Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[hadit]

What do you plan to do about all the Republicans in Ohio that will vote to make killing human beings a constitutional right in Ohio?

Nothing. It's their right to choose, isn't it? That was the whole point of overturning Roe, after all. I will just continue to make my voice heard in my own state as much as I want to.

Tell me, How was it that Roe versus Wade was overturned in the first place?

Do you think the six Catholic judges, three of which were appointed by Trump woke up one day with nothing to do and said let’s just overturn RvW for shits and giggles?

If that's what you're postulating, you know so little about how the court works that I'm not even going to bother instructing you.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

thssm.23.08.22
#10,460

You’re falling back on the argument that would have people assume that all women are at risk of harm and death because of being pregnant,

It is not an argument. It is a biological reality and a statistical probability that in the US 17 to 24 women will die giving birth in a given year out of every 100k births, and as MAGA as you are, and as close to Jesus as you may be with your prayers, you cannot tell any women who finds out six weeks after sex that she will be or won’t be one of the dead stats.

Every woman assumes a risk of death that accompanies a decision to allow her body, not yours, to deliver a newborn child to this world. For some reason black women’s odds are three times greater to die giving birth than any other specific race..

Every time you fly in a plane or leave the ground for higher than 20 feet you assume the utility or other pursuits of life, liberty and happiness are worth the risk. You subconsciously assume that risk with the odds and safety records of airlines. But don’t tell me when you are flying over the Rockies during Santa Ana winds and being bounced around like lottery numbers being picked out if a drum, your mind does not contemplate this could be the end. The lottery odds dud you no favor.

So it is with childbirth. ONLY the woman shall assume that risk. The Government has no interest or authority to force full term gestation on any woman against her will.

Dobbs is atrocious and was horribly decided.

Si it’s good that MAGA is slowly learning that at the polls.

nf.23.08.22 #10,462

 

[NotfooledbyW]

If that's what you're postulating,

Here is a hint: Before Trump there were three Catholic judges in the USSC. Aftrr Trump there were six.

Six Catholics decided to reject precedence to overturn RvW. Do you think white Christian nationalism, MAGA and Trump have anything to do with the very unpopular ruling that is Dobbs.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

No…that would be disenfranchising the voters of those states…18 states…not the states, the individual voters.

Every vote is counted. No votes are thrown out. The candidate with the most votes wins.

Trump had already lost the popular vote so he ran a criminal organization that was formed to get his VP to throw out all the votes from seven states that Biden won so the electoral college count total wouid swing to him having the victory with millions of votes not being counted.

 

[hadit]

Here is a hint: Before Trump there were three Catholic judges in the USSC. Aftrr Trump there were six.

Six Catholics decided to reject precedence to overturn RvW. Do you think white Christian nationalism, MAGA and Trump have anything to do with the very unpopular ruling that is Dobbs.

SC rulings are not supposed to be popular, they are supposed to weigh a law against the Constitution, and if the law is un-Constitutional, strike it down. Sometimes that means people are going to be unhappy about it. And no, I don't think abortion is a white issue, not given that most abortion mills are strategically placed in majority black neighborhoods.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

hvdvt.23.08.22
#10,465

SC rulings are not supposed to be popular, they are supposed to weigh a law against the Constitution, and if the law is un-Constitutional, strike it down

That RvW was “unconstitutional” is an errant interpretation of the Constitution’s silence on the matter of whether a state has a right to force full term gestation on an individual against their will.

Dobbs sanctions state coercion by law not because the alleged victim of an abortion procedure is a “person” with rights. A fetus does not have right to use another person’s body until it is capable of being separated from that other person. According to the Constitution right to life begins as an independent self-sustaining newborn individual life when born.

Dobbs did not address the constitutionality of that. The critical essence of the entire conflict of rights between fetus and mother.

No, Dobbs decided essentially that the state can take possession of the million and a half eggs that every female child is born with if they live within that state and one of those eggs becomes fertilized and subject to producing a new potential human being.

