Voting Republican this term may end up changing the US Constitution to help the Far Right ideas

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[NotfooledbyW]

think abortion is a human issue.

NFBW: What is your point? Banning abortion procedures in red states is a right wing white Christian Republican human issue. Are you not capable of explaining the relevance of what you are saying. Of course it’s a human issue. END2211012142

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I think abortion is a human issue.

NFBW: There is nothing scientific about government coercion that forbids the medical procedure of abortion in states where a predominantly white Christian populace demands and votes for it. Science bears no allegiance to popular will based upon emotion driven religious propaganda. Viability is a scientific term and therefore state governments serving as a secular institution for every viable human being living and breathing in each state must recognize the science of viability first, foremost and always.

Viability - CarsomyrPlusSix 220818-#4,912 “it’s just oh so fucking irrelevant​

​

ding220815-#4,843 Viability apart from its mother plays no role in that determination.​

​

Bob Blaylock 220505-#129 “Viability” was never nearly a sharp enough line to try to use to define when a human being comes into existence whose life is deserving of protection under the law.​

​

As has been pointed out, Roe vs. Wade drew a line at the third trimester, on the basis that that was where “viability” occurred; but now, with improving technology, babies born prematurely before that point now routinely are saved; so that third-trimester line is now outdated and invalid.​

​

But that depends on a subjective view of what constitutes “viability”. Even a child, carried to full term, and born, still requires a great deal of care from others in order to survive, for many years yet to come. Set a three-year-old out into the world, to fend for himself, and just how “viable” is, he, really?​

​

To define when the life of a human being begins, the point at which that human being is entitled to have his life protected by the force of law, against anyone who would kill him, truly requires an objective, definable point—a point where something has undeniably come into existence, which did not exist a moment before.​

​

In the entire human life cycle, there is only one such point; and that is conception. That is the point at which, biologically, a new, genetically-complete organism comes into being of the human species. Everything else that changes about him, from this point, until his death, is only a matter of growth and development, and never of anything new coming into existence which is very much different than what existed before.​

​

This is the only point at which it makes logical sense to declare that the resulting person is, in fact, a human being, whose life is every bit as deserving of every legal and social protection, as every other human being's life; and to declare it as nothing less than the most serious of crimes to willfully end that life.”​

​

NFBW: Viability is the fine line set in nature when life is able to begin in a wanted pregnancy, as a person breathing and functioning in a life sustaining way after being separated from his or her mother.

Viability is a point in time to the natural order of all things that falls within the realm of science. Technology that improves the odds of a premature birth in a wanted pregnancy but at a much higher cost than natural birth, has no bearing on a set point when personhood legally Constitutionally begins.

Bob Blaylock is free to choose to believe Constitutional personhood beings at conception all he wants.

An unwanted pregnancy should be decided by the woman and the woman alone well before what is established to be natural viability. It’s her business how and why she ended up with an unwanted pregnancy and what she intends to do about it, and it is not the business of ding Bob Blaylock and CarsomyrPlusSix to tell her that viability is “just oh so fucking irrelevant”

END2211020700

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Viability is the fine line set in nature when life is able to begin in a wanted pregnancy, as a person breathing and functioning in a life sustaining way after being separated from his or her mother.

Viability is a point in time to the natural order of all things that falls within the realm of science. Technology that improves the odds of a premature birth in a wanted pregnancy but at a much higher cost than natural birth, has no bearing on a set point when personhood legally Constitutionally begins.

So you're using “wanted” as a criterion to distinguish a human being from someone who is not a human being? As the Jews were not “wanted” in Germany, during the 1930s and 1940s?

The homeless people camping around the parking area to the construction site where I currently work are certainly not wanted there. All my colleagues and I wish they'd go somewhere else. Since they are not “wanted”, does that mean they are not human, and that my colleagues and I should be free to simply exterminate them?

An unwanted pregnancy should be decided by the woman and the woman alone well before what is established to be natural viability. It’s her business how and why she ended up with an unwanted pregnancy and what she intends to do about it, and it is not the business of @ding @Bob Blaylock and @CarsomyrPlusSix to tell her that viability is “just oh so fucking irrelevant”

What business is it, then, of yours, to tell me and my coworkers what to do about the “unwanted” homeless camping close to our work area?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There is nothing scientific about government coercion that forbids the medical procedure of abortion in states where a predominantly white Christian populace demands and votes for it. Science bears no allegiance to popular will based upon emotion driven religious propaganda. Viability is a scientific term and therefore state governments serving as a secular institution for every viable human being living and breathing in each state must recognize the science of viability first, foremost and always.

