Biden calls abortion decision a ‘sad day,’ urges to elect pro-abortion rights officials

See how quicky your pretend love and acceptance turns to ridicule? Hypocrite.

You don't even value the life of a beautiful, precious baby, what should I expect...

I don't bash the Bible, I just read it. It's replete with examples of people like you, and it never ends well for you. I hope you forgive me for being so upfront, but your position is evil, and must be challenged.
a reply to: alldaylong

He says "It's NOT over" !!!! 🤣

a reply to: vNex92

Since Demo0crats cant seem to figure out what happened (along with people in this thread). The issue of Abortion was given back to the states. States like CA and NY will still allow abortions and states like Alabama have block abortions entirely.

Everyone up to speed now?

a reply to: xuenchen

Kamala had a conference call with state Attorney's General t`yesterday to strategize. Biden thinks he can issue an EO to circumvent the SCOTUS ruling - he can't.

The hot potato of abortion is back where it belongs - the states.

a reply to: Xcathdra

And in so doing, a constitutional right that women had yesterday was stripped away today.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Xcathdra

And in so doing, a constitutional right that women had yesterday was stripped away today.

You would be incorrect. If you read the ruling (like 200 pages) justices had asked several times by the people defending Roe vs. Wade to show them where in the constitution it was a right. Not one group could defend RvW using the Constitution, they could not explain how it was a right protected by the constitution. What amendment / section of the Constitution?

Also striking down RvW did not outlaw it. It returned it to the states were it belongs courtesy of the 10th amendment.

try again...

a reply to: Xcathdra

Also striking down RvW did not outlaw it. It returned it to the states were it belongs courtesy of the 10th amendment.

Which sets us back 50 years. And you, like Alito, are ignoring the 9th Amendment.

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The people have retained the right to abortion for 50 years. In 1973 SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution protects a woman's right to bodily autonomy and then in 1992 if reaffirmed "precedence on precedence" a woman's right to choose and reaffirmed it time and time again every time states tried to push back the viability line.

Yesterday, SCOTUS stripped The People of that Right.

It's absolutely insulting to insist that this court couldn't figure out how the Constitution protects a woman's right to bodily autonomy and choice.

Of course the right to reproductive rights are rooted in "privacy" and Roe V Wade followed the same rationale and reasoning that SCOTUS used when they ruled that married woman had the right to contraception, when they ruled that unmarried women have the right to contraception, when they ruled that laws banning inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional, and when they ruled that laws banning homosexual acts done in private were unconstitutional and when they ruled that laws banning same sex marriage were unconstitutional.

So, go away with that gaslighting lie that this court couldn't figure out how the 1973 court reasoned the Constitution protected a woman's right to access safe and legal abortion.

Personal bodily autonomy, complete personhood, is an inalienable right the Declaration of Independence says are "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The Bill of Rights and the US Constitution provides protection for this inalienable right in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 13th and 14th Amendments.

The Declaration of Independence doesn't assert, as Alito does, that our rights are derived from deeply rooted historical practices of acknowledging and protecting these rights, it asserts that these rights are endowed by nature's God.

Alito's weak and convoluted reasoning will be very easy to overturn with the next progressive Court.

a reply to: vNex92

oe Biden urging or meddling in affairs of other states for their decision based on principle.

Bidden is saying that "If you don't like the choices that your leaders are making, go vote in someone else", which is quite literally the foundations on which representative democracy are built.

If you're going to rag on Brandon for something, then at least pick something that isn't a fundamental value of the nation.

a reply to: Xcathdra

justices had asked several times by the people defending Roe vs. Wade to show them where in the constitution it was a right.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, and you're free to argue this either way, but the Bill of Rights specifically stated that just because something wasn't mentioned by name didn't mean that it wasn't covered.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: TheGreazel

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: TheGreazel

US women should feel fortunate that they have the most rights compared to women in other countries.

True , But i dont think dudes should decide what woman do with their bodies , that is my opinion as a man.

Today's society has forgotten how incredibly tedious and in many cases suicidal it was for women to dream of and fight for the professional competency they now regularly exhibit, even before they were permitted to engage in actual policy making and governing. It continues to be an uphill battle festering with toxic male virtue.

i wonder if lia thomas can get pregnant?

men have it all now!

how can they be treated equally?

barely anyone knows what one is.

couldn't they be classified as an endangered species?

originally posted by: TheGreazel

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: TheGreazel

US women should feel fortunate that they have the most rights compared to women in other countries.

