So nominee Gorsuch proclaims Roe v. Wade as precedent

[yiostheoy]

Redfish wants to live in a moral dictatorship that tells everyone else that they must live by his dictums.

Bullshit. I want a free and open society where all viewpoints are given equal time and the majority opinion is the one that is adopted by the society.

Who the fuck do you think you are that you can dictate what the entire society must believe? You sound like a fricken muslim.

Yeah, a free and open society where women are chattel and forced to undergo trans-vaginal ultrasounds One where if the majority decided that gays should be stoned to death, that'd be just peachy

Redfish wants to live in a moral dictatorship that tells everyone else that they must live by his dictums.

Bullshit. I want a free and open society where all viewpoints are given equal time and the majority opinion is the one that is adopted by the society.

Who the fuck do you think you are that you can dictate what the entire society must believe? You sound like a fricken muslim.

You are the one thinking you can dictate what the entire society must believe. All we want is freedom to choose. You are the one trying to force some rigid orthodoxy upon prospective parents.

The states have rights.

If they want to treat their women as chattel and they can get away with it having the women voters vote on it too, then sure !!

Abortion should be a choice of the state legislature not Wash DC.

10th Amendment.

Foolish. So the poor are out of luck and the well off can buy contraceptives, and when necessary hop on a flight to an enlightened state.

Damn, you people are dumb!

If that's what the Legislature and the People want then so be it.

Negro contraception is not important enough to sacrifice true freedom for -- although a lot of Yankees did die to set them free back in 1861-1865.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Redfish wants to live in a moral dictatorship that tells everyone else that they must live by his dictums.

Bullshit. I want a free and open society where all viewpoints are given equal time and the majority opinion is the one that is adopted by the society.

Who the fuck do you think you are that you can dictate what the entire society must believe? You sound like a fricken muslim.

Yeah, a free and open society where women are chattel and forced to undergo trans-vaginal ultrasounds One where if the majority decided that gays should be stoned to death, that'd be just peachy

Redfish wants to live in a moral dictatorship that tells everyone else that they must live by his dictums.

Bullshit. I want a free and open society where all viewpoints are given equal time and the majority opinion is the one that is adopted by the society.

Who the fuck do you think you are that you can dictate what the entire society must believe? You sound like a fricken muslim.

You are the one thinking you can dictate what the entire society must believe. All we want is freedom to choose. You are the one trying to force some rigid orthodoxy upon prospective parents.

The states have rights.

If they want to treat their women as chattel and they can get away with it having the women voters vote on it too, then sure !!

Abortion should be a choice of the state legislature not Wash DC.

10th Amendment.

Foolish. So the poor are out of luck and the well off can buy contraceptives, and when necessary hop on a flight to an enlightened state.

Damn, you people are dumb!

If that's what the Legislature and the People want then so be it.

Negro contraception is not important enough to sacrifice true freedom for -- although a lot of Yankees did die to set them free back in 1861-1865.

True freedom? No one is forced to use contraception, and no one is forced to use contraception - that is true freedom. Authoritarians seek control over others, that cannot be legalized by a vote of 50% + 1!

 

[yiostheoy]

Bullshit. I want a free and open society where all viewpoints are given equal time and the majority opinion is the one that is adopted by the society.

Who the fuck do you think you are that you can dictate what the entire society must believe? You sound like a fricken muslim.

Yeah, a free and open society where women are chattel and forced to undergo trans-vaginal ultrasounds One where if the majority decided that gays should be stoned to death, that'd be just peachy

Bullshit. I want a free and open society where all viewpoints are given equal time and the majority opinion is the one that is adopted by the society.

Who the fuck do you think you are that you can dictate what the entire society must believe? You sound like a fricken muslim.

You are the one thinking you can dictate what the entire society must believe. All we want is freedom to choose. You are the one trying to force some rigid orthodoxy upon prospective parents.

The states have rights.

