Frank wrote on Aug 19^th, 2024 at 12:31pm:


Why, to uphold the Constitution, dear boy, as every schoolboy knows. The Constitution grants citizens rights, an uncomfortable fact, I know. Women are now considered to be citizens, along with non-property-owners, former slaves, the tinted races, Jigaboos, Frightwigs, etc.

Their vote is worth the same as any celebrity playboy with a spray-on tan. An uncomfortable fact for the last five UK PMs as well as Turnbull and ScoMo here, no?

Who's in Number Ten and the Lodge now, dear chap?

Don't answer that.

From the SCOTUS ruling:


Americans continue to hold passionate and widely divergent views on abortion, and state legislatures have acted accordingly.  Some have recently enacted laws allowing abortion, with few restrictions, at all stage of pregnancy.  Others have tightly restricted abortion beginning well before viability.  And in this case, 26 States have expressly asked this Court to overrule Roe and Casey and allow the States to regulate or prohibit pre-viability abortions.

Before us now is one such state law.  The State of Mississippi asks us to uphold the constitutionality of a law that generally prohibits an abortion after the 15th week of pregnancy—several weeks before the point at which a fetus is now regarded as “viable” outside the womb.  In defending this law, the State’s primary argument is that we should reconsider and overrule Roe and Casey and once again allow each State to regulate abortion as its citizens wish.  On the other side, respondents and the Solicitor General ask us to reaffirm Roe and Casey, and they contend that the Mississippi law cannot stand if we do so.

We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”

The right to abortion does not fall within this category. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law. Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy. The abortion right is also critically different from any other right that this Court has held to fall within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of “liberty.” Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called “fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an “unborn human being.”

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2024 at 3:28pm:


He wouldn't lie, would he?

Frank wrote on Aug 19^th, 2024 at 5:00pm:



You realise it's all bullshit, don't you?

Lol, look who I'm asking.  Of course you don't   

Frank wrote on Aug 19^th, 2024 at 5:13pm:


You get thicker every day.

Bullshit: "the Radicals that are willing to kill babies even into their 9th month, and beyond."

Frank wrote on Aug 19^th, 2024 at 5:00pm:


That's a yes - from an old boy who even supports abortion rights.

Cunning, no?

Karnal wrote on Aug 19^th, 2024 at 6:38pm:

What policy do you think I am defending, pantaloon sniffer?