Over 200 Lawmakers Ask SCOTUS to Reconsider Roe v Wade

[satrebil]

Republicans SWORE that they weren't going after Roe.

Lol what? When?

 

[Chuz Life]

If roe v Wade is over turned, this would default to the states and there is enough presidence to uphold it.

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart predicted otherwise.

 

[Kosh]

If roe v Wade is over turned, this would default to the states and there is enough presidence to uphold it.

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart predicted otherwise.

But legal precedent says otherwise. It always has.

Just look at the min wage. Sates and local areas are changing that without the federal government telling them to do it.

Just like anything else the states will setup what they will. They will adapt with the federal government telling what to do.

 

[Chuz Life]

If roe v Wade is over turned, this would default to the states and there is enough presidence to uphold it.

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart predicted otherwise.

But legal precedent says otherwise. It always has.

Just look at the min wage. Sates and local areas are changing that without the federal government telling them to do it.

Just like anything else the states will setup what they will. They will adapt with the federal government telling what to do.

I wish that just one of you who support that theory would take the time to explain in detail, how one State could (legitimately, intellectually, honestly and Constitutionally) establish that a child in the womb is a human being / PERSON , entitled to the Equal protections of our laws, etc. . .. But in the very next State they might not be?

How long do you think that kind of leftarded idiocy would take to get back to the fucking SCOTUS?

 

[Kosh]

If roe v Wade is over turned, this would default to the states and there is enough presidence to uphold it.

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart predicted otherwise.

But legal precedent says otherwise. It always has.

Just look at the min wage. Sates and local areas are changing that without the federal government telling them to do it.

Just like anything else the states will setup what they will. They will adapt with the federal government telling what to do.

I wish that just one of you who support that theory would take the time to explain in detail, how one State could (legitimately, intellectually, honestly and Constitutionally) establish that a child in the womb is a human being / PERSON , entitled to the Equal protections of our laws, etc. . .. But in the very next State they might not be?

How long do you think that kind of leftarded idiocy would take to get back to the fucking SCOTUS?

Why are people talking about NY's abortion law?

The states are making laws regardless!

 

[Chuz Life]

If roe v Wade is over turned, this would default to the states and there is enough presidence to uphold it.

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart predicted otherwise.

But legal precedent says otherwise. It always has.

Just look at the min wage. Sates and local areas are changing that without the federal government telling them to do it.

Just like anything else the states will setup what they will. They will adapt with the federal government telling what to do.

I wish that just one of you who support that theory would take the time to explain in detail, how one State could (legitimately, intellectually, honestly and Constitutionally) establish that a child in the womb is a human being / PERSON , entitled to the Equal protections of our laws, etc. . .. But in the very next State they might not be?

How long do you think that kind of leftarded idiocy would take to get back to the fucking SCOTUS?

Why are people talking about NY's abortion law?

The states are making laws regardless!

So?

What does that have to do with the OP or anything else in this thread?

Again, . . .

I wish that just one of you who support the theory (that abortion would revert back to the States) would take the time to explain in detail, how one State could (legitimately, intellectually, honestly and Constitutionally) establish the fact that a child in the womb is a human being / PERSON, entitled to the Equal protections of our laws, etc. . .. But in the very next State they are completely denied.

 

[Kosh]

If roe v Wade is over turned, this would default to the states and there is enough presidence to uphold it.

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart predicted otherwise.

But legal precedent says otherwise. It always has.

Just look at the min wage. Sates and local areas are changing that without the federal government telling them to do it.

Just like anything else the states will setup what they will. They will adapt with the federal government telling what to do.

I wish that just one of you who support that theory would take the time to explain in detail, how one State could (legitimately, intellectually, honestly and Constitutionally) establish that a child in the womb is a human being / PERSON , entitled to the Equal protections of our laws, etc. . .. But in the very next State they might not be?

How long do you think that kind of leftarded idiocy would take to get back to the fucking SCOTUS?

Why are people talking about NY's abortion law?

The states are making laws regardless!

So?

What does that have to do with the OP or anything else in this thread?

Did you not read it? If you had you would see why it is!

It is about abortion laws because many suspect that R v W will be over turned!

