Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[Monk-Eye]

" Public Informed Consent Debilitated By Abortion Choice Dismissive Arrogance Complacency And Ineptitude "

* Barking Up An Empty Wright To Privacy Tree *

Except it isn't:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now if you look at the amendment prior to that one....I assume you know what this is:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
is somewhat tricky and might be a basis for a so-called "right to privacy".
However, the best way to ensure that right is to enshrine it in the Constitution via Article V.
I have not figured out why that process has not started yet.

Is the intended application of Article V to specifically ratify an amendment to protect a wright to life of a zygote , embryo or fetus and thereby outlaw abortion ?

The abortion choice public narrative for the legality of abortion being based on a wright to privacy is the second most dumbfounded argument about the constitutional basis of abortion , with the #dobbs decision to invoke us 10th amendment being the most dumbfounded argument about the constitutional basis of abortion .

A state is comprised of citizens on whose behalf the interests of a state lay , and a citizen and its constitutional entitlements are instantiated concurrently through a live birth , by us 14th amendment , and therefore , by equitable doctrine , equal protection with a citizen requires live birth .

In that equal protection with a citizen requires live birth , states are prohibited from protecting a wright to life of any which has not met a live birth requirement to receive it , and states are therefore prohibited from proscribing abortion .

A credo of e pluribus unum for us republic expects independence as individualism , with equal protection of negative liberties among individuals , where individuals necessarily implies live birth ,

A wright to privacy follows from an equal protection of negative liberties among individuals clause of us 9th amendment , after state powers in us 10th amendment are prohibited from proscribing abortion , by a live birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen .

A wright to privacy follows as secondary and incidental , but not principle as the constitutional basis for abortion .

Notice For Public Record : Foundational Nuances Of Us 9th Versus Us 10th Amendments For Individuals States And Federal Interests

" Notice For Public Record : Foundational Nuances Of Us 9th Versus Us 10th Amendments For Individuals States And Federal Interests " * Negative Liberties Represent Protections Independence Individualism * Prologue : Below is a set of posted tweets intend to establish which wrights , not...

www.usmessageboard.com

Equal Protection Of Citizenship Is In A State Of Sedition Because Of Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion

" Equal Protection Of Citizenship Is Under Sedition By States As A Result Of US Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion " * Constitutional Originalism Versus Judicial Activism * Blackmun wrote this - ' Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on...

www.usmessageboard.com

Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade

" Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade " * On Behalf Of Pro Choice Republican Constitutionalism * The next nominee for us supreme court should be asked to explain the following statement from justice blackmun whom...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[NotfooledbyW]

This is about the 10th amendment and the lack of anything in the Constitution that connects the federal government to abortion.

The Constitution is connected to abortion when it says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

And there is the lack of a separate individual in the body of a “born” woman during the 15th week of pregnancy. It means there is no conflict of rights between a brainless 15 week fetus and the woman that temporarily sustains it’s life.

If there is no conflict of rights between a fetus and a woman there is no legal justification for states to ban a medical procedure that prevents harm to the woman.

nf.23.06.16 #9,242 to hkrgy.23.06.15 #9,217

 

[Monk-Eye]

* Genetic Perpetuity Of Natural Reciprocity With Theatrics Of Court Macabre Final Judgement And Eternal Damnation *

a) there is no such right

a ) a wright exists because there is an entity capable of issuing a retort or reprise for violation of legal pretexts for the written writs of rites .

* Naturalism Of Legal Positivism *

b) when homicide is made illegal, killers are not law-abiding, by definition, you stupid asshole

b' ) when killing is made illegal , killers are not law abiding , by definition .
b'' ) when killing is legal , killers are law abiding , or killers are not law abiding of a law which does not exist , by definition

* How To Determine Perceptions Of Safety *

c) contract killings are not safe, by definition, you stupid asshole
d) contract killings are not medical, by definition, you stupid asshole

c' ) where war is perceived as valid aggression , killing is legal , by definition
c'' ) where war is perceived as self defense , killing is legal , or illegal , through perspective , by definition

* Black Man Relates Reality Of Darkness *

A lying piece of shit. His grave should be a national toilet.