If they want to treat their women as chattel and they can get away with it having the women voters vote on it too, then sure !!

Abortion should be a choice of the state legislature not Wash DC.

10th Amendment.

Foolish. So the poor are out of luck and the well off can buy contraceptives, and when necessary hop on a flight to an enlightened state.

Damn, you people are dumb!

If that's what the Legislature and the People want then so be it.

Negro contraception is not important enough to sacrifice true freedom for -- although a lot of Yankees did die to set them free back in 1861-1865.

True freedom? No one is forced to use contraception, and no one is forced to use contraception - that is true freedom. Authoritarians seek control over others, that cannot be legalized by a vote of 50% + 1!

Why are you so obsessed with a penis, a vagina, a condom, and a scalpel ??

Freedom is more important than any of those.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The scope and meaning of a law are NOT set by the Supreme court, their job is ONLY to decide if it is or is NOT constitutional. The idea given that they "clarify" it is why we have judicial political problems like the ninth circuit.

Too bad you are not in charge then.

We The People are in charge.

But we must agree in order to change anything.

And some things like Amendments require a super-majority.

The judiciary agrees for us in lieu of inability to pass amendments.

You JakeStarkey and Schumer and Feinstein should get a room together and boink each other in a threesome. I can tell you love each other.

 

[oreo]

"Judge Neil Gorsuch said Tuesday the controversial Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion is “precedent” and acknowledged the ruling had been reaffirmed “many times.”

Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when Justice Antonin Scalia died, does not have much of a history ruling on abortion issues, and the contentious subject was one of the first topics broached during the question-and-answer session of Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court, it has been reaffirmed…and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered,” Gorsuch told Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “…A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the first Democrat to question Gorsuch, immediately followed up, citing the importance of the issue since, she said, President Trump “said he would appoint someone who would overturn Roe.”

“Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law,” Gorsuch told Feinstein, clarifying his position on precedent. “What was once a hotly-contested issue is no longer a hotly-contested issue. We move forward.”


Feinstein asked if Gorsuch considered Roe v. Wade “super precedent” – a decision that cannot be overturned.

“It has been reaffirmed many times, I can say that,” Gorsuch answered."

Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Sounds like another resounding defeat for the anti-abortion lobby.

Providing we can believe him...


See what I mean when I say liberalism almost always wins in the long run?

Sweet Baby Jesus--this has got to be pissing off the Reich wing Evangelical section of the Party who have always insisted that their chozen candidates campaign on overturning Roe V Wade--LOL They believed that Trump would nominate a judge that would do just that, and would overturn Gay marraige at the same time. Many of them are single issue voters, and their single issue was Roe V Wade.

They were scared to death who Hillary Clinton would have nominated to be a SCOTUS. Well it turns out that Hillary Clinton, Diane Fienstein, Chuck Schumer & Barack Obama voted for Gorsuch to be a district court judge under G.W. Bush in 2006
Here Are the Democrats Who Voted for Neil Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006

Democrats should have no problems at all with confirming Gorsuch.

Roe V Wade is here to stay.

from a practical standpoint, Roe is probably here to stay. But nothing prevents a future congress and president from passing law that would limit its application or allow each state to decide.

The idea that any law is here "forever" is naïve.

No Roe v Wade is here to stay. The U.S. Supreme court is the law of the land, and they are there to protect the individual's rights.

While we have a lot of IDIOT Republican governors that will sign off on sonogram requirements etc. they are always overturned by a Federal District court judge.