Is Bruce Jenner a man, or is he a woman?

 

[ding]

NFBW: What is your point? Banning abortion procedures in red states is a right wing white Christian Republican human issue. Are you not capable of explaining the relevance of what you are saying. Of course it’s a human issue. END2211012142

You’re upset.

 

[ding]

NFBW: There is nothing scientific about government coercion that forbids the medical procedure of abortion in states where a predominantly white Christian populace demands and votes for it. Science bears no allegiance to popular will based upon emotion driven religious propaganda. Viability is a scientific term and therefore state governments serving as a secular institution for every viable human being living and breathing in each state must recognize the science of viability first, foremost and always.

Viability - CarsomyrPlusSix 220818-#4,912 “it’s just oh so fucking irrelevant​

​

ding220815-#4,843 Viability apart from its mother plays no role in that determination.​

​

Bob Blaylock 220505-#129 “Viability” was never nearly a sharp enough line to try to use to define when a human being comes into existence whose life is deserving of protection under the law.​

​

As has been pointed out, Roe vs. Wade drew a line at the third trimester, on the basis that that was where “viability” occurred; but now, with improving technology, babies born prematurely before that point now routinely are saved; so that third-trimester line is now outdated and invalid.​

​

But that depends on a subjective view of what constitutes “viability”. Even a child, carried to full term, and born, still requires a great deal of care from others in order to survive, for many years yet to come. Set a three-year-old out into the world, to fend for himself, and just how “viable” is, he, really?​

​

To define when the life of a human being begins, the point at which that human being is entitled to have his life protected by the force of law, against anyone who would kill him, truly requires an objective, definable point—a point where something has undeniably come into existence, which did not exist a moment before.​

​

In the entire human life cycle, there is only one such point; and that is conception. That is the point at which, biologically, a new, genetically-complete organism comes into being of the human species. Everything else that changes about him, from this point, until his death, is only a matter of growth and development, and never of anything new coming into existence which is very much different than what existed before.​

​

This is the only point at which it makes logical sense to declare that the resulting person is, in fact, a human being, whose life is every bit as deserving of every legal and social protection, as every other human being's life; and to declare it as nothing less than the most serious of crimes to willfully end that life.”​

​

NFBW: Viability is the fine line set in nature when life is able to begin in a wanted pregnancy, as a person breathing and functioning in a life sustaining way after being separated from his or her mother.

Viability is a point in time to the natural order of all things that falls within the realm of science. Technology that improves the odds of a premature birth in a wanted pregnancy but at a much higher cost than natural birth, has no bearing on a set point when personhood legally Constitutionally begins.

Bob Blaylock is free to choose to believe Constitutional personhood beings at conception all he wants.

An unwanted pregnancy should be decided by the woman and the woman alone well before what is established to be natural viability. It’s her business how and why she ended up with an unwanted pregnancy and what she intends to do about it, and it is not the business of ding Bob Blaylock and CarsomyrPlusSix to tell her that viability is “just oh so fucking irrelevant”

END2211020700

tl/dr

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[iceberg]

Much of the income is dark money, with the origins hidden. CMD has managed to identify some key donors – among them the Mercer Family Foundation set up by reclusive hedge fund manager Robert Mercer, and a couple of groups run by Leonard Leo, the mastermind behind the rightwing land grab in the federal courts.

More than $1m (£880,265) has also been donated in the form of Bitcoin.

The attraction to these groups and donors of pursuing a states route to rewriting the US constitution is easily explained. Over the past 12 years, since the eruption of the Tea Party in 2010, Republican activists have deployed extreme partisan gerrymandering to pull off an extraordinary takeover of state legislatures.

Bannon is not finished: his ‘precinct strategy’ could alter US elections for years
Read more
In 2010, Republicans controlled both chambers of just 14 state legislatures. Today, that number stands at 31.

“Republicans are near the high watermark in terms of their political control in the states, and that’s why the pro-Trump rightwing of the party is increasingly embracing the constitutional convention strategy,” said Arn Pearson, CMD’s executive director.

Should a convention be achieved, the plan would be to give states one vote each. There is no legal or historical basis for such an arrangement but its appeal is self-evident.

Inside Steve Bannonâs âdisturbingâ quest to radically rewrite the US constitution

By taking over state legislatures, Republicans hope to pass conservative amendments that cannot be electorally challenged

www.theguardian.com

-----------------------
This is serious. The Far Right are basically religious extremists and others with extremists views to change the politics of the US to the way they want it, keeping all other Parties from possibly ever achieving the passing of Human and Civil Rights or the Presidency again.

