casinterest wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Thank you for pointing out your lack of understanding of the Separation of Church and State.

Point out where I'm wrong. Appreciate it!

You already deleted your embarrassing comment in this post. So that pretty much cinches it.

Hahah. It was "moderated."

I guess because it was false or unprovable.

The GOP tanked a personal rights bill today in order to push religion over personal rights to abortion.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/11/politics ... index.html

"Once again -- as fundamental rights are at risk at the Supreme Court -- Senate Republicans have blocked passage of the Women's Health Protection Act, a bill that affirmatively protects access to reproductive health care," Biden said in a statement. "This failure to act comes at a time when women's constitutional rights are under unprecedented attack -- and it runs counter to the will of the majority of American people."

The battle for 2022 lines have been drawn.

The GOP is going to run on feelings instead of science, and the intrusion on personal rights of women.

casinterest wrote:

The GOP tanked a personal rights bill today in order to push religion over personal rights to abortion.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/11/politics ... index.html

"Once again -- as fundamental rights are at risk at the Supreme Court -- Senate Republicans have blocked passage of the Women's Health Protection Act, a bill that affirmatively protects access to reproductive health care," Biden said in a statement. "This failure to act comes at a time when women's constitutional rights are under unprecedented attack -- and it runs counter to the will of the majority of American people."

The battle for 2022 lines have been drawn.

The GOP is going to run on feelings instead of science, and the intrusion on personal rights of women.

Starting to think the Democrats don't actually want to pass anything. It's going to be really funny when the GOP next has the Senate and kills the filibuster on like day 0.5

Newark727 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The GOP tanked a personal rights bill today in order to push religion over personal rights to abortion.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/11/politics ... index.html

"Once again -- as fundamental rights are at risk at the Supreme Court -- Senate Republicans have blocked passage of the Women's Health Protection Act, a bill that affirmatively protects access to reproductive health care," Biden said in a statement. "This failure to act comes at a time when women's constitutional rights are under unprecedented attack -- and it runs counter to the will of the majority of American people."

The battle for 2022 lines have been drawn.

The GOP is going to run on feelings instead of science, and the intrusion on personal rights of women.

Starting to think the Democrats don't actually want to pass anything. It's going to be really funny when the GOP next has the Senate and kills the filibuster on like day 0.5

Like I mentioned up in this thread. Democrats need this as an electoral issue, it has been for decades, they won't just let is go that easy.

Even if there was no filibuster, 51 voted against, including yes one Democrat, Manchin.

They aren't serious into passing this or any other significant piece of legislation. How about immigration?

They need a reason for people to vote for them, they won't ever try to really solve anything.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The GOP tanked a personal rights bill today in order to push religion over personal rights to abortion.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/11/politics ... index.html




The battle for 2022 lines have been drawn.

The GOP is going to run on feelings instead of science, and the intrusion on personal rights of women.

Starting to think the Democrats don't actually want to pass anything. It's going to be really funny when the GOP next has the Senate and kills the filibuster on like day 0.5

Like I mentioned up in this thread. Democrats need this as an electoral issue, it has been for decades, they won't just let is go that easy.

Even if there was no filibuster, 51 voted against, including yes one Democrat, Manchin.

They aren't serious into passing this or any other significant piece of legislation. How about immigration?

They need a reason for people to vote for them, they won't ever try to really solve anything.

They tried to pass a bill to respect women's personal rights, but that was a step to far for the misogynists within the GOP and he so called Dem that represents one of the most poverty stricken GOP strongholds in the US.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The GOP tanked a personal rights bill today in order to push religion over personal rights to abortion.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/11/politics ... index.html




The battle for 2022 lines have been drawn.

The GOP is going to run on feelings instead of science, and the intrusion on personal rights of women.

Starting to think the Democrats don't actually want to pass anything. It's going to be really funny when the GOP next has the Senate and kills the filibuster on like day 0.5

Like I mentioned up in this thread. Democrats need this as an electoral issue, it has been for decades, they won't just let is go that easy.

Even if there was no filibuster, 51 voted against, including yes one Democrat, Manchin.

They aren't serious into passing this or any other significant piece of legislation. How about immigration?

They need a reason for people to vote for them, they won't ever try to really solve anything.

Immigration, riiiiiight Neither party has seriously moved the needle on that since 1986, and anyone clued in knows why. The status quo is best for everyone.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Starting to think the Democrats don't actually want to pass anything. It's going to be really funny when the GOP next has the Senate and kills the filibuster on like day 0.5

Like I mentioned up in this thread. Democrats need this as an electoral issue, it has been for decades, they won't just let is go that easy.

