..

https://i.imgur.com/8sOnRQZ.gif
6-3 CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT


Source:      THE WASHINGTON POST    
Quote:

Judge Clarence Thomas said at his Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 1991 that he hadn’t given that much thought to whether Roe v. Wade was correctly decided. But Justice Clarence Thomas took only months to reach a conclusion: The landmark 1973 ruling guaranteeing a woman’s right to abortion should be discarded. “The power of a woman to abort her unborn child” is not a liberty protected by the Constitution, said a dissenting opinion from four members of the court, including Thomas. Thus began three decades of official Thomas opposition to the notion of a constitutionally protected right to abortion. It will reach its zenith Wednesday, December 1st, when Thomas and the most conservative Supreme Court in decades will consider a restrictive Mississippi abortion law that opponents and advocates alike agree is almost impossible to square with Roe and the precedents that have flowed from it........ ..........continued

Is the United States Supreme Court poised to cause Roe v. Wade to become irrelevant....to whither on the vine....by virtually returning ultimate control over Abortion back to the individual 50 States? https://imgur.com/SvzDchb.gif

What say you?    https://imgur.com/fOZISZh.gif    https://imgur.com/uuAJ4a6.gif
..

All those guns Panther, no wonder you shoot yourself in the foot...

Polling over the decades shows Americans consistent in their support of Roe v Wade. Overturning it is a minority political move. How could it not blow up? Please tell us Panther. It will energize the women's movement. It will energize the Democrats. It will be a cultural nuclear explosion.

..

https://imgur.com/hTXKL8Q.gif

..

Panther wrote on Nov 29^th, 2021 at 9:24am:

.. Will the 6-3 Conservative SCOTUS render Roe v Wade virtually irrelevant?

You are asking the wrong question.

AiA wrote on Nov 29^th, 2021 at 9:24am:

Polling over the decades shows Americans consistent in their support of Roe v Wade. Overturning it is a minority political move. How could it not blow up? Please tell us Panther. It will energize the women's movement. It will energize the Democrats. It will be a cultural nuclear explosion.

If decided by SCOTUS in such a way to make Roe virtually irrelevant, & the American People vehemently disagree with the decision, then they.....The American People......are free to make abortion an actual Right via a Constitutional Amendment, & unless overturned by the People at a future date, it will be the Law of the Land going forward......

If the American People let a Pro-Life SCOTUS decision remain intact by not ratifying a Constitutional Amendment, one making the Law more to their liking, then they.....the American People.....will have voted, & by their inaction, vote to agree with SCOTUS' decision......  ;)

..

Supreme Court appears open to upholding a 15-week
Mississippi abortion ban in a major case that
could gut Roe v. Wade

Source:      The Business Insider      
Quote:

✪ The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard nearly two hours of arguments on the biggest abortion challenge before the court in decades.     ✪ Mississippi has asked the court to uphold its law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy and to overturn the landmark 1973 ruling, Roe          v. Wade.     ✪ The court’s conservative justices seemed open to Mississippi’s position. The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed open to upholding a 15-week abortion ban in Mississippi in a major case whose decision could ultimately overturn or curtail abortion rights established in the landmark 1973 ruling, Roe v. Wade. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, centers on a 2018 Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. That’s ahead of the standard set in Roe, which declared that states cannot prohibit abortion before roughly 24 weeks of pregnancy, the point when a fetus can survive outside of the womb, commonly referred to as viability. Mississippi has asked the nation’s highest court to overrule Roe, as well as another major 1992 abortion decision, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which established that states cannot impose an “undue burden” on abortion rights. Scott Stewart, Mississippi’s solicitor general, opened his arguments on Wednesday by ripping into the decades-old rulings. “They have no home in our history or traditions. They’ve damaged the democratic process. They’ve poisoned the law. They’ve choked off compromise,” he said. “No where else does this court recognize a right to end human life.” During nearly two hours of oral arguments, the justices grappled with the potential implications of a future without Roe and Casey. The court’s conservative justices, through their questioning, appeared inclined to go somewhat in that direction. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito questioned the viability mark. “On the other side, the fetus has an interest in having a life,” he said. “That doesn’t change, does it, from the point before viability to the point after viability?” The Center for Reproductive Rights’ Julie Rikelman, defending Mississippi’s sole abortion provider, Jackson Women’s Health Organization, responded: “In some people’s view it doesn’t, your honor, but what the court said is that those philosophical differences couldn’t be resolved.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, also brought up the interests of fetal life versus a pregnant woman on Wednesday. “You can’t accommodate both interests. You have to pick. That’s the fundamental problem,” he said. “One interest has to prevail over the other at any given point in time, and that’s why this is so challenging.” Kavanaugh pointed out a series of decisions in which the court overturned precedent, including ending school segregation and legalizing same-sex marriage, and questioned the role of the court. “If we think that the prior precedents are seriously wrong, if that, why then doesn’t the history of this court’s practice with respect to those cases tell us that the right answer is actually a return to the position of neutrality?” Kavanaugh asked. “Why should this court be the arbiter rather than Congress?” Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the newest member of the court, commented on whether “safe haven laws,” which allow parents to surrender their baby to designated places, such as hospitals, for adoption, matter when considering the “burdens of parenting” discussed in Roe and Casey. “Why don’t the safe haven laws take care of that problem?” Barrett asked Rikelman. Rikelman followed up by arguing that the court already considered a woman’s ability to place a child up for adoption when it decided Roe, and that forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term “itself is unique.” “It imposes unique physical demands and risk on women and in fact has impact on all of their lives, on their ability to care for other children, other family members, on their ability to work,” she said. Ahead of Wednesday’s arguments, legal scholars told Insider that they expect Barrett and Kavanaugh to have outsized influence over the ruling, with one of them making the deciding vote that could determine the fate of abortion rights in the country. Chief Justice John Roberts, usually the most moderate of the court’s conservatives, also signaled a willingness to uphold Mississippi’s law but offered a narrower view of the case, focusing on the 15-week ban rather than Roe. “The point you made about the impact on women and their place in society, those words are certainly made in Roe as well. What we have before us though is a 15-week standard,” Roberts told Rikelman. “Viability, it seems to me, has nothing to do with choice,” he went on, asking: “If it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time?” ......continued

What do you think?

Is Roe v.Wade doomed? https://imgur.com/SvzDchb.gif

Americans overwhelming support Roe v Wade. The losers, in the long run, will be the minority who are behind this.

AiA wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2021 at 10:42am:

Americans overwhelming support Roe v Wade. The losers, in the long run, will be the minority who are behind this.

Well, then your overwhelming Majority of Americans have the Constitutional Right to offer & ratify a Constitutional Amendment that would make Abortion an 'actual' Constitutional Right, slamming the door on, as you see it, the loser minority. 

I think you seem to forget........America isn't a Democracy, in a true sense, where the majority always triumphs over the minority.....America is a Republic.  ;)

Panther wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2021 at 10:55am:

AiA wrote on Dec 3rd, 2021 at 10:42am: Americans overwhelming support Roe v Wade. The losers, in the long run, will be the minority who are behind this. Well, then your overwhelming Majority of Americans have the Constitutional Right to offer & ratify a Constitutional Amendment that would make Abortion an 'actual' Constitutional Right, slamming the door on, as you see it, the loser minority.  I think you seem to forget........America isn't a Democracy, in a true sense, where the majority always triumphs over the minority.....America is a Republic.  ;)

Blah blah blah. Americans overwhelmingly support Roe v Wade. In the long run, overturning it will energize both the women's movement and the Democrats. Also, there will be many more unwanted black babies born as white women will either go to another state for an abortion or get the abortion pill via mail order. Another nail in the coffin of the GOP if you ask me. But sure, in the short-term, it will give them a boost - no doubt.

AiA wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2021 at 11:10am:

Panther wrote on Dec 3rd, 2021 at 10:55am: AiA wrote on Dec 3rd, 2021 at 10:42am: Americans overwhelming support Roe v Wade. The losers, in the long run, will be the minority who are behind this. Well, then your overwhelming Majority of Americans have the Constitutional Right to offer & ratify a Constitutional Amendment that would make Abortion an 'actual' Constitutional Right, slamming the door on, as you see it, the loser minority.  I think you seem to forget........America isn't a Democracy, in a true sense, where the majority always triumphs over the minority.....America is a Republic.  ;) Blah blah blah. Americans overwhelmingly support Roe v Wade. In the long run, overturning it will energize both the women's movement and the Democrats. Also, there will be many more unwanted black babies born as white women will either go to another state for an abortion or get the abortion pill via mail order. Another nail in the coffin of the GOP if you ask me. But sure, in the short-term, it will give them a boost - no doubt.

Polling says the majority prefers Abortion...death/abortion over life.

https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/jh5aocmevescoxn1zg5g6q.png
https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/jh5aocmevescoxn1zg5g6q.png

SCOTUS will not touch Roe to any significant degree.  Maybe some token tinkering on term but nothing else.

Aussie wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2021 at 1:08pm:

SCOTUS will not touch Roe to any significant degree.  Maybe some token tinkering on term but nothing else.

Maybe.....Maybe Not..........Bottom Line is whatever the Supreme Court's decision, their decision becomes the Law of the Land until either a subsequent Supreme Court determines otherwise, or the American People ratify a Constitutional Amendment regarding Abortion, in accordance with the Ratification Process outlined in Article V of the United States Constitution.
..

To quote Sr Joan Chittister, Benedictine nun:

"I do not believe that just because you are opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, a child educated, a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

Ron Schenck, evangelical minister and former anti-abortion leader and activist says:

"What is “pro-life” about putting a woman in a situation where she must risk pregnancy without proper medical, social and emotional support? What is “pro-life” about forcing the birth of a child, if that child will enter a world of deprivation and insecurity, to say nothing of the fear, anxiety and danger that comes with poverty and a lack of educational and employment opportunities?"

This is the hypocrisy of the"pro-life" movement. They don't give a s.hit about the life after it's born. They price people with pre existing conditions out of healthcare, they continue to pass anti-choice laws when multiple studies show states with the most anti-choice laws have the highest maternal and infant mortality rates, they cut funding to programs that feed hungry children.

Aussie wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2021 at 1:08pm:

SCOTUS will not touch Roe to any significant degree.  Maybe some token tinkering on term but nothing else.

They do not have to.

All they need to do is what they have done 5-4 here.

They have allowed the bounty hunter law to stand and Row v Wade just doesn't matter there is a work around that allows states to ignore the law under precedent.

The part of the prosecution allowed to continue cannot impact this.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 11^th, 2021 at 9:03pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2021 at 1:08pm: SCOTUS will not touch Roe to any significant degree.  Maybe some token tinkering on term but nothing else. They do not have to. All they need to do is what they have done 5-4 here. They have allowed the bounty hunter law to stand and Row v Wade just doesn't matter there is a work around that allows states to ignore the law under precedent. The part of the prosecution allowed to continue cannot impact this.

The framework has already been laid for the US Supreme Court to make future decisions regarding Casey & Roe v. Wade.....By it's most recent 8-1 decision, it opens the door for any State to draw up & pass Texas Style Abortion Laws/Restrictions, free from any Federal Government Court intervention, effectively returning the Power to Regulate Abortion back to the States....as was prior to Roe. https://imgur.com/CF8NdYQ.gif

Panther wrote on Dec 12^th, 2021 at 6:39am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 11th, 2021 at 9:03pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2021 at 1:08pm: SCOTUS will not touch Roe to any significant degree.  Maybe some token tinkering on term but nothing else. They do not have to. All they need to do is what they have done 5-4 here. They have allowed the bounty hunter law to stand and Row v Wade just doesn't matter there is a work around that allows states to ignore the law under precedent. The part of the prosecution allowed to continue cannot impact this. The framework has already been laid for the US Supreme Court to make future decisions regarding Casey & Roe v. Wade.....By it's most recent 8-1 decision, it opens the door for any State to draw up & pass Texas Style Abortion Laws/Restrictions, free from any Federal Government Court intervention, effectively returning the Power to Regulate Abortion back to the States....as was prior to Roe. https://imgur.com/CF8NdYQ.gif

Yes but only as long as they enforce these laws using bounty hunters in civil litigation. The government itself is still impacted under Roe v Wade.

