Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[NotfooledbyW]

Dobbs said the US constitution does not protect that right.

so six Catholics took it away to impose state’s rights to invade a pregnant woman’s privacy by tyranny of the majority - a white Christian nationalist biased majority.

just seems wrong to me. It’s an unenumerated right

 

[Blaster]

SCOTUS made the mistake of sending the abortion issue back to the states. This became a campaign issue that Democrats used successfully to win elections.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Dobbs said the US constitution does not protect that right.

Do you agree that women have no right to privacy when they become pregnant?

 

[M14 Shooter]

so six Catholics took it away...

Your statement is false.
Dobbs did not take away any right , it said the US constitution does not protect that right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you agree that women have no right to privacy when they become pregnant?

If you have to ask me question to prove your point, you cannot prove your point.
Dobbs did not take away any right , it said the US constitution does not protect that right.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

If you have to ask me question to prove your point, you cannot prove your point.

All my facts and reasoning are proven by the FACT that you cannot answer a simple question when the only answer available is the proof that you are wrong.

How does Mississippi impose a state invasion into a pregnant woman’s privacy if Dobbs does not do the same exact thing?

ONLY DOBBS could have imposed privacy invasion on women by a state like Mississippi because USSC had the final word. We have to wait until at least four Red Meat Catholics retire before Dobbs can be overturned.

Dobbs did not take away any right ,

Did women only imagine they had a right to being pregnant in private for fifty years?

Were you ever deprived of your life, liberty and/or pursuit of happiness, while all those women were having their imaginary abortions for the past 50 years?

 

[M14 Shooter]

All my facts and reasoning is proven by the FACT that you cannot answer a simple question

You;re lying to yourself.
Dobbs did not take away any right, it said the US constitution does not protect that right.
Dobbs did not impose anything on anyone - the states did.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Dobbs did not take away any right,

Dobbs took away the right to reasonable access to an abortion that was exercised by millions of women for fifty years. That is an indisputable FACT.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Dobbs took away the right.....

Your statement is false.
Dobbs said the right to an abortion is not protected by the US constitution.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Blaster said: Nobody has a right to an abortion. blstr.23.10.16 #8

Blaster said: SCOTUS made the mistake of sending the abortion issue back to the states. blstr.23.11.10 #11,862

Have you given up on saving Baby Fetus to save rightwinger’s right to have anti-democratic assholes run for President.

nf.23.11.10 #11,870

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Dobbs said the right to an abortion is not protected by the US constitution.

But it was for fifty years until Dobbs imposed the unconstitutional will of six extremist Catholics on unwanted pregnancy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But it was for fifty years until Dobbs imposed...

Your statement is false.
Dobbs did not take away any right, it said the US constitution does not protect that right.
Dobbs did not impose anything on anyone - the states did.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Dobbs did not take away any right, it said the US constitution does not protect that right.

Dobbs: We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives. The judgment of the Fifth Circuit is reversed,


What do you think “reversing” RvW did?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Dobbs: We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives. The judgment of the Fifth Circuit is reversed,

Correct:
Dobbs did not take away any right, it said the US constitution does not protect that right.
In doing so:
Dobbs did not impose anything on anyone - the states did.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Dobbs: The weaknesses in Roe’s reasoning are well-known. Without any grounding in the constitutional text, history, or precedent, it imposed on the entire country a detailed set of rules much like those that one might expect to find in a statute or regulation. See 410 U. S., at 163–164. Dividing pregnancy into three trimesters, the Court imposed special rules for each. During the first trimester, the Court announced, “the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.” Id., at 164. After that point, a State’s interest in regulating abortion for the sake of a woman’s health became compelling, and accordingly, a State could “regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.” Ibid. Finally, in “the stage subsequent to viability,” which in 1973 roughly coincided with the beginning of the third trimester, the State’s interest in “the potentiality of human life” became compelling, and therefore a State could “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.”​

M14 Shooter said: “Roe v Wade ruled that, after the 1st trimester, the state has a compelling interest in doing so, and may therefore regulate/ban such things.” mnnshtr.13.07.01 #120

RvW gave women a constitutional right to a safe legal abortion until the beginning of the third trimester. At two trimesters of development a state could take a compelling interest in “the potentiality of human life” and ban or proscribe the procedure as a way to protect the life of the fetus.

Saint M14shooter understood in 2013 that a woman had a right to an abortion through the first trimester of being pregnant. Now Saint M14shooter claims women never had a right to an abortion that was taken away by Dobbs which allows a state to ban abortions starting as early as conception.