Even if there was no filibuster, 51 voted against, including yes one Democrat, Manchin.

They aren't serious into passing this or any other significant piece of legislation. How about immigration?

They need a reason for people to vote for them, they won't ever try to really solve anything.

Immigration, riiiiiight Neither party has seriously moved the needle on that since 1986, and anyone clued in knows why. The status quo is best for everyone.

I thought we still cared about the DREAMERS. Since 2001 Democrats have been campaigning on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act

It will be an 'issue' I am sure after 2024.

I am pretty sure they can muster 10 moderate GOP Senators to go on with this before they lose power?

But again, as with abortion, they don't want to actually solution anything. Its all politics. If they do, then they got nothing to run on.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Like I mentioned up in this thread. Democrats need this as an electoral issue, it has been for decades, they won't just let is go that easy.

Even if there was no filibuster, 51 voted against, including yes one Democrat, Manchin.

They aren't serious into passing this or any other significant piece of legislation. How about immigration?

They need a reason for people to vote for them, they won't ever try to really solve anything.

Immigration, riiiiiight Neither party has seriously moved the needle on that since 1986, and anyone clued in knows why. The status quo is best for everyone.

I thought we still cared about the DREAMERS. Since 2001 Democrats have been campaigning on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act

It will be an 'issue' I am sure after 2024.

I am pretty sure they can muster 10 moderate GOP Senators to go on with this before they lose power?

But again, as with abortion, they don't want to actually solution anything. Its all politics. If they do, then they got nothing to run on.

Perhaps you meant ‘solve anything’?

Abortion is different because it need not be a political issue. Religious groups made it so with their reaction to it in the 70s and beyond. No ‘solution’ is required because the 9th and 14th amendments already exist, and Roe clearly establishes that reasonable state regulation is appropriate.

Remember that these organizations campaign against late-term and whatever other situations exist in states they don’t even live in.

Murdering babies is a great way to alleviate the baby food shortage though.

Bricktop wrote:

Murdering babies is a great way to alleviate the baby food shortage though.

Yeah no, let's get serious about how life is gray, not black/white:

I'm not pro-murdering babies...

I'm pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her....

I'm pro-Christina who doesn't want to be a mother, but birth control methods sometimes fail....

I'm pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child....

I'm pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat....

I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager....

You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:
I'm pro-life.
Their lives.
Women's lives.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sarahjto ... 47904-gFLH?

Bricktop wrote:

Murdering babies is a great way to alleviate the baby food shortage though.

You’re actually correct that killing a baby will alleviate the formula issue. Aborting a fetus is completely different.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Like I mentioned up in this thread. Democrats need this as an electoral issue, it has been for decades, they won't just let is go that easy.

Even if there was no filibuster, 51 voted against, including yes one Democrat, Manchin.

They aren't serious into passing this or any other significant piece of legislation. How about immigration?

They need a reason for people to vote for them, they won't ever try to really solve anything.

Immigration, riiiiiight Neither party has seriously moved the needle on that since 1986, and anyone clued in knows why. The status quo is best for everyone.

I thought we still cared about the DREAMERS. Since 2001 Democrats have been campaigning on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act

It will be an 'issue' I am sure after 2024.

I am pretty sure they can muster 10 moderate GOP Senators to go on with this before they lose power?

But again, as with abortion, they don't want to actually solution anything. Its all politics. If they do, then they got nothing to run on.

The solution was decided in 1971: let women decide. It is settled law, as Kavanaugh pointed out under oath.

One of the related issues the potential decision in controversy here has been the protesting in public areas in and around certain Justices' DC area residences and adjacent to the SCOTUS courthouse. There is existing Federal law, one created in 1950 to severely limit such protests then by 'communists' during trials of their 'comrades', this was during the 'red scare' days. Some states have similar laws and have been upheld by the SCOTUS for example to (ironically) protect doctors who perform abortions. Generally such laws can currently limit protests to public sidewalks, a well accepted 1st Amendment but sometimes there has to be exceptions. This link gets into the deeper meaning of such laws https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/t ... ces-homes/
I don't like the idea or protests around the homes of Federal Judges or anyone at their residence as politically counterproductive to their cause..Protests in front of the SCOTUS courthouse and other Federal courthouses has been limited, even on the public sidewalks adjacent to them to protect access and due to fears of a terrorism attack.