Example: Mike Pence who wasted Indiana's taxpayer dollars signing an abortion bill into law, which put the taxpayers of that state at risk for class action law suits, then they paid out money to defend his bill in court and it was immediately slapped down by a Federal District Court one year later. Here we have Mike Pence putting the taxpayers of his state at risk, over his "personal" religious beliefs. A governor's primary responsibilty is to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars and refuse to sign these kind of bills that put his constituents AT RISK.
Pence signs new abortion restrictions into law with a prayer
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/us/federal-judge-blocks-indiana-abortion-law.html?_r=0

One woman Republican Governor in Oklahoma refused to sign off on an state abortion bill because she understood the risk.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/us/oklahoma-governor-mary-fallin-vetoes-abortion-bill.html

In fact a Bush 1 appointee, a Federal District Court judge in Texas was interviewed--and stated he is tired of all these abortion bills that he is having to constantly overrule. When he was asked why do you suppose you get so many of them--he stated: Because most Republican state legilators are men, and they really have no business meddling into women's issues.

You are missing three things:

1 - abortion is not enumerated as an individual right anywhere in the Constitution.

2 - Roe V. Wade was/is bad law.

3 - States have rights according to the 10th Amendment.

1. The 9th amendment states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

2. Sez you.

3. People have rights too. How would state by state abortion laws work? Would a woman escaping from restrictive laws in say Alabama to get an abortion in California be charged with murder upon return to Alabama? Would women be denied their right to travel freely until they have given birth? Would they be closely monitored and examined to be certain they are carrying? If they have a miscarriage, will they be criminally charged? Where does it end?

Very true, while the 10th amendment allows states rights--it in no way means it allows states to oppress or interfere into the rights of individuals. That's why these state abortion bills are always slapped down by Federal Court judges.

Rick Santorum had an issue with this. He is actually on video recording that States have the right to ban birth control contraceptives. Meaning your next door neighbor via a ballot will decide for you if you use them or not--LOL He is still arguing with a 1965 U.S Supreme Court decision Griswold v Connecticut.
Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia

 

[sakinago]

I never said dickshit about a majority or minority. Bottom line, the law's existence is not proof of anything.

Matter of fact, I could argue the law's existence is more evidence of the pro-choice lobby's position, i.e. that bodily integrity and the fate of the fetus is left ONLY to the mother, and not to anyone else outside of her own body.

Look dude, we simply disagree on whether an unborn human being has constitutional rights. Nothing you say will change my mind and nothing I say will change yours. I suggest that you look at one of the many videos available that show actual abortions, then reconsider whether cutting a baby into pieces is murder or not.

But if your position is valid, why not extend it to 2 years after birth? If the kid becomes too much of a burden why cant the mother simply kill it and move on with her life?

Why is it a person the instant it leaves the womb and not the instant before?

Redfish claims to be conservative but in fact is alt right, which means he gets to have conservative values apply to him but also gets to tell society how to live.

totally wrong on all counts. I don't give a flying duck fuck how you choose to live and I don't want you telling me how I must live, what kind of light bulbs I must buy, what kind of showerhead, or that I must install transgender bathrooms in my businesses.

I do not understand why abortion on demand is such a major issue with you left wing zealots. Why is the murder of the unborn your central issue? Why do you condone the FACT that PP has murdered millions of black babies? Why are you such a fricken racist?

If you don't care how other people live, why are you insisting on butting into the most intimate and personal aspects of their lives? Why do you insist that a medical procedure is murder? PP hasn't "murdered" anyone. Why are you such a fricken idiot and drama queen?

When Redfish and Chuz get asked such questions, this is the look you get in return:

the central question is: is an unborn child a human being? if yes, then abortion is murder, if no, then its a medical procedure.

We disagree on that central question. Will we ever agree, probably not.

You are not judge of any of that. Our judiciary makes those decisions.

The SCOTUS stated in R V W, that the potentiality of human should be protected, but extended the 4th amendment to say a women has privacy over her body, and drew the conclusion that this means abortion should be legalized across the land. Which is inconsistent. They had to ignore the question of life to legalize abortion, but at the same time recognized it, and said that was up to the states.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Look dude, we simply disagree on whether an unborn human being has constitutional rights. Nothing you say will change my mind and nothing I say will change yours. I suggest that you look at one of the many videos available that show actual abortions, then reconsider whether cutting a baby into pieces is murder or not.