I contend along with probably every honest, rational human being alive, that those eggs belong to her, not the state or society,

Dobbs is a decision that any given state can intervene in a life or death health decision by banning a medical procedure that is safe and effective in ending gestation of a fertilized egg, if that is so chosen by a woman.

Therefore Dobbs requires a scientific lie, in that the state of Mississippi suggested that the medical procedure of abortion was harmful to women and that is why it can be banned.

Six Catholic supremes had to be daydreaming about their vacations on billionaires yachts when they let that one slip through.

nf.23.08.22 #10,466

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Seeks To Make An Intentional Challenge For Implementing Bilateral Symmetry "

* Oar Hue Sure Discussions Are Well Advised *

Clever, but this tripe absolutely doesn't absolve you from being a leftist, although that was a real good attempt at it.

A less direct reference towards association of hymn self could be a proponent of applying the paradoxes of antinomian ethos .

An ethos of antinomianism transliterates into " by no name will a law be made " , which expects that all laws by name be removed , while also expecting that individuals behave consistent with all laws , " as a law unto themselves " .

Seeking to create more laws , rather than seeking to get rid of them , necessarily implies an antinomian heretic .


* Fattening Benefits Of Location Among Fishing Bears *

It all comes down to what you support, who you support, and who you vote for that empowers a group and/or groups be it one way or another. Anything else is pure over hyped bull shite.

The consequence of votes being highly determinate on public policy is a true statement , while public policy established by democratically elected representatives is expected to implement principles understood as foundations of some republic .

The foundations of us republic are imbued within its motto for a credo of e pluribus unum , which expects independence as individualism , with equal protection of negative liberties among individuals .

• Equal Protection Of Citizenship Is In A State Of Sedition Because Of Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion
• Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments

* Economic Realities Of Bureaucratic Kleptocracy Through Positive Liberty Gravy Trains *

A leftist is a reference to a location in a bureaucratic theater where particular political parties optioned to seat themselves , while those party members mostly associated with themselves with a form of state capitalism understood as communism , where distribution of rewards or losses from mercantile gains remains the authoritarian privilege of bureaucrats for a bureaucratic collective .

The preferences stated by this moniker for competent infrastructure between fee market privateers and bureaucracies is not likely to be seated in the left wing :

• Public Private Trust
• CDZ - How Consistent With American School Economics Should Current Administration Public Policy Be ?
• CDZ - Why Have Socialists Not Privatized The Socialist Ideals ?

* We Rule You Whey Fool Ewe *

Which is worst of all , an theistic , or atheistic , or an apatheistic communist ?

• https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/desantis-is-a-knights-of-columbus-tool.1039956/
• Religious Paraphilia Tax Deferred Pretending Adequate Rites Within Government Dispensation

 

[beagle9]

Did Trump’s promise to white Christian Evangelicals in 2015 to appoint Judges in favor of forcing full term gestation on women have anything to do with RvW being overturned by a very sloppy six Catholic ruling.

Nevertheless the Republican Party is fucked because Dobbs was a Constitutional fuckup so I want to discuss it and you want to hide from it. I get it.

Keep thinking this derp, because the worst screw up you knucklehead's ever done was to elect an alleged career criminal enterprise to represent, and then try to protect your kind of crazy that's been up on display for the whole world to see..........ROTFLMBO

Think about all the things your side has engaged in with the blessings of Obama/Biden since took office. The worst one was attempting to disenfranchise or remove the children from the responsibility of their parent's. That was a major fail on your sides part, and it's definitely going to show up in 2024 as a vote to remove the Democrat's from power in and amongst other things they've engaged in.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

mcly.20.02.06 two & half yrs ago
#2

MAGA

You Pussy Hat wearing TDS Suffers need to get to work on another Scam or else---Bad Orange Man is going to be around for another term....because there damn sure isn't anybody in that Ass-Clown Car full of Pervs, Loons, Cheats and Crooks who can beat him.

mcly.23.08.21
#63

I myself live in a Red State and believe abortion should be legal---

bvvgl.23.08.19
#10,374

The ruling doesn't force a woman to carry a pregnancy,

Saint Beagle of the Saving Baby Fetus Cult Division of MAGA versus Mr. Macaulay of the Moms Against Forced Full Term Gestation Division of MAGA.