Bricktop wrote:

Murdering babies is a great way to alleviate the baby food shortage though.

Yes I agree red states do a helluva jobs murdering babies and mothers at third world rates. But what else do you expect from GOP healthcare?

SL1200MK2 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Murdering babies is a great way to alleviate the baby food shortage though.

You’re actually correct that killing a baby will alleviate the formula issue. Aborting a fetus is completely different.

Only if you think a fetus is not human life.

Aaron747 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Murdering babies is a great way to alleviate the baby food shortage though.

Yeah no, let's get serious about how life is gray, not black/white:

I'm not pro-murdering babies...

I'm pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her....

I'm pro-Christina who doesn't want to be a mother, but birth control methods sometimes fail....

I'm pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child....

I'm pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat....

I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager....

You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:
I'm pro-life.
Their lives.
Women's lives.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sarahjto ... 47904-gFLH?

I bet there are identical scenarios from your cut-and-paste where the mother chose a different course.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Murdering babies is a great way to alleviate the baby food shortage though.

Yes I agree red states do a helluva jobs murdering babies and mothers at third world rates. But what else do you expect from GOP healthcare?

I'm sorry. I am not nuanced enough to parse that "response".

Bricktop wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Murdering babies is a great way to alleviate the baby food shortage though.

Yeah no, let's get serious about how life is gray, not black/white:

I'm not pro-murdering babies...

I'm pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her....

I'm pro-Christina who doesn't want to be a mother, but birth control methods sometimes fail....

I'm pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child....

I'm pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat....

I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager....

You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:
I'm pro-life.
Their lives.
Women's lives.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sarahjto ... 47904-gFLH?

I bet there are identical scenarios from your cut-and-paste where the mother chose a different course.

Probably so, but what's it to you or me? FFS, stay out of other people's private affairs. That's what adults do. I for one am not going to tell a young girl she has to put her life on hold every time a condom breaks, nor will I ever butt in and tell a victim of abuse she should 'tough things out' for the sake of a couple waiting to adopt.

Bricktop wrote:

SL1200MK2 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Murdering babies is a great way to alleviate the baby food shortage though.

You’re actually correct that killing a baby will alleviate the formula issue. Aborting a fetus is completely different.

Only if you think a fetus is not human life.

Mmmhmm, and you have some vaunted knowledge of when that life is to be deemed viable that medical science is not aware of? Quit holding out - all of society is waiting for consensus on that.

Bricktop wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Murdering babies is a great way to alleviate the baby food shortage though.

Yes I agree red states do a helluva jobs murdering babies and mothers at third world rates. But what else do you expect from GOP healthcare?

I'm sorry. I am not nuanced enough to parse that "response".

Maternal and infant mortality rates in red states are positively medieval, in a country whose rates are already way above the developed world's levels.

Pro life and what not.

Bricktop wrote:

SL1200MK2 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Murdering babies is a great way to alleviate the baby food shortage though.

You’re actually correct that killing a baby will alleviate the formula issue. Aborting a fetus is completely different.

Only if you think a fetus is not human life.

Why would you say this? This has nothing to do with this conversation, didn't you know that its all about control? **Sarcasm off

Aaron747 wrote:

Probably so, but what's it to you or me? FFS, stay out of other people's private affairs. That's what adults do.

So the next time my neighbor beats the crap out of his wife, I should just turn up my TV? Is that what adults do???

Bricktop wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

I bet there are identical scenarios from your cut-and-paste where the mother chose a different course.

Probably so, but what's it to you or me? FFS, stay out of other people's private affairs. That's what adults do. /quote]
So the next time my neighbor beats the crap out of his wife, I should just turn up my TV? Is that what adults do???

That has nothing to do with being pregnant.

Aaron747 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

SL1200MK2 wrote:

You’re actually correct that killing a baby will alleviate the formula issue. Aborting a fetus is completely different.

Only if you think a fetus is not human life.

Mmmhmm, and you have some vaunted knowledge of when that life is to be deemed viable that medical science is not aware of? Quit holding out - all of society is waiting for consensus on that.

MS says 15 weeks. Do you have a better number?

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Probably so, but what's it to you or me? FFS, stay out of other people's private affairs. That's what adults do. /quote]
So the next time my neighbor beats the crap out of his wife, I should just turn up my TV? Is that what adults do???

That has nothing to do with being pregnant.

You know exactly what I mean. My response related to staying out of people's private affairs.

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Probably so, but what's it to you or me? FFS, stay out of other people's private affairs. That's what adults do. /quote]
So the next time my neighbor beats the crap out of his wife, I should just turn up my TV? Is that what adults do???