Very dangerous legislation. Lots of problems.

If the court takes the next step and act on Roe v Wade they introduce another problem for themselves if this ridiculous unconstitutional decision has not damaged them enough.

Several Judges including all of the last 3 have the commitment regarding Roe v Wage on the record under oath to the senate.

These Judges could be impeached for perjury over a Roe v Wade decision.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 12^th, 2021 at 8:49am:

Panther wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 6:39am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 11th, 2021 at 9:03pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2021 at 1:08pm: SCOTUS will not touch Roe to any significant degree.  Maybe some token tinkering on term but nothing else. They do not have to. All they need to do is what they have done 5-4 here. They have allowed the bounty hunter law to stand and Row v Wade just doesn't matter there is a work around that allows states to ignore the law under precedent. The part of the prosecution allowed to continue cannot impact this. The framework has already been laid for the US Supreme Court to make future decisions regarding Casey & Roe v. Wade.....By it's most recent 8-1 decision, it opens the door for any State to draw up & pass Texas Style Abortion Laws/Restrictions, free from any Federal Government Court intervention, effectively returning the Power to Regulate Abortion back to the States....as was prior to Roe. https://imgur.com/CF8NdYQ.gif Yes but only as long as they enforce these laws using bounty hunters in civil litigation. The government itself is still impacted under Roe v Wade. Very dangerous legislation. Lots of problems. If the court takes the next step and act on Roe v Wade they introduce another problem for themselves if this ridiculous unconstitutional decision has not damaged them enough. Several Judges including all of the last 3 have the commitment regarding Roe v Wage on the record under oath to the senate. These Judges could be impeached for perjury over a Roe v Wade decision.

Been there.....it's been tried.....a potential Justice's confirmation testimony regarding a position is merely his/her opinion.

Opinions are not inescapable facts.....Opinions are not ironclad representations of truth.....

Besides, any Judge is capable of changing their minds, or point of view, regarding their opinions on any precedent.....that's a proven fact.   ;)

Good thought though......but that dog just won't hunt....it's eyes have been gouged out long ago.... ;D ;D ;D

Let's say Roe v Wade is overturned. Okay, then what? The GOP gets a boost in 2022, maybe even 2024. The Women's Movement is then reenergized. And because Roe v Wade is supported by the majority of Americans, and has been for decades, the Democratic Party gets a long-term boost versus the short-term boots the GOP gets. Then there is the larger cultural nuclear bomb the overturn of Roe v Wade will be, and the general fallout will be unpredictable. Of course, the Supreme Court will probably get the reputation of being nothing but a partisan body, which will increase the likelihood the SCOTUS will be reformed.

Yet the big question is, why does Panther have a hard-on about this? Does he have a mail-order business selling abortion drugs? That will certainly become a profitable business, as will organizing abortion tours to the "Free States."

Panther wrote on Dec 12^th, 2021 at 9:23am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 8:49am: Panther wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 6:39am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 11th, 2021 at 9:03pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2021 at 1:08pm: SCOTUS will not touch Roe to any significant degree.  Maybe some token tinkering on term but nothing else. They do not have to. All they need to do is what they have done 5-4 here. They have allowed the bounty hunter law to stand and Row v Wade just doesn't matter there is a work around that allows states to ignore the law under precedent. The part of the prosecution allowed to continue cannot impact this. The framework has already been laid for the US Supreme Court to make future decisions regarding Casey & Roe v. Wade.....By it's most recent 8-1 decision, it opens the door for any State to draw up & pass Texas Style Abortion Laws/Restrictions, free from any Federal Government Court intervention, effectively returning the Power to Regulate Abortion back to the States....as was prior to Roe. https://imgur.com/CF8NdYQ.gif Yes but only as long as they enforce these laws using bounty hunters in civil litigation. The government itself is still impacted under Roe v Wade. Very dangerous legislation. Lots of problems. If the court takes the next step and act on Roe v Wade they introduce another problem for themselves if this ridiculous unconstitutional decision has not damaged them enough. Several Judges including all of the last 3 have the commitment regarding Roe v Wage on the record under oath to the senate. These Judges could be impeached for perjury over a Roe v Wade decision. Been there.....it's been tried.....a potential Justice's confirmation testimony regarding a position is merely his/her opinion. Opinions are not inescapable facts.....Opinions are not ironclad representations of truth..... Besides, any Judge is capable of changing their minds, or point of view, regarding their opinions on any precedent.....that's a proven fact.   ;) Good thought though......but that dog just won't hunt....it's eyes have been gouged out long ago.... ;D ;D ;D

I do not see the democrats going that way (they hate to win) However if they did you may be surprised.

AiA wrote on Dec 12^th, 2021 at 9:44am:

Let's say Roe v Wade is overturned. Okay, then what? The GOP gets a boost in 2022, maybe even 2024. The Women's Movement is then reenergized. And because Roe v Wade is supported by the majority of Americans, and has been for decades, the Democratic Party gets a long-term boost versus the short-term boots the GOP gets. Then there is the larger cultural nuclear bomb the overturn of Roe v Wade will be, and the general fallout will be unpredictable. Of course, the Supreme Court will probably get the reputation of being nothing but a partisan body, which will increase the likelihood the SCOTUS will be reformed. Yet the big question is, why does Panther have a hard-on about this? Does he have a mail-order business selling abortion drugs? That will certainly become a profitable business, as will organizing abortion tours to the "Free States."

I think if I were a Republican, I would want the Roe v Wade to be modified around the edges and leave it at that, but today's GOP is extreme and unreasonable and has no tools left in its toolbox except stirring up the electorate with wedge issues.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 12^th, 2021 at 9:44am:

Panther wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 9:23am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 8:49am: Panther wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 6:39am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 11th, 2021 at 9:03pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2021 at 1:08pm: SCOTUS will not touch Roe to any significant degree.  Maybe some token tinkering on term but nothing else. They do not have to. All they need to do is what they have done 5-4 here. They have allowed the bounty hunter law to stand and Row v Wade just doesn't matter there is a work around that allows states to ignore the law under precedent. The part of the prosecution allowed to continue cannot impact this. The framework has already been laid for the US Supreme Court to make future decisions regarding Casey & Roe v. Wade.....By it's most recent 8-1 decision, it opens the door for any State to draw up & pass Texas Style Abortion Laws/Restrictions, free from any Federal Government Court intervention, effectively returning the Power to Regulate Abortion back to the States....as was prior to Roe. https://imgur.com/CF8NdYQ.gif Yes but only as long as they enforce these laws using bounty hunters in civil litigation. The government itself is still impacted under Roe v Wade. Very dangerous legislation. Lots of problems. If the court takes the next step and act on Roe v Wade they introduce another problem for themselves if this ridiculous unconstitutional decision has not damaged them enough. Several Judges including all of the last 3 have the commitment regarding Roe v Wage on the record under oath to the senate. These Judges could be impeached for perjury over a Roe v Wade decision. Been there.....it's been tried.....a potential Justice's confirmation testimony regarding a position is merely his/her opinion. Opinions are not inescapable facts.....Opinions are not ironclad representations of truth..... Besides, any Judge is capable of changing their minds, or point of view, regarding their opinions on any precedent.....that's a proven fact.   ;) Good thought though......but that dog just won't hunt....it's eyes have been gouged out long ago.... ;D ;D ;D I do not see the democrats going that way (they hate to win) However if they did you may be surprised.

Just as a reminder......an Impeachment, as you have already witnessed with Trump 2x.....an Impeachment is merely a charge or charges presented by the House of Representatives.....like charges by a Grand Jury in a criminal case.....accusations that must then be proven successfully to the US Senate before any actual action is taken against the impeached defendant.......removal from office, etc.....

♢ Only One (1) United States Supreme Court Justice was ever Impeached, Samuel Chase back in the very early 1800's, & he was later found not guilty of any wrongdoing whatsoever ....acquitted.... by the US Senate.

Political witch hunts never have worked well for the democ-rats in the House of Representatives.....but they always put on a good show! ;D ;D ;D 

Panther wrote on Dec 12^th, 2021 at 10:12am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 9:44am: Panther wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 9:23am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 8:49am: Panther wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 6:39am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 11th, 2021 at 9:03pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2021 at 1:08pm: SCOTUS will not touch Roe to any significant degree.  Maybe some token tinkering on term but nothing else. They do not have to. All they need to do is what they have done 5-4 here. They have allowed the bounty hunter law to stand and Row v Wade just doesn't matter there is a work around that allows states to ignore the law under precedent. The part of the prosecution allowed to continue cannot impact this. The framework has already been laid for the US Supreme Court to make future decisions regarding Casey & Roe v. Wade.....By it's most recent 8-1 decision, it opens the door for any State to draw up & pass Texas Style Abortion Laws/Restrictions, free from any Federal Government Court intervention, effectively returning the Power to Regulate Abortion back to the States....as was prior to Roe. https://imgur.com/CF8NdYQ.gif Yes but only as long as they enforce these laws using bounty hunters in civil litigation. The government itself is still impacted under Roe v Wade. Very dangerous legislation. Lots of problems. If the court takes the next step and act on Roe v Wade they introduce another problem for themselves if this ridiculous unconstitutional decision has not damaged them enough. Several Judges including all of the last 3 have the commitment regarding Roe v Wage on the record under oath to the senate. These Judges could be impeached for perjury over a Roe v Wade decision. Been there.....it's been tried.....a potential Justice's confirmation testimony regarding a position is merely his/her opinion. Opinions are not inescapable facts.....Opinions are not ironclad representations of truth..... Besides, any Judge is capable of changing their minds, or point of view, regarding their opinions on any precedent.....that's a proven fact.   ;) Good thought though......but that dog just won't hunt....it's eyes have been gouged out long ago.... ;D ;D ;D I do not see the democrats going that way (they hate to win) However if they did you may be surprised. Just as a reminder......an Impeachment, as you have already witnessed with Trump 2x.....an Impeachment is merely a charge or charges presented by the House of Representatives.....like charges by a Grand Jury in a criminal case.....accusations that must then be proven successfully to the US Senate before any actual action is taken against the impeached defendant.......removal from office, etc..... ♢ Only One (1) United States Supreme Court Justice was ever Impeached, Samuel Chase back in the very early 1800's, & he was later found not guilty of any wrongdoing whatsoever ....acquitted.... by the US Senate. Political witch hunts never have worked well for the House of Representatives.....but they always put on a good show! ;D ;D ;D

The SCOTUS can be reformed and it can be packed. Overturning Roe v Wade will increase the likelihood one or the other will happen at some point in the future.

