Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

[caribbean20]

Stare Decisis and the 14th Amendment. Apparently the recent appointees to the SC have decided to abandon these long accepted legal principles. Reports are that a decision may be published as soon as Monday.

 

[Racey]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-roe-wade-ruling-biden-admin-braces-violence-decision

There is a misprint in the headline, it says braces but I think they meant embraces

 

[Skinny Tire AH]

AOC is for sure a classic dope, by any definition, however....I still would knock.The.Bottom.outta.that.

 

[Wedgy]

Duct tape mandatory

 

[regor]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1527707270737444865

Now do bald eagle eggs you stupid bitch.

 

[was thatguy]

AOC is for sure a classic dope, by any definition, however....I still would knock.The.Bottom.outta.that.

 

[sprintcvx]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534546718724866051

 

[Wedgy]

Red lights flashing on the board on whatever the line is on JK making it to the General. Roberts is IMO too much of a pussy to make it 5-3.
That is what needs to happen, and now. But. Biden. Obama's Hope and Change Manchurian wind up toy Destroyer of the World of anything good.
But Trump is a Bull in a China shop. Damn Right.

 

[Danger Dave]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534538298458357763

 

[Racey]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534538298458357763

REEEEEEE TRUMP SUPPORTERS ARE VIOLENT INSURECTIONISTS

 

[RitcheyRch]

Looks like it was overturned today

 

[Roosky01]

I wonder which cities will be on fire tonight?

 

[94Nautique]

I wonder which cities will be on fire tonight?

Babies Lives Matter wins.

On the flip side, the infanticiders will certainly show their true disgusting, violent and evil selfs for the world to see. This election has now gone nuclear.

 

[Christopher Lucero]

The Authority to Regulate Abortion Is Returned to the People​

thank goodness. the stretch that went from a privacy right to a public right related to health care was never well founded. Congress will likely not act, since they are 'just that way'.
So we are now headed for a balkanised condition relevant to this issue.
there will be 'good' states and 'bad' states.
And people will vote with their feet, I suppose.
If so, we will see further deterioration of the US status as a democratic republic.

 

[94Nautique]

The Authority to Regulate Abortion Is Returned to the People​

thank goodness. the stretch that went from a privacy right to a public right related to health care was never well founded. Congress will likely not act, since they are 'just that way'.
So we are now headed for a balkanised condition relevant to this issue.
there will be 'good' states and 'bad' states.
And people will vote with their feet, I suppose.
If so, we will see further deterioration of the US status as a democratic republic.

Democratic republic??

We are a constitutional republic, of which states rights is the key concept.

 

[was thatguy]

The Authority to Regulate Abortion Is Returned to the People​

thank goodness. the stretch that went from a privacy right to a public right related to health care was never well founded. Congress will likely not act, since they are 'just that way'.
So we are now headed for a balkanised condition relevant to this issue.
there will be 'good' states and 'bad' states.
And people will vote with their feet, I suppose.
If so, we will see further deterioration of the US status as a democratic republic.

So the trend of liberals diluting red states is going to end?

 

[Christopher Lucero]

Democratic republic??

We are a constitutional republic, of which states rights is the key concept.

each of us gets partial credit...USA is a 'democratic constitutional republic'

What Is a Constitutional Democratic Republic?

A constitutional democratic republic is a type of government based on the principles of a constitution in which officials elected by the people represent the people in the legislative and governing processes. A constitutional republic is not a direct democracy in that a mere plurality of the...

www.reference.com

 

[Christopher Lucero]

So the trend of liberals diluting red states is going to end?

looks like it, if the hypotheses posed come to pass.

 

[Sandlord]

This is going to get more interesting, as State politicians are going to need to declare their position when campaigning.
No more deflecting to the Supreme Court.

 

[MSum661]

 

[Sandlord]

Hey ladies
use another hole

 

[was thatguy]

This is going to get more interesting, as State politicians are going to need to declare their position when campaigning.
No more deflecting to the Supreme Court.

That’s a great point!

 

[TeamGreene]

Hey ladies
use another hole

LOL this is going to spawn a whole new crop of five tool players.

 

[94Nautique]

each of us gets partial credit...USA is a 'democratic constitutional republic'

What Is a Constitutional Democratic Republic?

A constitutional democratic republic is a type of government based on the principles of a constitution in which officials elected by the people represent the people in the legislative and governing processes. A constitutional republic is not a direct democracy in that a mere plurality of the...

www.reference.com

Uh, no.

 

[rmarion]

 

[rmarion]

more fresh Blood...

just another cocktail for the Elites....

 

[regor]

View attachment 1138024

more fresh Blood...

just another cocktail for the Elites....

John Glenn is 100% Hispanic, what a surprise.

