Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[Carl in Michigan]

So I’m the father of dead children? It was an amazing 6 weeks that we knew each other. Can I answer that I have 4 kids, 2 deceased, on forms and surveys and what not?

My sister counts, remembers, and named, her miscarried child

 

[ThisIsMe]

You don't get it. I know you're not that dance you just don't want to get it. Roe versus Wade gave everybody what they wanted or needed. Those who didn't want to have an abortion didn't have to have one those who need it or wanted one could have one. That's how it should be. On the side issue I saw people saying this isn't part of our rights well so I looked up abortion during the colonial days and it was a very well known fact that women needing or wanting abortions at that time went to other women who knew herbology and were helped by them. This news was widespread and readily open to anyone that needed this. The founding fathers never addressed abortion because it was a non-issue back then. Overzealous pro-life advocates have played on people's emotions making them all think that they're going to do some good by stopping abortions when nothing could be further from the truth. In the future I hope abortion numbers and information is kept confidential like other patient information is. Too much knowledge in this area creates a problem for some of the population obviously otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion over and over again.

I'm not saying people should or should not have access to abortions, I'm just saying it's not the job of the federal government to force states into allowing it.

In your example, not everyone does get what they want. The only ones who do are the pro abortion crowd. There are people who don't want killing babies to be legal. You disagree with that description, and that is your right, but others don't disagree, and that is THEIR right. If you have the federal government step in and say "abortion is legal nationwide", then whos rights are being trampled? It takes the debate and decision away from the people and the states.

Abortion isn't going away, you may have to travel to do it, but there will always be access to it, and there will always be pro abortion groups willing to pay for you to travel to get it done.

 

[eagle1462010]

Abortion Gestational Limits and Exceptions | KFF

www.kff.org

Red State versus Blue State data............

Most Blue states allow LATE TERM ABORTION..............

The argument that Roe versus Wade GIVES THEM THAT RIGHT..........................IS A LIE.

If the SCOTUS has the balls............They would rule that the States allowing Abortion after viability are in VIOATION OF ROE VERSUS WADE.

Roe v Wade WAS NEVER A BLANKET RIGHT TO ABORT.

 

[Lisa558]

::Issues4Life Foundation | Judgment At Nuremberg

The Issues4Life Foundation is dedicated to addressing the issues surrounding the inviolability or sanctity of human life in the African-American community.

www.issues4life.org

On Monday, January 22nd, 1973 the United States Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 and simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton regarding the issue of abortion. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy "somewhere" under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two (2) legitimate interests in regulating abortions and protecting women's health and ultimately the protection the potentiality of human life. Importantly, the United States Supreme Court never declared abortion itself to be a constitutional right. Rather, the Supreme Court said: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins … the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Then, in the very text of the Roe v. Wade decision, the High Court made a key admission:

"The 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 appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."1

In my opinion, the United States Supreme Court needed to "resolve the difficult question of when life begins … " before rendering judgment on the death of the only product of a human male and a human female, that is a human being. Below are clips from the 1961 movie Judgment at Nuremburg. In light of the fact that not one (1) of the seven (7) Supreme Court justices that made up the majority for 1973 Roe v. Wade decision are alive today, you can be the judge. Top

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

To summarize and to repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.

In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together. 67

This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important [410 U.S. 113, 166] state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.

What has happened here is what has happened with other SCOTUS rulings: the leftists pervert it to meet their own biased wishes.

In the case of R v W, the Court still allowed states the rights to restrict abortions, especially as the term of pregnancy lengthens. Yet, we have (some) leftists defending the right of the mother to choose to “abort” the infant even as it begins its descent through the birth canal, or, as Governor Northam explained, even after a living child is delivered.

 

[miketx]

Is this a lock? I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.

Nothing will change.

 

[eagle1462010]

What has happened here is what has happened with other SCOTUS rulings: the leftists pervert it to meet their own biased wishes.

In the case of R v W, the Court still allowed states the rights to restrict abortions, especially as the term of pregnancy lengthens. Yet, we have (some) leftists defending the right of the mother to choose to “abort” the infant even as it begins its descent through the birth canal, or, as Governor Northam explained, even after a living child is delivered.

Which is a clear Violation of Roe V. Wade..................The Ruling........SCOTUS can't pass laws.

The entire debate is about when life begins............Mississippi already had laws in place for late term....They moved up the date of Viability.

Yet almost every blue state has NO LAW............making it legal DEFACTO.........Then they play PASS A LAW like Cuomo did to VIRTUE SIGNAL FOR VOTES........Right to Abort LAW.............and the Clowns CHEERED FOR IT.

