Democrats Lie About Their Abortion Stance After Donald Trump Exposes How Radical They Are.

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

You understand that this is where we are NOW, right?

State legislators aren't being included. They're in charge! The right has been revoked from The People and the liberties the rights bestowed handed over to legislators.

That's not what Ginsburg was hoping for.

How do legislators gain their power?

Ideally, not by ripping constitutional rights from The People.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Yet that ghoul that is in prison for doing so many late term partial birth abortions. They did a movie. Can't remember his name, right off. Im old.

Anyway, he called them 'pic-a-ninnies'. He was black, but seemed to enjoy murdering fully developed, viable black babies.

He didn't go to jail for sticking scissors in babies brains when their heads delivered. He went to jail for not treating the mothers properly and some died.

Gruesome stuff went on in his clinic for decades. Rare enough? Nope

oh, yeah, Dr. Gosnell

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: carewemust
BTW this actually just happened and was on the news, a mom refused to get cancer treatment while pregnant,

Wait - you said this just happened, referring to someone telling her to suck it up, then you say she refused treatment...

So, was she forced to carry the baby, or did she made a decision? Maybe she just decided she wanted her baby to live more than herself?

Personally, I woudl gladly give my life to save one of my kids. You seem to think that is a bad thing?

and now she is terminal

So, you are 100% sure that had she elected to kill her baby so she could engage in highly toxic cancer treatments that may or very well may not even extend her life, let alone cure her?

and her husband will have to raise the baby and other kids without her.

PS. Late term abortions account for about 1% of total abortions, yet this is brought up as the main issue over and over like people are ordering it on the regular.

So why do pro-abortion activists insist on including the ability to engage in late term abortions as part of their platform?

If we really want an honest discussion about abortion, we need to talk about the PRE 21 weeks. Sounds like Donald Trump is on that bandwagon and Pence too…

The vast majority of people are ok with very early termination, although there is plenty of room for debate on when exactly that line should be, and I think 21 weeks is way way way too far into the pregnancy. Personally, I don't believe it should be allowed unless the baby is non viable, or there is an extreme risk of death to the mother - but even then it should be up to the mother.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: NorthOfStuffx2

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Move away from the contentions you yourself posted.

Nice try. I'm not moving away from anything. It's just really hardfor you to admit that your beloved SCOTUS revoked a constitutional right from The People that The Peopleenjoyed for 50 years. They didn't just take it from women, they took it from the men too, they took it from families too.

“Shall not be infringed” like other stuff?

I'm sure those several women, who almost lost their lives, because the Texas law insists that a woman's must be dying before an abortion can be performed, think they had 2nd Amendment rights that are not supposed to be infringed, too. But you've got a bunch of legislators that can't decide when the woman's life becomes more important than the fetus' life, and doctors are afraid to pull the trigger.

Maybe the root of this is the flippant abuse of abortion.
Very very few people have a problem with its use when lives are at stake.

Now doctors are afraid to “pull the trigger” because those that really need one are caught up in the mix with all of the recreational abortions.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I don't know the deets of Jag's example, but I'm sure this article will answer your questions on the subject.

How Strict Abortion Laws are Delaying Cancer Treatment

a reply to: NorthOfStuffx2

Maybe the root of this is the flippant abuse of abortion.

When SCOTUS overruled Roe, abortions stats were the lowest they've been sine 1973. Less women were getting abortions and majority of the abortions that were being done were done within 10 weeks. Partial birth abortions have been illegal in the USA since 2003.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

Very very few people have a problem with its use when lives are at stake.

Oh! Now you care about majority thought, when it comes to a woman's 2nd Amendment rights to access lethal force to protect her own life?
/s

a reply to: Sookiechacha

All I’m saying is abuse guns and the result will be stricter gun laws.

Abuse abortions and there will be stricter abortion laws.

You can’t see that’s the reason people in life threatening situations are having a hard time getting one?

The abuse turns people against them just like guns.

a reply to: NorthOfStuffx2

And, all I'm saying is that your line of thought is a fallacy.

Gun laws aren't getting stricter, as school shooting and students deaths soar. SCOTUS just recently ruled that application for carry permits are unconstitutional.

Abortion statistics were lower than ever. But banning abortion was a 3 decade long Christian evangelical plan in motion. Our trumpy SCOTUS finally got enough clout that they don't have to care about majority thought on abortion anymore, and now they can freely do their puppet masters bidding, regardless of The People majority opinions on the subject.

