So nominee Gorsuch proclaims Roe v. Wade as precedent

[oreo]

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

Those courts are following state legislation, not conferring rights that do not otherwise exist independently.

The mother's pre-existent, constitutional rights to privacy supersede those of any rights by state legislatures given to the fetus.

No they don't, those "rights" of privacy are still limited to protect life. And each state has their own constitution pertaining to their jurisdiction (their state), all of them have to adhere to the BOR (supreme law of the land), and all of them recognize life of fetus is constitutionally protected in the case of homicide. Anytime you get into one persons "rights" superseding another persons actual rights (let's be serious we're talking right to privacy, superseding right to life...which also violates the fetus right to privacy), you have now ventured into a territory where were violating the constitution/BOR, as we did with interment camps, dred Scott, 3/5s, Jim Crow, etc, etc, one groups rights over another.

Sweet baby Jesus are you really this Stupid:--this is your personal opinion--while the word Privacy is not written in the Constitution--the U.S. Supreme court stated it does exist in 1965--and ruled against Connecticut over it. That is also PRECEDENT. People have a RIGHT to privacy. And YOU don't have the fucking right to determine what PRIVACY you're going to allow.

Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia

I've never said, there was no right to privacy, don't know what you're arguing against? just that one persons rights, cannot supersede another's. The case you stated referenced prophylactics. Not abortion, which is the termination of human life, life recognized by the constitution in every state, whether it limits the women's right to privacy over the fetus (women's right to privacy becomes moot after a certain period of time), or in instances of homicide of a pregnant women which becomes double homicide. That's the inconsistency I've been talking about, they recognize the fetus as constitutionally protected in both instances, but ignore it that constitutional protection in some instances with women's right to privacy. Which is to say X's right to A > Ys right to B, under certain situations (being Y is unwanted, and is young enough). Inconsistency.

What do you think abortion is? A very PRIVATE-PERSONAL decision that a woman makes.

 

[sakinago]

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.

No--You're ignorant of he law. The U.S. Supreme court is there to protect the Individuals rights--while their is a 10th amendment called States Rights--States do not have the right to interfere into Individuals rights, and the U.S. Supreme court has made that VERY CLEAR in their decisions.

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.

That's incorrect, according the constitution, the supreme courts function is to interpret the constitution in respect to incoming legislation. Which they have failed to do many times.

We're talking about the same SCOTUS who passed DOMA, then ruled for states rights over DOMA, then 2 years later contradicted their decisions saying states have no say in the matter.

You cannot claim one right to take away another's right. I can claim the second amendment to take away someone else's life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech, their own 2nd, privacy, 5th, 6th, 7th.

Roe V Wade is here to stay--You just heard it from Neil Gorsuch--it is PRECEDENT. It is also known as "A woman's RIGHT to choose."

States DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to oppress or interfere into Individual rights that are guaranteed by the U.S. Supreme court.

You are not using the term precedent correctly especially in the context of a confirmation hearing, which you also do not understand.

Also zero rights come from the Supreme Court. Rights come from the people in the form of the constitution, for which the Supreme Court misinterprets all the time. Dred Scott, 3/5, against women's right to vote, internment camps, kilo, are just some of the MANY misinterpretations, the Supreme Court is guilty of in the name political preferences.

Rights do NOT come from the PEOPLE--that's why we have a Constitution, and U.S Supreme court judges that interpret and write amendments to those rights. You don't get to vote on those rights.

While you believe that the Constitution is NOT a living document it really is. That's what 9 Judges do every single day.

Gorsuch specifically stated that Roe V Wade has already been challenged so much it is NOW PRECEDENT. He's not going to overrule it, and they will REFUSE to listen to abortion cases brought before them.

Federal District Court judges have also made it very clear--that you're not going anywhere with this.
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

What are the first words of the constitution...written in very very big font to make a point? We The People, not we the government, not we of the constitutional convention. And in the BOR, what positive rights are afforded to certain people over another (hint: there is none, a list of negative rights imposed on the government). And where is it in the constitution that it is a living document (a definition that means we selectively follow and ignore things based on our own beliefs)?

 

[sakinago]

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

Those courts are following state legislation, not conferring rights that do not otherwise exist independently.

The mother's pre-existent, constitutional rights to privacy supersede those of any rights by state legislatures given to the fetus.

No they don't, those "rights" of privacy are still limited to protect life. And each state has their own constitution pertaining to their jurisdiction (their state), all of them have to adhere to the BOR (supreme law of the land), and all of them recognize life of fetus is constitutionally protected in the case of homicide. Anytime you get into one persons "rights" superseding another persons actual rights (let's be serious we're talking right to privacy, superseding right to life...which also violates the fetus right to privacy), you have now ventured into a territory where were violating the constitution/BOR, as we did with interment camps, dred Scott, 3/5s, Jim Crow, etc, etc, one groups rights over another.

Sweet baby Jesus are you really this Stupid:--this is your personal opinion--while the word Privacy is not written in the Constitution--the U.S. Supreme court stated it does exist in 1965--and ruled against Connecticut over it. That is also PRECEDENT. People have a RIGHT to privacy. And YOU don't have the fucking right to determine what PRIVACY you're going to allow.

Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia

I've never said, there was no right to privacy, don't know what you're arguing against? just that one persons rights, cannot supersede another's. The case you stated referenced prophylactics. Not abortion, which is the termination of human life, life recognized by the constitution in every state, whether it limits the women's right to privacy over the fetus (women's right to privacy becomes moot after a certain period of time), or in instances of homicide of a pregnant women which becomes double homicide. That's the inconsistency I've been talking about, they recognize the fetus as constitutionally protected in both instances, but ignore it that constitutional protection in some instances with women's right to privacy. Which is to say X's right to A > Ys right to B, under certain situations (being Y is unwanted, and is young enough). Inconsistency.