I have to rule in favor of Mr. Macaulay’s good judgment that heavily Christianized red states should keep abortion legal for the first 20 weeks which is the point where women get 98 percent of abortions under a RvW limit of 24 weeks the past fifty years.

Saint Beagle is not correct in post #10,374
Because it is undeniably true that Dobbs allows states to force full term gestation on woman who desire not to assume the risk of giving birth when she lives in a state where doctors are banned from practicing their profession if the patient want an abortion.

nf.23.08.22 #10,469

 

[ThisIsMe]

thssm.23.08.22
#10,460

It is not an argument. It is a biological reality and a statistical probability that in the US 17 to 24 women will die giving birth in a given year out of every 100k births, and as MAGA as you are, and as close to Jesus as you may be with your prayers, you cannot tell any women who finds out six weeks after sex that she will be or won’t be one of the dead stats.

Every woman assumes a risk of death that accompanies a decision to allow her body, not yours, to deliver a newborn child to this world. For some reason black women’s odds are three times greater to die giving birth than any other specific race..

Every time you fly in a plane or leave the ground for higher than 20 feet you assume the utility or other pursuits of life, liberty and happiness are worth the risk. You subconsciously assume that risk with the odds and safety records of airlines. But don’t tell me when you are flying over the Rockies during Santa Ana winds and being bounced around like lottery numbers being picked out if a drum, your mind does not contemplate this could be the end. The lottery odds dud you no favor.

So it is with childbirth. ONLY the woman shall assume that risk. The Government has no interest or authority to force full term gestation on any woman against her will.

Dobbs is atrocious and was horribly decided.

Si it’s good that MAGA is slowly learning that at the polls.

nf.23.08.22 #10,462

So you just blew past the rest of my post, I see.

So, I said “you would have us believe that ALL women are at risk of death”, which they are not. I don’t deny that it happens, but compared to the number of abortions that happens for other reasons, the number is small.

You also blew right past the part where I said that no state has a total abortion ban, every state where abortion is illegal has a clause for the health of the mother.

You also just completely ignored my comments about states rights.

If the scotus ruled that ALL states must recognize nation wide reciprocity, you’re not going to say that’s wrong?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Every vote is counted. No votes are thrown out. The candidate with the most votes wins.

Trump had already lost the popular vote so he ran a criminal organization that was formed to get his VP to throw out all the votes from seven states that Biden won so the electoral college count total wouid swing to him having the victory with millions of votes not being counted.

No…if those states vote for one candidate, but the states award their electoral votes to the other guy based on the national popular vote, their votes ARE thrown out.

We don’t elect people based on the popular vote.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

thssm.23.08.22
#10,471

We don’t elect people based on the popular vote

You mean when California and New York voters voted for Clinton but had to suffer the choice that Wyoming and Arkansas wanted.

They were not disenfranchised because rules are the rules. Who says states can’t change the rules. surely you believe in state’s right to change the rules to bind its electors to the winner of the popular vote.

And if the majority in a state elect lawmakers to change that rule nobody is disenfranchised when a state follows its rules.

It’s just like when the majority in Kansas Wisconsin and Ohio vote to preserve a woman’s right to get a legal abirtion MAGA cones that much cliser to death.

MAGA white Christian Nationalists will never win a national election by popular vote ever In America, The ostentatious moral supremacy of Republicans in tiny states has taken a fatal blow when Dobbs hit ya.

nf.23.08.22 #10,472

 

[ThisIsMe]

thssm.23.08.22
#10,471

You mean when California and New York voters voted for Clinton but had to suffer the choice that Wyoming and Arkansas wanted.

They were not disenfranchised because rules are the rules. Who says states can’t change the rules. surely you believe in state’s right to change the rules to bind its electors to the winner of the popular vote.

And if the majority in a state elect lawmakers to change that rule nobody is disenfranchised when a state follows its rules.

nf.23.08.22 #10,472

You mean when California and New York voters voted for Clinton but had to suffer the choice that Wyoming and Arkansas wanted.