 

[Christopher Lucero]

Granting personhood to preborn citizens will precipitate basic questions of agency for those mute citizens.
If the singular direct parent of such persons is denied full agency for that mute citizen/person, how can is be possible to assign superior agency to the state or an administrator of the state?
I am sure that there are thousands of RDP posts railing against state meddling in personal autonomy.
Intervening in that familial relationship between the preborn citizen whose advocacy is based in parental rights and the responsibility of that parent will be messing with some basic principles of personhood of that parent who CAN express against a state administrator/enforcer who is assigned agency from outside the parental relation .
The development of such state agency would be a serious breach of the basic freedom to corporeal, and spiritual, self determination.

 

[530RL]

Granting personhood to preborn citizens will precipitate basic questions of agency for those mute citizens.
If the singular direct parent of such persons is denied full agency for that mute citizen/person, how can is be possible to assign superior agency to the state or an administrator of the state?
I am sure that there are thousands of RDP posts railing against state meddling in personal autonomy.
Intervening in that familial relationship between the preborn citizen whose advocacy is based in parental rights and the responsibility of that parent will be messing with some basic principles of personhood of that parent who CAN express against a state administrator/enforcer who is assigned agency from outside the parental relation .
The development of such state agency would be a serious breach of the basic freedom to corporeal, and spiritual, self determination.

IVF patients, doctors share concerns about new Ohio bill recognizing 'personhood' at conception • Ohio Capital Journal

House Bill 704, sponsored by state Rep. Gary Click, a Republican from Vickery, would recognize "personhood" from the moment of conception. Physicians like OB/GYN Dr. Thomas Burwinkel fear the end of their medical practice.

ohiocapitaljournal.com

 

[Christopher Lucero]

IVF patients, doctors share concerns about new Ohio bill recognizing 'personhood' at conception • Ohio Capital Journal

House Bill 704, sponsored by state Rep. Gary Click, a Republican from Vickery, would recognize "personhood" from the moment of conception. Physicians like OB/GYN Dr. Thomas Burwinkel fear the end of their medical practice.

ohiocapitaljournal.com

yes, in msg #227 above (dated May 13) I posed the thought but nobody was bold enough to work through it.

 

[rmarion]

does anyone on the "LEFT" even open up their FUCKING EYES!!!

where do you believe the Illegal children under the age of 18, (thousands) have gone????
Have you EVEN THOUGHT of Child Trafficking...

these children were escorted into our country without a parent...

ITS UNBELIEVABLE HOW BLIND PEOPLE ARE !!!!!

Government just helping everyone..

 

[Luvnlife]

does anyone on the "LEFT" even open up their FUCKING EYES!!!

where do you believe the Illegal children under the age of 18, (thousands) have gone????
Have you EVEN THOUGHT of Child Trafficking...

these children were escorted into our country without a parent...

ITS UNBELIEVABLE HOW BLIND PEOPLE ARE !!!!!

Government just helping everyone..

They have no shame.

 

[regor]

yes, in msg #227 above (dated May 13) I posed the thought but nobody was bold enough to work through it.

When you lobby for demented freak’s prison choice, no one takes you seriously Lucy, except for your fellow demented.

 

[Christopher Lucero]

When you lobby for demented freak’s prison choice, no one takes you seriously Lucy, except for your fellow demented.

hmmmm.
I learn alot from the opinions and positions that are posted here. I hope others are here for the same reason.
Maybe what I have posted in the past turned off some people and they tuned out. People have free will and choice. As they should.
Learning is a process of improvement.
When I consider the l-o-n-g term 'results' of the opinions and positions from people who post here I integrate those that turned out to be accurate and discount those that were not.
Many here are just billowing steam and I understand that; leave them alone and move on. In a dungeon, you find all kinds of miscreants. Wander in and enjoy the show or be frightened by the macabre, or join the fun...whatever.
Which post of mine was the 'prison freak' one that turned people off?
Thanks for your attention.

 

[was thatguy]

Did you just call him a cocksucker??

 

[monkeyswrench]

There are two here on this thread I have not met, but by all means seem to be very intelligent individuals. These aren't the clueless college youth of the past decade, working at a coffee house with their degree in Social Justice, nor are they current PolySci majors.

Yet both seem to feel there should be no limitations on abortions?

I'm not a hardline, pro-lifer. I see there are circumstances which may justify a need. I just completely disagree with me paying for it, it being used as primary contraception and it being offered to minors without the parents knowledge.

The outcry of political and medical oppression is being orchestrated by those that stand to lose funding. Be it those that want free procedures, or those that are highly subsidized by the government.

As for companies offering to pay for employees abortions and even travel, it's not for the employee. It's for their bottom dollar. With the mandated time off given new parents, the sick days as the child grows, the loss in productivity is a growing variable. A one time payout is easy to justify in comparison.