That has nothing to do with being pregnant.

You know exactly what I mean. My response related to staying out of people's private affairs.

A husbands beating up a wife is not a private affair.

A woman and her personal privacy and choices is her business as it is her body that is part of the pregnancy.

ltbewr wrote:

One of the related issues the potential decision in controversy here has been the protesting in public areas in and around certain Justices' DC area residences and adjacent to the SCOTUS courthouse. There is existing Federal law, one created in 1950 to severely limit such protests then by 'communists' during trials of their 'comrades', this was during the 'red scare' days. Some states have similar laws and have been upheld by the SCOTUS for example to (ironically) protect doctors who perform abortions. Generally such laws can currently limit protests to public sidewalks, a well accepted 1st Amendment but sometimes there has to be exceptions. This link gets into the deeper meaning of such laws https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/t ... ces-homes/
I don't like the idea or protests around the homes of Federal Judges or anyone at their residence as politically counterproductive to their cause..Protests in front of the SCOTUS courthouse and other Federal courthouses has been limited, even on the public sidewalks adjacent to them to protect access and due to fears of a terrorism attack.

Interesting how this was not brought up on January 6, 2021....

I do agree that breaking into private residences and vandalism should be punished. But, people simply standing in a public area, like a town square, sidewalk, park, should not be. But, now, it seems the party of personal freedoms and unfettered free speech wants to silence protesters.

Bricktop wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Probably so, but what's it to you or me? FFS, stay out of other people's private affairs. That's what adults do.

So the next time my neighbor beats the crap out of his wife, I should just turn up my TV? Is that what adults do???

Apparently you force her to have the baby she doesn't want when he rapes her.

For Jesus! Blessed be!

Bricktop wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Murdering babies is a great way to alleviate the baby food shortage though.

Yeah no, let's get serious about how life is gray, not black/white:

I'm not pro-murdering babies...

I'm pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her....

I'm pro-Christina who doesn't want to be a mother, but birth control methods sometimes fail....

I'm pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child....

I'm pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat....

I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager....

You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:
I'm pro-life.
Their lives.
Women's lives.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sarahjto ... 47904-gFLH?

I bet there are identical scenarios from your cut-and-paste where the mother chose a different course.

Bolded by me…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MaverickM11 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Probably so, but what's it to you or me? FFS, stay out of other people's private affairs. That's what adults do.

So the next time my neighbor beats the crap out of his wife, I should just turn up my TV? Is that what adults do???

Apparently you force her to have the baby she doesn't want when he rapes her.

For Jesus! Blessed be!

First of all I am not a Christian, so that stupid childish attempt at a caricature is wasted on me.

The Mississippi law outlaws abortion after 15 weeks, not zero. Please stop the disinformation. If a woman is raped, she would most surely know the risk of pregnancy before that timeframe and act accordingly by getting a still legal abortion.

Bricktop wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

So the next time my neighbor beats the crap out of his wife, I should just turn up my TV? Is that what adults do???

Apparently you force her to have the baby she doesn't want when he rapes her.

For Jesus! Blessed be!

First of all I am not a Christian, so that stupid childish attempt at a caricature is wasted on me.

The Mississippi law outlaws abortion after 15 weeks, not zero. Please stop the disinformation. If a woman is raped, she would most surely know the risk of pregnancy before that timeframe and act accordingly by getting a still legal abortion.

You still don't understand what will happen Mississippi when Roe is repealed do you?

Ever heard of Trigger laws?

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Apparently you force her to have the baby she doesn't want when he rapes her.

For Jesus! Blessed be!

First of all I am not a Christian, so that stupid childish attempt at a caricature is wasted on me.

The Mississippi law outlaws abortion after 15 weeks, not zero. Please stop the disinformation. If a woman is raped, she would most surely know the risk of pregnancy before that timeframe and act accordingly by getting a still legal abortion.

You still don't understand what will happen Mississippi when Roe is repealed do you?

Ever heard of Trigger laws?

Spell it out for me. I am asking genuinely.

bpatus297 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

No one said anything about conservatives supporting pedophiles but rather labeling all LGBTQ people and supporters as pedophiles. It is wall to wall on Fox, conservative media, and GOP leadership.

I haven't seen blanket statements from conservative media or GOP leadership like you claiming, I have seen individual idiots spouting off ignorant and hateful things, but nothing that suggests conservative media and GOP leadership support them. Again, links would be helpful. Sounds like a nice Dem talking point though.