Voting for the Republicans thinking they will improve people's economy, etc, is only giving them the tools to achieve all of their goals.


Voting in 2022, and possibly in 2024, for economic reasons only, is not the way the voters will hopefully go.


Without our Human and Civil Rights in place by law, the economic costs do become higher to most people who cannot afford paying certain health issues, etc. Discriminations of all kinds, Racism, Homophobia, and many other forms only grow.
----------------------------------------------
Since Trump took office in January 2017, his administration has worked aggressively to turn back the clock on our nation’s civil and human rights progress. Here’s how.

Trump Administration Civil and Human Rights Rollbacks

Documenting the Trump administration’s across-the-board assault on civil and human rights.

civilrights.org

------------------------------------------------

Do the proper research. There is still time before November 8.

Please, do not vote only based on economy, inflation and crime, which Republicans are allegedly said to be good at. Think about where voting Republican could possibly lead this country into in a few years.

There are a lot of Billionaires and others who want the Republicans in power, so that they will continue to do what they are used to doing, which is not care about the population, about climate change, people's health, voting rights, etc.

Republicans want an end to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Can anyone afford to not have any of those if they need it, as the first two they receive them by right after a certain age?

Republicans, the PARTY which TAKES, and TAKES AWAY from the population. And give mostly to those who already have a lot of everything.

Think, before voting. Thank you.

Bullshit.

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

One of my legal heroes, Gerry Hebert, texted me earlier this week to share some thoughts about Arizona Alliance of Retired Persons v. Clean Elections, one of the two pending Arizona voter intimidation cases. In Alliance of Retired Persons, a judge declined to put a stop to armed militia-types who were trying to intimidate people as they cast their ballots at drop boxes.

Gerry texted after reading my flag about the developing situation in Arizona in The Week Ahead on Sunday, October 23, (he’s a subscriber; I’m beyond flattered) when reports first surfaced. After that, two lawsuits were filed. Those reports led to two lawsuits. The second one is League of Women Voters v. Clean Elections USA. The plaintiffs in that case allege that organized and sometimes armed groups of individuals have surveilled, videotaped, and harassed voters who were dropping off ballots.

Gerry, a longtime civil rights lawyer, wrote to me about the first case, Alliance of Retired Persons, after the judge ruled against voters. He spent more than 20 years in the Civil Rights Division at DOJ and has been with the Campaign Legal Center since then, also engaging in private practice, specializing in voting rights and election law. He suggested I write a piece about the case for Civil Discourse.

Instead, I asked if he’d let me use his explanation of the case verbatim. So, Gerry, along with his friend Armand Derfner, a civil rights lawyer who has tried and argued voting rights and First Amendment cases in the Supreme Court, put this together for us. That was all I planned to share with you this evening, except that as I was finishing up, I learned that the Judge was about to rule in the second case, League of Women Voters. Observers in the courtroom expected him to issue an injunction, preventing intimidation of voters within 75 feet of ballot drop boxes.

That seemed like the more appropriate result here. The order in the first case was a bit of a head scratcher for anyone familiar with section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which protects voters from threats and acts of intimidation and coercion at all stages of the voting process, including when a voter places ballots in a drop box. So, we’ll start with Gerry and Armand’s take on what the Judge got wrong in the first case and finish up with what happened in the second case.

Here is what Gerry and Armand wrote:

(full article online )

A Tale of Two Arizona Voter Intimidation Cases

One of my legal heroes, Gerry Hebert, texted me earlier this week to share some thoughts about Arizona Alliance of Retired Persons v. Clean Elections, one of the two pending Arizona voter intimidation cases. In Alliance of Retired Persons, a judge declined to put a stop to armed militia-types...

joycevance.substack.com

 

[NotfooledbyW]

tl/dr

Why would any one accept

ding220815-#4,843 Every embryology textbook teaches that new genetically distinct human beings come into existence IMMEDIATELY after fertilization. That's the science. Viability apart from its mother plays no role in that determination.

NFBW: You say viability apart from its mother plays no role in the determination that new genetically distinct human beings come into existence IMMEDIATELY after fertilization. You are an excellent propagandist with your use of language but a loser when it comes to telling the truth.

Of course viability plays no role in that determination. But just because a new genetically distinct human beings comes into existence IMMEDIATELY after fertilization it led not mean the new distinct human being is a person who’s rights supercede the rights of the mother until it reaches a stage of viability outside the womb.

END2211021115

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You’re upset.

You have no clarification or explanation as to what you meant When you keep posting that abortion is a human issue