AiA wrote on Dec 12^th, 2021 at 10:16am:

Panther wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 10:12am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 9:44am: Panther wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 9:23am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 8:49am: Panther wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 6:39am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 11th, 2021 at 9:03pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2021 at 1:08pm: SCOTUS will not touch Roe to any significant degree.  Maybe some token tinkering on term but nothing else. They do not have to. All they need to do is what they have done 5-4 here. They have allowed the bounty hunter law to stand and Row v Wade just doesn't matter there is a work around that allows states to ignore the law under precedent. The part of the prosecution allowed to continue cannot impact this. The framework has already been laid for the US Supreme Court to make future decisions regarding Casey & Roe v. Wade.....By it's most recent 8-1 decision, it opens the door for any State to draw up & pass Texas Style Abortion Laws/Restrictions, free from any Federal Government Court intervention, effectively returning the Power to Regulate Abortion back to the States....as was prior to Roe. https://imgur.com/CF8NdYQ.gif Yes but only as long as they enforce these laws using bounty hunters in civil litigation. The government itself is still impacted under Roe v Wade. Very dangerous legislation. Lots of problems. If the court takes the next step and act on Roe v Wade they introduce another problem for themselves if this ridiculous unconstitutional decision has not damaged them enough. Several Judges including all of the last 3 have the commitment regarding Roe v Wage on the record under oath to the senate. These Judges could be impeached for perjury over a Roe v Wade decision. Been there.....it's been tried.....a potential Justice's confirmation testimony regarding a position is merely his/her opinion. Opinions are not inescapable facts.....Opinions are not ironclad representations of truth..... Besides, any Judge is capable of changing their minds, or point of view, regarding their opinions on any precedent.....that's a proven fact.   ;) Good thought though......but that dog just won't hunt....it's eyes have been gouged out long ago.... ;D ;D ;D I do not see the democrats going that way (they hate to win) However if they did you may be surprised. Just as a reminder......an Impeachment, as you have already witnessed with Trump 2x.....an Impeachment is merely a charge or charges presented by the House of Representatives.....like charges by a Grand Jury in a criminal case.....accusations that must then be proven successfully to the US Senate before any actual action is taken against the impeached defendant.......removal from office, etc..... ♢ Only One (1) United States Supreme Court Justice was ever Impeached, Samuel Chase back in the very early 1800's, & he was later found not guilty of any wrongdoing whatsoever ....acquitted.... by the US Senate. Political witch hunts never have worked well for the House of Representatives.....but they always put on a good show! ;D ;D ;D  The SCOTUS can be reformed and it can be packed. Overturning Roe v Wade will increase the likelihood one or the other will happen at some point in the future.

Reformed......in the present political climate???

What bi-partisan 'reform(s)' do you think would be a sure-fire hit, noting the present political climate?

IMHO, The Court can only be "Packed", & to do that you need the President to nominate, & a US Senate to approve the President's Nominations.......Today's Senate is split 50-50, & using the Vice President as a tie breaker for the democ-rats won't happen......Joe Manchin is on record that he won't put up for any Court "Packing", & that if attempted he will side with the Republicans.....I believe he wouldn't be alone either......therefore "Packing" the Supreme Court, while theoretically possible, is highly improbable because they won't be able to reach a majority.....especially a majority that would stand up to a 'filibuster', which would require a 'super majority' of 60 votes to overcome.  ;)

And so it begins:

California to Use Texas Abortion Ruling as Anti-Gun Law Model

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-12/california-to-use-texas-abortion-ruling-as-anti-gun-law-model

Panther wrote on Dec 12^th, 2021 at 11:03am:

AiA wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 10:16am: Panther wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 10:12am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 9:44am: Panther wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 9:23am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 8:49am: Panther wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 6:39am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 11th, 2021 at 9:03pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2021 at 1:08pm: SCOTUS will not touch Roe to any significant degree.  Maybe some token tinkering on term but nothing else. They do not have to. All they need to do is what they have done 5-4 here. They have allowed the bounty hunter law to stand and Row v Wade just doesn't matter there is a work around that allows states to ignore the law under precedent. The part of the prosecution allowed to continue cannot impact this. The framework has already been laid for the US Supreme Court to make future decisions regarding Casey & Roe v. Wade.....By it's most recent 8-1 decision, it opens the door for any State to draw up & pass Texas Style Abortion Laws/Restrictions, free from any Federal Government Court intervention, effectively returning the Power to Regulate Abortion back to the States....as was prior to Roe. https://imgur.com/CF8NdYQ.gif Yes but only as long as they enforce these laws using bounty hunters in civil litigation. The government itself is still impacted under Roe v Wade. Very dangerous legislation. Lots of problems. If the court takes the next step and act on Roe v Wade they introduce another problem for themselves if this ridiculous unconstitutional decision has not damaged them enough. Several Judges including all of the last 3 have the commitment regarding Roe v Wage on the record under oath to the senate. These Judges could be impeached for perjury over a Roe v Wade decision. Been there.....it's been tried.....a potential Justice's confirmation testimony regarding a position is merely his/her opinion. Opinions are not inescapable facts.....Opinions are not ironclad representations of truth..... Besides, any Judge is capable of changing their minds, or point of view, regarding their opinions on any precedent.....that's a proven fact.   ;) Good thought though......but that dog just won't hunt....it's eyes have been gouged out long ago.... ;D ;D ;D I do not see the democrats going that way (they hate to win) However if they did you may be surprised. Just as a reminder......an Impeachment, as you have already witnessed with Trump 2x.....an Impeachment is merely a charge or charges presented by the House of Representatives.....like charges by a Grand Jury in a criminal case.....accusations that must then be proven successfully to the US Senate before any actual action is taken against the impeached defendant.......removal from office, etc..... ♢ Only One (1) United States Supreme Court Justice was ever Impeached, Samuel Chase back in the very early 1800's, & he was later found not guilty of any wrongdoing whatsoever ....acquitted.... by the US Senate. Political witch hunts never have worked well for the House of Representatives.....but they always put on a good show! ;D ;D ;D  The SCOTUS can be reformed and it can be packed. Overturning Roe v Wade will increase the likelihood one or the other will happen at some point in the future. Reformed......in the present political climate??? What bi-partisan 'reform(s)' do you think would be a sure-fire hit, noting the present political climate? IMHO, The Court can only be "Packed", & to do that you need the President to nominate, & a US Senate to approve the President's Nominations.......Today's Senate is split 50-50, & using the Vice President as a tie breaker for the democ-rats won't happen......Joe Manchin is on record that he won't put up for any Court "Packing", & that if attempted he will side with the Republicans.....I believe he wouldn't be alone either......therefore "Packing" the Supreme Court, while theoretically possible, is highly improbable because they won't be able to reach a majority.....especially a majority that would stand up to a 'filibuster', which would require a 'super majority' of 60 votes to overcome.  ;)

. It

Read what I wrote again. At some point in the future, the SCOTUS will be reformed because of what it has become.

AiA wrote on Dec 12^th, 2021 at 10:16am:

Panther wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 10:12am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 9:44am: Panther wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 9:23am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 8:49am: Panther wrote on Dec 12th, 2021 at 6:39am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 11th, 2021 at 9:03pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2021 at 1:08pm: SCOTUS will not touch Roe to any significant degree.  Maybe some token tinkering on term but nothing else. They do not have to. All they need to do is what they have done 5-4 here. They have allowed the bounty hunter law to stand and Row v Wade just doesn't matter there is a work around that allows states to ignore the law under precedent. The part of the prosecution allowed to continue cannot impact this. The framework has already been laid for the US Supreme Court to make future decisions regarding Casey & Roe v. Wade.....By it's most recent 8-1 decision, it opens the door for any State to draw up & pass Texas Style Abortion Laws/Restrictions, free from any Federal Government Court intervention, effectively returning the Power to Regulate Abortion back to the States....as was prior to Roe. https://imgur.com/CF8NdYQ.gif Yes but only as long as they enforce these laws using bounty hunters in civil litigation. The government itself is still impacted under Roe v Wade. Very dangerous legislation. Lots of problems. If the court takes the next step and act on Roe v Wade they introduce another problem for themselves if this ridiculous unconstitutional decision has not damaged them enough. Several Judges including all of the last 3 have the commitment regarding Roe v Wage on the record under oath to the senate. These Judges could be impeached for perjury over a Roe v Wade decision. Been there.....it's been tried.....a potential Justice's confirmation testimony regarding a position is merely his/her opinion. Opinions are not inescapable facts.....Opinions are not ironclad representations of truth..... Besides, any Judge is capable of changing their minds, or point of view, regarding their opinions on any precedent.....that's a proven fact.   ;) Good thought though......but that dog just won't hunt....it's eyes have been gouged out long ago.... ;D ;D ;D I do not see the democrats going that way (they hate to win) However if they did you may be surprised. Just as a reminder......an Impeachment, as you have already witnessed with Trump 2x.....an Impeachment is merely a charge or charges presented by the House of Representatives.....like charges by a Grand Jury in a criminal case.....accusations that must then be proven successfully to the US Senate before any actual action is taken against the impeached defendant.......removal from office, etc..... ♢ Only One (1) United States Supreme Court Justice was ever Impeached, Samuel Chase back in the very early 1800's, & he was later found not guilty of any wrongdoing whatsoever ....acquitted.... by the US Senate. Political witch hunts never have worked well for the House of Representatives.....but they always put on a good show! ;D ;D ;D  The SCOTUS can be reformed and it can be packed. Overturning Roe v Wade will increase the likelihood one or the other will happen at some point in the future.

Not only that it can be reformed but it needs to be reformed. It is currently corrupt in nature and badly needs to be fixed.

There are insufficient judges appointed to the court. The number of 9 has not changed in the time that the population has increased by about 400%. There are insufficient judges to do the job that is required.

The method of appointment has been proven to be corrupt as we seen last term. Judges should be independently appointed in a non political process. The court is currently politically corrupt - this needs to end.

The size of the general population has no bearing on the size of the Supreme Court. Their only job is to be the final opinion on whether cases brought before them are Constitutional or not! Even if they personally disagree with a case their only job is to determine its constitutionality. It isn't their job to change opinions of what the Constitution means!

Mortdooley wrote on Dec 13^th, 2021 at 12:53am:

The size of the general population has no bearing on the size of the Supreme Court. Their only job is to be the final opinion on whether cases brought before them are Constitutional or not! Even if they personally disagree with a case their only job is to determine its constitutionality. It isn't their job to change opinions of what the Constitution means!

If 70 Million people produce 150 cases it is likely that 5 times that number of people would produce something like 5 times the number of cases. Population would be a proportional determining factor for workload, any numpty can see that is true.


Quote:

It isn't their job to change opinions of what the Constitution means!

So Roe v wade being settled should not be changed ? Clearly this is not what is happening in fact this ruling undermines the enforceability of the entire constitution.

The freedom of speech can be undermined by allowing individual bounty hunters to prosecute on what is said.

Same thing for the second. where states can use this same method to legislate against guns, in fact it applies to virtually the whole constitution.

The fourth amendment - search and seizure as long as it is outsourced ?

A very dangerous precedent has been set.

Mortdooley wrote on Dec 13^th, 2021 at 12:53am:

The size of the general population has no bearing on the size of the Supreme Court. Their only job is to be the final opinion on whether cases brought before them are Constitutional or not! Even if they personally disagree with a case their only job is to determine its constitutionality. It isn't their job to change opinions of what the Constitution means!

It isn't their job to change opinions of what the Constitution means!

They routinely set this type of precedent.

Roe V Wade set a precedent showing the the constitution protected abortion as a right.

The 2008 shonky changes to the interpretation of the second amendment that redefined the amendments meaning from being literally what the words say to what the gun lobby wanted the words to say made it impossible for states to use sensible regulation on guns.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 13^th, 2021 at 10:34am:

Mortdooley wrote on Dec 13th, 2021 at 12:53am: The size of the general population has no bearing on the size of the Supreme Court. Their only job is to be the final opinion on whether cases brought before them are Constitutional or not! Even if they personally disagree with a case their only job is to determine its constitutionality. It isn't their job to change opinions of what the Constitution means! If 70 Million people produce 150 cases it is likely that 5 times that number of people would produce something like 5 times the number of cases. Population would be a proportional determining factor for workload, any numpty can see that is true.

