Minneapolis.... Seattle.... Austin.... 14,000 arrests in 49 cities. "unrest that took place from May 26 to June 8" 2020 in 140 U.S. cities in 20 states was "the costliest civil unrest in U.S. history".Jan 6
So, if you found out today, that you were the product of rape and the only reason you are alive is that abortion was illegal, what would you do? I mean, according to you, you should have been aborted.Speaking of butthurt...Bet if you were a woman getting raped and forced to have the baby you'd feel a lot differently.
But the Christian Taliban loves rape and incest babies so you don't care. Sick.
But the most concerning thing in any of this is Justice Thomas' concurrence. He says clearly in his separate opinion that the Court should overrule cases that give us all the right to contraception, gay marriage and sex with someone of the same sex. If you are OK with the Supreme Court saying that we don't have those rights, celebrate, because Justice Thomas actually said clearly that those rights should not exist as constitutional rights. He curiously left out Loving v. Virginia which guarantees the right to interracial marriage.
These people have evidently never even considered what responsibility entails. Is this a serious question?Does he have to pay 1/2 of the expenses relating to the pregnancy and birth?
I would not. But, I would support legislation that helped pregnant victims of rape with therapy and compensation. Delivery the baby and receive $150k. Keep the baby and receive $50k more.so would you agree to an amendment to the Kentucky anti-abortion statute that exempted victims of rape?
Attorney General on the US needs to step in with a warning about threats and violence not being tolerated. Oh never mind.
He already did. Don't you remember how he seek the FBI on parents that attended school board meetings. He's a law & order AG.Attorney General on the US needs to step in with a warning about threats and violence not being tolerated. Oh never mind.
You may want to go into more detail on what this means. They have no understanding.Second: Thomas is being intellectually honest.
Ummmm Hillary with the help of Obama did exactly what you just said. They spied on a sitting President. SPIED ON HIM!! Used our Nations law enforcement agencies AGAINST HIM!! Far worse than whatever you think some angry UNARMED mob of people were going to do to try and unseat a President. Take your blinders off.I voted against Trump for the policies and un Presidential behavior.
I am ate the fork up because of Jan 6th. If Obama had lied about election results, unleashed a mob on Congress, and tried to illegally overturn a free and fair election I would be ate up with him just as much as Trump.
Like I've said before...I'm ok with differences in policy. Those differences are settled by elections. Trump didn't believe in that and is dangerous as hell to our democracy.
Many of us are ate up because we can't believe that fellow Americans still believe his BS lies.
Waiting for lefties on here to condemn her tweet ... popping popcorn now...
Hardest lib meltdown yet but hey, she’s still active on Twitter. No rules for them again
Prescient
Excellent response.Try being alive and have someone kill you because of who your daddy is.
If the courts were being intellectually honest and actually following the Constitution then this decision would not have come down as it did. The 14th Amendment clearly defines that as person who is born in the United States is a citizen. It also declares a right to privacy for US Citizens. The constitution does not mention a fetus anywhere. It also does not provide any rights or protections to a fetus. These are only extended to citizens.First, Thomas did not write the majority opinion. Gorsuch wrote the gay marriage decision and Gorsuch is with the majority on this case. You think Gorsuch is about to overturn a decision he recently wrote? The majority makes it clear, which you read, that this case is unique and does not impact those cases.
Second, Thomas is being intellectually honest. He questions the substantive due process approach to finding constitutional rights. He may not have included Loving, because it was also decided on the Equal Protection clause. Scholars who have read Alito’s opinion have asked the same questions. It’s a good question. Justices being candid with legal interpretation is not concerning. It’s a positive.
And, the Court not say it was changing its mind, it admitted it got it wrong and that the prior Justices were engaging in judicial activism. Which, is unconstitutional. Law creating is the job of the legislative branch.
The Court held that there is no right to an abortion found in the constitution. Most honest scholars, both liberal and conservative, admitted this well before Dobbs. One prominent liberal pro-abortion scholar admitted it in 1973 after Roe was decided. You know that, because it’s in the opinion.
I can hear Rush saying .....SOO-I-CIIIIDE!So, if you found out today, that you were the product of rape and the only reason you are alive is that abortion was illegal, what would you do? I mean, according to you, you should have been aborted.
Totally not racist, party.
Wrong on just about every point and I don’t definitively say every point, because I had to stop reading it was so ridiculous.If the courts were being intellectually honest and actually following the Constitution then this decision would not have come down as it did. The 14th Amendment clearly defines that as person who is born in the United States is a citizen. It also declares a right to privacy for US Citizens. The constitution does not mention a fetus anywhere. It also does not provide any rights or protections to a fetus. These are only extended to citizens.
If they were actually sticking to the strict interpretation of the law, then what a woman does in private is of no concern to the federal government and that right to privacy is protected. So, if she were to seek assistance from a physician for any medical matter that is an established private right.