What do you think abortion is? A very PRIVATE-PERSONAL decision that a woman makes.

That's not a valid argument. Murder is most of the time a very private and personal decision. Most murderers don't want the world knowing they did it, and don't want the world to know their reasons why.

And we are talking about human life here. Not taking a prophylactic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

sak keeps sucking. Abortion is a medical term, murder is a legal term, and they are not conflated.

 

[sakinago]

sak keeps sucking. Abortion is a medical term, murder is a legal term, and they are not conflated.

What point are you making? you've missed mine by a mile (as with jake I always assume you did so on purpose). I've never conflated them, especially not in the post you responded to, which was doing something in private and with a personal choice, doesn't make that thing lawful. You can't claim right to privacy as a defense for murder, being I don't want y'all to know why and how I did so. Almost all criminals want anonymity, and their motivations to be hidden, that's a given.

Abortion is both a legal and medical term. As is homicide both medical and legal. As are most terms, being used in say the legal realm does not exclude them from any other realm.

The real question is, why do our courts recognize life of fetus as constitutionally protected, no matter what stage, and in others completely ignores it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sak has no worthy point.

He has an opinion, and that is all.

SCOTUS disagrees with his reasoning.

His last sentence is nonsense. The fetus only has status in relationship to (1) its mother's viability and (2) its own viability. Nothing else. It is not a person.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

Those courts are following state legislation, not conferring rights that do not otherwise exist independently.

The mother's pre-existent, constitutional rights to privacy supersede those of any rights by state legislatures given to the fetus.

No they don't, those "rights" of privacy are still limited to protect life. And each state has their own constitution pertaining to their jurisdiction (their state), all of them have to adhere to the BOR (supreme law of the land), and all of them recognize life of fetus is constitutionally protected in the case of homicide. Anytime you get into one persons "rights" superseding another persons actual rights (let's be serious we're talking right to privacy, superseding right to life...which also violates the fetus right to privacy), you have now ventured into a territory where were violating the constitution/BOR, as we did with interment camps, dred Scott, 3/5s, Jim Crow, etc, etc, one groups rights over another.

Sweet baby Jesus are you really this Stupid:--this is your personal opinion--while the word Privacy is not written in the Constitution--the U.S. Supreme court stated it does exist in 1965--and ruled against Connecticut over it. That is also PRECEDENT. People have a RIGHT to privacy. And YOU don't have the fucking right to determine what PRIVACY you're going to allow.

Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia

I've never said, there was no right to privacy, don't know what you're arguing against? just that one persons rights, cannot supersede another's. The case you stated referenced prophylactics. Not abortion, which is the termination of human life, life recognized by the constitution in every state, whether it limits the women's right to privacy over the fetus (women's right to privacy becomes moot after a certain period of time), or in instances of homicide of a pregnant women which becomes double homicide. That's the inconsistency I've been talking about, they recognize the fetus as constitutionally protected in both instances, but ignore it that constitutional protection in some instances with women's right to privacy. Which is to say X's right to A > Ys right to B, under certain situations (being Y is unwanted, and is young enough). Inconsistency.

What do you think abortion is? A very PRIVATE-PERSONAL decision that a woman makes.

Well, not really.....

Her decision to have sex is a private personal decision.

You make your choices.....

You can't chose your consequences.

It will always be a hotly debated topic.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"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?

Actually, the anti-abortion lobby has been quietly kicking ass for 40 years.

It is a lot harder to get an abortion now, in many states, than it was after Roe v. Wade.

The pro's won't take these little losses to the SCOTUS because they are afraid the whole thing will get thrown out.

All Gorsuch has to do is rule on some aspect.....without touching the original case....and federal protections will disappear.

It will return to the states where most of them will then legalize it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

We get it. You are conceding the Gorsuch Confirmation because you spent all your energies and billions on a FAKE RUSSIAN COLLUSION STORY.
Now you are unprepared to stop Gorsuch from taking the bench.

WINNING.

Winning what? You're getting a Scalia replacement who's to the left of Scalia. WE'RE getting a Scalia replacement who's to the left of Scalia.

The overturning of Roe v Wade, if we take Gorsuch at his word, is now at least 2 judges away from even being feasible...

...with that, cue the RWnuts who will now come out and claim they never really cared about overturning Roe in the first place.

lol

Gorsuch represents a much better choice than what Clinton would have provided.

The nice thing is that Kennedy is talking of retiring and, with any luck, the grim reaper will find Ginsburg very very soon.

Wasn't it Ginsburg who refused to answer something like 25 questions at her confirmation hearings. Good thing she wasn't a conservative.

Ted, the liar of the senate, kennedy would have smeared her before the festivities ever started.

Hope he's rotting in hell and saving a place for her.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"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?

Gorsuch was COACHED to say that.

If Trump can get rid of Breyer AND Ginsberg then he can get rid of Roe V Wade too.

Roe V Wade infringes on States' Rights.

The left has no concept of states rights.....or powers...you know that terrible 10th amendment.

They only lie about the so-called General Welfare clause to keep the goodies coming.

 

[oreo]

Those courts are following state legislation, not conferring rights that do not otherwise exist independently.

The mother's pre-existent, constitutional rights to privacy supersede those of any rights by state legislatures given to the fetus.

No they don't, those "rights" of privacy are still limited to protect life. And each state has their own constitution pertaining to their jurisdiction (their state), all of them have to adhere to the BOR (supreme law of the land), and all of them recognize life of fetus is constitutionally protected in the case of homicide. Anytime you get into one persons "rights" superseding another persons actual rights (let's be serious we're talking right to privacy, superseding right to life...which also violates the fetus right to privacy), you have now ventured into a territory where were violating the constitution/BOR, as we did with interment camps, dred Scott, 3/5s, Jim Crow, etc, etc, one groups rights over another.

