It's so funny, watching the corrupt and small brain of Roberts ask what the difference is between 15 weeks and 24 weeks.
If these zealots get their wish, then I am all for women withholding sex. No more sleeping with the enemy, as it were. Get a gun, take classes on protection and proper handling. Practice, and protect yourself from would-be rapists, once they become agressive and hardup.
Oh, and vote for those that would protect your rights. You know, definitely NOT the RepubliCON party.
I will mourn for those 12 and 13 year olds forced to carry to term, their rapist offspring. We know these religious zealots want all pregnancy to be upheld. Even incest and rape. Hope they reap what they sow, and cosmic karma hits them where it hurts most. GOP defending the sa ct
Rapist/incest??? Don't waste tax payers money. Castrate them and set them free to pay child support as women are forced to carry to term.
Dead beat fathers better watch out. Your days of a free ride is over. A brigade of angry electorates will hunt you down to garnish a huge chunk of your money. Those phoney religious conservatives with a piece on the side better be careful. That sweet young thing is coming to upset the apple cart.
Conservatives are only interested in the 9 months of gestation. After that you're on your own... GOPs defending the sanctity of life? Give me a break.. where were they to defend Sandy Hook massacre when their primary interest is guns and more guns. And let's not minimizing their lack of interest in covid vaccinations as they choose death.
Nothing but a bunch of phoney moralistic hypocrites. It's a ruse to eliminate women's autonomy to have traditional gender roles.
Aristophanes nailed it way back in ancient Greece with his play "Lysistrata"...and Spike Lee recently revisited that sex strike plot line in "Chi-Raq".
These right-wing activist judges on the SC love playing the class card. A rich woman can have a Constitutional right to abortion services 24/7, but if you are poor, not so much.
I thought it was interesting that the argument in the case that may effectively dismantle Roe v. Wade was made by arguments made by Justice Ginsberg. Although the Notorious One clearly was in favor of the eventual result of Roe, she argued that it was an incorrect legal decision and her words were used in defense of the Mississippi law this week.
A recent Gallup poll found that 68% of Americans were against second trimester abortions (oddly the same 68% number that Gallup found were in favor of legalizing pot). I think it's a very loud but very vocal few who are leading the charge and forming the Democrats' opinion (because of course Democrats can't think for themselves) and those few want the unobstructed right to abortion right up until birth.
Personally, as a man, I really don't think I have much standing to decide on the fate of abortion. I do understand that in some cases the man has a stake, but quite honestly it is small compared to the stake that a woman has. I'd personally be fine with a national women's vote to once and for all decide the fate of abortion. Let them pose a few questions so we can address the several issues and let the results become the law of the land.
I thought it was interesting that the argument in the case that may effectively dismantle Roe v. Wade was made by arguments made by Justice Ginsberg. Although the Notorious One clearly was in favor of the eventual result of Roe, she argued that it was an incorrect legal decision and her words were used in defense of the Mississippi law this week.
A recent Gallup poll found that 68% of Americans were against second trimester abortions (oddly the same 68% number that Gallup found were in favor of legalizing pot). I think it's a very loud but very vocal few who are leading the charge and forming the Democrats' opinion (because of course Democrats can't think for themselves) and those few want the unobstructed right to abortion right up until birth.
Personally, as a man, I really don't think I have much standing to decide on the fate of abortion. I do understand that in some cases the man has a stake, but quite honestly it is small compared to the stake that a woman has. I'd personally be fine with a national women's vote to once and for all decide the fate of abortion. Let them pose a few questions so we can address the several issues and let the results become the law of the land.
Cool story, Trumpie.
The issue was settled for what? 50 years now.
This is not about what a woman thinks. It is about the right for a woman to choose. If a woman "thinks" it isn't appropriate to get an abortion, then all she has to do is NOT GET ONE.
You faux libertardians and RepubliCONS, especially Trumpies, are insufferably dim.
I thought it was interesting that the argument in the case that may effectively dismantle Roe v. Wade was made by arguments made by Justice Ginsberg. Although the Notorious One clearly was in favor of the eventual result of Roe, she argued that it was an incorrect legal decision and her words were used in defense of the Mississippi law this week.
A recent Gallup poll found that 68% of Americans were against second trimester abortions (oddly the same 68% number that Gallup found were in favor of legalizing pot). I think it's a very loud but very vocal few who are leading the charge and forming the Democrats' opinion (because of course Democrats can't think for themselves) and those few want the unobstructed right to abortion right up until birth.
Personally, as a man, I really don't think I have much standing to decide on the fate of abortion. I do understand that in some cases the man has a stake, but quite honestly it is small compared to the stake that a woman has. I'd personally be fine with a national women's vote to once and for all decide the fate of abortion. Let them pose a few questions so we can address the several issues and let the results become the law of the land.
Cool story, Trumpie.
The issue was settled for what? 50 years now.
This is not about what a woman thinks. It is about the right for a woman to choose. If a woman "thinks" it isn't appropriate to get an abortion, then all she has to do is NOT GET ONE.
You faux libertardians and RepubliCONS, especially Trumpies, are insufferably dim.
The issue was settled nearly 50 years ago by what even the most liberal legal scholars agree was a bad court decision. The issue was settled to include "rights" that 68% of today's Americans disagree with. The issue was settled without the passage of a single law.
All of this points to the fact that the issue isn't settled at all. The reason why liberals are always concerned with conservatives "overturning Roe" is that they know that it isn't backed by any laws or The Constitution itself. They know it was a bad ruling and that it has never been reaffirmed by any law. It's a very, very vulnerable "settlement" as you call it and one that isn't supported by the majority of Americans.
The issue of abortion is one which will never be fully settled but instead will rely on different levels of compromise. There's no "settling" between those that believe that life begins at conception and those that believe that a woman has the right to choose to abort a fetus right up to the 39th week. Neither is going to move to a middle ground. In absence of a "settlement", the only real answer is to have a compromise. The best way I can think of to codify a compromise is to let women decide.
I'd personally be fine with a national women's vote to once and for all decide the fate of abortion. Let them pose a few questions so we can address the several issues and let the results become the law of the land.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The best way I can think of to codify a compromise is to let women decide."
Interesting. You believe federal law should be determined by majority rule...direct democracy...and by doing so, remove the rights of states to make their own laws.
Cool...let's apply the same process to something like, I dunno, presidential elections.
I'd personally be fine with a national women's vote to once and for all decide the fate of abortion. Let them pose a few questions so we can address the several issues and let the results become the law of the land.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The best way I can think of to codify a compromise is to let women decide."
Interesting. You believe federal law should be determined by majority rule...direct democracy...and by doing so, remove the rights of states to make their own laws.
Cool...let's apply the same process to something like, I dunno, presidential elections.
Apples and oranges Bob. The process for presidential elections is there for a reason and the Constitution and its 10th Amendment remind us that we are indeed the United STATES of America, not the American Democratic Republic.
You are correct that a direct national election would be in conflict with the 10th Amendment but in this important issue, I feel that there needs to be a firm and direct way to come to a national compromise. I would also be fine with a national vote collected by the states and then crafting a consitutional amendment based on that process. Either way, I don't think it's in the best interest of women to let the individual states decide, similar to how it wasn't appropriate to keep "slave states" and "free states".
I'd personally be fine with a national women's vote to once and for all decide the fate of abortion. Let them pose a few questions so we can address the several issues and let the results become the law of the land.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The best way I can think of to codify a compromise is to let women decide."
Interesting. You believe federal law should be determined by majority rule...direct democracy...and by doing so, remove the rights of states to make their own laws.
Cool...let's apply the same process to something like, I dunno, presidential elections.
Apples and oranges Bob. The process for presidential elections is there for a reason and the Constitution and its 10th Amendment remind us that we are indeed the United STATES of America, not the American Democratic Republic.
You are correct that a direct national election would be in conflict with the 10th Amendment but in this important issue, I feel that there needs to be a firm and direct way to come to a national compromise. I would also be fine with a national vote collected by the states and then crafting a consitutional amendment based on that process. Either way, I don't think it's in the best interest of women to let the individual states decide, similar to how it wasn't appropriate to keep "slave states" and "free states".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Still very interesting. To be clear, you do believe there is a case for federal laws to be determined by direct democracy. In the case of abortion, you've indicated only women would be able to vote. Obviously discriminating against men, but would only women of child bearing age be allowed to vote? Would women who've had hysterectomies be excluded...how about those who are unable to get pregnant?
As for the presidential election analogy...women in "blue/red" states would then control and determine whether abortion is legal in states regardless of what the majority of female residents of those states say.
You're good with that...right? Have I got that right?
I'd personally be fine with a national women's vote to once and for all decide the fate of abortion. Let them pose a few questions so we can address the several issues and let the results become the law of the land.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The best way I can think of to codify a compromise is to let women decide."
Interesting. You believe federal law should be determined by majority rule...direct democracy...and by doing so, remove the rights of states to make their own laws.
Cool...let's apply the same process to something like, I dunno, presidential elections.
Apples and oranges Bob. The process for presidential elections is there for a reason and the Constitution and its 10th Amendment remind us that we are indeed the United STATES of America, not the American Democratic Republic.
You are correct that a direct national election would be in conflict with the 10th Amendment but in this important issue, I feel that there needs to be a firm and direct way to come to a national compromise. I would also be fine with a national vote collected by the states and then crafting a consitutional amendment based on that process. Either way, I don't think it's in the best interest of women to let the individual states decide, similar to how it wasn't appropriate to keep "slave states" and "free states".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Still very interesting. To be clear, you do believe there is a case for federal laws to be determined by direct democracy. In the case of abortion, you've indicated only women would be able to vote. Obviously discriminating against men, but would only women of child bearing age be allowed to vote? Would women who've had hysterectomies be excluded...how about those who are unable to get pregnant?
As for the presidential election analogy...women in "blue/red" states would then control and determine whether abortion is legal in states regardless of what the majority of female residents of those states say.
You're good with that...right? Have I got that right?
How about 14 years old girls raped /pregnant ..is her voices heard via elections???? I think not!!!
I'd personally be fine with a national women's vote to once and for all decide the fate of abortion. Let them pose a few questions so we can address the several issues and let the results become the law of the land.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The best way I can think of to codify a compromise is to let women decide."
Interesting. You believe federal law should be determined by majority rule...direct democracy...and by doing so, remove the rights of states to make their own laws.
Cool...let's apply the same process to something like, I dunno, presidential elections.
Apples and oranges Bob. The process for presidential elections is there for a reason and the Constitution and its 10th Amendment remind us that we are indeed the United STATES of America, not the American Democratic Republic.
You are correct that a direct national election would be in conflict with the 10th Amendment but in this important issue, I feel that there needs to be a firm and direct way to come to a national compromise. I would also be fine with a national vote collected by the states and then crafting a consitutional amendment based on that process. Either way, I don't think it's in the best interest of women to let the individual states decide, similar to how it wasn't appropriate to keep "slave states" and "free states".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Still very interesting. To be clear, you do believe there is a case for federal laws to be determined by direct democracy. In the case of abortion, you've indicated only women would be able to vote. Obviously discriminating against men, but would only women of child bearing age be allowed to vote? Would women who've had hysterectomies be excluded...how about those who are unable to get pregnant?
As for the presidential election analogy...women in "blue/red" states would then control and determine whether abortion is legal in states regardless of what the majority of female residents of those states say.
You're good with that...right? Have I got that right?
How about 14 years old girls raped /pregnant ..is her voices heard via elections???? I think not!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just one more example of the blatant hypocrisy of those on the "right"...
Citing "states rights" when opposing federal voting rights laws, claiming to abhor direct democracy, but more than willing to make "exceptions" when it suits their aqenda. Classic.
