Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How convenient politics has wormed itself into erasing the laws of uncountable human nations who know what human life is and respected it until some hollywood idiots put vanity ahead of human life and wouldn't hire pregnant actresses to play a role in a movie.Most Americans, and the people of most advanced nations, respect the right of a woman to make her own, personal reproductive decisions with the advice of her loved ones and medical and spiritual advisers rather than impersonal, authoritarian politicians and bureaucrats arrogating her personal freedom and dictating to her.
Whether it is China forcing abortions or Iraq denying them all, don't surrender the power over wombs to any State.
Whereas some nations are hellbent upon surrendering freedom in reproductive matters to politicians, Canada keeps its politicians out of the womb:
Canada is the only nation with absolutely no legal restrictions at the federal level to access abortion services. Nevertheless few providers in Canada offer abortion care beyond 23 weeks and 6 days without a medical reason as outlined by provincial regulatory authorities for physicians.
Unresponsive and frankly, I’m embarrassed for you.Well, according to you and your scientifically misguided party, they already do.
The preference of Americans for freedom from State coercion in such a personal matter is undeniable.A lame come back from a tool who can’t say more than “authoritarian” at any given time. Shitlap, you’re a total fail and I enjoy the absolute futility of your infantile posting efforts.
This isn’t a polling matter, you retard. But congratulations on finding another excuse to misuse the word “authoritarian.”The preference of Americans for freedom from State coercion in such a personal matter is undeniable.
Poll: Majority of voters want Supreme Court to protect abortion rights
The authoritarians' capacity to seize control of wombs is limited as a practical matter.
Right and wrong depends on gender? Are all women pro-death? And how do we know they were men? You're not a trained biologist
You may be upset by my noting most freedom-loving American's support for Roe v Wade, but it is that opposition to authoritarianism that will safeguard a woman's freedom throughout the advanced, enlightened states.This isn’t a polling matter, you retard. But congratulations on finding another excuse to misuse the word “authoritarian.”
I’m not upset by any of the mindless nonsense you drool out. I find you absolutely worthless but amusing. You’re an imbecile hoping to someday be an idiot.You may be upset by my noting most freedom-loving American's support for Roe v Wade, but it is that opposition to authoritarianism that will safeguard a woman's freedom throughout the advanced, enlightened states.
You appeared to be very surly.BackAgain said:I’m not upset...
Nobody has the "freedom" to kill another human being. That brings us to science as follows:Lurid visions fester in your noggin, but I expect that authoritarians will not succeed in seizing control of the bodies of women, even in the most repressive states.
Most Americans support freedom:
Poll Finds Most Americans Support Access to Abortion
Will the repressive states pass updated versions of fugitive slave laws and pursue women fleeing to free states?
We'll see.
The right to privacy is superceded by the right to live, doll.You appeared to be very surly.
Trashing the right to privacy recognized for the past half century - after ideologues Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett stated under oath that Roe v Wade was "settled law", could open the floodgates to statism running amok.
A retrogressive agenda could befoul the nation for years, further dividing advanced states from repressive one.
Oh nozies! Shitlap is upset that I appear “surly.” Whatever shall I do?You appeared to be very surly.
Trashing the right to privacy recognized for the past half century - after ideologues Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett stated under oath that Roe v Wade was "settled law", could open the floodgates to statism running amok.
A retrogressive agenda could befoul the nation for years, further dividing advanced states from repressive one.
The issue is whether this ruling ( which has not yet been made BTW) can be construed to grant full Constitutional rights to a fetus.
How about the right of the woman to choose what firearm she wants to carry?. Your hypocrisy is well documented.Most Americans, and the people of most advanced nations, respect the right of a woman to make her own, personal reproductive decisions with the advice of her loved ones and medical and spiritual advisers rather than impersonal, authoritarian politicians and bureaucrats arrogating her personal freedom and dictating to her.
Whether it is China forcing abortions or Iraq denying them all, don't surrender the power over wombs to any State.
Whereas some nations are hellbent upon surrendering freedom in reproductive matters to politicians, Canada keeps its politicians out of the womb:
Canada is the only nation with absolutely no legal restrictions at the federal level to access abortion services. Nevertheless few providers in Canada offer abortion care beyond 23 weeks and 6 days without a medical reason as outlined by provincial regulatory authorities for physicians.
Some extremist crackpots try to claim that a microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells is a "human being," and demand that their politicians seize control of wombs wherever one exists. Most decent American oppose such fanaticism.Nobody has the "freedom" to kill another human being.
If women seek refuge in states where their rights are respected, will the repressive states resurrect a version of the fugitive slave law to prevent their accessing the medical services they seek?I'm sure some states will quickly write and pass new laws that ban all abortions based on the implied rights of a fetus whether the Supreme Court explicitly says that or not. And we'll have another Supreme Court case and go through all this pandemonium all over again. IMHO, saying that the Constitution cannot be interpreted as granting the right to an abortion is not the same thing as granting full Constitutional rights to an unborn baby. And if that is the case, then could the SCOTUS rule that an abortion ban has no basis in law at the federal level? If so, then it falls to each state to make their own decisions about that. Politically, there are more people that don't like a total ban over people that want abortions restricted to a certain time frame, say the first trimester or whatever. IOW, let the people in each state decide.
The draft ruling that was released said that R v W was not as "settled" as you Moon Bats claim it to be. In fact it said that the Justices thought it was one of the worst decisions ever made by the Court.Some extremist crackpots try to claim that a microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells is a "human being," and demand that their politicians seize control of wombs wherever one exists. Most decent American oppose such fanaticism.
Were freedom-loving Republicans like Murkowski and Collins lied to under oath by Goresuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett before they trashed the conservative judicial principle of stare decisis, respect for settled law?
Again, you evasive coward:Some extremist crackpots try to claim that a microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells is a "human being," and demand that their politicians seize control of wombs wherever one exists. Most decent American oppose such fanaticism.
Were freedom-loving Republicans like Murkowski and Collins lied to under oath by Goresuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett before they trashed the conservative judicial principle of stare decisis, respect for settled law?
You are 100% right. We have to credit our gutless wonders of Congress who were too confused to rule that a fetus in a human mother IS A HUMAN BEING. That bullshit about breathing air is just that bullshit! The truth is that the baby inside that morther WAS BREATHING, only its mother was by nature that you cannot legislate, putting oxygen and nutrients to that human being through the means of her unbilical cord inside the placenta that functions both for eating and breathing. /wah-wah trumpet to the exponential degree.The issue is whether this ruling ( which has not yet been made BTW) can be construed to grant full Constitutional rights to a fetus.
All this argument is over a decision that has not even been made yet
“Although the document described in yesterday’s reports is authentic, it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case,” Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement.
The preference of Americans for freedom from State coercion in such a personal matter is undeniable.
Poll: Majority of voters want Supreme Court to protect abortion rights
The authoritarians' capacity to seize control of wombs is limited as a practical matter.
Seems like pro-abortion fuckers have daily and annual quotas of babies to murder, so yeah—it matters to them what other states do and do not allow; got to get them dead baby numbers up . . .