If California and New York submitted their electors based on the vote of the people of those states…nobody was disenfranchised. The system worked as intended. Again, the popular vote doesn’t matter.

They were not disenfranchised because rules are the rules.

Precisely.

Who says states can’t change the rules. surely you believe in state’s right to change the rules to bind its electors to the winner of the popular vote.

If they want to disenfranchise the voters, I suppose they could. The constitution does say that the legislature are to direct the electors, so, I suppose they could. But the constitution also says that states are not to make compacts with each other unless approved by congress.

However, if that’s is your approach, then I say, absolutely, let the states change their elector rules…but don’t republicans control enough state legislatures that if they wanted to change their own rules, they could just hand all their electors to the republicans?

And if the majority in a state elect lawmakers to change that rule nobody is disenfranchised when a state follows its rules.

If the voters of a state vote for one candidate, and the state changes their rules to give the electors to the winner of the popular vote, and that happens to be the other candidate, it’s like the state saying “we don’t care what you want…we’re doing something else”..so yes, the voters would be disenfranchised.

 

[ThisIsMe]

thssm.23.08.22
#10,471

You mean when California and New York voters voted for Clinton but had to suffer the choice that Wyoming and Arkansas wanted.

They were not disenfranchised because rules are the rules. Who says states can’t change the rules. surely you believe in state’s right to change the rules to bind its electors to the winner of the popular vote.

And if the majority in a state elect lawmakers to change that rule nobody is disenfranchised when a state follows its rules.

It’s just like when the majority in Kansas Wisconsin and Ohio vote to preserve a woman’s right to get a legal abirtion MAGA cones that much cliser to death.

MAGA white Christian Nationalists will never win a national election by popular vote ever In America, The ostentatious moral supremacy of Republicans in tiny states has taken a fatal blow when Dobbs hit ya.

nf.23.08.22 #10,472

So, you’re not going to answer the question I posed to you? Im interested in your answer.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

No…if those states vote for one candidate, but the states award their electoral votes to the other guy based on the national popular vote, their votes ARE thrown out.

If votes are counted according to the rules, they are not thrown out. You are wrong.

 

[ThisIsMe]

If votes are counted according to the rules, they are not thrown out. You are wrong.

If they cast their electors for someone the people of the state didn’t vote for, then their vote has been thrown out. If the state changes the rules to that end, then they are telling their voters that their vote doesn’t count.

But again, if that’s how you think it should be done, then I say go for it. Blue states can make up their own rules, and red states can do so also, and nobody in the country will get a say in the election of the president. Red states can just declare their electors for the Republican, and if I’m remembering correctly, they have enough electoral votes to reach 270 easily.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

If they want to disenfranchise the voters, I suppose they could.

If this change disenfranchises voters they cannot do it. I’m sure the states that want to do it are up on the Constitution much more so than a MAGA know it all could ever be.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

If they cast their electors for someone the people of the state didn’t vote for, then their vote has been thrown out. If the state changes the rules to that end, then they are telling their voters that their vote doesn’t count.

When the rules are set before the vote and every legal ballot issued is counted, no vote is being thrown out.

The Trump Jan6 criminal enterprise wanted Pence to not count all the votes from Pennsylvania Georgia Wisconsin Michigan Arizona New Mexico and Nevada. No rules allow that to change the outcome of the election where the certified loser wins. That is disenfranchisement if all the winning voters.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Red states can just declare their electors for the Republican, and if I’m remembering correctly, they have enough electoral votes to reach 270 easily.

Not in 2020.

 

[ThisIsMe]

If this change disenfranchises voters they cannot do it. I’m sure the states that want to do it are up on the Constitution much more so than a MAGA know it all could ever be.

Apparently not, as the cotus says no compacts between states without congress approval.

However, if they individually want to disenfranchise their voters, I guess legally they can, as the cotus does say that the legislature will direct the electors. Cotus never really specifies that the people get to vote for potus or vp.

So, if they want to do that, then go for it. Just realize that there are other states who can change their methods as well.