Does the third ranking House Republican count as GOP leadership. Or is Ms. Stefanik not a real conservative/Republican either..?

Elise Stefanik
@EliseStefanik
The White House, House Dems, & usual pedo grifters are so out of touch with the American people that rather than present ANY PLAN or urgency to address the nationwide baby formula crisis, they double down on sending pallets of formula to the southern border. Joe Biden has NO PLAN
2:52 PM · May 13, 2022·Twitter for iPhone

https://twitter.com/EliseStefanik/statu ... 3702055940

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

First of all I am not a Christian, so that stupid childish attempt at a caricature is wasted on me.

The Mississippi law outlaws abortion after 15 weeks, not zero. Please stop the disinformation. If a woman is raped, she would most surely know the risk of pregnancy before that timeframe and act accordingly by getting a still legal abortion.

You still don't understand what will happen Mississippi when Roe is repealed do you?

Ever heard of Trigger laws?

Spell it out for me. I am asking genuinely.

https://mississippitoday.org/2021/12/08 ... oe-v-wade/

If the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, an existing state law will be triggered prohibiting abortion in most instances in Mississippi.

The law, which would permit abortions only when the mother’s life is at risk and in cases of rape, was passed in 2007 by the Mississippi Legislature.

This would ban abortions from day 1

skyservice_330 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

No one said anything about conservatives supporting pedophiles but rather labeling all LGBTQ people and supporters as pedophiles. It is wall to wall on Fox, conservative media, and GOP leadership.

I haven't seen blanket statements from conservative media or GOP leadership like you claiming, I have seen individual idiots spouting off ignorant and hateful things, but nothing that suggests conservative media and GOP leadership support them. Again, links would be helpful. Sounds like a nice Dem talking point though.

Does the third ranking House Republican count as GOP leadership. Or is Ms. Stefanik not a real conservative/Republican either..?

Elise Stefanik
@EliseStefanik
The White House, House Dems, & usual pedo grifters are so out of touch with the American people that rather than present ANY PLAN or urgency to address the nationwide baby formula crisis, they double down on sending pallets of formula to the southern border. Joe Biden has NO PLAN
2:52 PM · May 13, 2022·Twitter for iPhone

https://twitter.com/EliseStefanik/statu ... 3702055940

This is radio Rwanda stuff. Unreal.

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Probably so, but what's it to you or me? FFS, stay out of other people's private affairs. That's what adults do. /quote]
So the next time my neighbor beats the crap out of his wife, I should just turn up my TV? Is that what adults do???

That has nothing to do with being pregnant.

You know exactly what I mean. My response related to staying out of people's private affairs.

Your response was a non sequitur, obviously, and isn't to be taken seriously. Your example of wife beating was a serious criminal act, deciding whether or not one wants children and when/with whom is not. Zero logical connection between the two, no need to play silly games.

Bricktop wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Only if you think a fetus is not human life.

Mmmhmm, and you have some vaunted knowledge of when that life is to be deemed viable that medical science is not aware of? Quit holding out - all of society is waiting for consensus on that.

MS says 15 weeks. Do you have a better number?

Viability thresholds with medical intervention are generally 20-24 weeks. In any case due to the trigger clauses in MS the 15 weeks is just a smokescreen.

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

You still don't understand what will happen Mississippi when Roe is repealed do you?

Ever heard of Trigger laws?

Spell it out for me. I am asking genuinely.

https://mississippitoday.org/2021/12/08 ... oe-v-wade/

If the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, an existing state law will be triggered prohibiting abortion in most instances in Mississippi.

The law, which would permit abortions only when the mother’s life is at risk and in cases of rape, was passed in 2007 by the Mississippi Legislature.

This would ban abortions from day 1

Thanks, but lies like this one keep going around.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Apparently you force her to have the baby she doesn't want when he rapes her.

For Jesus! Blessed be!

Aaron747 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

That has nothing to do with being pregnant.

You know exactly what I mean. My response related to staying out of people's private affairs.

Your response was a non sequitur, obviously, and isn't to be taken seriously. Your example of wife beating was a serious criminal act, deciding whether or not one wants children and when/with whom is not. Zero logical connection between the two, no need to play silly games.

It's only an non sequitur when it doesn't fit your agenda.

Bricktop wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

You know exactly what I mean. My response related to staying out of people's private affairs.

Your response was a non sequitur, obviously, and isn't to be taken seriously. Your example of wife beating was a serious criminal act, deciding whether or not one wants children and when/with whom is not. Zero logical connection between the two, no need to play silly games.