 

[pronstar]

 

[530RL]

There are two here on this thread I have not met, but by all means seem to be very intelligent individuals. These aren't the clueless college youth of the past decade, working at a coffee house with their degree in Social Justice, nor are they current PolySci majors.

Yet both seem to feel there should be no limitations on abortions?

I'm not a hardline, pro-lifer. I see there are circumstances which may justify a need. I just completely disagree with me paying for it, it being used as primary contraception and it being offered to minors without the parents knowledge.

The outcry of political and medical oppression is being orchestrated by those that stand to lose funding. Be it those that want free procedures, or those that are highly subsidized by the government.

As for companies offering to pay for employees abortions and even travel, it's not for the employee. It's for their bottom dollar. With the mandated time off given new parents, the sick days as the child grows, the loss in productivity is a growing variable. A one time payout is easy to justify in comparison.

I think what you just did there is gaslighting.

Who has argued for absolute limitless abortion rights as you profess? Not aware of anyone doing that?

 

[Racey]

I think what you just did there is gaslighting.

Who has argued for absolute limitless abortion rights as you profess? Not aware of anyone doing that?

Because you purposely choose to remain ignorant even though it has been posted many times.

 

[Christopher Lucero]

no limitations

orchestrated by those that stand to lose funding

disagree with me paying for it, it being used as primary contraception and it being offered to minors without the parents knowledge

companies offering to pay

Hi Monkey. Thank you for your perspective. I think the few ideas you propose are widely shared, and there are definitely questions of social engineering that you are objecting to that are definitely of a concern. It's a matter of a difference of perspective. Those things are valid, but not my concern.

To wit: I notice that there are no women chiming in on this thread...THAT concerns me.
(I could be wrong...if there ARE any I would like to hear from them)

I feel our American model of freedom allows liberty via limited autonomy based in personal responsibility. The issue of personal responsibility is thus the determinant of what should be allowed and what should not.

When it comes to family formation, and the ultimate initiation of such family unit - pregnancy and birth - the decision must remain within the mother's own moral thesis. That is, her determination of whether she can initiate or foresee a family unit that will delver goodness to her and her child should be her decision ALONE as she is considering all things and people involved - including the father.

There should NEVER be an instance where a woman is effectively turned into chattel, and forced to bear child when she can foresee only bad results, bad fathering, and weak family formation. That would result in a lifetime of torture for more than one human.

I know it may be hard to accept, but people DO make mistakes. Even good people make mistakes. Contraception is not an absolute measure/prophylaxis - it fails occasionally and someone ends up with a bun in the oven.

We humans are ungodly error machines. We can HOPE that we all become more perfect, closer to god, and avoid accidents or errors of judgement or foolhardy sexual activity, but "HOPE is not a strategy".

For those reasons, I object to attempts to limit women's freedom to determine the formation of a family using their own judgement about their familial futures.

Strangers or some government administrator telling them they MUST adhere to some externally imposed morality about that family's origin story is an abomination against the formation of healthy families; ungodly indeed.

 

[was thatguy]

I think what you just did there is gaslighting.

Who has argued for absolute limitless abortion rights as you profess? Not aware of anyone doing that?

There’s one.

 

[was thatguy]

Hi Monkey. Thank you for your perspective. I think the few ideas you propose are widely shared, and there are definitely questions of social engineering that you are objecting to that are definitely of a concern. It's a matter of a difference of perspective. Those things are valid, but not my concern.

To wit: I notice that there are no women chiming in on this thread...THAT concerns me.
(I could be wrong...if there ARE any I would like to hear from them)

I feel our American model of freedom allows liberty via limited autonomy based in personal responsibility. The issue of personal responsibility is thus the determinant of what should be allowed and what should not.

When it comes to family formation, and the ultimate initiation of such family unit - pregnancy and birth - the decision must remain within the mother's own moral thesis. That is, her determination of whether she can initiate or foresee a family unit that will delver goodness to her and her child should be her decision ALONE as she is considering all things and people involved - including the father.

There should NEVER be an instance where a woman is effectively turned into chattel, and forced to bear child when she can foresee only bad results, bad fathering, and weak family formation. That would result in a lifetime of torture for more than one human.

I know it may be hard to accept, but people DO make mistakes. Even good people make mistakes. Contraception is not an absolute measure/prophylaxis - it fails occasionally and someone ends up with a bun in the oven.

We humans are ungodly error machines. We can HOPE that we all become more perfect, closer to god, and avoid accidents or errors of judgement or foolhardy sexual activity, but "HOPE is not a strategy".

For those reasons, I object to attempts to limit women's freedom to determine the formation of a family using their own judgement about their familial futures.

Strangers or some government administrator telling them they MUST adhere to some externally imposed morality about that family's origin story is an abomination against the formation of healthy families; ungodly indeed.