The United Supreme Court isn't required to hear every case that might potentially be requested by the public.....no, they are an appellate court, & usually only cases sent up to it by the federal appellate courts below them (99+%)  get consideration......they look over those cases (about ±5,000 to 7,000 per year) & they decide which ones to hear.....be it 60 cases in their session, or 95, or 300.....The Supreme Court typically agrees to hear about 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year by the lower courts.......That's their prerogative.....to hear only what they wish to hear......they make the rules & determine the procedures in this regard.....

See: Supreme Court Procedures

Roe v Wade stipulates that a woman seeking an abortion should not face legal sanction.. it does not prevent a State or other legislature from working to remove the means of providing abortion, or from placing sanctions on anyone providing abortion, or from outlawing facilities that provide abortion.

It was a half-baked measure regardless of the trumpetings of the 'feminists' who claim it is carte blanche... typical .....make a mountain out of a mole on their arse cheek... if they'd just shut up for five minutes and get on with the job instead, they might get a result... they are just wasting hot air on whining about it the way they are.

..... put their money where their pussy is ......

So on top of their two hearing sessions per day they have to decide if they will accept 30 cases per day or 150 per week. Checking the merit of 150 cases per week may entail reading the proceedings as well as the submission. Then they have to find the time to discuss and make decisions.

You seem to have made an argument for the opposite of your intention. This is a huge workload.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 14^th, 2021 at 10:25am:

Roe v Wade stipulates that a woman seeking an abortion should not face legal sanction.. it does not prevent a State or other legislature from working to remove the means of providing abortion, or from placing sanctions on anyone providing abortion, or from outlawing facilities that provide abortion. It was a half-baked measure regardless of the trumpetings of the 'feminists' who claim it is carte blanche... typical .....make a mountain out of a mole on their arse cheek... if they'd just shut up for five minutes and get on with the job instead, they might get a result... they are just wasting hot air on whining about it the way they are. ..... put their money where their pussy is ......

Quote:

Roe v Wade stipulates that a woman seeking an abortion should not face legal sanction

No Roe v Wade stipulates that a woman has the right to an abortion protected under the constitution.


Quote:

it does not prevent a State or other legislature from working to remove the means of providing abortion

it does not prevent a State or other legislature from working to remove the means of providing (Fill in the blank)

Free Speech
Guns
Religion.

You are correct of course in the case of this decision. It is a work around for anything in the constitution.

It effectively establishes a precedent to allow a process that nullifies the US Constitution.

FDA relaxes controversial restrictions on access to abortion pill by mail

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/15/1064598531/the-fda-could-permanently-lift-some-restrictions-on-abortion-pills?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews&fbclid=IwAR2m1UvdPpwv2Vlz51YoB4bSC_ifvyOVl2gITVgXBMq5x_Sytui2JHx2FKU

AiA wrote on Dec 17^th, 2021 at 9:41am:

FDA relaxes controversial restrictions on access to abortion pill by mail https://www.npr.org/2021/12/15/1064598531/the-fda-could-permanently-lift-some-restrictions-on-abortion-pills?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews&fbclid=IwAR2m1UvdPpwv2Vlz51YoB4bSC_ifvyOVl2gITVgXBMq5x_Sytui2JHx2FKU

If the Mississippi Law is sustained by the United States Supreme Court, effectively opening the flood gates for dozens upon dozens of other US States to follow suit, it will help save lives....lives of the yet unborn......& well worth the long wait.........all may not be saved, but it would be a solid start in the Right direction.....the direction of LIFE!!!

God Bless The United States Constitution............God Bless AMERICA............God Bless The United States Constitution............God Bless AMERICA............God Bless The United States Constitution............God Bless AMERICA............God Bless The United States Constitution............God Bless AMERICA............God Bless The United States Constitution............God Bless AMERICA............God Bless The United States Constitution............AMERICA............

..

https://www.liveabout.com/thmb/9JWkCmU4U13uZt5ZSe3mPnuFCYs=/650x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/women-reproductive-rights-rifles-58b8ce6b5f9b58af5c8d6e97.jpg

::) ::)

Why is abortion preferable to adoption?

Frank wrote on Dec 26^th, 2021 at 3:28pm:

Why is abortion preferable to adoption?

Could be the same reason that mass school shootings are preferable to sensible gun regulation.

The only difference is that where the second amendment had to be re defined to protect the rights of mass shooters in schools it is not the case of the 14th amendment protecting the right of choice in reproduction.

In short the constitution says that reproduction decisions do not rest with the state but the individual.

Frank wrote on Dec 26^th, 2021 at 3:28pm:

Why is abortion preferable to adoption?

Why do advocates of free speech and Freedom want to remove a woman's right to make her own decisions???

:-? :-? :-?

Dnarever wrote on Dec 26^th, 2021 at 7:04pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 26th, 2021 at 3:28pm: Why is abortion preferable to adoption? Could be the same reason that mass school shootings are preferable to sensible gun regulation. The only difference is that where the second amendment had to be re defined to protect the rights of mass shooters in schools it is not the case of the 14th amendment protecting the right of choice in reproduction. In short the constitution says that reproduction decisions do not rest with the state but the individual.

That is a predictably and Bbwianesquely stupid, garbled, moronic attempt to to avoid the question.
Abortion is gun contol, adoption is mass shooting - it takes a duckwit to come up with that analogy.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 26^th, 2021 at 11:36pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 26th, 2021 at 3:28pm: Why is abortion preferable to adoption? Why do advocates of free speech and Freedom want to remove a woman's right to make her own decisions??? :-? :-? :-?

Nobody is taking away her right. Nobody was policing her decision to fccky-fccky.

But when another life is at stake the decision is not hers alone. Late pregnancy abortion, for example, when a viable birth is possible, is efectively infanticide. That should not be her right.

Frank wrote on Dec 27^th, 2021 at 7:56am:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 26th, 2021 at 11:36pm: Frank wrote on Dec 26th, 2021 at 3:28pm: Why is abortion preferable to adoption? Why do advocates of free speech and Freedom want to remove a woman's right to make her own decisions??? :-? :-? :-? Nobody is taking away her right. Nobody was policing her decision to fccky-fccky. But when another life is at stake the decision is not hers alone. Late pregnancy abortion, for example, when a viable birth is possible, is efectively infanticide. That should not be her right.

You judged all woman with your first rant....What about rape, incest, health issues and an individuals personal circumstances???

It is the woman that has to live with the decision she makes....Who's right should it be to make decisions about a woman's own body and future???


:-? :-? :-?

Frank wrote on Dec 27^th, 2021 at 7:56am:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 26th, 2021 at 11:36pm: Frank wrote on Dec 26th, 2021 at 3:28pm: Why is abortion preferable to adoption? Why do advocates of free speech and Freedom want to remove a woman's right to make her own decisions??? :-? :-? :-? Nobody is taking away her right. Nobody was policing her decision to fccky-fccky. But when another life is at stake the decision is not hers alone. Late pregnancy abortion, for example, when a viable birth is possible, is efectively infanticide. That should not be her right.

If the Mississippi Law is sustained by the United States Supreme Court, it will help save lives....lives of the yet unborn, maybe not all, but it would be a solid start back in the Right direction........by effectively returning the Right to impose the People's will to govern over abortion, back to the States, as it was prior to Roe v Wade, when each State determined restrictions on abortion, if any at all.

At the end of the day, if the Mississippi Law is sustained by SCOTUS, women, in the State of Mississippi, will still be able to kill the unborn lives within them, but only until a heartbeat can be detected, or 15 weeks, whichever comes first.

Frank wrote on Dec 27^th, 2021 at 7:46am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 26th, 2021 at 7:04pm: Frank wrote on Dec 26th, 2021 at 3:28pm: Why is abortion preferable to adoption? Could be the same reason that mass school shootings are preferable to sensible gun regulation. The only difference is that where the second amendment had to be re defined to protect the rights of mass shooters in schools it is not the case of the 14th amendment protecting the right of choice in reproduction. In short the constitution says that reproduction decisions do not rest with the state but the individual. That is a predictably and Bbwianesquely stupid, garbled, moronic attempt to to avoid the question. Abortion is gun contol, adoption is mass shooting - it takes a duckwit to come up with that analogy.

You should go back to your old name at least it sounded a bit smart or at least ambiguous enough to cast some doubt.


Quote:

Abortion is gun contol, adoption is mass shooting - it takes a duckwit to come up with that analogy.

Analogy is the comparison of different things they are not meant to be the same if they are it isn't an analogy ?

Both "is" statements make the proposition you are making incorrect, not a true interpretation of the text you are commenting on. There seems to be a issue with basic comprehension.

The comparison isn't to say that they are equal but to point out that they are both (different things) protected by the constitution on current interpretation in the same manner.

Roe V Wade in the case of the 14th amendment and the reinterpretation of the 2nd amendment in 2008 (Columbia v. Heller).

Panther wrote on Dec 27^th, 2021 at 9:01am:

Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2021 at 7:56am: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 26th, 2021 at 11:36pm: Frank wrote on Dec 26th, 2021 at 3:28pm: Why is abortion preferable to adoption? Why do advocates of free speech and Freedom want to remove a woman's right to make her own decisions??? :-? :-? :-? Nobody is taking away her right. Nobody was policing her decision to fccky-fccky. But when another life is at stake the decision is not hers alone. Late pregnancy abortion, for example, when a viable birth is possible, is efectively infanticide. That should not be her right. If the Mississippi Law is sustained by the United States Supreme Court, it will help save lives....lives of the yet unborn, maybe not all, but it would be a solid start back in the Right direction........by effectively returning the Right to impose the People's will to govern over abortion, back to the States, as it was prior to Roe v Wade, when each State determined restrictions on abortion, if any at all. At the end of the day, if the Mississippi Law is sustained by SCOTUS, women, in the State of Mississippi, will still be able to kill the unborn lives within them, but only until a heartbeat can be detected, or 15 weeks, whichever comes first.

In other words - flush the 14th amendment down the "s" bend.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 27^th, 2021 at 8:49am:

Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2021 at 7:56am: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 26th, 2021 at 11:36pm: Frank wrote on Dec 26th, 2021 at 3:28pm: Why is abortion preferable to adoption? Why do advocates of free speech and Freedom want to remove a woman's right to make her own decisions??? :-? :-? :-? Nobody is taking away her right. Nobody was policing her decision to fccky-fccky. But when another life is at stake the decision is not hers alone. Late pregnancy abortion, for example, when a viable birth is possible, is efectively infanticide. That should not be her right. You judged all woman with your first rant....What about rape, incest, health issues and an individuals personal circumstances??? It is the woman that has to live with the decision she makes....Who's right should it be to make decisions about a woman's own body and future??? :-? :-? :-?

Abortion is not about her body primarily. Abortion is terminating a life and it's not her life and body that is terminated.

You carefully avoud my original question - Why is abortion preferable to adoption?

Duckwit compared adoption to mass shooting and abortion to sensible gun control. That is idiotic.