Bleating awl ewe wish , self officiating , arrogant sheep , will not avert the inevitability of a more valid perspective being perceived by informed consent of the public - Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade ..

* Addressing Developmental Abnormalities Of Emotionally Deceitful And Intellectually Retarded Perspectives *

Made up a steaming pile of shit, which only illiterate morons could possibly believe in
Another lie, another pile of shit that should be overturned. There is no “right to privacy” and even if there were there is no reasonable basis for concluding the slim amount of text that could possibly support it means that states can’t ban pills, or can’t ban homicide.
Griswold is nonsense on stilts, just like Roe. No basis whatsoever in the text. Just absolute judicial activism, absolute federal tyranny. No wonder you like it, bootlicker.
This is not a right - never was, and never will be, you monstrous filth. You stupid asshole.

There is a right and a left , as chirality of left and right handedness exists , whether you agree it to be true or not , such that , by definition , abortion is legal according to us constitution .

The traitors to us republic were not able to pursue a constitutional amendment , or amend the definition of a per son in title 1 section 8 of us code , and consequently conceived sedition against us 14th , 9th and 1st amendments , through a dumbfounded invocation of us 10th amendment .

Applying THe Term Rights As A Descriptor For Articles Of Constitution Is Slang And A Profound Error In Diction

 

[Independent thinker]

" Absurdity Of Collective Populism Dictating Deranged Deviations Against Account Ability Through Individualism "

* Statutory Omissions With Presumptive Nonsense *

There is a statistical probability of mortality with any delivery , so in which land of fantasy does such a presumption exist that delivering and anencephalic constitutes endangering the life of the mother , while statistics indicate that maternal health and safety from an abortion are significantly more healthy and safe than would be a delivery ? !

In other words, you're sticking with the bullshit that every pregnancy puts the mother's life in jeopardy so any and all abortions are ok, even up to nine months.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The following ref^xtr.23.06.05 was originally posted by the honorable Biff_Poindexter bffpndxtr.23.06.05 in post #301 :

"Evangelicals considered abortion a “Catholic issue” through most of the 1970s, and there is little in the history of evangelicalism to suggest that abortion would become a point of interest. Even James Dobson, who later became an implacable foe of abortion, acknowledged after the Roe decision that the Bible was silent on the matter and that it was plausible for an evangelical to hold that “a developing embryo or fetus was not regarded as a full human being”. •••• Paul Weyrich (founder of the Heritage foundation) tried to make a point to his religious right brethren that the religious right did not come together in response to the Roe decision. No, Weyrich insisted, what got the movement going as a political movement was the attempt on the part of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to rescind the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because of its racially discriminatory policies, including a ban on interracial dating that the university maintained until 2000." •••• There is a straight line from US racial segregation to the anti-abortion movement | Randall Balmer •••• Leaders of the religious right would have us believe that Roe v Wade mobilized apolitical Christians. The real story is very different www.theguardian.com​

​

Go ask Clarence Thomas if he supports abortion.

On 22.10.28 Saint scrffy wrote: “ Not all Republicans are white Christian nationalists. ••>•• Go ask Clarence Thomas if he supports abortion. He's not white, and I don't know if he's a Christian but I hope he's a nationalist.” in post #673

Too funny that Saint scrffy cites Catholic White Nationalist Saint Clarence Thomas who has been excellently profiled here:

Clarence Thomas’s Radical Vision of Race

Thomas has moved from black nationalism to the right. But his beliefs about racism, and our ability to solve it, remain the same.

www.newyorker.com

Because no one has to be Lilly white to believe that America was founded by white Christian’s to be a Christian Nation.

Clarence Thomas is owned by Harlan Crowe, a white billionaire who collects and shows off his collection of Hitler and other Nazi memorabilia and art.

Thomas, odd as it may seem, is pro-segregation or opposed to white liberalism use of government power to abolish it.

White Evangelical Christian’s are the political power base of the Republican Party. without them the GOP has no national or federal power.

