleep in its bed.

A lot of people have......as long as we pretend we didn't do it on purpose.......

 

[JoeB131]

They have a different attitude out west. They think murder is a woman's choice.
I think they're animals when they murder the child inside their womb. From the time it is anchored in the womb, that child is a human being. It's ok to murder a child, but it's not okay to execute a serial rapist and murderer. Got it.

Fetuses aren't people... and giving medical waste more rights than the woman it is inside is a bad idea.

 

[CowboyTed]

The time is nigh.

200 lawmakers urge Supreme Court to reconsider Roe vs. Wade

View attachment 298168

BTW- 207 lawmakers is less than half of the 535 members of congress. Apparently most lawmakers don’t want RvW overturned.

Democrats love dead babies.

Wrong! I am a democrat and would be over joyed to see roe v wade overturned. I am not alone. It will not happen the republicans are not truely interested in doing it. We will see what happens.

This is indeed little more than a campaign stunt.

Thanks for acknowledging Americans are disgusted with the baby killing.

Well lets just start... To be a baby you have to be born and thus you are talking about a fetus..
Nobody is killing babies but some Republican policies on healthcare looks like they don't care if they live or die.

So then we have to get to why you are saying this, there is two possible reasons:

• You hate democrats and all people who don't agree with Republicans.
• You are claiming your Christian faith tells you so.

Point one is not really a valid reason, it not based on any solid argument.

Point two is interesting... If you are a Christian then I would point out to the fact that there is no where directly in Jesus's teaching does he mention Abortion. We know at the time Abortion was readily available and commonly used. Jesus did say a lot about loving one's neighbour and evils of being rich... So can you tell us:
Have you throw off your worldly goods in service of our Lord?
Have you Democrats as Neighbours and loved them as oneself?
Have you supported a Leader (Trump) who has looked for forgiveness?
Do you constantly judge others (Democrats)?

So please save us you rhetoric, do you choose highlight obscure sections of the bible to believe and leave out the main parts, the hard parts, the tough parts to follow.




P.S.
The megachurch that Trump visited last week have a private plane that looks like this

They don't look like Mother Theresa
Mother Teresa: The humble sophisticate

 

[jwoodie]

IX
The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade

If Roe v Wade was overturned, wouldn't everything in that decision be invalidated? Besides, this section refers to a hypothetical establishment of personhood at the federal level. Unless/until that occurs, the abortion issue would revert to the States.

 

[Chuz Life]

You'll see.

I thought you wanted to bet?

I do.

Feel Free to explain how this could revert back to the States.

That's not how the Supreme Court works. I'm pro-life (but probably a different kind of pro-life than you as I am from most who call themselves pro-life but are not.)

I hate that the court does this but when the court rules on something they almost invariably rule as narrow as they can.

I'll ask again.

Please explain how the Supreme Court of the United States can rule that a child's life begins at conception, recognize said children as "persons" and acknowledge that "children in the womb" are Constitutionally entitled to the "equal protections of our laws" and then leave it for the individual States to decide whether they want to Keep abortions legal and DENY those protections to children in the womb.

I'm waiting.

They aren't going to do that.

I think they will.

Especially when they are asked to reconcile a fetal HOMICIDE law or conviction with Roe.

 

[pknopp]

I thought you wanted to bet?

I do.

Feel Free to explain how this could revert back to the States.

That's not how the Supreme Court works. I'm pro-life (but probably a different kind of pro-life than you as I am from most who call themselves pro-life but are not.)

I hate that the court does this but when the court rules on something they almost invariably rule as narrow as they can.

I'll ask again.

Please explain how the Supreme Court of the United States can rule that a child's life begins at conception, recognize said children as "persons" and acknowledge that "children in the womb" are Constitutionally entitled to the "equal protections of our laws" and then leave it for the individual States to decide whether they want to Keep abortions legal and DENY those protections to children in the womb.

I'm waiting.

They aren't going to do that.

I think they will.

Especially when they are asked to reconcile a fetal HOMICIDE law or conviction with Roe.

You are speaking somewhere down the road.