Sweet baby Jesus are you really this Stupid:--this is your personal opinion--while the word Privacy is not written in the Constitution--the U.S. Supreme court stated it does exist in 1965--and ruled against Connecticut over it. That is also PRECEDENT. People have a RIGHT to privacy. And YOU don't have the fucking right to determine what PRIVACY you're going to allow.

Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia

I've never said, there was no right to privacy, don't know what you're arguing against? just that one persons rights, cannot supersede another's. The case you stated referenced prophylactics. Not abortion, which is the termination of human life, life recognized by the constitution in every state, whether it limits the women's right to privacy over the fetus (women's right to privacy becomes moot after a certain period of time), or in instances of homicide of a pregnant women which becomes double homicide. That's the inconsistency I've been talking about, they recognize the fetus as constitutionally protected in both instances, but ignore it that constitutional protection in some instances with women's right to privacy. Which is to say X's right to A > Ys right to B, under certain situations (being Y is unwanted, and is young enough). Inconsistency.

What do you think abortion is? A very PRIVATE-PERSONAL decision that a woman makes.

That's not a valid argument. Murder is most of the time a very private and personal decision. Most murderers don't want the world knowing they did it, and don't want the world to know their reasons why.

And we are talking about human life here. Not taking a prophylactic.

No you're not going there. There are actually reasons for an abortion.

1. So are you going to tell a woman--(who may already have two kids at home that she needs to raise) along with a husband that she needs to die to give birth to a baby?

2. Are you going to tell the parents of a young girl that has been repeatedly raped by a relative, that their daughter needs to carry a fetus until full term, and risk her life by giving birth?

3. Are you going to tell a lucky to be alive woman- who has been raped that she needs to carry a rape baby to full term and deliver, whom may also have a husband and family members that would object to that?

4. Are you going to tell the mother & father of a severely deformed fetus that they need to give birth and raise this baby? Or do you expect the taxpayers of that state to do it?

Since our laws do not discriminate--it offers you no choice as to whom is eligible for an abortion and who is not. And ONE thing you people NEVER consider is that there will ALWAYS be circumstances you are unaware of for a woman to make that choice.

Women do not use abortion as a method of birth control. On average an abortion costs $1500--$1700, and NO the taxpayers DO NOT pay for abortions. Out of all the women YOU claim have abortions every year, you have yet to produce one single woman that has stated that taxpayers paid for hers.

Now the next thing states have tried is the Personhood bill, which again would be immediately overruled by a Federal District Court judge. This is the bill to end all abortions. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul were actually out there is 2016 promising their constituents that they would support a Personhood amendment to the Constitution for VOTES. To change, add or repeal a constitutional amendment requires 2/3's of the Senate, 2/3's of the House, and then it has to be ratified by 38 states legislatures. The Personhood bill has been on the ballot in my state of Colorado 3 times and it has been soundly defeated 3 times.
Colorado Personhood Amendment 67 Fails a Third Time by Lopsided Margin | LifeNews.com

A Personhood bill gives a fetus the same rights as a baby out of the womb.

Since our laws do NOT discriminate:

1. Common miscarraiges would have to be investigated for foul play and an autopsy performed.
2. A pregnant woman falls down the stairs or gets into an accident she could get charged with manslaughter.
3. You get into an accident with a pregnant woman and the fetus dies, you could be charged with manslaughter or murder.
4. A mother of a still born fetus would have to be investigated and charges could insue.
5. Doctors & Nurses delivering a still born baby would also be investigated and charges could insue.

A fetus in the womb is a very fragile life, and we don't need innocent people charged and put in prison for illness's, accidents & mother nature.

Again abortion is a very PRIVATE-PERSONAL issue and sometimes a Devastating decision that women & their families have to make, and frankly it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

 

[sakinago]

No they don't, those "rights" of privacy are still limited to protect life. And each state has their own constitution pertaining to their jurisdiction (their state), all of them have to adhere to the BOR (supreme law of the land), and all of them recognize life of fetus is constitutionally protected in the case of homicide. Anytime you get into one persons "rights" superseding another persons actual rights (let's be serious we're talking right to privacy, superseding right to life...which also violates the fetus right to privacy), you have now ventured into a territory where were violating the constitution/BOR, as we did with interment camps, dred Scott, 3/5s, Jim Crow, etc, etc, one groups rights over another.

Sweet baby Jesus are you really this Stupid:--this is your personal opinion--while the word Privacy is not written in the Constitution--the U.S. Supreme court stated it does exist in 1965--and ruled against Connecticut over it. That is also PRECEDENT. People have a RIGHT to privacy. And YOU don't have the fucking right to determine what PRIVACY you're going to allow.

Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia

I've never said, there was no right to privacy, don't know what you're arguing against? just that one persons rights, cannot supersede another's. The case you stated referenced prophylactics. Not abortion, which is the termination of human life, life recognized by the constitution in every state, whether it limits the women's right to privacy over the fetus (women's right to privacy becomes moot after a certain period of time), or in instances of homicide of a pregnant women which becomes double homicide. That's the inconsistency I've been talking about, they recognize the fetus as constitutionally protected in both instances, but ignore it that constitutional protection in some instances with women's right to privacy. Which is to say X's right to A > Ys right to B, under certain situations (being Y is unwanted, and is young enough). Inconsistency.

What do you think abortion is? A very PRIVATE-PERSONAL decision that a woman makes.

That's not a valid argument. Murder is most of the time a very private and personal decision. Most murderers don't want the world knowing they did it, and don't want the world to know their reasons why.