 

[Chuz Life]

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart predicted otherwise.

But legal precedent says otherwise. It always has.

Just look at the min wage. Sates and local areas are changing that without the federal government telling them to do it.

Just like anything else the states will setup what they will. They will adapt with the federal government telling what to do.

I wish that just one of you who support that theory would take the time to explain in detail, how one State could (legitimately, intellectually, honestly and Constitutionally) establish that a child in the womb is a human being / PERSON , entitled to the Equal protections of our laws, etc. . .. But in the very next State they might not be?

How long do you think that kind of leftarded idiocy would take to get back to the fucking SCOTUS?

Why are people talking about NY's abortion law?

The states are making laws regardless!

So?

What does that have to do with the OP or anything else in this thread?

Did you not read it? If you had you would see why it is!

It is about abortion laws because many suspect that R v W will be over turned!

And when Roe is overturned, many (if not all) of those laws will automatically be overturned as well.

So, why bring them up in this thread / context at all?

Just trying to muddy the waters?

 

[Kosh]

But legal precedent says otherwise. It always has.

Just look at the min wage. Sates and local areas are changing that without the federal government telling them to do it.

Just like anything else the states will setup what they will. They will adapt with the federal government telling what to do.

I wish that just one of you who support that theory would take the time to explain in detail, how one State could (legitimately, intellectually, honestly and Constitutionally) establish that a child in the womb is a human being / PERSON , entitled to the Equal protections of our laws, etc. . .. But in the very next State they might not be?

How long do you think that kind of leftarded idiocy would take to get back to the fucking SCOTUS?

Why are people talking about NY's abortion law?

The states are making laws regardless!

So?

What does that have to do with the OP or anything else in this thread?

Did you not read it? If you had you would see why it is!

It is about abortion laws because many suspect that R v W will be over turned!

And when Roe is overturned, many (if not all) of those laws will automatically be overturned as well.

So, why bring them up in this thread / context at all?

Just trying to muddy the waters?

Do you not know what thread you are on?

And no they will not as the states have rights to make their own laws.

If someone wants to contest the new laws it can still be taken to the supreme court and there is enough precedence to show if it is constitutional or not.

 

[Chuz Life]

I wish that just one of you who support that theory would take the time to explain in detail, how one State could (legitimately, intellectually, honestly and Constitutionally) establish that a child in the womb is a human being / PERSON , entitled to the Equal protections of our laws, etc. . .. But in the very next State they might not be?

How long do you think that kind of leftarded idiocy would take to get back to the fucking SCOTUS?

Why are people talking about NY's abortion law?

The states are making laws regardless!

So?

What does that have to do with the OP or anything else in this thread?

Did you not read it? If you had you would see why it is!

It is about abortion laws because many suspect that R v W will be over turned!

And when Roe is overturned, many (if not all) of those laws will automatically be overturned as well.

So, why bring them up in this thread / context at all?

Just trying to muddy the waters?

Do you not know what thread you are on?

And no they will not as the states have rights to make their own laws.

If someone wants to contest the new laws it can still be taken to the supreme court and there is enough precedence to show if it is constitutional or not.

We will just have to wait and see what the SCOTUS does and what the outcome will be.

My fight against the ignorance that (for now) keeps abortions legal will continue, regardless, for the rest of my life.

I can't imagine that I am the only one in that camp.

 

[pknopp]

If roe v Wade is over turned, this would default to the states and there is enough presidence to uphold it.

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart predicted otherwise.

But legal precedent says otherwise. It always has.

Just look at the min wage. Sates and local areas are changing that without the federal government telling them to do it.

Just like anything else the states will setup what they will. They will adapt with the federal government telling what to do.

I wish that just one of you who support that theory would take the time to explain in detail, how one State could (legitimately, intellectually, honestly and Constitutionally) establish that a child in the womb is a human being / PERSON , entitled to the Equal protections of our laws, etc. . .. But in the very next State they might not be?

How long do you think that kind of leftarded idiocy would take to get back to the fucking SCOTUS?

In some states it's classified as murder if you unintentionally kill an unborn baby. In others it's not

State Laws on Fetal Homicide and Penalty-enhancement for Crimes Against Pregnant Women

 

[Kosh]

Why are people talking about NY's abortion law?