Frank wrote on Dec 28^th, 2021 at 8:21am:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 27th, 2021 at 8:49am: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2021 at 7:56am: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 26th, 2021 at 11:36pm: Frank wrote on Dec 26th, 2021 at 3:28pm: Why is abortion preferable to adoption? Why do advocates of free speech and Freedom want to remove a woman's right to make her own decisions??? :-? :-? :-? Nobody is taking away her right. Nobody was policing her decision to fccky-fccky. But when another life is at stake the decision is not hers alone. Late pregnancy abortion, for example, when a viable birth is possible, is efectively infanticide. That should not be her right. You judged all woman with your first rant....What about rape, incest, health issues and an individuals personal circumstances??? It is the woman that has to live with the decision she makes....Who's right should it be to make decisions about a woman's own body and future??? :-? :-? :-? Abortion is not about her body primarily. Abortion is terminating a life and it's not her life and body that is terminated. You carefully avoud my original question - Why is abortion preferable to adoption? Duckwit compared adoption to mass shooting and abortion to sensible gun control. That is idiotic.

Quote:

compared adoption to mass shooting and abortion to sensible gun control. That is idiotic.

You are the only one who has said this and it came from your own comprehension failure.


Quote:

Could be the same reason as

was the statement made - The reason is the constitution.

I am not personally hard on pro Life or pro choice but in the USA their 14th amendment supports pro choice and takes the option away from the state making it a personal decision.

From your choices I would choose adoption but the US state can not force this decision on women without changing their constitution.

Or as in gun control have the supreme court come down with a bogus re definition of the clause in the constitution to change the meaning of the words in the constitution and to set this as the precedent.

Frank wrote on Dec 28^th, 2021 at 8:21am:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 27th, 2021 at 8:49am: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2021 at 7:56am: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 26th, 2021 at 11:36pm: Frank wrote on Dec 26th, 2021 at 3:28pm: Why is abortion preferable to adoption? Why do advocates of free speech and Freedom want to remove a woman's right to make her own decisions??? :-? :-? :-? Nobody is taking away her right. Nobody was policing her decision to fccky-fccky. But when another life is at stake the decision is not hers alone. Late pregnancy abortion, for example, when a viable birth is possible, is efectively infanticide. That should not be her right. You judged all woman with your first rant....What about rape, incest, health issues and an individuals personal circumstances??? It is the woman that has to live with the decision she makes....Who's right should it be to make decisions about a woman's own body and future??? :-? :-? :-? Abortion is not about her body primarily. Abortion is terminating a life and it's not her life and body that is terminated. You carefully avoid my original question - Why is abortion preferable to adoption? Duckwit compared adoption to mass shooting and abortion to sensible gun control. That is idiotic.

You carefully avoid my question???

In a perfect world one would hope abortion was never an option....However it is the woman who has to make the decision based on her circumstances and live with her choice....Better counselling and more support would make a difference however nothing is free in America....Adoption should certainly be an option that is available and promoted by the health authorities???

:-? :-? :-?

Frank wrote on Dec 27^th, 2021 at 7:56am:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 26th, 2021 at 11:36pm: Frank wrote on Dec 26th, 2021 at 3:28pm: Why is abortion preferable to adoption? Why do advocates of free speech and Freedom want to remove a woman's right to make her own decisions??? :-? :-? :-? Nobody is taking away her right. Nobody was policing her decision to fccky-fccky. But when another life is at stake the decision is not hers alone. Late pregnancy abortion, for example, when a viable birth is possible, is effectively infanticide. That should not be her right.

Its not her right in the USA. Roe V Wade extended Women's choice to 24 weeks.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 28^th, 2021 at 9:26am:

Frank wrote on Dec 28th, 2021 at 8:21am: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 27th, 2021 at 8:49am: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2021 at 7:56am: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 26th, 2021 at 11:36pm: Frank wrote on Dec 26th, 2021 at 3:28pm: Why is abortion preferable to adoption? Why do advocates of free speech and Freedom want to remove a woman's right to make her own decisions??? :-? :-? :-? Nobody is taking away her right. Nobody was policing her decision to fccky-fccky. But when another life is at stake the decision is not hers alone. Late pregnancy abortion, for example, when a viable birth is possible, is efectively infanticide. That should not be her right. You judged all woman with your first rant....What about rape, incest, health issues and an individuals personal circumstances??? It is the woman that has to live with the decision she makes....Who's right should it be to make decisions about a woman's own body and future??? :-? :-? :-? Abortion is not about her body primarily. Abortion is terminating a life and it's not her life and body that is terminated. You carefully avoid my original question - Why is abortion preferable to adoption? Duckwit compared adoption to mass shooting and abortion to sensible gun control. That is idiotic. You carefully avoid my question??? In a perfect world one would hope abortion was never an option....However it is the woman who has to make the decision based on her circumstances and live with her choice....Better counselling and more support would make a difference however nothing is free in America....Adoption should certainly be an option that is available and promoted by the health authorities??? :-? :-? :-?

Quote:

Adoption should certainly be an option that is available and promoted by the health authorities???

It is.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 28^th, 2021 at 9:31am:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 28th, 2021 at 9:26am: Frank wrote on Dec 28th, 2021 at 8:21am: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 27th, 2021 at 8:49am: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2021 at 7:56am: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 26th, 2021 at 11:36pm: Frank wrote on Dec 26th, 2021 at 3:28pm: Why is abortion preferable to adoption? Why do advocates of free speech and Freedom want to remove a woman's right to make her own decisions??? :-? :-? :-? Nobody is taking away her right. Nobody was policing her decision to fccky-fccky. But when another life is at stake the decision is not hers alone. Late pregnancy abortion, for example, when a viable birth is possible, is efectively infanticide. That should not be her right. You judged all woman with your first rant....What about rape, incest, health issues and an individuals personal circumstances??? It is the woman that has to live with the decision she makes....Who's right should it be to make decisions about a woman's own body and future??? :-? :-? :-? Abortion is not about her body primarily. Abortion is terminating a life and it's not her life and body that is terminated. You carefully avoid my original question - Why is abortion preferable to adoption? Duckwit compared adoption to mass shooting and abortion to sensible gun control. That is idiotic. You carefully avoid my question??? In a perfect world one would hope abortion was never an option....However it is the woman who has to make the decision based on her circumstances and live with her choice....Better counselling and more support would make a difference however nothing is free in America....Adoption should certainly be an option that is available and promoted by the health authorities??? :-? :-? :-? Quote: Adoption should certainly be an option that is available and promoted by the health authorities??? It is.

As it should be....The new laws in Texas might see the system needing to be expanded???

:-? :-? :-?

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/01/1042209230/federal-judge-weighs-in-on-biden-administrations-attempt-to-block-texas-abortion

Castration Nation.

Latest trend - go woke, go gelded.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FHuPvd9XoAgcQY5?.jpg

..

Some States Move to Protect Abortion Rights
in Face of Challenge at Supreme Court

Source:      ABC      
Quote:

While the U.S. Supreme Court considers a case that could potentially overturn Roe v. Wade, some states are enacting or discussing protections for reproductive rights. This week, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed a bill that codifies the right to an abortion, previously recognized by the state Supreme Court, into state law. The so-called Freedom of Reproductive Choice Act, which quickly passed through the state legislature after first introduced on Jan. 6, grew out of concern that the conservative-leaning high court could overturn or limit Roe in the coming months through its decision on a Mississippi case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, that asks the justices to directly reconsider the nearly 50-year precedent......continued

Just as I thought would happen.........States are passing their own Abortion Legislation, proving to an observing SCOTUS that the way to go is to overturn Roe v. Wade, & return abortion decisions back to the States just as it was before Roe 'created' a Constitutional Right that can be found nowhere in the US Constitution before it was 'created' by the 70's Court's decision.

Abortion is, & should have always been, a State's Issue, as before Roe!

Or leave it up to a Joe Biden Wishful Hallucination......

https://i.postimg.cc/4N3q5Q58/cdn.jpg

Panther wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 11:13am:

.. Some States Move to Protect Abortion Rights in Face of Challenge at Supreme Court Source:      ABC       Quote: While the U.S. Supreme Court considers a case that could potentially overturn Roe v. Wade, some states are enacting or discussing protections for reproductive rights. This week, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed a bill that codifies the right to an abortion, previously recognized by the state Supreme Court, into state law. The so-called Freedom of Reproductive Choice Act, which quickly passed through the state legislature after first introduced on Jan. 6, grew out of concern that the conservative-leaning high court could overturn or limit Roe in the coming months through its decision on a Mississippi case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, that asks the justices to directly reconsider the nearly 50-year precedent......continued Just as I thought would happen.........States are passing their own Abortion Legislation, proving to an observing SCOTUS that the way to go is to overturn Roe v. Wade, & return abortion decisions back to the States just as it was before Roe 'created' a Constitutional Right that can be found nowhere in the US Constitution before it was 'created' by the 70's Court's decision. Abortion is, & should have always been, a State's Issue, as before Roe! https://i.imgur.com/oAMLT1C.gif

Why does the long issue of "State's Rights" make you hard, Panther? That is what I want to know.

..

Abortion always was, & should revert back to being, a State's Issue.

Source:      THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION      
Quote:

Amendment X (1791) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Abortion, & the power of the Federal Government to regulate it, doesn't exist in the US Constitution, & it never has.....Therefore, according to the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

A concept the 'Baby Killing Left' can never seem to get a grip on.....

Don't like it? 

Then propose an Amendment you'd prefer to the United States Constitution, & pass it out of Congress to the States for ratification, & then let the American People decide by amending the Constitution via the process the Founding Fathers intended for such resolution......

You're an American Citizen aren't you AiA?  You can vote, can't you?.......Why not express your glee in voting for an Amendment that would make killing the unborn legal across all the United States.

AiA wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 11:16am:

Panther wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 11:13am: .. Some States Move to Protect Abortion Rights in Face of Challenge at Supreme Court Source:      ABC       Quote: While the U.S. Supreme Court considers a case that could potentially overturn Roe v. Wade, some states are enacting or discussing protections for reproductive rights. This week, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed a bill that codifies the right to an abortion, previously recognized by the state Supreme Court, into state law. The so-called Freedom of Reproductive Choice Act, which quickly passed through the state legislature after first introduced on Jan. 6, grew out of concern that the conservative-leaning high court could overturn or limit Roe in the coming months through its decision on a Mississippi case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, that asks the justices to directly reconsider the nearly 50-year precedent......continued Just as I thought would happen.........States are passing their own Abortion Legislation, proving to an observing SCOTUS that the way to go is to overturn Roe v. Wade, & return abortion decisions back to the States just as it was before Roe 'created' a Constitutional Right that can be found nowhere in the US Constitution before it was 'created' by the 70's Court's decision. Abortion is, & should have always been, a State's Issue, as before Roe! https://i.imgur.com/oAMLT1C.gif Why does the long issue of "State's Rights" make you hard, Panther? That is what I want to know.

Quote:

as it was before Roe 'created' a Constitutional Right that can be found nowhere in the US Constitution before it was 'created' by the 70's Court's decision.

The woman's right is protected by the 14th amendment. It is the right that protects citizens right to make their own decisions regarding their personal life. This has been found many times to include decisions on family and reproduction. This guarantees there will be no interference from the state.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 12:35pm:

AiA wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 11:16am: Panther wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 11:13am: .. Some States Move to Protect Abortion Rights in Face of Challenge at Supreme Court Source:      ABC       Quote: While the U.S. Supreme Court considers a case that could potentially overturn Roe v. Wade, some states are enacting or discussing protections for reproductive rights. This week, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed a bill that codifies the right to an abortion, previously recognized by the state Supreme Court, into state law. The so-called Freedom of Reproductive Choice Act, which quickly passed through the state legislature after first introduced on Jan. 6, grew out of concern that the conservative-leaning high court could overturn or limit Roe in the coming months through its decision on a Mississippi case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, that asks the justices to directly reconsider the nearly 50-year precedent......continued Just as I thought would happen.........States are passing their own Abortion Legislation, proving to an observing SCOTUS that the way to go is to overturn Roe v. Wade, & return abortion decisions back to the States just as it was before Roe 'created' a Constitutional Right that can be found nowhere in the US Constitution before it was 'created' by the 70's Court's decision. Abortion is, & should have always been, a State's Issue, as before Roe! https://i.imgur.com/oAMLT1C.gif Why does the long issue of "State's Rights" make you hard, Panther? That is what I want to know. [quote]as it was before Roe 'created' a Constitutional Right that can be found nowhere in the US Constitution before it was 'created' by the 70's Court's decision.