And we are talking about human life here. Not taking a prophylactic.

No you're not going there--. There are actually reasons for an abortion.

1. So are you going to tell a woman--(who may already have two kids at home that she needs to raise) along with a husband that she needs to die to give birth to a baby?

2. Are you going to tell the parents of a young girl that has been repeatedly raped by a relative, that their daughter needs to carry a fetus until full term, and risk her life by giving birth?

3. Are you going to tell a lucky to be alive woman- who has been raped that she needs to carry a rape baby to full term and deliver, whom may also have a husband and family members that would object to that?

4. Are you going to tell the mother & father of a severely deformed fetus that they need to give birth and raise this baby? Or do you expect the taxpayers of that state to do it?

Since our laws do not discriminate--it offers you no choice as to whom is eligible for an abortion and who is not. And ONE thing you people NEVER consider is that there will ALWAYS be circumstances you are unaware of for a woman to make that choice.

Women do not use abortion as a method of birth control. On average an abortion costs $1500--$1700, and NO the taxpayers DO NOT pay for abortions. Out of all the women YOU claim have abortions every year, you have yet to produce one single woman that has stated that taxpayers paid for hers.

Now the next thing states have tried is the Personhood bill. Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul were actually promising a constitutional amendment for a Personhood bill--which would be overruled immediately by a Federal District Court judge. This is the bill to end all abortions. Its been on the ballot in my state of Colorado 3 times and it has been soundly defeated 3 times.
Colorado Personhood Amendment 67 Fails a Third Time by Lopsided Margin | LifeNews.com

A Personhood bill gives a fetus the same rights as a baby out of the womb.

Since our laws do NOT discriminate:

1. Common miscarraiges would have to be investigated for foul play and an autopsy performed.
2. A pregnant woman falls down the stairs or gets into an accident she could get charged with manslaughter.
3. You get into an accident with a pregnant woman and the fetus dies, you could be charged with manslaughter or murder.
4. A mother of a still born fetus would have to be investigated and charges could insue.
5. Doctors & Nurses delivering a still born baby would also be investigated and charges could insue.

This is why the Personhood fails each and every time. A fetus in the womb is a very fragile life, and we don't need innocent people charged and put in prison for illness's and accidents.

Again abortion is a very PRIVATE-PERSONAL issue and sometimes a Devastating decision that they have to make, and frankly it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

The first bullet points 1 through 4, represent combined maybe 1% of the actual abortions taking place. Super super small amount, are not at all representative of almost all abortions being performed. Each of these cases I believe need to be handled individually. This is the MOST common red herring (a logical fallacy that brings up tangential points to steer away from the main point) the left makes. But I'm also not referring to these cases since I'm talking about abortion in general, we'll say the 95% of abortions to give leeway. That being said.

There is an absolute inconsistency when our courts recognize life of the fetus is constitutionally protected...but says it is trumped by a right to privacy only in certain conditions. In which we get to a paradox, because we're recognizing right to life in one instance, but in certain conditions we will deny the same constitutional protections stating one citizen has rights over another. Supreme Court has made this same wrong decision of placing ones rights over another...many times, but the left still refers to them as our moral judges...despite these guys passing DOMA.

And the last bullet point 1-5...really where do these cases happen?? What? Those points are really the equivalent to a guy master bating to his sex fantasy of 1-5 women, and trying to claim it actually happened. It's 2017, grow up, have a real conversation. Hint: your not gonna hear everything you like...if you're resorting to logical fallacies to prove you're point, you're probably in the wrong.

 

[oreo]

Sweet baby Jesus are you really this Stupid:--this is your personal opinion--while the word Privacy is not written in the Constitution--the U.S. Supreme court stated it does exist in 1965--and ruled against Connecticut over it. That is also PRECEDENT. People have a RIGHT to privacy. And YOU don't have the fucking right to determine what PRIVACY you're going to allow.

Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia

I've never said, there was no right to privacy, don't know what you're arguing against? just that one persons rights, cannot supersede another's. The case you stated referenced prophylactics. Not abortion, which is the termination of human life, life recognized by the constitution in every state, whether it limits the women's right to privacy over the fetus (women's right to privacy becomes moot after a certain period of time), or in instances of homicide of a pregnant women which becomes double homicide. That's the inconsistency I've been talking about, they recognize the fetus as constitutionally protected in both instances, but ignore it that constitutional protection in some instances with women's right to privacy. Which is to say X's right to A > Ys right to B, under certain situations (being Y is unwanted, and is young enough). Inconsistency.

What do you think abortion is? A very PRIVATE-PERSONAL decision that a woman makes.

That's not a valid argument. Murder is most of the time a very private and personal decision. Most murderers don't want the world knowing they did it, and don't want the world to know their reasons why.

And we are talking about human life here. Not taking a prophylactic.

No you're not going there--. There are actually reasons for an abortion.

1. So are you going to tell a woman--(who may already have two kids at home that she needs to raise) along with a husband that she needs to die to give birth to a baby?

2. Are you going to tell the parents of a young girl that has been repeatedly raped by a relative, that their daughter needs to carry a fetus until full term, and risk her life by giving birth?

3. Are you going to tell a lucky to be alive woman- who has been raped that she needs to carry a rape baby to full term and deliver, whom may also have a husband and family members that would object to that?

4. Are you going to tell the mother & father of a severely deformed fetus that they need to give birth and raise this baby? Or do you expect the taxpayers of that state to do it?

Since our laws do not discriminate--it offers you no choice as to whom is eligible for an abortion and who is not. And ONE thing you people NEVER consider is that there will ALWAYS be circumstances you are unaware of for a woman to make that choice.