Legally it changed NOTHING.

 

[miketx]

Abortion Gestational Limits and Exceptions | KFF

www.kff.org

Red State versus Blue State data............

Most Blue states allow LATE TERM ABORTION..............

The argument that Roe versus Wade GIVES THEM THAT RIGHT..........................IS A LIE.

If the SCOTUS has the balls............They would rule that the States allowing Abortion after viability are in VIOATION OF ROE VERSUS WADE.

Roe v Wade WAS NEVER A BLANKET RIGHT TO ABORT.

They don't have a spine.

 

[Lisa558]

Roe V Wade wasn't set in stone as much as the left says it does.............It WAS NEVER A BLANKET ABORTION RIGHT.........It shot down the Texas Law which was a crime at CONCEPTION. In it's very brief it said that States have the RIGHT TO PASS LAWS............based on VIABILITY of the Fetus. Which it stated as 24 weeks.

It NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION of when LIFE BEGINS..............It did what SCOTUS ALWAYS DOES..........Kicked the can down the road on that question and the CAN IS HERE NOW.

Mississippi Law states 15 weeks ...........After that via the documents I've shown only 4.3% are affected by that law.

SCOTUS does this kicking the can thing a lot. In the last Grutter case on affirmative action, about 20 years ago, they said that Affirmative Action would not be necessary by the next generation (which would make 3 generations of lesser qualified blacks being admitted over whites), around 25 years. We are here now in that arena as well.

What concerns me is that the leftists threatening violence and harm - even death - to justices who won’t yield to their demands will result in future cases being decided on avoiding the wrath of the left.

Biden needs to protect the Constitution and condemn the savages threatening violence, and defend the sanctity of the Supreme Court’s process and decisions. That he refuses to do so is another violation of his oath and another cause for impeachment.

 

[eagle1462010]

Nothing will change.

In Texas it will go to 6 weeks immediately. But they will just leave to another state and get the abortion anyway.

Blue States will still think it is RIGHTEOUS TO ABORT til the day of Birth............This will be the NEW BATTLE CRY OF THE MOONBATS come November as they have nothing at all given they are failures the last 2 years.

Red States will lower the weeks to allow abortion in their states...........and try to preserve life as the people here believe via the majority. The LEFT HATES that people dare to OPPOSE THEIR POWER.

The right to ABORT and they are ready to kill over it.

They are a bunch of PATHETIC MOONBATS.

 

[eagle1462010]

They don't have a spine.

They didn't have one during the SCOTUS ROE v WADE.............they kicked the can down the road.

The can they kicked is sitting at SCOTUS.........SCOTUS will probably agree but will say after 15 weeks now it's ok for states to pass laws against Abortion on Demand. Then Texas will go WAIT A MINUTE 6 WEEKS..............Others maybe less ............maybe more.

What is important...........to me at least is that STATE'S RIGHTS are partially restored by the decision..........and less power Fed..........which is needed on EVERYTHING. Might be a symbol............but could SPARK STATES to stand up and say enough of the over reach of Federal Power.

 

[eagle1462010]

SCOTUS does this kicking the can thing a lot. In the last Grutter case on affirmative action, about 20 years ago, they said that Affirmative Action would not be necessary by the next generation (which would make 3 generations of lesser qualified blacks being admitted over whites), around 25 years. We are here now in that arena as well.

What concerns me is that the leftists threatening violence and harm - even death - to justices who won’t yield to their demands will result in future cases being decided on avoiding the wrath of the left.

Biden needs to protect the Constitution and condemn the savages threatening violence, and defend the sanctity of the Supreme Court’s process and decisions. That he refuses to do so is another violation of his oath and another cause for impeachment.

The Far Left have aborted the Liberal of Old. There are no JFKs anymore. They would trash his views...........We are more like JFK now on the conservative side .......shows how far we have slid from sanity.

The Far LEFT IS A CANCER TO THIS COUNTRY.........and they show this cancer more and more every day..........That is why some states are throwing round house punches at them to tell them where they can stick their views..............

And that is what this is about.........States saying NO TO THEM..........they can't handle the word NO.

 

[Flash]

Source: All public surveys I can find.

If you believe that Americans would rather retrogress, surrender extant freedoms to the State, and emulate Egypt, Iran, Honduras, and El Salvador, you'll have to cite your surveys rather than spew your contempt for freedom-loving Americans.

Show me the questions asked and who was surveyed. Was it a real poll with valid representative demographics or some stupid Internet poll?

Only fucking idiots and immoral pieces of shit think that it is acceptable to kill children for birth control.

One thing about it. It looks like that now the Supreme Court is saying there is no Constitutional right to kill a child for the purpose of birth control and that is a good thing. Bad thing if you have a Nazi sense of morality.

 

[Coyote]

The statements don't have to be explicit, the points they make do. And the point she made is essentially "abortion on demand and without apology."

This time we don't rely on mere words to discern a position, we observe the pattern of behavior.

Show me a post where she thinks anything like all women support killing babies. A link will do, otherwise it is obfuscation.

When you rely “on a pattern of behavior” subjectively defined, to “discern a position” without being able to pinpoint any part of that pattern to support your conclusion, then you’re just blowing hot air.

What is factually supported, is that the majority of American women support upholding Roe, keeping abortion safe and legal, putting some restrictions on it. This is supported by numerous polls over the years.

Subjectively (because I haven’t actually looked it up) I think most women who have an abortion, do not make that decision easily and that while many may never choose to have one themselves, they strongly believe that choices concerning her body and medical decisions are hers and hers alone.

 

[Coyote]

SCOTUS does this kicking the can thing a lot. In the last Grutter case on affirmative action, about 20 years ago, they said that Affirmative Action would not be necessary by the next generation (which would make 3 generations of lesser qualified blacks being admitted over whites), around 25 years. We are here now in that arena as well.

What concerns me is that the leftists threatening violence and harm - even death - to justices who won’t yield to their demands will result in future cases being decided on avoiding the wrath of the left.

Biden needs to protect the Constitution and condemn the savages threatening violence, and defend the sanctity of the Supreme Court’s process and decisions. That he refuses to do so is another violation of his oath and another cause for impeachment.

You are suddenly concerned about threats of violence and death after all this time?

 

[eagle1462010]

You are suddenly concerned about threats of violence and death after all this time?

 

[miketx]

Lol, monsters are concerned about womens bodies but don't give a damn about the body of the child they are so willing to destroy!

 

[schmidlap]

Show me a post where she thinks anything like all women support killing babies.

Americans overwhelmingly support Roe v Wade, not your "killing babies."

If you can contrive any legitimate surveys that find otherwise, please cite them.

• CNN/SSRS: 66% said they do not support overturning Roe, while 34% did.
• The Pew Research Center: Just 8% said abortion should be illegal in all cases, no exceptions. Broadening it out, roughly 37% said it should be illegal in most or all cases. But even among that group, there are sizable portions that said it should be legal in if the pregnancy threatens the life or health of the mother (46%) or if it is the result of a rape (36%).
• Monmouth University: Just 11% said abortion should always be illegal. Another quarter said it should be illegal with exceptions for rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
• YouGov: 24% said Roe should be overturned, while 55% said it should not.
• Fox News: 27% said it should be overturned; 63% said no.
• ABC News/Washington Post: 28% said Roe should be overturned, 54% said it should be upheld. (Just 16% said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.)
• Gallup: 19% said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances; 48% said it should be legal only under certain circumstances; 32% said it should be legal in all circumstances. And 47% said abortion is morally acceptable, the highest ever recorded in two decades of Gallup asking the question. (46% said it is not morally acceptable.)

Those who crave Big Government intrusion in the matter wish to emulate Egypt, Iran, Honduras, and El Salvador.

 

[eagle1462010]

Lol, monsters are concerned about womens bodies but don't give a damn about the body of the child they are so willing to destroy!

View attachment 641615

And these monsters will continue to be monsters if Roe V Wade is overturned. Changes nothing for states that allow late term abortion.

They believe they have the right to tell us to be monsters in our state.

And at the moment it's WE WILL KILL SCOTUS if we don't get our way.

They are PATHETIC FASCISTS.

 

[eagle1462010]

Those who crave Big Government intrusion in the matter wish to emulate Egypt, Iran, Honduras, and El Salvador.

Pot paints kettle black. Roe v. Wade is big government making abortion legal up to 24 weeks.......After that each state decides .

Roe v Wade would give that decision to the people of each state...........Changes NOTHING IN BLUE SHITHOLES. who overwhelmingly allow late term abortion.

You believe you have the right to DICATTE YOUR VIEWS......to states that don't agree with you and nothing more.

But RIOT SEASON BY BRAIN DEAD LEFTIST IS UPON US as it's election time again.

 

[Lisa558]

You are suddenly concerned about threats of violence and death after all this time?

Huh? I’ve always been opposed to threats of violence and death, whether it raged all summer long at cities throughout the country by BLM leftists, or on one day for a few hours by conservatives.

But since I assume you are opposed to it, how about condemning what your leftists are doing in threatening the SCOTUS? And how about condemning the POS who decided to leak this?