The woman's right is protected by the 14th amendment. It is the right that protects citizens right to make their own decisions regarding their personal life. This has been found many times to include decisions on family and reproduction. This guarantees there will be no interference from the state.

[/quote]

Well, at least yer tryin' Daffy.......

Let's see what the present day Supreme Court decides......If they agree/concur with the reasoning of the 1970's SCOTUS, then maybe you 'might' have a chance.....

BUT........ if they disagree, & overturn Roe v. Wade, case closed....it's back to the States, & IMHO a large majority of States will either outright ban abortion, or severely restrict abortion, leaving only about a dozen States supporting abortion the way it is today.

..

The United States Supreme Court is inching closer to a decision regarding Abortion, due by July this year.

Is Abortion a States Issue?

Will the Court leave some portions of Roe intact, while returning the power to restrict Abortion back to the individual States, as it was prior to Roe v. Wade & Casey?

Panther wrote on Feb 24^th, 2022 at 9:34am:

.. The United States Supreme Court is inching closer to a decision regarding Abortion, due by July this year. Is Abortion a States Issue? Will the Court leave some portions of Roe intact, while returning the power to restrict Abortion back to the individual States, as it was prior to Roe v. Wade & Casey?

Allowing individual states to choose to breach rights guaranteed in the constitution opens a big door, goodbye to the second amendment is on the table in the same manner.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 24^th, 2022 at 11:52am:

Panther wrote on Feb 24th, 2022 at 9:34am: .. The United States Supreme Court is inching closer to a decision regarding Abortion, due by July this year. Is Abortion a States Issue? Will the Court leave some portions of Roe intact, while returning the power to restrict Abortion back to the individual States, as it was prior to Roe v. Wade & Casey? Allowing individual states to choose to breach rights guaranteed in the constitution opens a big door, goodbye to the second amendment is on the table in the same manner.

Please quote the US Constitution, you know the place where it says that a woman has a guaranteed Right to Kill Murder the unborn baby in her womb.

Pssssst........save yer time......you won't find it......it doesn't exist.......it never existed.... & unless the American People Amend their/my Constitution, it never will....

God Bless The United States Constitution............God Bless AMERICA............God Bless The United States Constitution............God Bless AMERICA............God Bless The United States Constitution............God Bless AMERICA............God Bless The United States Constitution............God Bless AMERICA............God Bless The United States Constitution............God Bless AMERICA............God Bless The United States Constitution............AMERICA............

..

Panther wrote on Feb 24^th, 2022 at 1:04pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 24th, 2022 at 11:52am: Panther wrote on Feb 24th, 2022 at 9:34am: .. The United States Supreme Court is inching closer to a decision regarding Abortion, due by July this year. Is Abortion a States Issue? Will the Court leave some portions of Roe intact, while returning the power to restrict Abortion back to the individual States, as it was prior to Roe v. Wade & Casey? Allowing individual states to choose to breach rights guaranteed in the constitution opens a big door, goodbye to the second amendment is on the table in the same manner. Please quote the US Constitution, you know the place where it says that a woman has a guaranteed Right to Kill Murder the unborn baby in her womb. [/sizepx;"> [size=4]Pssssst........save yer time......you won't find it......it doesn't exist.......it never existed.... & unless the American People Amend their/my Constitution, it never will.... God Bless The United States Constitution............God Bless AMERICA............God Bless The United States Constitution............God Bless AMERICA............God Bless The United States Constitution............God Bless AMERICA............God Bless The United States Constitution............God Bless AMERICA............God Bless The United States Constitution............God Bless AMERICA............God Bless The United States Constitution............AMERICA............ ..

Quote:

Please quote the US Constitution, you know the place where it says that a woman has a guaranteed Right to Kill Murder the unborn baby in her womb.

Firstly your premise is flawed, a baby is not unborn. Before birth it may zygote which becomes an embryo then fetus until birth.

The 14th amendment is agreed to mean that the state has no role in family planning. The ruling finds that a legitimate state interest does not exist before the 24th week when the fetus may be viable.




Quote:

Roe v. Wade, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, ruled (7–2) that unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a woman’s constitutional right of privacy, which it found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Dnarever wrote on Feb 24^th, 2022 at 3:13pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 24th, 2022 at 1:04pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 24th, 2022 at 11:52am: Panther wrote on Feb 24th, 2022 at 9:34am: .. The United States Supreme Court is inching closer to a decision regarding Abortion, due by July this year. Is Abortion a States Issue? Will the Court leave some portions of Roe intact, while returning the power to restrict Abortion back to the individual States, as it was prior to Roe v. Wade & Casey? Allowing individual states to choose to breach rights guaranteed in the constitution opens a big door, goodbye to the second amendment is on the table in the same manner. Please quote the US Constitution, you know the place where it says that a woman has a guaranteed Right to Kill Murder the unborn baby in her womb. [/sizepx;"> [size=4]Pssssst........save yer time......you won't find it......it doesn't exist.......it never existed.... & unless the American People Amend their/my Constitution, it never will.... God Bless The United States Constitution............God Bless AMERICA............God Bless The United States Constitution............God Bless AMERICA............God Bless The United States Constitution............God Bless AMERICA............God Bless The United States Constitution............God Bless AMERICA............God Bless The United States Constitution............God Bless AMERICA............God Bless The United States Constitution............AMERICA............ .. Quote: Please quote the US Constitution, you know the place where it says that a woman has a guaranteed Right to Kill Murder the unborn baby in her womb. Firstly your premise is flawed, a baby is not unborn. Before birth it may zygote which becomes an embryo then fetus until birth. The 14th amendment is agreed to mean that the state has no role in family planning. The ruling finds that a legitimate state interest does not exist before the 24th week when the fetus may be viable. [quote]Roe v. Wade, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, ruled (7–2) that unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a woman’s constitutional right of privacy, which it found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

[/quote]

So, as I thought, there was never a Right that a woman had a guaranteed Right to Kill Murder the unborn baby in her womb, only what the Left has been using in lieu of the non-existent Right.......

This interpretation is exactly what the United States Supreme Court will be deciding upon, & many believe as I, that they won't gut Roe......women will still be able kill murder the unborn Baby in their womb.....regardless what the Left want's to call it......how many women are asked do you know the sex of your embryo or zygote?......no they are always asked do you know the sex of your BABY?.....they are never asked when their embryo or zygote is due, but they are always asked when is their BABY due?.......to which they will respond my BABY is due on....Why??....because that's what it is a BABY to the woman carrying it, & to those referring to it......

So, as many are predicting, SCOTUS will hopefully decide that the previous Court erred, & the States will be, as before the gross error, the States will resume being able to determine when, & if, the women in each one of the individual 50 States gets their wish.

Remember, there isn't any appeal of a SCOTUS decision, it can only be changed if a future court over-rules the previous decision, or if the American People will amend their Constitution to say otherwise ......

Dnarever wrote on Feb 24^th, 2022 at 3:13pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 24th, 2022 at 1:04pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 24th, 2022 at 11:52am: Panther wrote on Feb 24th, 2022 at 9:34am: .. The United States Supreme Court is inching closer to a decision regarding Abortion, due by July this year. Is Abortion a States Issue? Will the Court leave some portions of Roe intact, while returning the power to restrict Abortion back to the individual States, as it was prior to Roe v. Wade & Casey? Allowing individual states to choose to breach rights guaranteed in the constitution opens a big door, goodbye to the second amendment is on the table in the same manner. Please quote the US Constitution, you know the place where it says that a woman has a guaranteed Right to Kill Murder the unborn baby in her womb. [/sizepx;"> [size=4]Pssssst........save yer time......you won't find it......it doesn't exist.......it never existed.... & unless the American People Amend their/my Constitution, it never will.... God Bless The United States Constitution............God Bless AMERICA............God Bless The United States Constitution............God Bless AMERICA............God Bless The United States Constitution............God Bless AMERICA............God Bless The United States Constitution............God Bless AMERICA............God Bless The United States Constitution............God Bless AMERICA............God Bless The United States Constitution............AMERICA............ .. Quote: Please quote the US Constitution, you know the place where it says that a woman has a guaranteed Right to Kill Murder the unborn baby in her womb. Firstly your premise is flawed, a baby is not unborn. Before birth it may zygote which becomes an embryo then fetus until birth. The 14th amendment is agreed to mean that the state has no role in family planning. The ruling finds that a legitimate state interest does not exist before the 24th week when the fetus may be viable. [quote]Roe v. Wade, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, ruled (7–2) that unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a woman’s constitutional right of privacy, which it found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

So, as I thought, there was never a Right that a woman had a guaranteed Right to Kill Murder the unborn baby in her womb, only what the Left has been using in lieu of the non-existent Right.......

This interpretation is exactly what the United States Supreme Court will be deciding upon, & many believe as I, that they won't gut Roe......women will still be able kill murder the unborn Baby in their womb.....

Regardless what the Left want's to call it......how many women are asked do you know the sex of your embryo or zygote?......no they are always asked do you know the sex of your BABY?.....they are never asked when their embryo or zygote is due, but they are always asked when is their BABY due?.......to which they will respond my BABY is due on....Why??....because that's what it is a BABY to the woman carrying it, & to those referring to it......

So, as many are predicting, SCOTUS will hopefully decide that the previous Court erred, & the States will be, as before the gross error, the States will resume being able to determine when, & if, the women in each one of the individual 50 States gets their wish.

Remember, there isn't any appeal of a SCOTUS decision, it can only be changed if a future court over-rules the previous decision, or if the American People will amend their Constitution to say otherwise ......

It is a good time to start a back ally, under the radar veterinarian service in the US South.

..

U.S. Supreme Court Set to
Overturn the Roe v. Wade Abortion Rights Decision

https://i.imgur.com/4Zz95Mz.jpg
The 6-3 Conservative US Supreme Court

Source:      Reuters      
Quote:

WASHINGTON, May 2 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court looks set to vote to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide, according to a leaked initial draft majority opinion published by Politico on Monday. The unprecedented leak from the conservative-majority Supreme Court sent shock waves through the United States, not least because the court prides itself on keeping its internal deliberations secret and leaks are extremely uncommon. Reuters was not able to confirm the authenticity of the draft. The Supreme Court and the White House declined to comment. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the draft opinion which is dated Feb. 10, according to Politico, which posted a copy online. Based on Alito's opinion, the court would find that the Roe v. Wade decision that allowed abortions performed before a fetus would be viable outside the womb - between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy - was wrongly decided because the U.S. Constitution makes no specific mention of abortion rights. "Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion," Alito said, according to the leaked document. The news broke a little more than six months before the mid-term elections that will determine if Democrats hold their razor-thin majorities in the U.S. Congress for the next two years of President Joe Biden's term in office. Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in U.S. politics and has been for nearly a half century. Republican Senator Tom Cotton said: "...Roe was egregiously wrong from the beginning & I pray the Court follows the Constitution & allows the states to once again protect unborn life." Four of the other Republican-appointed justices – Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett - voted with Alito in the conference held among the justices, the report added. After an initial vote among the justices following an oral argument, one is assigned the majority opinion and writes a draft. It is then circulated among the justices. At times, in between the initial vote and the ruling being released, the vote alignment can change. A ruling is only final when it is published by the court. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, heard oral arguments in December on Mississippi's bid to revive its ban on abortion starting at 15 weeks of pregnancy, a law blocked by lower courts. It appeared based on December's oral argument that a majority was inclined to uphold Mississippi's abortion ban and that there could be five votes to overturn Roe.......