Women do not use abortion as a method of birth control. On average an abortion costs $1500--$1700, and NO the taxpayers DO NOT pay for abortions. Out of all the women YOU claim have abortions every year, you have yet to produce one single woman that has stated that taxpayers paid for hers.

Now the next thing states have tried is the Personhood bill. Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul were actually promising a constitutional amendment for a Personhood bill--which would be overruled immediately by a Federal District Court judge. This is the bill to end all abortions. Its been on the ballot in my state of Colorado 3 times and it has been soundly defeated 3 times.
Colorado Personhood Amendment 67 Fails a Third Time by Lopsided Margin | LifeNews.com

A Personhood bill gives a fetus the same rights as a baby out of the womb.

Since our laws do NOT discriminate:

1. Common miscarraiges would have to be investigated for foul play and an autopsy performed.
2. A pregnant woman falls down the stairs or gets into an accident she could get charged with manslaughter.
3. You get into an accident with a pregnant woman and the fetus dies, you could be charged with manslaughter or murder.
4. A mother of a still born fetus would have to be investigated and charges could insue.
5. Doctors & Nurses delivering a still born baby would also be investigated and charges could insue.

This is why the Personhood fails each and every time. A fetus in the womb is a very fragile life, and we don't need innocent people charged and put in prison for illness's and accidents.

Again abortion is a very PRIVATE-PERSONAL issue and sometimes a Devastating decision that they have to make, and frankly it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

The first bullet points 1 through 4, represent combined maybe 1% of the actual abortions taking place. Super super small amount, are not at all representative of almost all abortions being performed. Each of these cases I believe need to be handled individually. This is the MOST common red herring (a logical fallacy that brings up tangential points to steer away from the main point) the left makes. But I'm also not referring to these cases since I'm talking about abortion in general, we'll say the 95% of abortions to give leeway. That being said.

There is an absolute inconsistency when our courts recognize life of the fetus is constitutionally protected...but says it is trumped by a right to privacy only in certain conditions. In which we get to a paradox, because we're recognizing right to life in one instance, but in certain conditions we will deny the same constitutional protections stating one citizen has rights over another. Supreme Court has made this same wrong decision of placing ones rights over another...many times, but the left still refers to them as our moral judges...despite these guys passing DOMA.

And the last bullet point 1-5...really where do these cases happen?? What? Those points are really the equivalent to a guy master bating to his sex fantasy of 1-5 women, and trying to claim it actually happened. It's 2017, grow up, have a real conversation. Hint: your not gonna hear everything you like...if you're resorting to logical fallacies to prove you're point, you're probably in the wrong.

That's the law--and clearly it's not going away. This is the first U.S. Supreme Court nominee that has put Roe V Wade under the bus permanently.

By Republicans continually campaigning on it, they are only killing party. It is in fact the reason Mitt Romney lost in 2012.
Why Romney Lost And Republicans Keep Losing
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump

And if that doesn't give you a clue as to what has happened, all you need to do is look at the pictures from the Women's march the day after Trump was inagurated. They are sick & tired of Republicans continually trying to interfere into their issues.

The woman's march was held in every State, including Red States. They were in the millions. To see what was going on in your state--go to this link.
Woman's march pictures

You have awoken a sleeping giant and it's pissed.

 

[yiostheoy]

10th Amendment.

Read it.

 

[oreo]

10th Amendment.

Read it.

The 10th amendment is states rights-but it does NOT give you the authority or right to oppress the individual rights of women or any other person. And that is what the U.S. Supreme Court is there to protect. The Federal District Courts have made that very clear, especially regarding state abortion bills.

While we have a lot of IDIOT Republican governors that will sign off on sonogram requirements or whatever else they come up with, 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, let alone the paid out money to defend his bill in court. It was 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, and knew it would be overruled by a Federal District Court Judge.
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.

 

[sakinago]

I've never said, there was no right to privacy, don't know what you're arguing against? just that one persons rights, cannot supersede another's. The case you stated referenced prophylactics. Not abortion, which is the termination of human life, life recognized by the constitution in every state, whether it limits the women's right to privacy over the fetus (women's right to privacy becomes moot after a certain period of time), or in instances of homicide of a pregnant women which becomes double homicide. That's the inconsistency I've been talking about, they recognize the fetus as constitutionally protected in both instances, but ignore it that constitutional protection in some instances with women's right to privacy. Which is to say X's right to A > Ys right to B, under certain situations (being Y is unwanted, and is young enough). Inconsistency.

What do you think abortion is? A very PRIVATE-PERSONAL decision that a woman makes.

That's not a valid argument. Murder is most of the time a very private and personal decision. Most murderers don't want the world knowing they did it, and don't want the world to know their reasons why.

And we are talking about human life here. Not taking a prophylactic.

No you're not going there--. There are actually reasons for an abortion.

1. So are you going to tell a woman--(who may already have two kids at home that she needs to raise) along with a husband that she needs to die to give birth to a baby?

2. Are you going to tell the parents of a young girl that has been repeatedly raped by a relative, that their daughter needs to carry a fetus until full term, and risk her life by giving birth?

3. Are you going to tell a lucky to be alive woman- who has been raped that she needs to carry a rape baby to full term and deliver, whom may also have a husband and family members that would object to that?

4. Are you going to tell the mother & father of a severely deformed fetus that they need to give birth and raise this baby? Or do you expect the taxpayers of that state to do it?

Since our laws do not discriminate--it offers you no choice as to whom is eligible for an abortion and who is not. And ONE thing you people NEVER consider is that there will ALWAYS be circumstances you are unaware of for a woman to make that choice.

Women do not use abortion as a method of birth control. On average an abortion costs $1500--$1700, and NO the taxpayers DO NOT pay for abortions. Out of all the women YOU claim have abortions every year, you have yet to produce one single woman that has stated that taxpayers paid for hers.