It's only an non sequitur when it doesn't fit your agenda.

Sorry but the definition of ‘does not logically follow’ is pretty clear cut and has no nexus with any specific agenda. You’re just playing games.

Is marital rape recognized in Mississippi ?

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Spell it out for me. I am asking genuinely.

https://mississippitoday.org/2021/12/08 ... oe-v-wade/

If the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, an existing state law will be triggered prohibiting abortion in most instances in Mississippi.

The law, which would permit abortions only when the mother’s life is at risk and in cases of rape, was passed in 2007 by the Mississippi Legislature.

This would ban abortions from day 1

Thanks, but lies like this one keep going around.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Apparently you force her to have the baby she doesn't want when he rapes her.

For Jesus! Blessed be!

You misspelled laws

would prohibiting abortions after, say, 24 weeks be acceptable? unless it is for medically necessary reasons.

hashtagconfused wrote:

would prohibiting abortions after, say, 24 weeks be acceptable? unless it is for medically necessary reasons.

Another way to ask this is: would giving a woman and her partner all the information so they can make their own decision acceptable?

hashtagconfused wrote:

would prohibiting abortions after, say, 24 weeks be acceptable? unless it is for medically necessary reasons.

It already is, in the vast majority of jurisdictions. Only six states have absolutely no limit: AK, OR, CO, NM, NJ, VT, NH

https://www.businessinsider.com/latest- ... tes-2019-5

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us- ... a17931da63

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/ma ... k-abortion

It looks like the investigation is focusing on a small group of law clerks. I've been doing some reading on what the possible punishments are, and they could be severe. Leaking sensitive court documentrs could land you behind bars, and even if you escape jail time you would likely end up with a felony conviction. which would mean disbarment if you are a law clerk. Imagine working hard your whole life so you could graduate from an elite law school and get your dream assignment working on the Supreme Court only to throw it all away.

So, instead of defending their stand on taking away rights from women, the right has pivoted to "the leak" and complaining about "the leak" instead of crowing about getting what they want

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/07/10973825 ... roe-v-wade
https://www.thedailybeast.com/republica ... pitol-riot
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/0 ... n-00029644

alberchico wrote:

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-clarence-thomas-e08bbdfbe48d33171fa6f2a17931da63

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/ma ... k-abortion

It looks like the investigation is focusing on a small group of law clerks. I've been doing some reading on what the possible punishments are, and they could be severe. Leaking sensitive court documentrs could land you behind bars, and even if you escape jail time you would likely end up with a felony conviction. which would mean disbarment if you are a law clerk. Even working hard your whole life an graduating from an elite law school and getting your dream assignment working on the Supreme Court only to throw it all away.

I just wonder, though, what if a justice leaked it? Like "I'm just going to set this here and maybe someone will pick it up"?

alberchico wrote:

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-clarence-thomas-e08bbdfbe48d33171fa6f2a17931da63

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/ma ... k-abortion

It looks like the investigation is focusing on a small group of law clerks. I've been doing some reading on what the possible punishments are, and they could be severe. Leaking sensitive court documentrs could land you behind bars, and even if you escape jail time you would likely end up with a felony conviction. which would mean disbarment if you are a law clerk. Imagine working hard your whole life so you could graduate from an elite law school and get your dream assignment working on the Supreme Court only to throw it all away.

Punishment will be severe, this cannot happen again in the future. What ever side of the political spectrum one cannot have leaks like this because one side does not like the outcome. In the future the "shoe" will be on the other foot. Things have a way of balancing out, at one time the Supreme Court backed segregation only to overturn it in the future.

If one is fine with this form of leaking just disband the Supreme Court. And lets stop this charade of picking Justices based on their opinion of political hot button issues. Seriously, disband it.

seb146 wrote:

hashtagconfused wrote:

would prohibiting abortions after, say, 24 weeks be acceptable? unless it is for medically necessary reasons.

Another way to ask this is: would giving a woman and her partner all the information so they can make their own decision acceptable?

i don't see how that is the same question.

Aaron747 wrote:

hashtagconfused wrote:

would prohibiting abortions after, say, 24 weeks be acceptable? unless it is for medically necessary reasons.

It already is, in the vast majority of jurisdictions. Only six states have absolutely no limit: AK, OR, CO, NM, NJ, VT, NH

https://www.businessinsider.com/latest- ... tes-2019-5

do people still consider this controlling a woman's body/choices after this point?