I forgot my popcorn today, and I'm not going to lie, I'm kind of sad.

I love these threads; both extremes coming out to play with each other, and everything in the middle. Almost everyone turns hypocritical and crazy and can't see why, and everything escalates. I love it.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No, just... no. The rule of "MAY ISSUE" was unconstitutional; they still have applications, fees, and other requirements. We've had additional "laws" passed - by that, I mean statements by the illegal ATF - that has banned certain items and made things more difficult, as well as individual states passing more and more infringing laws.

The overturning of Roe wasn't some evangelical bible thumping master minded conspiracy either. It was a result of one incredibly stupid person challenging a state law on abortion that was already super lenient to begin with, that anyone with a brain and half an understanding of law knew immediately wouldn't be overturned in the knucklehead person's favor, that lead to a reexamination of Roe...... Where it was decided that it wasn't a federal issue. Roe was decided on a basis of privacy, not the act of abortion in and of itself. It was handed back down to the states, where it should've been all along.

Roe was LITERALLY overturned thanks to abortion activists.

a reply to: dothedew

No, just... no.

SCOTUS on Thurs. ruled 6-3 that a 111-year-old restriction on carrying a concealed firearm in NY is unconstitutional. [ 1] The law in question required applicants to show "proper cause" for seeking a license, like hunting and sport shooting, or necessary protection in the citizen's line of work

www.improvethenews.org...

Roe was LITERALLY overturned thanks to abortion activists.

Roe was LITERALLY overturned thanks to anti-abortion activists, that have been in it for the long haul, chipping away at Roe since 1973.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Wrong. They gave it back to the states, where majority opinion can be even more directly applied, and if someone doesn't like it, they can move to another state.

Why can't you tell the truth about what the 'trumpy court' did?

eta: majority thought doesn't have a damn thing to do with how the court rules and shouldn't

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The abuse of abortion brought this on. Mass abortions.

The abuse of firearms brought more gun laws. Mass shootings.

This negatively impacts those who legitimately need an abortion for protection of a life and those who legitimately own a gun for protection of life.

If you don’t see that then I guess you don’t.

Blame it on the Christians if you must but I think the blame lands closer to home.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: dothedew

No, just... no.

SCOTUS on Thurs. ruled 6-3 that a 111-year-old restriction on carrying a concealed firearm in NY is unconstitutional. [ 1] The law in question required applicants to show "proper cause" for seeking a license, like hunting and sport shooting, or necessary protection in the citizen's line of work

www.improvethenews.org...

Roe was LITERALLY overturned thanks to abortion activists.

Roe was LITERALLY overturned thanks to anti-abortion activists, that have been in it for the long haul, chipping away at Roe since 1973.

A law of the State, which upon examination of the country as a whole (which the Supreme Court tends to do when analyzing historical laws and trends) was overturned, yes - as the law required a demonstration of a "special and unique reason to carry a firearm". Regular people weren't allowed. Their self defense and defense of others didn't matter in the eyes of NY, Cali, IL, etc. (states with high murder rates and gun violence... weird, right?) You had to be "special" for the last century.

Applications are still required. Licenses are still required. Training is still required. The only thing that is NO LONGER required, is the plea to the state of how much better you are than other people.

How did Anti-abortion activists chip away and overturn R v W? I'm assuming like most people, the original case is lost and you've only focused on the SC ruling? The state put a 15 week limit on abortion, exceptions for certain scenarios provided. That wasn't good enough for the activists down there.

Why? Who knows. Most people find out they're pregnant in 6-8 weeks; that leaves over a month and a half to figure out what you're going to do. That wasn't good enough, so they had to file suit and appeal using the most broad, ambiguous language they could use. The Court then interpreted the state laws with the constitution and past rulings. R v W was about privacy. Dobbs was about abortion in and of itself. One had constitutional protection, the other did not.

That's why were are here now.

a reply to: NorthOfStuffx2

The abuse of abortion brought this on.

Another fallacy.

Obviously, one abortion on demand is too many. /s

a reply to: dothedew

The overturning of Roe wasn't some evangelical bible thumping master minded conspiracy either. It was a result of one incredibly stupid person challenging a state law on abortion that was already super lenient to begin with, that anyone with a brain and half an understanding of law knew immediately wouldn't be overturned in the knucklehead person's favor, that lead to a reexamination of Roe......

You mean Dobbs v. Jackson's Women's Health?