Now the next thing states have tried is the Personhood bill. Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul were actually promising a constitutional amendment for a Personhood bill--which would be overruled immediately by a Federal District Court judge. This is the bill to end all abortions. Its been on the ballot in my state of Colorado 3 times and it has been soundly defeated 3 times.
Colorado Personhood Amendment 67 Fails a Third Time by Lopsided Margin | LifeNews.com

A Personhood bill gives a fetus the same rights as a baby out of the womb.

Since our laws do NOT discriminate:

1. Common miscarraiges would have to be investigated for foul play and an autopsy performed.
2. A pregnant woman falls down the stairs or gets into an accident she could get charged with manslaughter.
3. You get into an accident with a pregnant woman and the fetus dies, you could be charged with manslaughter or murder.
4. A mother of a still born fetus would have to be investigated and charges could insue.
5. Doctors & Nurses delivering a still born baby would also be investigated and charges could insue.

This is why the Personhood fails each and every time. A fetus in the womb is a very fragile life, and we don't need innocent people charged and put in prison for illness's and accidents.

Again abortion is a very PRIVATE-PERSONAL issue and sometimes a Devastating decision that they have to make, and frankly it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

The first bullet points 1 through 4, represent combined maybe 1% of the actual abortions taking place. Super super small amount, are not at all representative of almost all abortions being performed. Each of these cases I believe need to be handled individually. This is the MOST common red herring (a logical fallacy that brings up tangential points to steer away from the main point) the left makes. But I'm also not referring to these cases since I'm talking about abortion in general, we'll say the 95% of abortions to give leeway. That being said.

There is an absolute inconsistency when our courts recognize life of the fetus is constitutionally protected...but says it is trumped by a right to privacy only in certain conditions. In which we get to a paradox, because we're recognizing right to life in one instance, but in certain conditions we will deny the same constitutional protections stating one citizen has rights over another. Supreme Court has made this same wrong decision of placing ones rights over another...many times, but the left still refers to them as our moral judges...despite these guys passing DOMA.

And the last bullet point 1-5...really where do these cases happen?? What? Those points are really the equivalent to a guy master bating to his sex fantasy of 1-5 women, and trying to claim it actually happened. It's 2017, grow up, have a real conversation. Hint: your not gonna hear everything you like...if you're resorting to logical fallacies to prove you're point, you're probably in the wrong.

That's the law--and clearly it's not going away. This is the first U.S. Supreme Court nominee that has put Roe V Wade under the bus permanently.

By Republicans continually campaigning on it, they are only killing party. It is in fact the reason Mitt Romney lost in 2012.
Why Romney Lost And Republicans Keep Losing
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump

And if that doesn't give you a clue as to what has happened, all you need to do is look at the pictures from the Women's march the day after Trump was inagurated. They are sick & tired of Republicans continually trying to interfere into their issues.

The woman's march was held in every State, including Red States. They were in the millions. To see what was going on in your state--go to this link.
Woman's march pictures

You have awoken a sleeping giant and it's pissed.

You got me, I didn't realize seeing people in large groups equated to trumping an argument (despite the most unpopular candidate in history being elected with states no republican has won in this generation [says a lot about what the lefts been pushing]). I also didn't realize that something becoming law is therefore just (wish I had a time machine to tell rosa parks, sorry it's the law go to the back of the bus). And I didn't realize that a confirmation hearing, with the constant trip you up questions so we can scream bloody murder, was a solid reading on how said judge would rule....again if you have to resort to logical fallacies...do you have any place in the argument at all?

 

[oreo]

What do you think abortion is? A very PRIVATE-PERSONAL decision that a woman makes.

That's not a valid argument. Murder is most of the time a very private and personal decision. Most murderers don't want the world knowing they did it, and don't want the world to know their reasons why.

And we are talking about human life here. Not taking a prophylactic.

No you're not going there--. There are actually reasons for an abortion.

1. So are you going to tell a woman--(who may already have two kids at home that she needs to raise) along with a husband that she needs to die to give birth to a baby?

2. Are you going to tell the parents of a young girl that has been repeatedly raped by a relative, that their daughter needs to carry a fetus until full term, and risk her life by giving birth?

3. Are you going to tell a lucky to be alive woman- who has been raped that she needs to carry a rape baby to full term and deliver, whom may also have a husband and family members that would object to that?

4. Are you going to tell the mother & father of a severely deformed fetus that they need to give birth and raise this baby? Or do you expect the taxpayers of that state to do it?

Since our laws do not discriminate--it offers you no choice as to whom is eligible for an abortion and who is not. And ONE thing you people NEVER consider is that there will ALWAYS be circumstances you are unaware of for a woman to make that choice.

Women do not use abortion as a method of birth control. On average an abortion costs $1500--$1700, and NO the taxpayers DO NOT pay for abortions. Out of all the women YOU claim have abortions every year, you have yet to produce one single woman that has stated that taxpayers paid for hers.

Now the next thing states have tried is the Personhood bill. Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul were actually promising a constitutional amendment for a Personhood bill--which would be overruled immediately by a Federal District Court judge. This is the bill to end all abortions. Its been on the ballot in my state of Colorado 3 times and it has been soundly defeated 3 times.
Colorado Personhood Amendment 67 Fails a Third Time by Lopsided Margin | LifeNews.com

A Personhood bill gives a fetus the same rights as a baby out of the womb.

Since our laws do NOT discriminate:

1. Common miscarraiges would have to be investigated for foul play and an autopsy performed.
2. A pregnant woman falls down the stairs or gets into an accident she could get charged with manslaughter.
3. You get into an accident with a pregnant woman and the fetus dies, you could be charged with manslaughter or murder.
4. A mother of a still born fetus would have to be investigated and charges could insue.
5. Doctors & Nurses delivering a still born baby would also be investigated and charges could insue.