But if your position is valid, why not extend it to 2 years after birth? If the kid becomes too much of a burden why cant the mother simply kill it and move on with her life?

Why is it a person the instant it leaves the womb and not the instant before?

totally wrong on all counts. I don't give a flying duck fuck how you choose to live and I don't want you telling me how I must live, what kind of light bulbs I must buy, what kind of showerhead, or that I must install transgender bathrooms in my businesses.

I do not understand why abortion on demand is such a major issue with you left wing zealots. Why is the murder of the unborn your central issue? Why do you condone the FACT that PP has murdered millions of black babies? Why are you such a fricken racist?

If you don't care how other people live, why are you insisting on butting into the most intimate and personal aspects of their lives? Why do you insist that a medical procedure is murder? PP hasn't "murdered" anyone. Why are you such a fricken idiot and drama queen?

When Redfish and Chuz get asked such questions, this is the look you get in return:

the central question is: is an unborn child a human being? if yes, then abortion is murder, if no, then its a medical procedure.

We disagree on that central question. Will we ever agree, probably not.

You are not judge of any of that. Our judiciary makes those decisions.

The SCOTUS stated in R V W, that the potentiality of human should be protected, but extended the 4th amendment to say a women has privacy over her body, and drew the conclusion that this means abortion should be legalized across the land. Which is inconsistent. They had to ignore the question of life to legalize abortion, but at the same time recognized it, and said that was up to the states.

Sak is inconsistent. The 4th Amendment recognizes the privacy of the mother over the fetus.

 

[Redfish]

Redfish wants to live in a moral dictatorship that tells everyone else that they must live by his dictums.

Bullshit. I want a free and open society where all viewpoints are given equal time and the majority opinion is the one that is adopted by the society.

Who the fuck do you think you are that you can dictate what the entire society must believe? You sound like a fricken muslim.

Yeah, a free and open society where women are chattel and forced to undergo trans-vaginal ultrasounds One where if the majority decided that gays should be stoned to death, that'd be just peachy

Redfish wants to live in a moral dictatorship that tells everyone else that they must live by his dictums.

Bullshit. I want a free and open society where all viewpoints are given equal time and the majority opinion is the one that is adopted by the society.

Who the fuck do you think you are that you can dictate what the entire society must believe? You sound like a fricken muslim.

You are the one thinking you can dictate what the entire society must believe. All we want is freedom to choose. You are the one trying to force some rigid orthodoxy upon prospective parents.

you want the freedom to choose to kill an unborn human being up until the moment of birth. Why not make it up to 2 years old? If the mother thinks the kid is too much trouble why not just let her kill him or her up to 2 years after birth? What magical thing happens at the moment of birth that was not there a moment earlier?

 

[Redfish]

Redfish is the redfascist indeed.

nope, that would be you. only fascists believe that murder of innocents is acceptable social conduct.

 

[Redfish]

Redfish wants to live in a moral dictatorship that tells everyone else that they must live by his dictums.

Bullshit. I want a free and open society where all viewpoints are given equal time and the majority opinion is the one that is adopted by the society.

Who the fuck do you think you are that you can dictate what the entire society must believe? You sound like a fricken muslim.

Yeah, a free and open society where women are chattel and forced to undergo trans-vaginal ultrasounds One where if the majority decided that gays should be stoned to death, that'd be just peachy

Redfish wants to live in a moral dictatorship that tells everyone else that they must live by his dictums.

Bullshit. I want a free and open society where all viewpoints are given equal time and the majority opinion is the one that is adopted by the society.

Who the fuck do you think you are that you can dictate what the entire society must believe? You sound like a fricken muslim.

You are the one thinking you can dictate what the entire society must believe. All we want is freedom to choose. You are the one trying to force some rigid orthodoxy upon prospective parents.

The states have rights.