The “Saving Baby Fetus Movement” was going nowhere for Republican politicians as a Catholic movement. But pro-segregation was such a loser for white Christian conservatives they had to be flipped to the “Saving Baby Fetus Movement” when Reagan ran the first time and he flipped too.,

White Evangelicals did not care about abortion until AFTER IT WAS NO LONGER COOL to be SEGREGATIONISTS. THAT IS A HISTORICAL POLITICAL FACT. nf.23.06.16 #9,245

 

[NotfooledbyW]

In other words,

You invoke “in other words” a lot. Why? Why don’t you make a case based on facts, logic, and reason and truth about the constitution against the actual words written by the originator?

 

[Independent thinker]

You invoke “in other words” a lot. Why? Why don’t you make a case based on facts, logic, and reason and truth about the constitution against the actual words written by the originator?

I'm just quoting what you say. First you claim some nonsense that you believe in some kind of 15 week period for abortions and then you turn right around and claim that a woman has the right to choose all the way up to nine months. Why bother with the 15 week thing at all then?

 

[HikerGuy83]

The Constitution is connected to abortion when it says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

And there is the lack of a separate individual in the body of a “born” woman during the 15th week of pregnancy. It means there is no conflict of rights between a brainless 15 week fetus and the woman that temporarily sustains it’s life.

If there is no conflict of rights between a fetus and a woman there is no legal justification for states to ban a medical procedure that prevents harm to the woman.

nf.23.06.16 #9,242 to hkrgy.23.06.15 #9,217

We are done with you sillyness.

Make sure you write the judges on the SCOTUS and share your OPINION.

I am sure they'll get right on it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

We are done with you sillyness.

declare silliness and run Mr hkrgy.23.06.16 . very well . You have made it to the study. #9,249

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Abortion is a medical procedure

Lie.

that prevents harm to a woman

Lie.

It’s at her discretion and on her conscience

These scum don't have consciences. If they did, they couldn't possibly attack and kill their own kid.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

The following ref^xtr.23.06.05 was originally posted by the honorable Biff_Poindexter

Honorable Bill Poindexter?

That's the biggest crock of shit you've ever said.

Feel free to stow your racebaiting bullshit, pro-abort hatemonger.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Weeks of Pregnancy	Percentage	Yearly total
< 9 weeks	65.4%	563,958
9-10 weeks	14.7%	126,761
11-12 weeks	8.2%	70,710
13-15 weeks	6.3%	54,326
16-20 weeks	4.1%	35,355
21+ weeks	1.3%	11.,210
All abortions	100%	862,320

This means approximately 98.7% of abortions occur in the first trimester (first 20 weeks) of pregnancy. ref^23.06.16

Why bother with the 15 week thing at all then?

The Constitution is unambiguous that a fetus does not have a right to life unless it meets the live birth requirement that is stipulated therein. The woman has the right to choose the life or death of her fetus until her fetus is born. That is not my opinion, it is Constitutional reality.

My thing is, women do in fact and actually in real life experience, choose in accordance with their conscience, to terminate their fetus’ life before the 21st week 98.7 percent of the time according to table ref^23.06.15 see above.

In practical terms every single abortion as a means of birth control happen before 22 weeks.

SAVING BABY FETUS agitators loudest complaint is against the use of abortion as a means of birth control. There is no legal justification for agitators to deprive women of the right to decide their health over the non-right of the fetus, but I agree when the decision to abort is made, it should be made prior to the reasonable biological moment when the fetus could reasonably survive a premature birth. But still never the SBF agitators or the government’s business.,

Two days ago I got to hold. My new granddaughter who was born three weeks early and is perfectly healthy and so is mom. She was 5 lbs. 6 oz. at birth and feisty as hell. I can hold her in one arm, as she gripped my finger on my other. It’s a beautiful thing. My daughter is is pro-choice, and that does not make her evil. She thinks politicians who want to take control of her body and deprive her of privacy to be the monsters. I agree.

Both posts were written on 23.06.16; #9,247 was posted by thnkr. #9,252 was posted by nf.

 

[Independent thinker]

Weeks of Pregnancy	Percentage	Yearly total
< 9 weeks	65.4%	563,958
9-10 weeks	14.7%	126,761
11-12 weeks	8.2%	70,710
13-15 weeks	6.3%	54,326
16-20 weeks	4.1%	35,355
21+ weeks	1.3%	11.,210
All abortions	100%	862,320

This means approximately 98.7% of abortions occur in the first trimester (first 20 weeks) of pregnancy. ref^23.06.16



The Constitution is unambiguous that a fetus does not have a right to life unless it meets the live birth requirement that is stipulated therein. The woman has the right to choose the life or death of her fetus until her fetus is born. That is not my opinion, it is Constitutional reality.