True , But i dont think dudes should decide what woman do with their bodies , that is my opinion as a man.

Political leadership is open to both sexes equally, in every state in the Republic. It’s not “Men” making decisions for women.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: vNex92

The issue of Abortion was given back to the states. States like CA and NY will still allow abortions and states like Alabama have block abortions entirely.

Maybe this is the way to go with guns?

Let CA disarm its citizens, let Texans mount a minigun on the back of their truck. Just let it be done at a state level.

a reply to: Sookiechacha



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 reply to: AaarghZombies

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 reply to: Sookiechacha

Actually it resets 50 years of Hunic barbarism 😎🚬

a reply to: AaarghZombies

When the US Constitution was adopted, it never applied to the states or its citizens. The Founding fathers wanted a strong Federal government with very specific powers. They set it up for the states to govern itself wall to wall. The US Constitution only applied to people living in DC and employees of the Federal government.

In 1833 there was a case, Barron vs. City of Baltimore. The city made changes to the waterways and by doing this they destroyed some businesses. Barron filed a suit claiming the City of Baltimore violated his federal constitutional rights. When the case made it to the Supreme Court, they ruled again Barron, reaffirming that the federal constitution did not apply to citizens of the states.

In 1868 the 14th amendment was adopted. It was designed to only apply to the states that ceded from the Union. It went to the US Supreme court, where they ran into a problem. Since all states are equal, you cannot have an amendment that only applies to some states. Scotus ruled that the 14th amendment applies to all states, thereby applying the US Constitution to the states and their citizens.

Until 1868, the states ran their own affairs, including weapons. Some states outlawed guns entirely, other states allowed their citizens to purchase and own a gun with little or no restrictions. So we had almost a 100 years of different laws in different states. In 1868 that changed. Its one of the reasons scotus is still dealing with the gun issue. How do you find a balance between states rights and the Constitution, especially given the amount of time that passed before the Federal Constitution was applied to the states.


* - Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)

Primary Holding -
The Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government rather than state or local governments, since there is no textual evidence to support a different view.

Roe vs Wade is handled at the state level because there is no Constitutional argument regarding abortion.
Guns, because of the 2nd amendment, can not be solely a state issue.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Sookiechacha



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.

The 10th Amendment doesn't overrule the 9th.

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The People did retain the right to reproductive choices.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Roe vs Wade is handled at the state level because there is no Constitutional argument regarding abortion.

Of course that's erroneous.

Roe held that the abortion right is part of a right to privacy that springs from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

www.supremecourt.gov...

In May 1967, then-Governor Reagan signed into law the “Therapeutic Abortion Bill,” which allowed abortions to protect the woman’s “physical or mental health.” He did so saying he agreed with “the moral principle of self-defense,” i.e., that if 100,000 California women were “desperate enough” to undergo illegal abortions every year, he could at least make it safer

abortion.info...

a reply to: AaarghZombies

It's the 9th Amendment -

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Scotus has used the 9th amendment in certain areas.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

The law was struck down by Scotus as it infringed on the right to marital privacy. While marital privacy is not referenced in the Constitution specifically, it is protected by the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th amendment amendment - freedom of association etc.

Justice Douglas, writing for the Court, asserted that the “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.”

How did they arrive at that conclusion -

Thus, although privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, it is one of the values served and protected by the First Amendment through its protection of associational rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well. The Justice recurred to the text of the Ninth Amendment, apparently to support the thought that these penumbral rights are protected by one Amendment or a complex of Amendments despite the absence of a specific reference. Justice Goldberg, concurring, devoted several pages to the Amendment.

The constitution cannot be used to justify a power grab by a government - state or federal. Enumerated rights needs to have a constitutional backing.

Roe vs Wade - abortion is not mentioned in the constitution and no one could give a plausible / legal backing by any of the amendments to justify abortion.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

and the 9th amendment was not designed to allow a power grab by the government - state or federal. The 9th amendment only works on a topic that is not specifically stated in the constitution, but it must be backed by one of the amendments.


just look at the post above this or click link to read it