If they want to treat their women as chattel and they can get away with it having the women voters vote on it too, then sure !!

Abortion should be a choice of the state legislature not Wash DC.

10th Amendment.

Foolish. So the poor are out of luck and the well off can buy contraceptives, and when necessary hop on a flight to an enlightened state.

Damn, you people are dumb!

if you cant afford 59 cents for a condom, you should not be screwing. Dumb is you, fool.

 

[sakinago]

If you don't care how other people live, why are you insisting on butting into the most intimate and personal aspects of their lives? Why do you insist that a medical procedure is murder? PP hasn't "murdered" anyone. Why are you such a fricken idiot and drama queen?

When Redfish and Chuz get asked such questions, this is the look you get in return:

the central question is: is an unborn child a human being? if yes, then abortion is murder, if no, then its a medical procedure.

We disagree on that central question. Will we ever agree, probably not.

You are not judge of any of that. Our judiciary makes those decisions.

WRONG WRONG WRONG. When a civilization has an issue where there are differing opinions and beliefs, they vote. Judges do NOT decide what is moral and acceptable behavior, civilization as a whole makes those decisions.

WTF is wrong with you, why to you want to live in a dictatorship? Why do you want the government telling you what you must believe and how you must live?
Think, fool. your liberal ideology may not always hold sway. Are you willing to deal with giving up your freedoms when your guys aren't in charge?

You're the one wanting the government to tell you what you must do. You're the one who wants women to lose their freedom now that your ilk is in charge. You are the one wanting to live in a dictatorship.

Women do have freedom, and with freedom comes responsibility of the choices you make with your freedom. If they choose, with that freedom, to participate in the act of reproduction without using contraception, reproduction can bring about a baby. Complaining about successfully reproducing after participating in reproduction irresponsibly hardly sounds like a fight against tyranny. Especially since contraception is the easiest, cheapest, effective, safe, and accessible as it has ever been in human history.

And the argument the left cannot successfully make, is the one of is it life or not life. Since a fetus is its own human being with its own distinct 46 chromosomes, just at a different stage of life. No one ever says the caterpillar is not the same species as its cocoon or butterfly counterpart, or that it isn't life. That's just ridiculous. A fetus meets all the same requirements of defining life we all do. And according to the DOI, we are endowed with certain UNALIENABLE rights, of these LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The only change the left is actually arguing on, is the whether the fetus is wanted or unwanted. Since no one can claim a right to privacy by violating another's. Especially since we define a Fetus as life in our courts in the event of a homicide of a pregnant mother, that becomes a double homicide.

 

[Doc1]

Why do you loons cheer legislation that allows murdering the most innocent of all? Freaking ghouls

Why do fools like you reject free contraception to all fertile females, and oppose age appropriate sexual education as part of a comprehensive health care curriculum? Are you stupid or brainwashed?

Why do fools like you constantly demand that others pay for things you decide you want?

 

[sakinago]

If you don't care how other people live, why are you insisting on butting into the most intimate and personal aspects of their lives? Why do you insist that a medical procedure is murder? PP hasn't "murdered" anyone. Why are you such a fricken idiot and drama queen?

When Redfish and Chuz get asked such questions, this is the look you get in return:

the central question is: is an unborn child a human being? if yes, then abortion is murder, if no, then its a medical procedure.

We disagree on that central question. Will we ever agree, probably not.

You are not judge of any of that. Our judiciary makes those decisions.

The SCOTUS stated in R V W, that the potentiality of human should be protected, but extended the 4th amendment to say a women has privacy over her body, and drew the conclusion that this means abortion should be legalized across the land. Which is inconsistent. They had to ignore the question of life to legalize abortion, but at the same time recognized it, and said that was up to the states.

Sak is inconsistent. The 4th Amendment recognizes the privacy of the mother over the fetus.