The states are making laws regardless!

So?

What does that have to do with the OP or anything else in this thread?

Did you not read it? If you had you would see why it is!

It is about abortion laws because many suspect that R v W will be over turned!

And when Roe is overturned, many (if not all) of those laws will automatically be overturned as well.

So, why bring them up in this thread / context at all?

Just trying to muddy the waters?

Do you not know what thread you are on?

And no they will not as the states have rights to make their own laws.

If someone wants to contest the new laws it can still be taken to the supreme court and there is enough precedence to show if it is constitutional or not.

We will just have to wait and see what the SCOTUS does and what the outcome will be.

My fight against the ignorance that (for now) keeps abortions legal will continue, regardless, for the rest of my life.

I can't imagine that I am the only one in that camp.

Removing R v W will not make abortions illegal!

 

[Chuz Life]

If roe v Wade is over turned, this would default to the states and there is enough presidence to uphold it.

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart predicted otherwise.

But legal precedent says otherwise. It always has.

Just look at the min wage. Sates and local areas are changing that without the federal government telling them to do it.

Just like anything else the states will setup what they will. They will adapt with the federal government telling what to do.

I wish that just one of you who support that theory would take the time to explain in detail, how one State could (legitimately, intellectually, honestly and Constitutionally) establish that a child in the womb is a human being / PERSON , entitled to the Equal protections of our laws, etc. . .. But in the very next State they might not be?

How long do you think that kind of leftarded idiocy would take to get back to the fucking SCOTUS?

In some states it's classified as murder if you unintentionally kill an unborn baby. In others it's not

State Laws on Fetal Homicide and Penalty-enhancement for Crimes Against Pregnant Women

Ok.

And?

That is just one more reason to have the SCOTUS weigh in on it.

 

[pknopp]

If roe v Wade is over turned, this would default to the states and there is enough presidence to uphold it.

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart predicted otherwise.

But legal precedent says otherwise. It always has.

Just look at the min wage. Sates and local areas are changing that without the federal government telling them to do it.

Just like anything else the states will setup what they will. They will adapt with the federal government telling what to do.

I wish that just one of you who support that theory would take the time to explain in detail, how one State could (legitimately, intellectually, honestly and Constitutionally) establish that a child in the womb is a human being / PERSON , entitled to the Equal protections of our laws, etc. . .. But in the very next State they might not be?

How long do you think that kind of leftarded idiocy would take to get back to the fucking SCOTUS?

In some states it's classified as murder if you unintentionally kill an unborn baby. In others it's not

State Laws on Fetal Homicide and Penalty-enhancement for Crimes Against Pregnant Women

Ok.

And?

That is just one more reason to have the SCOTUS weigh in on it.

Which is fine. I'm simply discussing the facts surrounding the issue.

 

[Chuz Life]

So?

What does that have to do with the OP or anything else in this thread?

Did you not read it? If you had you would see why it is!

It is about abortion laws because many suspect that R v W will be over turned!

And when Roe is overturned, many (if not all) of those laws will automatically be overturned as well.

So, why bring them up in this thread / context at all?

Just trying to muddy the waters?

Do you not know what thread you are on?

And no they will not as the states have rights to make their own laws.

If someone wants to contest the new laws it can still be taken to the supreme court and there is enough precedence to show if it is constitutional or not.

We will just have to wait and see what the SCOTUS does and what the outcome will be.

My fight against the ignorance that (for now) keeps abortions legal will continue, regardless, for the rest of my life.

I can't imagine that I am the only one in that camp.

Removing R v W will not make abortions illegal!

I disagree.

Like Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart anticipated, reversing Roe v Wade would make abortions Unconstitutional.

I agree with HIM.

 

[Kosh]

If roe v Wade is over turned, this would default to the states and there is enough presidence to uphold it.

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart predicted otherwise.

But legal precedent says otherwise. It always has.

Just look at the min wage. Sates and local areas are changing that without the federal government telling them to do it.

Just like anything else the states will setup what they will. They will adapt with the federal government telling what to do.