Saint M14shooter has obviously been confused about women’s reproductive rights and health for a long time,

Now that white Christian nationalism, Dobbs Catholic Justices and Saint Trvmp are tearing the Grand Old Party apart, I don’t see how Saint M14shooter can come to grips with the political reality of what is about to overwhelm him. Women are rightfully pissed at Republican white men who love guns more than possibly loving and respecting a woman,

nf.23.11.10 #11,875

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Dogma Sales Of Intellectual Hubris On A Cracker As Delectable P`ate"

* Sectarian Supremacists Invoking Ideological Scam Of Missed Fortunes *

Correct:
Dobbs did not take away any right, it said the US constitution does not protect that right.
In doing so:
Dobbs did not impose anything on anyone - the states did.

The dobbs ignored a requirement of live birth for equal protection with a citizen , whether that citizenship is of the us federate , or whether that citizenship is of a us state .

The dobbs decision is dumbfounded sedition against us 14th , 9th , 1st and 10th amendments and blatantly ignores title 1 section 8 of us code where a person ( sic ) , as referenced in us 14th amendment , is clarified as any born alive .

The decision of dobbs did temporarily alleviate the traitorous bent from the " per son " movement to modify title 1 section 8 at the federal level .

A constitutional amendment was required , which would have forced a legal contention for equitable doctrine and equal protection with a citizen based on live birth , and apparently ignorance of guidance by the fee press , leadership and jurisprudence at large will continue to neglect auspices for its institution .

The anti-federalism mantra about roe v wade is blathering stupidity , and the lack of foundations for understanding political science and civics in us collective has remained disappointing ; though , what else would one expect from absurdities in the contemporary " conservative versus liberal " paradigm ?

A legitimate state interest of protection is limited to individual citizens and to individual non citizens within its jurisdiction , whom have consequently been born and therefore countable by census .

There is not a sanctimonious , sacrosanct , dictum of presumption in us constitution that a legitimate state interest of protection extends to non citizen individuals whom are outside of its jurisdiction .

So as to fulfill its obligation in protecting its citizens from violations of civil liberties , a legitimate state interest to issue a retort for protection of its citizens applies to all citizens of its state , whether a citizen is within the official range of its state jurisdiction , or whether a citizen is traveling abroad outside the official range of its state jurisdiction .

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NotfooledbyW said: “Our General was a theistic/rationalist who was quite multiculturally open to absolute freedom of religion and freedom of conscience for Mahometans, Jews, Catholics, and Atheists.​

George Washington expressed little preference as to the religion practiced by the Mount Vernon workforce. Writing in March of 1784, Washington noted: "If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans [Mohammedans/Muslims], Jews, or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists."1. Islam at Mount Vernon • nf.20.02.22 #93​

​

Libby von H said: “In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," lbbyvnh.23.11.11 #102​

​

In reading your POST lbbyvnh.23.11.11 #102 Saint Libby von H , and because the term “religion” is probably one of the broadest and most abused words used in the history of language; do you concur that Washington was expressing a very broad sense that religion and the morality derived therefrom includes Mahometans, Jews, or Christians of any Sect, or Atheists.?

nf.23.11.11 #11,877

 

[HeyNorm]

Do you agree that women have no right to privacy when they become pregnant?

Then child support should become voluntary. If women cannot be forced to become mothers, men equally cannot be forced to become fathers.

I’m good with that. You?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Vain Attempts To Catch A Cat Already Out Of Its Bag "

* Voluntary Transfer Of Private Property Abdicating Self Ownership To Another *

Then child support should become voluntary. If women cannot be forced to become mothers, men equally cannot be forced to become fathers.
I’m good with that. You?

Prove that the transfer of private property semen was coerced through violence , which means a male must file sexual assault charges before a pregnancy is evident , and maybe there is a possibility of being avoiding child support .

A us republic , with a motto for a credo in e pluribus unum , expects independence as individualism , with equal protection of negative liberties among individuals .

As an embryo , or a zygote , or a fetus is without constitutional protections , its fate is determined by the mother and principles of individualism .

 

[HeyNorm]

" Vain Attempts To Catch A Cat Already Out Of Its Bag "

* Voluntary Transfer Of Private Property Abdicating Self Ownership To Another *

Prove that the transfer of private property semen was coerced through violence , which means a male must file sexual assault charges before a pregnancy is evident , and maybe there is a possibility of being avoiding child support .

A us republic , with a motto for a credo in e pluribus unum , expects independence as individualism , with equal protection of negative liberties among individuals .

As an embryo , or a zygote , or a fetus is without constitutional protections , its fate is determined by the mother and principles of individualism .

None of that makes any sense. Abortion is simply a form of birth control and only the woman has the authority.

Now, you bring up the principle of individualism? Sure, she retains that, we now extend it to the Man as well.

You’re problem with that is?