Wasn't that in Mississippi over the 2018 Gestational Age act?

Federal courts had enjoined the state from enforcing the law after the state's only abortion clinic, Jackson Women's Health Organization, filed suit immediately after passage; the federal courts stated that the law violated the previously established 24-week point of viability. Mississippi asked the Supreme Court to hear the case on June 15, 2020, and the Court certified the petition on May 17, 2021, limited to the question, "Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.

It was Mississippi's LONE abortion clinic that started the process. The knucklehead was the clinic. They filed a suit when the state's law (15 weeks) undercut the federal one of (24 weeks). Many would do the same.

Mississippi ultimately petitioned the Supreme Court, which led to cause for review of Roe and Casey.

And by 2021 Texas had already given everyone the blueprint for sidestepping it anyway.

In the Texas Heartbeat Act, the legislature created a novel enforcement mechanism that bars state officials from enforcing the statute and authorizes private individuals to sue anyone who performs or assists an illegal abortion.[317][318] Because the Act is enforced by private citizens rather than government officials, there are no state officials that abortion providers can sue to stop the enforcement of the law, and they cannot obtain judicial relief that will stop private lawsuits from being initiated against them.[319] This has produced an end-run around Roe because the threat of private civil-enforcement lawsuits has forced abortion providers to comply with the Act despite its incompatibility with the Supreme Court's abortion pronouncements.

The writing was on the wall, it was determined to go back to the states.

It been getting chipped away at for years. Like a chess game with pieces getting moved into position to finally have the Court advantage to kick it to the states. The plan all along. Which is all well and good for things like cannabis and gun laws, but...

I don't think it's gonna last at the state level with this one. This is seen as a protected class/civil liberties issue. Sex = reproductive right as well. And it's nowhere near over getting fleshed out in that regard.

Phase two is state v. state. Extradition battles. Statehood battles. The states will NEVER GET ALONG. That moves an important piece into position.

That will eventually force the Supreme Court to rule over which states rights are more valid. VERY Likely ruling that a state has the right to prosecute its own citizens for leaving the state in defiance of law.

That will effectively operate as a federal prohibition. Maybe not directly, but Texas rewrote the game on sidestepping the federal ruling, now the game can be used to go the other way.

States doing just that and seeking to ban its own citizens from leaving the state, confirm as much.

But 64% of American believe it should be legal in all or most cases. So it will be an interesting phase two.

a reply to: dothedew

abortion is the tool of eugenics and was conceived alongside the wider welfare state to keep the poor poor and poor and in using poverty to keep them from having more children.. only the rich, that is those with good genetics would have more children thus out breeding those with poor genetics and in time eradicating those with poor genetics without having to resort to mass extermination..

the first instincts of these people is mass extermination of those with the wrong genetics this includes the disabled, the poor as being poor/sick is a genetic issue.. if you look at those captured by the tyrans issues its the different, the proto homosexuals the transexuals, the autistic, the abused and those with other mental health issues.. its the classic group eugenicists want removed from the gene pool.

there are 2 names for wat is going on the civil genocide (one that no one notices) and the use of Beveridge's social promotion of the infertile..

for Beveridge and keynes the uk should have hit the perfect 30 million mark by the 1960s and the poor remained a consistent serf class serving the rich ever after.. but the world is never the eugenists dream, the abortions and the snip have not given the eugenicists their dream serf class..

so we now move back to more radical means of expanding both abortions and sterilisation programs alongside ramping up the eugenicists creating the perfect child and after that the perfect serf class as they will.. its all in their genetics to be/think like this..

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

I don't know the deets of Jag's example, but I'm sure this article will answer your questions on the subject.

How Strict Abortion Laws are Delaying Cancer Treatment

No questions, they can always go to another State and get the abortion if they value their own life over that of their unborn child.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

They gave it back to the states, where majority opinion can be even more directly applied, and if someone doesn't like it, they can move to another state.

You don't get it. Constitutional rights are not up for public opinion or vote, nor for state legislators to vote on. Constitutional rights are supreme.

Why can't you tell the truth about what the 'trumpy court' did?

What truth would that be? That the Senate denied Obama his court appointment, based on how close it was to an election and then ignored that inconvenient fact when another SCOTUS appointment was made 10 days before an election?

That Trump promised to appoint bias SCOTUS justices that would overturn Roe V Wade?

a reply to: tanstaafl

they can always go to another State

That's not the way 2nd Amendment rights work.