I wish that just one of you who support that theory would take the time to explain in detail, how one State could (legitimately, intellectually, honestly and Constitutionally) establish that a child in the womb is a human being / PERSON , entitled to the Equal protections of our laws, etc. . .. But in the very next State they might not be?

How long do you think that kind of leftarded idiocy would take to get back to the fucking SCOTUS?

In some states it's classified as murder if you unintentionally kill an unborn baby. In others it's not

State Laws on Fetal Homicide and Penalty-enhancement for Crimes Against Pregnant Women

Ok.

And?

That is just one more reason to have the SCOTUS weigh in on it.

They have enough precedence logged on this issue!

 

[Kosh]

Did you not read it? If you had you would see why it is!

It is about abortion laws because many suspect that R v W will be over turned!

And when Roe is overturned, many (if not all) of those laws will automatically be overturned as well.

So, why bring them up in this thread / context at all?

Just trying to muddy the waters?

Do you not know what thread you are on?

And no they will not as the states have rights to make their own laws.

If someone wants to contest the new laws it can still be taken to the supreme court and there is enough precedence to show if it is constitutional or not.

We will just have to wait and see what the SCOTUS does and what the outcome will be.

My fight against the ignorance that (for now) keeps abortions legal will continue, regardless, for the rest of my life.

I can't imagine that I am the only one in that camp.

Removing R v W will not make abortions illegal!

I disagree.

Like Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart anticipated, reversing Roe v Wade would make abortions Unconstitutional.

I agree with HIM.

No it would not, not how things work

 

[Chuz Life]

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart predicted otherwise.

But legal precedent says otherwise. It always has.

Just look at the min wage. Sates and local areas are changing that without the federal government telling them to do it.

Just like anything else the states will setup what they will. They will adapt with the federal government telling what to do.

I wish that just one of you who support that theory would take the time to explain in detail, how one State could (legitimately, intellectually, honestly and Constitutionally) establish that a child in the womb is a human being / PERSON , entitled to the Equal protections of our laws, etc. . .. But in the very next State they might not be?

How long do you think that kind of leftarded idiocy would take to get back to the fucking SCOTUS?

In some states it's classified as murder if you unintentionally kill an unborn baby. In others it's not

State Laws on Fetal Homicide and Penalty-enhancement for Crimes Against Pregnant Women

Ok.

And?

That is just one more reason to have the SCOTUS weigh in on it.

They have enough precedence logged on this issue!

Flawed laws and legal precedence does not make or change the biological facts that proves against those flawed laws and rulings.

The facts are not going to change and the law and rulings will be relentlessly contested until the facts are completely known and respected.

 

[Chuz Life]

And when Roe is overturned, many (if not all) of those laws will automatically be overturned as well.

So, why bring them up in this thread / context at all?

Just trying to muddy the waters?

Do you not know what thread you are on?

And no they will not as the states have rights to make their own laws.

If someone wants to contest the new laws it can still be taken to the supreme court and there is enough precedence to show if it is constitutional or not.

We will just have to wait and see what the SCOTUS does and what the outcome will be.

My fight against the ignorance that (for now) keeps abortions legal will continue, regardless, for the rest of my life.

I can't imagine that I am the only one in that camp.

Removing R v W will not make abortions illegal!

I disagree.

Like Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart anticipated, reversing Roe v Wade would make abortions Unconstitutional.

I agree with HIM.

No it would not, not how things work

So you disagree with previous leaders of Planned Parenthood who said essentially the same things that I am saying?

 

[Kosh]

Do you not know what thread you are on?

And no they will not as the states have rights to make their own laws.

If someone wants to contest the new laws it can still be taken to the supreme court and there is enough precedence to show if it is constitutional or not.

We will just have to wait and see what the SCOTUS does and what the outcome will be.

My fight against the ignorance that (for now) keeps abortions legal will continue, regardless, for the rest of my life.

I can't imagine that I am the only one in that camp.

Removing R v W will not make abortions illegal!

I disagree.

Like Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart anticipated, reversing Roe v Wade would make abortions Unconstitutional.

I agree with HIM.

No it would not, not how things work

So you disagree with previous leaders of Planned Parenthood who said essentially the same things that I am saying?

I disagree that it will become unconstitutional, it is a fear tactic.