I believe that the Court may still leave some of the original Roe v Wade decision stand, but as I stated in more than one earlier post, I still hope & believe that the Court will return the abortion issue back to the States, as it was pre-Roe v. Wade of 1973, at the very least, giving each individual State the right & power to set all abortion rules according to the will of their individual State's own voters.....& out of the grasp of the Federal Government, bar a successful Constitutional Amendment, agreed to by a majority of  American Voters in 38 of the 50 United States....75% of all the States, stating anything otherwise.

https://www.liveabout.com/thmb/oCZP079eospEOKbYLN_osO74msY=/650x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/banning-guns-vs-abortions-58b8f75b5f9b58af5cb77217.jpg

::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 5:32pm:

https://www.liveabout.com/thmb/oCZP079eospEOKbYLN_osO74msY=/650x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/banning-guns-vs-abortions-58b8f75b5f9b58af5cb77217.jpg

It's just a first, very important, step to return legislation back to the Congress & the States as stated in the Constitution, & reverse the 1973 Court's error, where the Court 'legislated' a Right that never was, into the US Constitution.

Now a woman's desire to kill the baby within her will depend on her State's or Congress' legislation, because there is not now, & never was, a Constitutional Right to an abortion, as the 1973 Supreme Court errantly decided....creating a fictitious 'New' Right.....overstepping its own powers granted it by the US Constitution & the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Panther wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 6:02pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 5th, 2022 at 5:32pm: https://www.liveabout.com/thmb/oCZP079eospEOKbYLN_osO74msY=/650x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/banning-guns-vs-abortions-58b8f75b5f9b58af5cb77217.jpg It's just a first, very important, step to return legislation back to the Congress & the States as stated in the Constitution, & reverse the 1973 Court's error, where the Court 'legislated' a Right that never was, into the US Constitution. Now a woman's desire to kill the baby within her will depend on her State's or Congress' legislation, because there is not now, & never was, a Constitutional Right to an abortion, as the 1973 Supreme Court errantly decided....creating a fictitious 'New' Right.....overstepping its own powers granted it by the US Constitution & the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Quote:

step to return legislation back to the Congress & the States as stated in the Constitution, & reverse the 1973 Court's error, where the Court 'legislated' a Right that never was, into the US Constitution.

So the ruling is in breach of the ninth amendment then ?

The right need to be careful with this there are so many rights that are not protected directly in the constitution. This ruling puts them all on the table.

The ruling also puts the Justices in some jeopardy when at least 3 republican supreme court Justices clearly lied or perjured themselves in their appointment hearings.

They have brought the supreme court into disrepute.

https://www.liveabout.com/thmb/9JWkCmU4U13uZt5ZSe3mPnuFCYs=/650x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/women-reproductive-rights-rifles-58b8ce6b5f9b58af5c8d6e97.jpg

Quote:

The Ninth Amendment was James Madison’s attempt to ensure that the Bill of Rights was not seen as granting to the people of the United States only the specific rights it addressed. In recent years, some have interpreted it as affirming the existence of such “unenumerated” rights outside those expressly protected by the Bill of Rights. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ninth_amendment

Justice Samuel Alito and 4 Others supported this view.


Quote:

The court must overturn Roe, Alito argues, because "[t]he Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision . . . including the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

In the Above justification for Alito's position he is correct there isn't in the 14th amendment. But it is what the ninth amendment is all about.

Alito is saying that Roe v Wade must be overturned because there is no such right directly protected in the constitution when the ninth amendment is clearly saying that it does not have to be.

Alito's draft ruling appears to be in clear breach of the ninth amendment.

The New America

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g2CqOrFGak&ab_channel=MeidasTouch

.
https://blog.cengage.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/blog-poli-sci-us-constitution-1513604.png


Our American Founding Fathers knew from the very start that the Constitution they were giving the American People was not 'perfect', & there would come times when America would need changes or additions to the Supreme Law, so they had  the foresight to provide a process for the People  to do just that.....to change the People's Sacred Document.....The United States Constitution.

If the American People wish to change or add to what the US Constitution says, then they have the Right & ability to amend the US Constitution by the process outlined just for that specific purpose within our Founding Document itself.....Article V of the US Constitution.

If the American People truly do want Abortion Rights, then they could follow the process, & make it so.....make it a Right of the People by amending the Constitution to say just that.....& if agreed to by the requisite numbers in Congress (2/3rds of both the House & Senate), & 75% of the US States (38 of the 50), it will become the Law of the Land without need of defining. https://imgur.com/CF8NdYQ.gif

https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/HowDareYou-GraphicD-List-768x768.jpg

The forefathers never seen the prospect of a corrupt supreme court or provided a workable remedy.

The Republicans have worked corruptly for at least 30 years to produce a supreme court stacked with corrupt anti Roe v Wade religious zealots willing to tell lies in the appointment hearings for the purpose of overturning this long established right.

Dnarever wrote on May 6^th, 2022 at 12:16pm:

The forefathers never seen the prospect of a corrupt supreme court or provided a workable remedy. The Republicans have worked corruptly for at least 30 years to produce a supreme court stacked with corrupt anti Roe v Wade religious zealots willing to tell lies in the appointment hearings for the purpose of overturning this long established right.

Well, DuckBoy......once again you show your glaring ignorance about OUR US Supreme Court & the United States Constitution.....

OUR Founding Fathers gave the US Congress the complete authority & ability to Remove any Supreme Court Justice via IMPEACHMENT & REMOVAL for criminal behavior.

Since the Supreme Court first convened in 1790, there have been 112 justices and only one  has ever been impeached by the House of Representatives......Samuel Chase on 1804.

In 1804, the U.S. House of Representatives impeached Associate Justice Samuel Chase, but failed to convict him in a Senate trial in order to remove him from the Court......for good reason......they couldn't prove the false charges against Chase......if they did they would have been able to remove him from the bench......

You FAILED AGAIN DUCKBOY!!!! :D :D ;D ;D ;D



https://i.imgur.com/tYYZ0kV.gif

https://i.imgur.com/DqFt06a.gif

Well SCOTUS looks set to hurl America back to the 1950s and reintroduce gender apartheid.

Backyard clinics are going to go into full swing providing unsterilised procedures.

Sales in knitting needles, coat hangers and Valium look set to soar.

And of course domestic servitude and violence. Women's domestic arrangements of that era were the inevitable consequence of their reproductive slavery and the financial servitude that flowed from it. Who would hire women if they can’t even make a commitment to remaining unpregnant or child-free long enough to show up?

Certainly not a job that pays well. So they are going to have to rely on men once again. And as history has shown social and financial inequality makes such reliance far more dangerous than is the case in equal relationships.

Women of America, now is the time. SCOTUS has never before withdrawn rights from a subgroup of the population on the basis that giving them that right was a mistake.

Get out there and fight this with everything you have.

Quote:

ability to Remove any Supreme Court Justice via IMPEACHMENT & REMOVAL for criminal behavior.

Worked great when used on Trump didn't it.

The same corrupt politicians that set it up control the result of an impeachment.

The impeachment process is dependant on the non existent integrity of republicans in the senate. The very same people who set up the corrupt stacked supreme court in order to deliver this corrupt outcome.

The process is broken beyond repair.

..

Dems’ Death Cult Bill Dies
in the U. S. Senate

Democrats are “wildly out of touch” with Americans, the world, and the science.



Source:      The Patriot Post      
Quote:

As expected, Senate Democrats failed to pass their radical abortion bill yesterday. Just as important as the fact of its failure is the reason for its demise. “Make no mistake: It is not Roe v. Wade codification, it’s an expansion,” explained Senator Joe Manchin, who was the lone Democrat “no” vote against the Women’s Health Protection Act. “It wipes 500 state laws off the books. It expands abortion,” he added. “We should not be dividing this country further than we’re already divided.” Even Senator Susan Collins, the sometimes Republican from Maine who has introduced her own bill to codify a federal “right” to abortion, called the Democrat bill “too broad.” Indeed, the party has gone a long way from the days of “safe, legal, and rare.” Manchin and Collins are too kind. Republican Senator Ben Sasse actually hit the mark: “Advocates for abortion on demand are doing a lot of fearmongering. We’ve heard some bizarre speeches on the floor in the last couple days that are so disconnected from the reality of the text of the legislation that’s before us. So much of what they’re pushing is wildly out of touch with the public and wildly out of touch with modern science.” “Wildly out of touch” pretty well describes Democrats on a lot of things. That they win elections at all is a testament to the fallen condition of humanity. Sasse also pointed to how “wildly out of touch” Democrats are with the rest of the world. “The legislation before us today would make our laws even more extreme,” he said. “Depending on how you count we have the fourth to seventh most extreme pro-abortion laws of any of the 200 nations on Earth.” Democrats defiantly argue just the opposite. They love to point to polls conducted by their Leftmedia propagandists as “proof” that, as Kamala Harris complained, the result “clearly suggests the Senate is not where the majority of Americans are on this issue.” But these polls are garbage for two reasons. First, the Supreme Court shouldn’t decide constitutional law based on polls, and, frankly, Congress shouldn’t be writing legislation that way either. Second, many of these polls are designed to achieve certain results — it’s pollaganda. Speaking of “wildly out of touch,” Joe “Good Catholic” Biden does not support any limits on abortion, which is way out of step with his church and his proclaimed faith. All of this brings us to some of the more bizarre remarks about this renewed debate, which come from, of all places, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. You may be wondering what in the world a treasury secretary would have to say about this issue. We were too. Perhaps that’s why she turned the argument into a utilitarian economic one. To be fair, she was set up to do so by a question from New Jersey Democrat Senator Bob Menendez: “What impact will the loss of abortion access mean economically for women?” Claiming it would “set women back by decades,” Yellen explained that “abortion helped lead to increased labor force participation” of women and “research also shows that it had a favorable impact on the well-being and earnings of children.” The children who survive, anyway. South Carolina Republican Senator Tim Scott asked rhetorically, “Did you say that ending the life of a child is good for the labor force participation rate?” Yellen went on digging a hole, including throwing race into it — as if saving the black babies who are vastly disproportionately the victims of abortion would somehow afflict the black community. Scott aptly replied, “I’ll just simply say that as a guy raised by a black woman in abject poverty, I’m thankful to be here as a United States senator.” His is a wonderful story. More than 60 million lives have been terminated in the womb before more wonderful stories could play out. How many Americans would have been born and gone on to become business owners, inventors, athletes, medical professionals, or even senators if the eugenicists at Planned Parenthood hadn’t killed them? When will leftists start to think of people as economic assets and not liabilities? Humans are, of course, far more than that — we are all God’s image bearers, worthy of the Declaration’s promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When will Democrats stop treating the lives of preborn children like nothing more than human sacrifices to a political dogma?