Since the constitution does not identify a fetus, and only provides rights to those who were born in the United States, then there is no possible way that the constitution could provide protections for it or even recognize it. States could certainly pass laws, but just like with abortion, a fetus is not mentioned in the constitution and there is no reason that the supreme court would uphold a state law that limits a citizen's constitutional right to privacy because of something that is not explicitly stated in the constitution.
In his decision Alito specifically wrote:
“The contending sides in this case make impassioned and conflicting arguments about the effects of the abortion right on the lives of women. ... The contending sides also make conflicting arguments about the status of the fetus. This Court has neither the authority nor the expertise to adjudicate those disputes.”
If that were truly the case then he would deferred back to the defined rights established by the 14th amendment, an abortion and a fetus are not mentioned in the constitution, said this was an issue of privacy and moved on. They didn't. At this point they became activists on a side of ethics and morality which they argued was the problem with the original decision.
The state paying a raped mother to birth the child with an additional bonus to raise the rapist’s child. The Handmaid’s Tale wasn’t a fictional piece in the the conservative world. That’s an evil and twisted line of thought.I would not. But, I would support legislation that helped pregnant victims of rape with therapy and compensation. Delivery the baby and receive $150k. Keep the baby and receive $50k more.
Par for the course.Wrong on just about every point and I don’t definitively say every point, because I had to stop reading it was so ridiculous.
First, Thomas did not write the majority opinion. Gorsuch wrote the gay marriage decision and Gorsuch is with the majority on this case. You think Gorsuch is about to overturn a decision he recently wrote? The majority makes it clear, which you read, that this case is unique and does not impact those cases.
Birthright citizenshipIf the courts were being intellectually honest and actually following the Constitution then this decision would not have come down as it did. The 14th Amendment clearly defines that as person who is born in the United States is a citizen. It also declares a right to privacy for US Citizens. The constitution does not mention a fetus anywhere. It also does not provide any rights or protections to a fetus. These are only extended to citizens.
If they were actually sticking to the strict interpretation of the law, then what a woman does in private is of no concern to the federal government and that right to privacy is protected. So, if she were to seek assistance from a physician for any medical matter that is an established private right.
Since the constitution does not identify a fetus, and only provides rights to those who were born in the United States, then there is no possible way that the constitution could provide protections for it or even recognize it. States could certainly pass laws, but just like with abortion, a fetus is not mentioned in the constitution and there is no reason that the supreme court would uphold a state law that limits a citizen's constitutional right to privacy because of something that is not explicitly stated in the constitution.
In his decision Alito specifically wrote:
“The contending sides in this case make impassioned and conflicting arguments about the effects of the abortion right on the lives of women. ... The contending sides also make conflicting arguments about the status of the fetus. This Court has neither the authority nor the expertise to adjudicate those disputes.”
If that were truly the case then he would deferred back to the defined rights established by the 14th amendment, an abortion and a fetus are not mentioned in the constitution, said this was an issue of privacy and moved on. They didn't. At this point they became activists on a side of ethics and morality which they argued was the problem with the original decision.
Another overlooked point: why do childless liberal women have any say in this discussion? They dont know a damn thing about parenting, etcShe, of course, is childless. She’s too hysterical and selfish to be a mother.
Damn Swag, I feel for you on that brother 🍺I have a female relative who is so far left. One of the most selfish and hysterical people. Loves to virtue signal like crazy. Ran to social media to boast about me getting covid (and somehow I survived) and how it’s proof that the jab works 😂. Wears masks until told no. Takes selfies of after being jabbed. Posts about how trans people know who they are better than any of us ever will. Supported BLM and their destruction to get people to listen. Was devastated over RGB. Etc.
She, of course, is childless. She’s too hysterical and selfish to be a mother. But of course, yesterday was just so devastating to her.
The state paying a raped mother to birth the child with an additional bonus to raise the rapist’s child. The Handmaid’s Tale wasn’t a fictional piece in the the conservative world. That’s an evil and twisted line of thought.
The rape thing is the law in Ky. I have daughters and granddaughters. This law is sick as fu**.
I wouldn't be nearly as pissed if there were reasonable exceptions to these laws.
Geez! If I had to live with her, I'd want one of those bullets to shoot myself!
Yep. That’s why I don’t give a single eff about her opinion on anything regarding kids. She gets stressed out at the presence of them. She struggles with even handling pets.Another overlooked point: why do childless liberal women have any say in this discussion? They dont know a damn thing about parenting, etc
What’s twisted is, the strange fascination you and Sammy have wit rape. Get some help.The state paying a raped mother to birth the child with an additional bonus to raise the rapist’s child. The Handmaid’s Tale wasn’t a fictional piece in the the conservative world. That’s an evil and twisted line of thought.
She hasn’t even seen her uterus since 2001. Maybe it does shoot bullets.