Over 200 Lawmakers Ask SCOTUS to Reconsider Roe v Wade

[Chuz Life]

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.

Good.

No sweat off of mine.

 

[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?

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.

Look up Kermit Gosnell!

 

[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?

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.

Look up Kermit Gosnell!

For what?

If you have a point. Make it yourself.

 

[Kosh]

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.

Good.

No sweat off of mine.

It will be up to the states and those laws can be challenged in court!

 

[Kosh]

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.

Look up Kermit Gosnell!

For what?

If you have a point. Make it yourself.

Nope! You need to do some work instead of just relying on propaganda!

It is like the far left telling their opponents are bad and those on the right doing the same thing!

Educate yourself on the subject!

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Good.

No sweat off of mine.

It will be up to the states and those laws can be challenged in court!

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart predicted otherwise.

Pro abort Lawyer, Sarah Weddington, actually "conceded as much on reargument."

You have a large hurdle in trying to convince me to dismiss their words and views and adopt yours instead.

 

[Kosh]

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.

Good.

No sweat off of mine.

It will be up to the states and those laws can be challenged in court!

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart predicted otherwise.

Pro abort Lawyer, Sarah Weddington, actually "conceded as much on reargument."

You have a large hurdle in trying to convince me to dismiss their words and views and adopt yours instead.

Of course if you want to believe that, it is your choice, but it will not make abortion unconstitutional!

It will default to the states!

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Look up Kermit Gosnell!

For what?

If you have a point. Make it yourself.

Nope! You need to do some work instead of just relying on propaganda!

It is like the far left telling their opponents are bad and those on the right doing the same thing!

Educate yourself on the subject!

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

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Good.

No sweat off of mine.

It will be up to the states and those laws can be challenged in court!

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart predicted otherwise.

Pro abort Lawyer, Sarah Weddington, actually "conceded as much on reargument."

You have a large hurdle in trying to convince me to dismiss their words and views and adopt yours instead.

Of course if you want to believe that, it is your choice, but it will not make abortion unconstitutional!

It will default to the states!

I'm not the least bit worried about that.

 

[Kosh]

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.

Look up Kermit Gosnell!

For what?

If you have a point. Make it yourself.

Nope! You need to do some work instead of just relying on propaganda!

It is like the far left telling their opponents are bad and those on the right doing the same thing!

Educate yourself on the subject!

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

That is fine, but it will not be unconstitutional no matter how much you post it will!

 

[Kosh]

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

Good.

No sweat off of mine.

It will be up to the states and those laws can be challenged in court!

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart predicted otherwise.

Pro abort Lawyer, Sarah Weddington, actually "conceded as much on reargument."

You have a large hurdle in trying to convince me to dismiss their words and views and adopt yours instead.

Of course if you want to believe that, it is your choice, but it will not make abortion unconstitutional!

It will default to the states!

I'm not the least bit worried about that.

Then why post anything if you are not worried about being constitutional?

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Look up Kermit Gosnell!

For what?

If you have a point. Make it yourself.

Nope! You need to do some work instead of just relying on propaganda!

It is like the far left telling their opponents are bad and those on the right doing the same thing!

Educate yourself on the subject!

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

That is fine, but it will not be unconstitutional no matter how much you post it will!

Even Your past Planned parenthood leaders have said otherwise.

But.

Okay.

 

[Kosh]

Look up Kermit Gosnell!

For what?

If you have a point. Make it yourself.

Nope! You need to do some work instead of just relying on propaganda!

It is like the far left telling their opponents are bad and those on the right doing the same thing!

Educate yourself on the subject!

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

That is fine, but it will not be unconstitutional no matter how much you post it will!

Even Your past Planned parenthood leaders have said otherwise.

But.

Okay.

Yes that is like the far left saying that the right is bad..

It is a scare tactic!

 

[Chuz Life]

Good.

No sweat off of mine.

It will be up to the states and those laws can be challenged in court!

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart predicted otherwise.

Pro abort Lawyer, Sarah Weddington, actually "conceded as much on reargument."

You have a large hurdle in trying to convince me to dismiss their words and views and adopt yours instead.

Of course if you want to believe that, it is your choice, but it will not make abortion unconstitutional!

It will default to the states!

I'm not the least bit worried about that.

Then why post anything if you are not worried about being constitutional?

I post for many reasons.

One of those reasons is to use the denials and idiocy of posters like you to reach and maybe educate others. (You make a great foil) for me to post links to Potter Stewart , for example.

Oddly enough, it's entertaining to expose your lunacy too. So that's a bonus.

 

[Chuz Life]

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart predicted otherwise.

Pro abort Lawyer, Sarah Weddington, actually "conceded as much on reargument."

You have a large hurdle in trying to convince me to dismiss their words and views and adopt yours instead.

Of course if you want to believe that, it is your choice, but it will not make abortion unconstitutional!