This is why the Personhood fails each and every time. A fetus in the womb is a very fragile life, and we don't need innocent people charged and put in prison for illness's and accidents.

Again abortion is a very PRIVATE-PERSONAL issue and sometimes a Devastating decision that they have to make, and frankly it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

The first bullet points 1 through 4, represent combined maybe 1% of the actual abortions taking place. Super super small amount, are not at all representative of almost all abortions being performed. Each of these cases I believe need to be handled individually. This is the MOST common red herring (a logical fallacy that brings up tangential points to steer away from the main point) the left makes. But I'm also not referring to these cases since I'm talking about abortion in general, we'll say the 95% of abortions to give leeway. That being said.

There is an absolute inconsistency when our courts recognize life of the fetus is constitutionally protected...but says it is trumped by a right to privacy only in certain conditions. In which we get to a paradox, because we're recognizing right to life in one instance, but in certain conditions we will deny the same constitutional protections stating one citizen has rights over another. Supreme Court has made this same wrong decision of placing ones rights over another...many times, but the left still refers to them as our moral judges...despite these guys passing DOMA.

And the last bullet point 1-5...really where do these cases happen?? What? Those points are really the equivalent to a guy master bating to his sex fantasy of 1-5 women, and trying to claim it actually happened. It's 2017, grow up, have a real conversation. Hint: your not gonna hear everything you like...if you're resorting to logical fallacies to prove you're point, you're probably in the wrong.

That's the law--and clearly it's not going away. This is the first U.S. Supreme Court nominee that has put Roe V Wade under the bus permanently.

By Republicans continually campaigning on it, they are only killing party. It is in fact the reason Mitt Romney lost in 2012.
Why Romney Lost And Republicans Keep Losing
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump

And if that doesn't give you a clue as to what has happened, all you need to do is look at the pictures from the Women's march the day after Trump was inagurated. They are sick & tired of Republicans continually trying to interfere into their issues.

The woman's march was held in every State, including Red States. They were in the millions. To see what was going on in your state--go to this link.
Woman's march pictures

You have awoken a sleeping giant and it's pissed.

You got me, I didn't realize seeing people in large groups equated to trumping an argument (despite the most unpopular candidate in history being elected with states no republican has won in this generation [says a lot about what the lefts been pushing]). I also didn't realize that something becoming law is therefore just (wish I had a time machine to tell rosa parks, sorry it's the law go to the back of the bus). And I didn't realize that a confirmation hearing, with the constant trip you up questions so we can scream bloody murder, was a solid reading on how said judge would rule....again if you have to resort to logical fallacies...do you have any place in the argument at all?

You didn't get trumped you got your ass kicked. There is no point in arguing with the U.S. Supreme court. You may not like their decisions but they are the law of the land, and it's clear by what Neil Gorsuch just stated they will not hear any more abortion cases. Roe V Wade has been around for 47 YEARS now. It's been challenged multiple times in Federal District Court rooms all over this country for over 4-1/2 decades and NOTHING has changed with it, nor will it ever.

Women vote in this country, and it should concern you that they are the majority voter in this country, and vote more often than men do. So now you have to make a choice. Is the Republican party going to write their own obtituary with this, or are they going to STOP insulting the integrity & and intelligence of women in this country by campaigning on their issues.

 

[sakinago]

That's not a valid argument. Murder is most of the time a very private and personal decision. Most murderers don't want the world knowing they did it, and don't want the world to know their reasons why.

And we are talking about human life here. Not taking a prophylactic.

No you're not going there--. There are actually reasons for an abortion.

1. So are you going to tell a woman--(who may already have two kids at home that she needs to raise) along with a husband that she needs to die to give birth to a baby?

2. Are you going to tell the parents of a young girl that has been repeatedly raped by a relative, that their daughter needs to carry a fetus until full term, and risk her life by giving birth?

3. Are you going to tell a lucky to be alive woman- who has been raped that she needs to carry a rape baby to full term and deliver, whom may also have a husband and family members that would object to that?

4. Are you going to tell the mother & father of a severely deformed fetus that they need to give birth and raise this baby? Or do you expect the taxpayers of that state to do it?

Since our laws do not discriminate--it offers you no choice as to whom is eligible for an abortion and who is not. And ONE thing you people NEVER consider is that there will ALWAYS be circumstances you are unaware of for a woman to make that choice.

Women do not use abortion as a method of birth control. On average an abortion costs $1500--$1700, and NO the taxpayers DO NOT pay for abortions. Out of all the women YOU claim have abortions every year, you have yet to produce one single woman that has stated that taxpayers paid for hers.

Now the next thing states have tried is the Personhood bill. Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul were actually promising a constitutional amendment for a Personhood bill--which would be overruled immediately by a Federal District Court judge. This is the bill to end all abortions. Its been on the ballot in my state of Colorado 3 times and it has been soundly defeated 3 times.
Colorado Personhood Amendment 67 Fails a Third Time by Lopsided Margin | LifeNews.com

A Personhood bill gives a fetus the same rights as a baby out of the womb.

Since our laws do NOT discriminate:

1. Common miscarraiges would have to be investigated for foul play and an autopsy performed.
2. A pregnant woman falls down the stairs or gets into an accident she could get charged with manslaughter.
3. You get into an accident with a pregnant woman and the fetus dies, you could be charged with manslaughter or murder.
4. A mother of a still born fetus would have to be investigated and charges could insue.
5. Doctors & Nurses delivering a still born baby would also be investigated and charges could insue.