I'm saying that the recognition of life of fetus in the courts, while claiming another's right to privacy to terminate that life is inconsistent. Much in the same way the 3/5 ruling was, which stated yes they have a right to vote...but they're votes only count as 3/5.

In other words, I have a right to a firearm, I cannot use that right to take away you're life, liberty, or property since you have a right to those. You cannot exercise a right to take away someone else's rights, that becomes a paradox.

Also the forth amendment states nothing about rights of the mother over fetus.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sak does not understand freedom and liberty, and Doc1 does not understand underwriting free contraception and age appropriate sexual education is a cost benefit in our society.

A fetus has no inherent right re: the Constitution. Such rights must come in legislation that does not conflict with inherent constitutional rights. Thus mother over fetus.

 

[Doc1]

When Redfish and Chuz get asked such questions, this is the look you get in return:

the central question is: is an unborn child a human being? if yes, then abortion is murder, if no, then its a medical procedure.

We disagree on that central question. Will we ever agree, probably not.

You are not judge of any of that. Our judiciary makes those decisions.

The SCOTUS stated in R V W, that the potentiality of human should be protected, but extended the 4th amendment to say a women has privacy over her body, and drew the conclusion that this means abortion should be legalized across the land. Which is inconsistent. They had to ignore the question of life to legalize abortion, but at the same time recognized it, and said that was up to the states.

Sak is inconsistent. The 4th Amendment recognizes the privacy of the mother over the fetus.

I'm saying that the recognition of life of fetus in the courts, while claiming another's right to privacy to terminate that life is inconsistent. Much in the same way the 3/5 ruling was, which stated yes they have a right to vote...but they're votes only count as 3/5.

In other words, I have a right to a firearm, I cannot use that right to take away you're life, liberty, or property since you have a right to those. You cannot exercise a right to take away someone else's rights, that becomes a paradox.

Also the forth amendment states nothing about rights of the mother over fetus.

"Much in the same way the 3/5 ruling was, which stated yes they have a right to vote...but they're votes only count as 3/5. "

False premise, the 3/5ths clause was about equality in representation not voting. It was about not allowing the South to be over represented thereby controlling the Govt. Unfortunately (or fortunately because of the situation) Slaves did not get the right vote for another 100 years. In my opinion given situation it was the right thing simply because the Slave would have voted the way his/her master wanted or else. The saddest aspect of this is that they didn't get the right to vote until about 5 years after the war ended

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why do you loons cheer legislation that allows murdering the most innocent of all? Freaking ghouls

Why do fools like you reject free contraception to all fertile females, and oppose age appropriate sexual education as part of a comprehensive health care curriculum? Are you stupid or brainwashed?

Why do fools like you constantly demand that others pay for things you decide you want?

Only fools oppose both contraception and abortion. I'm not one of those, you are. It is oxy - moronic of you to piss and moan, and be penny wise and pound foolish - but that defines you and other's like you

 

[sakinago]

Sak does not understand freedom and liberty, and Doc1 does not understand underwriting free contraception and age appropriate sexual education is a cost benefit in our society.

A fetus has no inherent right re: the Constitution. Such rights must come in legislation that does not conflict with inherent constitutional rights. Thus mother over fetus.

It does have inherent rights, as stated in our courts. Again homicide of a pregnant mother no matter the stage of pregnancy is a double homicide.... A fetus also has rights wether wanted or unwanted, depending on differing age state to state. This is inconsistency

And I do understand rights and freedoms, these cannot be granted positively to selective people by the government, they can only be taken away from the government, in a way that's stated government can make no law concerning such and such. You cannot claim that free contraception is a right, just as much as someone could claim a free car or house is a right. The government cannot grant offer positive rights to people since our rights do not come from the government, they come from the people imposed onto the government. Allowing certain people affording extra things to certain other people is not an equal right, nor does it make it a freedom.

Actual freedom disappears when you grant rights to one person over another, in any form. That takes away that persons freedom

 

[BuckToothMoron]

"Judge Neil Gorsuch said Tuesday the controversial Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion is “precedent” and acknowledged the ruling had been reaffirmed “many times.”

Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when Justice Antonin Scalia died, does not have much of a history ruling on abortion issues, and the contentious subject was one of the first topics broached during the question-and-answer session of Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court, it has been reaffirmed…and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered,” Gorsuch told Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “…A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the first Democrat to question Gorsuch, immediately followed up, citing the importance of the issue since, she said, President Trump “said he would appoint someone who would overturn Roe.”

“Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law,” Gorsuch told Feinstein, clarifying his position on precedent. “What was once a hotly-contested issue is no longer a hotly-contested issue. We move forward.”


Feinstein asked if Gorsuch considered Roe v. Wade “super precedent” – a decision that cannot be overturned.

“It has been reaffirmed many times, I can say that,” Gorsuch answered."

Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Sounds like another resounding defeat for the anti-abortion lobby.

Providing we can believe him...


See what I mean when I say liberalism almost always wins in the long run?

The dawn of a new day! NyCarbineer finally made a post I can agree with. Repubs need to get over the abortion issue. It is settled, and they will NEVER have the political capital to overturn it. What's more, they lose many potential voters by continually making it an issue.

I also concur that liberalism does always win in the long run, and it is also true that it ultimately leads to the demise of successful republics.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But,
under the name of 'Liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program,
until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

- Norman Thomas (US Socialist Presidential Candidate)

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent
the government from wasting the labors of the people
under the pretense of taking care of them."

- Thomas Jefferson

“If you put our federal government
in charge of the Sahara Desert,
in 5 years there would be a shortage of sand."

- Milton Friedman

"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by
letting the Government take care of him,
better take a closer look at the American Indian."

- Henry Ford

“Socialized Medicine is the Keystone
to the Arch of the Socialist State.”

-Vladimir Lenin

"There is far more danger in public than private monopoly,
for when government goes into business it can always shift its losses to the taxpayer.
Government never makes ends meet - and that is the first requisite of business."

- Thomas Edison

(This is another warning about government controlled healthcare.)

"To compel a man to furnish funds
for the propagation of ideas he abhors
is sinful and tyranical."

- Thomas Jefferson

 

[Doc1]

Why do you loons cheer legislation that allows murdering the most innocent of all? Freaking ghouls

Why do fools like you reject free contraception to all fertile females, and oppose age appropriate sexual education as part of a comprehensive health care curriculum? Are you stupid or brainwashed?

Why do fools like you constantly demand that others pay for things you decide you want?

Only fools oppose both contraception and abortion. I'm not one of those, you are. It is oxy - moronic of you to piss and moan, and be penny wise and pound foolish - but that defines you and other's like you

Only fools think they know anything and everything better than everyone else. Worse yet are the fools that think giving something to someone that someone else was forced to pay for is a solution to anything. Worse even than that are the fools who think killing a child is a solution to anything.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why do you loons cheer legislation that allows murdering the most innocent of all? Freaking ghouls

Why do fools like you reject free contraception to all fertile females, and oppose age appropriate sexual education as part of a comprehensive health care curriculum? Are you stupid or brainwashed?

Why do fools like you constantly demand that others pay for things you decide you want?

Only fools oppose both contraception and abortion. I'm not one of those, you are. It is oxy - moronic of you to piss and moan, and be penny wise and pound foolish - but that defines you and other's like you

Only fools think they know anything and everything better than everyone else. Worse yet are the fools that think giving something to someone that someone else was forced to pay for is a solution to anything. Worse even than that are the fools who think killing a child is a solution to anything.

Only fools and authoritarians oppose age appropriate sex education, abortion in all cases and means to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, i.e. methods of contraception and means to prevent SDT's.

Stupid people believe "just say no" is an effective method of preventing pregnancy and disease, and you seem to fit the mold of a mentally retarded and fully brainwashed person.