The Baby Killers lose this one, & if SCOTUS reverses Roe v. Wade & Casey, all matters pertaining to Baby Killing  will be matters for each of the 50 State's Legislatures & People to decide, & no longer in Federal hands!!! http://i.imgur.com/TTGfbP5.gif

https://i.imgur.com/2xoPS0f.jpg

https://www.liveabout.com/thmb/oCZP079eospEOKbYLN_osO74msY=/650x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/banning-guns-vs-abortions-58b8f75b5f9b58af5cb77217.jpg

Panther wrote on May 15^th, 2022 at 1:05pm:

.. Dems’ Death Cult Bill Dies in the U. S. Senate Democrats are “wildly out of touch” with Americans, the world, and the science. Source:      The Patriot Post       Quote: As expected, Senate Democrats failed to pass their radical abortion bill yesterday. Just as important as the fact of its failure is the reason for its demise. “Make no mistake: It is not Roe v. Wade codification, it’s an expansion,” explained Senator Joe Manchin, who was the lone Democrat “no” vote against the Women’s Health Protection Act. “It wipes 500 state laws off the books. It expands abortion,” he added. “We should not be dividing this country further than we’re already divided.” Even Senator Susan Collins, the sometimes Republican from Maine who has introduced her own bill to codify a federal “right” to abortion, called the Democrat bill “too broad.” Indeed, the party has gone a long way from the days of “safe, legal, and rare.” Manchin and Collins are too kind. Republican Senator Ben Sasse actually hit the mark: “Advocates for abortion on demand are doing a lot of fearmongering. We’ve heard some bizarre speeches on the floor in the last couple days that are so disconnected from the reality of the text of the legislation that’s before us. So much of what they’re pushing is wildly out of touch with the public and wildly out of touch with modern science.” “Wildly out of touch” pretty well describes Dems on a lot of things. That they win elections at all is a testament to the fallen condition of humanity. Sasse also pointed to how “wildly out of touch” Democrats are with the rest of the world. “The legislation before us today would make our laws even more extreme,” he said. “Depending on how you count we have the fourth to seventh most extreme pro-abortion laws of any of the 200 nations on Earth.” Dems defiantly argue just the opposite. They love to point to polls conducted by their Leftmedia propagandists as “proof” that, as Kamala Harris complained, the result “clearly suggests the Senate is not where the majority of Americans are on this issue.” But these polls are garbage for two reasons. First, the Supreme Court shouldn’t decide constitutional law based on polls, and, frankly, Congress shouldn’t be writing legislation that way either. Second, many of these polls are designed to achieve certain results — it’s pollaganda. Speaking of “wildly out of touch,” Joe “Good Catholic” Biden does not support any limits on abortion, which is way out of step with his church and his proclaimed faith. All of this brings us to some of the more bizarre remarks about this renewed debate, which come from, of all places, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. You may be wondering what in the world a treasury secretary would have to say about this issue. We were too. Perhaps that’s why she turned the argument into a utilitarian economic one. To be fair, she was set up to do so by a question from New Jersey Democrat Senator Bob Menendez: “What impact will the loss of abortion access mean economically for women?” Claiming it would “set women back by decades,” Yellen explained that “abortion helped lead to increased labor force participation” of women and “research also shows that it had a favorable impact on the well-being and earnings of children.” The children who survive, anyway. South Carolina Republican Senator Tim Scott asked rhetorically, “Did you say that ending the life of a child is good for the labor force participation rate?” Yellen went on digging a hole, including throwing race into it — as if saving the black babies who are vastly disproportionately the victims of abortion would somehow afflict the black community. Scott aptly replied, “I’ll just simply say that as a guy raised by a black woman in abject poverty, I’m thankful to be here as a United States senator.” His is a wonderful story. More than 60 million lives have been terminated in the womb before more wonderful stories could play out. How many Americans would have been born and gone on to become business owners, inventors, athletes, medical professionals, or even senators if the eugenicists at Planned Parenthood hadn’t killed them? When will leftists start to think of people as economic assets and not liabilities? Humans are, of course, far more than that — we are all God’s image bearers, worthy of the Declaration’s promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When will Democrats stop treating the lives of preborn children like nothing more than human sacrifices to a political dogma? The Baby Killers lose this one, & if SCOTUS reverses Roe v. Wade & Casey, all matters pertaining to Baby Killing  will be matters for each of the 50 State's Legislatures & People to decide, & no longer in Federal hands!!! https://i.imgur.com/2xoPS0f.jpg

Geeez......who was that 'prophet' that posted the above!!??

Problem solved to a degree......SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade completely......now it's Mississippi's issue innit?  ;) 8-)

Hypocrite POS.

AiA wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2021 at 11:10am:

Panther wrote on Dec 3rd, 2021 at 10:55am: AiA wrote on Dec 3rd, 2021 at 10:42am: Americans overwhelming support Roe v Wade. The losers, in the long run, will be the minority who are behind this. Well, then your overwhelming Majority of Americans have the Constitutional Right to offer & ratify a Constitutional Amendment that would make Abortion an 'actual' Constitutional Right, slamming the door on, as you see it, the loser minority.  I think you seem to forget........America isn't a Democracy, in a true sense, where the majority always triumphs over the minority.....America is a Republic.  ;) Blah blah blah. Americans overwhelmingly support Roe v Wade. In the long run, overturning it will energize both the women's movement and the Democrats. Also, there will be many more unwanted black babies born as white women will either go to another state for an abortion or get the abortion pill via mail order. Another nail in the coffin of the GOP if you ask me. But sure, in the short-term, it will give them a boost - no doubt.

I told Panther/DRX the bit I highlighted on my fine forum.

Ten years time—cue whining about all the colored children needing schooling etc etc.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 25^th, 2022 at 2:04pm:

AiA wrote on Dec 3rd, 2021 at 11:10am: Panther wrote on Dec 3rd, 2021 at 10:55am: AiA wrote on Dec 3rd, 2021 at 10:42am: Americans overwhelming support Roe v Wade. The losers, in the long run, will be the minority who are behind this. Well, then your overwhelming Majority of Americans have the Constitutional Right to offer & ratify a Constitutional Amendment that would make Abortion an 'actual' Constitutional Right, slamming the door on, as you see it, the loser minority.  I think you seem to forget........America isn't a Democracy, in a true sense, where the majority always triumphs over the minority.....America is a Republic.  ;) Blah blah blah. Americans overwhelmingly support Roe v Wade. In the long run, overturning it will energize both the women's movement and the Democrats. Also, there will be many more unwanted black babies born as white women will either go to another state for an abortion or get the abortion pill via mail order. Another nail in the coffin of the GOP if you ask me. But sure, in the short-term, it will give them a boost - no doubt. I told Panther/DRX the bit I highlighted on my fine forum. Ten years time—cue whining about all the colored children needing schooling etc etc.

But at least those Black & Brown children will be alive....born alive with American potential....who knows, maybe one of them Americans will be the 2^nd Black President of the United States, & achieve great, great things.....unlike the 1^st fella who only succeeded lining his own pockets......then again he was a Mulatto....guess ya can blame his white side.. https://imgur.com/GanwveZ.gif

Funny thing is that the same republicans and supreme court justices are complicit in school shootings.

They don't give a crap about the babies it's just the dogma.

Panther wrote on Jun 25^th, 2022 at 2:16pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 25th, 2022 at 2:04pm: AiA wrote on Dec 3rd, 2021 at 11:10am: Panther wrote on Dec 3rd, 2021 at 10:55am: AiA wrote on Dec 3rd, 2021 at 10:42am: Americans overwhelming support Roe v Wade. The losers, in the long run, will be the minority who are behind this. Well, then your overwhelming Majority of Americans have the Constitutional Right to offer & ratify a Constitutional Amendment that would make Abortion an 'actual' Constitutional Right, slamming the door on, as you see it, the loser minority.  I think you seem to forget........America isn't a Democracy, in a true sense, where the majority always triumphs over the minority.....America is a Republic.  ;) Blah blah blah. Americans overwhelmingly support Roe v Wade. In the long run, overturning it will energize both the women's movement and the Democrats. Also, there will be many more unwanted black babies born as white women will either go to another state for an abortion or get the abortion pill via mail order. Another nail in the coffin of the GOP if you ask me. But sure, in the short-term, it will give them a boost - no doubt. I told Panther/DRX the bit I highlighted on my fine forum. Ten years time—cue whining about all the colored children needing schooling etc etc. But at least those Black & Brown children will be alive....born alive with American potential....who knows, maybe one of them Americans will be the 2nd Black President of the United States, & achieve great, great things.....unlike the 1st fella who only succeeded lining his own pockets......then again he was a Mulatto....guess ya can blame his white side.. https://imgur.com/GanwveZ.gif

Quote:

But at least those Black & Brown children will be alive

Maybe not so much after the republican sponsored school massacres.

https://www.liveabout.com/thmb/oCZP079eospEOKbYLN_osO74msY=/650x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/banning-guns-vs-abortions-58b8f75b5f9b58af5cb77217.jpg

::) ::)

Dnarever wrote on Jun 25^th, 2022 at 2:43pm:

Panther wrote on Jun 25th, 2022 at 2:16pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 25th, 2022 at 2:04pm: AiA wrote on Dec 3rd, 2021 at 11:10am: Panther wrote on Dec 3rd, 2021 at 10:55am: AiA wrote on Dec 3rd, 2021 at 10:42am: Americans overwhelming support Roe v Wade. The losers, in the long run, will be the minority who are behind this. Well, then your overwhelming Majority of Americans have the Constitutional Right to offer & ratify a Constitutional Amendment that would make Abortion an 'actual' Constitutional Right, slamming the door on, as you see it, the loser minority.  I think you seem to forget........America isn't a Democracy, in a true sense, where the majority always triumphs over the minority.....America is a Republic.  ;) Blah blah blah. Americans overwhelmingly support Roe v Wade. In the long run, overturning it will energize both the women's movement and the Democrats. Also, there will be many more unwanted black babies born as white women will either go to another state for an abortion or get the abortion pill via mail order. Another nail in the coffin of the GOP if you ask me. But sure, in the short-term, it will give them a boost - no doubt. I told Panther/DRX the bit I highlighted on my fine forum. Ten years time—cue whining about all the colored children needing schooling etc etc. But at least those Black & Brown children will be alive....born alive with American potential....who knows, maybe one of them Americans will be the 2nd Black President of the United States, & achieve great, great things.....unlike the 1st fella who only succeeded lining his own pockets......then again he was a Mulatto....guess ya can blame his white side.. https://imgur.com/GanwveZ.gif Quote: But at least those Black & Brown children will be alive Maybe not so much after the republican sponsored school massacres.

https://imgur.com/hUXtwbQ.gifhey, if it was up to the dems though, they'd be in pieces on some abortionist's floor years ago! https://imgur.com/qgUpRai.gif

https://i.imgur.com/aarG5Uc.gif

edit: sorry, how insensitive.....I forgot yer Black coloured, fella!! https://imgur.com/GanwveZ.gif

https://www.liveabout.com/thmb/oCZP079eospEOKbYLN_osO74msY=/650x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/banning-guns-vs-abortions-58b8f75b5f9b58af5cb77217.jpg

::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 25^th, 2022 at 3:23pm:

https://www.liveabout.com/thmb/oCZP079espEOKbYLN_osO74msY=/650x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/banning-guns-vs-abortions-58b8f75b5f9b58af5cb77217.jpg

Pssssst......the law/previous 1973 SCOTUS decision has been overturned......upwards of ±200,000 newborn lives will be spared from the abortionist's ripping tools every year.......now it will be up to the States to save the other ±300,000 to 400,000 per year still greasin' the abortionists boots as they stomp through the carnage of human flesh on their floors!

The good fight still needs to be fought.......& we've just begun.

https://www.liveabout.com/thmb/oCZP079eospEOKbYLN_osO74msY=/650x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/banning-guns-vs-abortions-58b8f75b5f9b58af5cb77217.jpg

::) ::)