And there’s the other.

 

[Doc]

Hi Monkey. Thank you for your perspective. I think the few ideas you propose are widely shared, and there are definitely questions of social engineering that you are objecting to that are definitely of a concern. It's a matter of a difference of perspective. Those things are valid, but not my concern.

To wit: I notice that there are no women chiming in on this thread...THAT concerns me.
(I could be wrong...if there ARE any I would like to hear from them)

I feel our American model of freedom allows liberty via limited autonomy based in personal responsibility. The issue of personal responsibility is thus the determinant of what should be allowed and what should not.

When it comes to family formation, and the ultimate initiation of such family unit - pregnancy and birth - the decision must remain within the mother's own moral thesis. That is, her determination of whether she can initiate or foresee a family unit that will delver goodness to her and her child should be her decision ALONE as she is considering all things and people involved - including the father.

There should NEVER be an instance where a woman is effectively turned into chattel, and forced to bear child when she can foresee only bad results, bad fathering, and weak family formation. That would result in a lifetime of torture for more than one human.

I know it may be hard to accept, but people DO make mistakes. Even good people make mistakes. Contraception is not an absolute measure/prophylaxis - it fails occasionally and someone ends up with a bun in the oven.

We humans are ungodly error machines. We can HOPE that we all become more perfect, closer to god, and avoid accidents or errors of judgement or foolhardy sexual activity, but "HOPE is not a strategy".

For those reasons, I object to attempts to limit women's freedom to determine the formation of a family using their own judgement about their familial futures.

Strangers or some government administrator telling them they MUST adhere to some externally imposed morality about that family's origin story is an abomination against the formation of healthy families; ungodly indeed.

MoneyWrench said it great especially this part, "I'm not a hardline, pro-lifer. I see there are circumstances which may justify a need. I just completely disagree with me paying for it, it being used as primary contraception and it being offered to minors without the parents knowledge."

I think the argument of a woman shouldn't be forced to bear a child because she can foresee only bad results is a pathetic excuse. A woman didn't foresee that before engaging with that other person? So she didn't see before sex but seen it after she found out she got pregnant? This is just another example of lack of accountability in today's society I'm sorry.

With regard to your last two paragraphs, why is it not ok when it comes to abortions but was perfectly fine when it came to vaccines?

Lastly, before you get upset with what I just said, I am not hardcore pro-lifer I understand there will be exceptions, like rape or when it endangers the mothers life. Late term abortions are just wrong in my eyes but to be honest at this point I don't care anymore. In fact I am glad most of these people I see screaming and protesting covered in fake blood don't want to reproduce.

 

[regor]

For those reasons, I object to attempts to limit women's freedom to determine the formation of a family using their own judgement about their familial futures.

Sooooooo, you're in favor of abortion up to what point?

 

[was thatguy]

Sooooooo, you're in favor of abortion up to what point?

 

[monkeyswrench]

I think what you just did there is gaslighting.

Who has argued for absolute limitless abortion rights as you profess? Not aware of anyone doing that?

"Gaslighting" would be saying things to someone in an attempt to corrupt, or change, their perception of reality. Maybe even gain something in my own favor in doing so. I make no illusions to myself about changing the minds of others with my words. I leave that trickery to the professionals...I believe they are called politicians, or perhaps celebrities. I also don't believe I would gain anything by doing so, I have nothing to sell.

If my words make one ponder why the pendulum must always be swung to the extremes, maybe they aren't wasted? Why must all political decisions be absolute? In this case, any limitations are considered to be horrific...so the reaction is to make sure there should be no limitation at all. I believe there is some hope still for humanity, maybe even sanity? I believe 90% of the populace is more middle ground in beliefs, and yet the drive is made to divide simply one side or the other.

By the way, who said I was speaking of you or Lucero?

 

[regor]

View attachment 1139248

Does she realize she's in quite the conundrum?

 

[Danger Dave]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1549770932310392837

[

 

[530RL]

Sooooooo, you're in favor of abortion up to what point?

I’m not “for” abortion at any point as a personal choice. But as a conservative I’m not “for” telling others what choices they must make within reasonable circumstances such as prior to viability.

I’m also as a conservative not “for” the government mandating the 12 year old victim of pedophilia to carry a pregnancy to term as you and other in here have.

It isn’t a question of abortion, it is a question of the government telling someone what they must do with the balance of their life when they are the victim of a horrible crime.

Roberts got it right out of the nine in this case. The other eight put politics and religion over the constitution. Read his opinion.

 

[Racey]

The conservative justices could have easily said "human life begins at this point and thus is afforded all rights under the constitution" instead they said "this is a decision left to the states and the people within"

They actually took the middle ground on it. This reality is very difficult to comprehend when you are deranged though.