This is why the Personhood fails each and every time. A fetus in the womb is a very fragile life, and we don't need innocent people charged and put in prison for illness's and accidents.

Again abortion is a very PRIVATE-PERSONAL issue and sometimes a Devastating decision that they have to make, and frankly it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

The first bullet points 1 through 4, represent combined maybe 1% of the actual abortions taking place. Super super small amount, are not at all representative of almost all abortions being performed. Each of these cases I believe need to be handled individually. This is the MOST common red herring (a logical fallacy that brings up tangential points to steer away from the main point) the left makes. But I'm also not referring to these cases since I'm talking about abortion in general, we'll say the 95% of abortions to give leeway. That being said.

There is an absolute inconsistency when our courts recognize life of the fetus is constitutionally protected...but says it is trumped by a right to privacy only in certain conditions. In which we get to a paradox, because we're recognizing right to life in one instance, but in certain conditions we will deny the same constitutional protections stating one citizen has rights over another. Supreme Court has made this same wrong decision of placing ones rights over another...many times, but the left still refers to them as our moral judges...despite these guys passing DOMA.

And the last bullet point 1-5...really where do these cases happen?? What? Those points are really the equivalent to a guy master bating to his sex fantasy of 1-5 women, and trying to claim it actually happened. It's 2017, grow up, have a real conversation. Hint: your not gonna hear everything you like...if you're resorting to logical fallacies to prove you're point, you're probably in the wrong.

That's the law--and clearly it's not going away. This is the first U.S. Supreme Court nominee that has put Roe V Wade under the bus permanently.

By Republicans continually campaigning on it, they are only killing party. It is in fact the reason Mitt Romney lost in 2012.
Why Romney Lost And Republicans Keep Losing
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump

And if that doesn't give you a clue as to what has happened, all you need to do is look at the pictures from the Women's march the day after Trump was inagurated. They are sick & tired of Republicans continually trying to interfere into their issues.

The woman's march was held in every State, including Red States. They were in the millions. To see what was going on in your state--go to this link.
Woman's march pictures

You have awoken a sleeping giant and it's pissed.

You got me, I didn't realize seeing people in large groups equated to trumping an argument (despite the most unpopular candidate in history being elected with states no republican has won in this generation [says a lot about what the lefts been pushing]). I also didn't realize that something becoming law is therefore just (wish I had a time machine to tell rosa parks, sorry it's the law go to the back of the bus). And I didn't realize that a confirmation hearing, with the constant trip you up questions so we can scream bloody murder, was a solid reading on how said judge would rule....again if you have to resort to logical fallacies...do you have any place in the argument at all?

You didn't get trumped you got your ass kicked. There is no point in arguing with the U.S. Supreme court. You may not like their decisions but they are the law of the land, and it's clear by what Neil Gorsuch just stated they will not hear any more abortion cases. Roe V Wade has been around for 47 YEARS now. It's been challenged multiple times in Federal District Court rooms all over this country for over 4-1/2 decades and NOTHING has changed with it, nor will it ever.

Women vote in this country, and it should concern you that they are the majority voter in this country, and vote more often than men do. So now you have to make a choice. Is the Republican party going to write their own obtituary with this, or are they going to STOP insulting the integrity & and intelligence of women in this country by campaigning on their issues.

My ass got kicked like trumps ass got kicked in the election(I'm not a trump supporter). And again let me go sarcastically go back in my time machine and tell the SCOTUS they got dred Scott, 3/5s compromise, kilo, and DOMA right. They'll be excited to hear that, and that's there's no point arguing with them.

I'm sorry you want to deny scientifically proven, and constitutionally recognized human life the right to life, despite prophylactics being the cheapest and easiest to get. I'm sorry you're happier with dehumanizing, and instead resorting to logical fallacies to keep you're worldview alive.

 

[Dragonlady]

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

It isn't murder and it's not your body, and it's none of your business. We're cheering because you zealots don't get to stop women from controlling their own lives and those of the families who depend on them.

Conservatives, who always want "smaller government", unless abortion is involved and then there are not enough governmental hoops in the world that can be found to make this woman jumps through, in the hopes she will give birth to a child she does want or can't afford, at which point conservatives cease to care about the woman or the child, and prefer to lecture her on her "irresponsible" behaviour in bringing a child into the world she can't afford to raise.

 

[Dragonlady]

My ass got kicked like trumps ass got kicked in the election(I'm not a trump supporter). And again let me go sarcastically go back in my time machine and tell the SCOTUS they got dred Scott, 3/5s compromise, kilo, and DOMA right. They'll be excited to hear that, and that's there's no point arguing with them.

I'm sorry you want to deny scientifically proven, and constitutionally recognized human life the right to life, despite prophylactics being the cheapest and easiest to get. I'm sorry you're happier with dehumanizing, and instead resorting to logical fallacies to keep you're worldview alive.

It is not the right to life of humans that's at issue, it's the right to privacy in deciding how and when you will increase your family - the most basic human right of all - the right to own your own body - something no man will ever truly understand. I can't imagine being forced to carry a child to term that I did not want, for whatever reason. It is difficult enough to be pregnant when you want the child. What is dehumanizing is forcing a woman to bear a child under these circumstances.

All birth control fails. Half of all women who seek abortions, were using birth control the month they got pregnant. I'm having another grandchild in August because my daughter's birth control pills failed. Condoms have a 15% failure rate. But here's the thing, countries with mandatory maternity leave, government funded health care, and even free abortions, have lower rates of abortion than the United States.

In the United States, the vast majority of women seeking abortions are poor - 80% live below or close to the poverty line. Poor women, on average, have fewer children than middle class or wealthy women. It's the working poor who are getting abortions. That's the truth about abortion Republicans refuse to deal with and its why Republicans cannot win on the abortion issue.