This is, apparently, “babies winning:”



Quote:




https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/17/health/abortion-miscarriage-treatment.html



What scumbags think this is desirable or normal in the 21st century?

Steampipe wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 11:12am:

I couldn't find any confirmation of that.   Links please.

Legal Aid Victoria says you could be charged, initially, for breaking the speed limit.

In court, "you may have a defence if you had to speed because of an emergency,
for example if someone was critically ill in the car. The magistrate will decide if
your reason is good enough. You might also have a defence if you did not speed
voluntarily. For example, you had a seizure".

I understand it's more likely though that a police vehicle will provide you an escort
to the hospital, with lights and siren.

Frank wrote on Jul 21^st, 2022 at 10:56am:


Shouldn't you be considering which is Tucker Carlson's most compelling argument, to shame me once and for all?

Panther wrote on Jul 9^th, 2022 at 11:18am:


No they don't, they just need to change how other parts of the constitution are interpreted, just like with the 2nd amendment. 

It never used to mean every person has the right to carry whatever gun they want, whenever they want and nobody can stop them, it meant what was written and the NRA even supported that too at one point helping shape legislation that came into law restricting weapons, which included a national registry for machine guns and sawed-off shotguns and taxing them heavily.

The constitution and the amendments mean fu all, it's all how SCOTUS decides to interpret it, otherwise, only well-regulated militias would have the right to bear arms, not lone wolf gravy seals in meal team six.

All they need to do is set a new precedent.

It would be impossible to do today without either some folks 2nd amendmenting some of the current judges or by expanding the court to include more judges.

Frank wrote on Jul 21^st, 2022 at 5:59pm:


no it didn't.

It overturned a 50 yr ruling on a womans right to privacy ... a right afforded to women by the 14th amendment. They basically argued that the 14th amendment didn't apply against state abortion laws. The rethuglican puppets currently in the supreme court don't care about the constitution .. for them this was about politics.

John Smith wrote on Jul 21^st, 2022 at 6:09pm:


Abortion is carried out in a clinical setting, involving dozens of people - hardly a procedure carried out in the privacy of your bedroom as the the act that led to it was.
It is a personal matter but very far from something done in privacy.

John Smith wrote on Jul 21^st, 2022 at 6:09pm:

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv