Supreme Court deals blow to two states' attempts to cut Planned Parenthood funding

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Congress can still pass laws.

They don't need to, it's redundant as the Supreme Court explains, unless of course you are looking to challenge it as I said earlier.

I would rather our government not foray into any more redundancy as we have enough wasteful legislation on the books already. We need a law from Congress to ensure that someone gets their MIranda rights read tot hem? No, we don't, since we have a ruling on that too.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Congress can still pass laws.

They don't need to, it's redundant as the Supreme Court explains, unless of course you are looking to challenge it as I said earlier.

lol
for such an important issue one would think actual legislation would be the best answer
interesting to see opposition to such
wonder why that is?

originally posted by: shooterbrody

for such an important issue one would think actual legislation would be the best answer

You're entitled to your opinion that redundancy is the answer.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

actual legislation would be the best course
as to your "miranda rights" those were legislated long long ago

you prefer endless interpretation to actual legislation?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
actual legislation would be the best course

Actual legislation is not needed as per the Court.

as to your "miranda rights" those were legislated long long ago

Link to the Federal statute?

you prefer endless interpretation to actual legislation?

Laws ('actual legislation') can also be challenged, you know that, right?

What I am seeing is a serious inability to grasp the fundamentals of our system of government and the powers of each individual branch vis a vis the others.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Congress can still pass laws.
That is their primary task.
An actual law on this would end the roe v wade bs.
Is it so hard to pass an actual law?

What would this law actually say?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Link to the Federal statute?

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Laws ('actual legislation') can also be challenged, you know that, right?

yep
that is the judicials primary job

What I am seeing is a serious inability to grasp the fundamentals of our system of government and the powers of each individual branch vis a vis the others.

had congress written a law to protect abortion roe v wade would not be necessary
if it is on solid legal footing why the fear of writing a law?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Congress can still pass laws.
That is their primary task.
An actual law on this would end the roe v wade bs.
Is it so hard to pass an actual law?

What would this law actually say?

it would protect a womans right of choice
is that a bad thing now?

a reply to: shooterbrody


How would it do that? What would it say?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shooterbrody


How would it do that? What would it say?

that would be up to congress as it is actually their job
they were able to pass a civil rights law and laws to protect the disabled why would this be any different?
courts opinions change, rove v wade is a time bomb

originally posted by: Metallicus
Planned Parenthood does some good things for women, however, it’s really hard to ignore the murder aspect of their business model. They should get out of the abortion business and maybe they could improve their reputation as heartless baby killers.

Most of the good things that PP does for women can be done at any doc in a box.

PP needs to be defunded/abolished simply because it, as a whole, uses taxpayer money to donate to political campaigns.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

Amendment IV
…

...is not legislation, it's the Constitution, which is why you don't need additional laws passed. Roe vs. Wade also dealt with the Constitution which is why you don't need any additional legislation passed.

had congress written a law to protect abortion roe v wade would not be necessary
if it is on solid legal footing why the fear of writing a law?

'Fear'? It's not needed. If you don't like abortion I get it, just stop with the semantics about passing laws when I gave you a link on how a Supreme Court ruling actually applies in the real world.

One, I agree that a state shouldn't be able to terminate Medicaid health care for any reason they see fit

a reply to: headorheart

nobody is terminating medicade, abortions are not health care. you can get OBGYN services at a regular healthcare facility, not an aborton farm.

videos surfaced of Planned Parenthood selling fetus tissue, which turned out later to be wildly disproven

lol the only part that was "disproven" was the "for profit" part. thye certainly still sell them. plus they make all their money from killing 300k babies a year on taxpayer money.

reversing Roe v. Wade

this is a states rights issue not reversing RvW. but something tells me your all for states rights when it comes to gun control though.

yeah its 2018 of course you have a right to murder the unborn how is that even a question anymore [/sarcasm]

a reply to: headorheart

1. This is not about abortion.

yes it is

2. Abortions are not federally funded.

medicade is a fedeal program funded by taxpayers, abortions are covered under medicade, taxpayers are funding abortions.... if A=B and B=C than A=C... not that hard

3. Not all abortions are strictly murdering of the innocence.

yes. yes it is. your just calloused from too much indoctrination

a reply to: Metallicus


like what, 300k dead babies (meaning at least 150k would have been women) i dont think thats good for women.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: shooterbrody

Amendment IV
…

...is not legislation, it's the Constitution, which is why you don't need additional laws passed. Roe vs. Wade also dealt with the Constitution which is why you don't need any additional legislation passed.

had congress written a law to protect abortion roe v wade would not be necessary
if it is on solid legal footing why the fear of writing a law?

'Fear'? It's not needed. If you don't like abortion I get it, just stop with the semantics about passing laws when I gave you a link on how a Supreme Court ruling actually applies in the real world.

You know, its a shame the Roe v Wade was based on a lie.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shooterbrody


How would it do that? What would it say?

that would be up to congress as it is actually their job
they were able to pass a civil rights law and laws to protect the disabled why would this be any different?
courts opinions change, rove v wade is a time bomb

That's never going to happen. The Republican National Party platform calls for a constitutional amendment to declare fetal rights from conception. So, not one Republican would support such a law. Good thing we've got the Constitution!

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
You know, its a shame the Roe v Wade was based on a lie.

Work up a legal challenge if you feel the ruling is in error.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: shooterbrody

Amendment IV
…

...is not legislation, it's the Constitution, which is why you don't need additional laws passed. Roe vs. Wade also dealt with the Constitution which is why you don't need any additional legislation passed.

had congress written a law to protect abortion roe v wade would not be necessary
if it is on solid legal footing why the fear of writing a law?

'Fear'? It's not needed. If you don't like abortion I get it, just stop with the semantics about passing laws when I gave you a link on how a Supreme Court ruling actually applies in the real world.

You know, its a shame the Roe v Wade was based on a lie.

What lie would that be?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: shooterbrody

Amendment IV
…

...is not legislation, it's the Constitution, which is why you don't need additional laws passed. Roe vs. Wade also dealt with the Constitution which is why you don't need any additional legislation passed.

had congress written a law to protect abortion roe v wade would not be necessary
if it is on solid legal footing why the fear of writing a law?

'Fear'? It's not needed. If you don't like abortion I get it, just stop with the semantics about passing laws when I gave you a link on how a Supreme Court ruling actually applies in the real world.

You know, its a shame the Roe v Wade was based on a lie.

What lie would that be?