It will default to the states!

I'm not the least bit worried about that.

Then why post anything if you are not worried about being constitutional?

I post for many reasons.

One of those reasons is to use the denials and idiocy of posters like you to reach and maybe educate others. (You make a great foil) for me to post links to Potter Stewart , for example.

Oddly enough, it's entertaining to expose your lunacy too. So that's a bonus.

Yes but you are exposing yourself as not knowing anything other than far left religious dogma!

And you also show you do not know how things work in the US..

I have repeated and I have linked to the words of a Supreme Court Justice on the issue.

You are not only disagreeing with me.

You are disagreeing with Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart AND with the pro-abort lawyer, Sarah Weddington, as well.

 

[Chuz Life]

I'm not the least bit worried about that.

Then why post anything if you are not worried about being constitutional?

I post for many reasons.

One of those reasons is to use the denials and idiocy of posters like you to reach and maybe educate others. (You make a great foil) for me to post links to Potter Stewart , for example.

Oddly enough, it's entertaining to expose your lunacy too. So that's a bonus.

Yes but you are exposing yourself as not knowing anything other than far left religious dogma!

And you also show you do not know how things work in the US..

I have repeated and I have linked to the words of a Supreme Court Justice on the issue.

You are not only disagreeing with me.

You are disagreeing with Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart AND with the pro-abort lawyer, Sarah Weddington, as well.

Yes you have shown you do not know anything and how things work in the US.

I provided a link that shows the states are preparing for R v W to be overturned.

As abortion will not be unconstitutional!

I realize that you can not understand anything past the fear mongering from the far left!

Your words against those of Potter Stewarts and against those of a pro-abort lawyer..

I'll take my chances.

If it actually does revert to the States, we will gladly deal with that nonsense when Roe is finally reversed.

 

[Chuz Life]

I post for many reasons.

One of those reasons is to use the denials and idiocy of posters like you to reach and maybe educate others. (You make a great foil) for me to post links to Potter Stewart , for example.

Oddly enough, it's entertaining to expose your lunacy too. So that's a bonus.

Yes but you are exposing yourself as not knowing anything other than far left religious dogma!

And you also show you do not know how things work in the US..

I have repeated and I have linked to the words of a Supreme Court Justice on the issue.

You are not only disagreeing with me.

You are disagreeing with Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart AND with the pro-abort lawyer, Sarah Weddington, as well.

Yes you have shown you do not know anything and how things work in the US.

I provided a link that shows the states are preparing for R v W to be overturned.

As abortion will not be unconstitutional!

I realize that you can not understand anything past the fear mongering from the far left!

Your words against those of Potter Stewarts and against those of a pro-abort lawyer..

I'll take my chances.

If it actually does revert to the States, we will gladly deal with that nonsense when Roe is finally reversed.

Sorry it will not become unconstitutional..

LOL.

We will just have to wait and see about that.

Won't we.

 

[Lysistrata]

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.

Good.

No sweat off of mine.

It will be up to the states and those laws can be challenged in court!

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart predicted otherwise.

Pro abort Lawyer, Sarah Weddington, actually "conceded as much on reargument."

You have a large hurdle in trying to convince me to dismiss their words and views and adopt yours instead.

There is no such person as a "pro-abort lawyer." However, there are lawyers who support the rights of Americans to religious liberty and to physical sovereignty, both of which the dirty theocrats want to take away.

Out of the women whose lives I really know about who have had unplanned pregnancies, one chose to have an abortion, and two chose to bring their pregnancies to term, one of whom is a Type I diabetic, who was confined to bed rest for months and then had a dangerous and horrific birth experience. She was married and had an IUD, which somehow failed. She also was not a member of a religious cult.

Nobody needs filthy theocrats from cults nosing around in their crotches. Following a religion should be an individual choice,

 

[Chuz Life]

There is no such person as a "pro-abort lawyer." However, there are lawyers who support the rights of Americans to religious liberty and to physical sovereignty, both of which the dirty theocrats want to take away.

Out of the women whose lives I really know about who have had unplanned pregnancies, one chose to have an abortion, and two chose to bring their pregnancies to term, one of whom is a Type I diabetic, who was confined to bed rest for months and then had a dangerous and horrific birth experience. She was married and had an IUD, which somehow failed. She also was not a member of a religious cult.

Nobody needs filthy theocrats from cults nosing around in their crotches. Following a religion should be an individual choice,

It is not a theocratic concept that all "persons" have a right to the equal protections of our laws.

That fact is in our Constitution.

So, it becomes a biological question of when a child's life (and Constitutional rights) begin.

Religion is neither needed nor required to answer that question.

 

[Lesh]

Republicans SWORE that they weren't going after Roe.

Lol what? When?

You fuckers SWORE you weren't going after Roe...but hey...most of us knew it was a lie. You are after all a right wing Republican