My thing is, women do in fact and actually in real life experience, choose in accordance with their conscience, to terminate their fetus’ life before the 21st week 98.7 percent of the time according to table ref^23.06.15 see above.

In practical terms every single abortion as a means of birth control happen before 22 weeks.

SAVING BABY FETUS agitators loudest complaint is against the use of abortion as a means of birth control. There is no legal justification for agitators to deprive women of the right to decide their health over the non-right of the fetus, but I agree when the decision to abort is made, it should be made prior to the reasonable biological moment when the fetus could reasonably survive a premature birth. But still never the SBF agitators or the government’s business.,

Two days ago I got to hold. My new granddaughter who was born three weeks early and is perfectly healthy and so is mom. She was 5 lbs. 6 oz. at birth and feisty as hell. I can hold her in one arm, as she gripped my finger on my other. It’s a beautiful thing. My daughter is is pro-choice, and that does not make her evil. She thinks politicians who want to take control of her body and deprive her of privacy to be the monsters. I agree.

Both posts were written on 23.06.16; #9,247 was posted by thnkr. #9,252 was posted by nf.

What is all that shit? If you are not against a woman's right to choose after 15 weeks then all of that shit means absolutely nothing. Are you willing to say that a woman does not have the right to choose after 15 weeks?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Why bother with the 15 week thing at all then?

Women make the decision to terminate almost 99 percent of the time before 22 weeks. That is why we all should focus on the first 20 weeks granting women must be free to choose. I Contend near zero women terminate for convenience after 22 weeks but if she did, the point is moot. That is because it is still the women’s decision until her fetus survives live birth according to the Constitution.

 

[Independent thinker]

Women make the decision to terminate almost 99 percent of the time before 22 weeks. That is why we all should focus on the first 20 weeks granting women must be free to choose. I Contend near zero women terminate for convenience after 22 weeks but if she did, the point is moot. That is because it is still the women’s decision until her fetus survives live birth according to the Constitution.

Holy shit. Now you have gone from 15 weeks to 20 weeks to 22 weeks, all while claiming that a woman has the right to choose all the way up to nine months.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Are you willing to say that a woman does not have the right to choose after 15 weeks?

Of course not. I believe the Constitution is correct. The right to life begins at live birth.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Holy shit. Now you have gone from 15 weeks to 20 weeks to 22 weeks, all while claiming that a woman has the right to choose all the way up to nine months.

I have always said a woman has a right to choose through the full term until the baby is born. That’s according to the US Constitution. Now if we’re talking about abortion for convenience or birth control I see a woman has ample time to make a decision before 22 weeks. 85% of pregnant women do that prior to 16 weeks. The 14% of abortions that occur between 15 and 22 weeks are not likely to be abortions for convenience or likely some medical issue or fetus deformity has become known.

It is still none of your goddam business to be involved in that decision. It’s fucking hard enough as it is.

 

[Independent thinker]

Of course not. I believe the Constitution is correct. The right to life begins at live birth.

Then for God sakes man, just admit that you believe a woman has the right to choose to abort a nine month old fetus.

 

[Independent thinker]

I have always said a woman has a right to choose through the full term until the baby is born. That’s according to the US Constitution. Now if we’re talking about abortion for convenience or birth control I see a woman has ample time to make a decision before 22 weeks. 85% of pregnant women do that prior to 16 weeks. The 14% of abortions that occur between 15 and 22 weeks are not likely to be abortions for convenience or likely some medical issue or fetus deformity has become known.

It is still none of your goddam business to be involved in that decision. It’s fucking hard enough as it is.

Then quit with all this 15 week and other weeks bullshit. Just say you believe the woman has the right to abort a nine month old fetus. It's not complicated.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Then for God sakes man, just admit that you believe a woman has the right to choose to abort a nine month old fetus.

Of course she does. I never said they don’t.