scbriml wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

scbriml wrote:

I guess my sarcasm was less obvious than I thought.

I did get it. My what was referring to Rudi not you.
Could it be....dare I say it.....Rudi is a.... snowflake??

Ah, I see. My bad.

How a man can go from being respected around the World for his response to 9/11, to this via a disastrous presser in a parking lot and the melting face fiasco is just beyond belief.

Giuliani hasn't been an elected official in many years. He's spent the better part of the last twenty years in the quagmire of questionable private law practice. More likely than not, he just dropped the act of America's Mayor, and this is who he's been for a very long time.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

The voting population of the US has not been a majority for the GOP in the Senate since 1998:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/02 ... -1996.html

The GOP candidate has only won the popular vote for President once since 1988. 5 of the Supreme Court justices, who all voted to repeal R v W, were appointed by Presidents who got to the White House with a minority of the popular vote.

If the votes of the people were properly reflected in the results the United States would be a firmly Democratic nation.

Is there any level of mental competence needed to be eligible to vote (or stand as a candidate) in the US? If so, at what point will believing the bible is 100% factually correct be enough to have someone committed?

Virtual737 wrote:

Is there any level of mental competence needed to be eligible to vote (or stand as a candidate) in the US?

No, and I'll stand up to defend that, because bogus tests of knowledge and mental competence to vote have long been used as tools to disenfranchise people on the basis of their ethnicity.

Instead of "pro-life", we must start calling them what they are: supporters of forced births. That is what will happen. All those girls raped by their father or brother or uncle or grandfather will be forced to give birth. Women who are raped because they were minding their own business will be forced to give birth. Forced birth.

It's interesting that the court has studiously avoided issues of religion and philosophy in considering abortion, yet religion is clearly an important driver for the pro-life advocates.

In Roe, the court based it's ruling on medical viability, and the universal application of Constitutional rights among states.

In Dobbs, the court did not address viability, which was the issue raised by the Mississippi law, but instead addressed (and undid) the Constitutional basis of Roe.

Also interesting that many rights we have today, are not explicitly laid out in the Constitution, but have been interpreted by the Courts to be subsumed in the basic principles and rights established by the Constitution.

So it's a bit selective to single out abortion rights in this argument. And is why there are now fears, as laid out in Justice Thomas' opinion, that other rights that have been similarly interpreted, are now open to question.

A right created out of thin air? Not for nothing here but it isn’t as if God himself came down from Heaven and delivered the constitution. They’re all created out of thin air and made up by humans; normal flawed humans.

Any and all rights can be taken away. Whether it be by the pen or the sword.

I’d also like to see some precedent, seems I can’t find too many cases of people losing rights and eventually deciding it was a good thing. Usually loss of rights leads in the opposite direction

FGITD wrote:

A right created out of thin air? Not for nothing here but it isn’t as if God himself came down from Heaven and delivered the constitution. They’re all created out of thin air and made up by humans; normal flawed humans.

Any and all rights can be taken away. Whether it be by the pen or the sword.

I’d also like to see some precedent, seems I can’t find too many cases of people losing rights and eventually deciding it was a good thing. Usually loss of rights leads in the opposite direction

This was a key part of the oral arguments and written opinions presented by the Solicitor General and Justice Sotomayor. In Dobbs, the Court is rescinding an established right, whereas for the precedents given by Justices Alito and Kavanaugh for overturning previous decisions, the Court expanded rights.

Justices Alito and Kavanaugh had no answer to that, but in their written opinions, they expressly said that overturning Roe would not bring earlier expansions of rights into question.

How they square that argument, I don't really understand, nor did Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote a separate opinion pointing out that overturning Roe was not necessary in the Dobbs case.

The overall impression, is that the conservative wing saw the opportunity to overturn Roe, and they took it.

Newark727 wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

Is there any level of mental competence needed to be eligible to vote (or stand as a candidate) in the US?

No, and I'll stand up to defend that, because bogus tests of knowledge and mental competence to vote have long been used as tools to disenfranchise people on the basis of their ethnicity.

And many of the laws requiring literacy and knowledge tests had the original "grandfather clause." The laws would state that if the grandfather of a male citizen over the age of 21 voted, that male citizen was not required to take the test. In the 1870's and later what that meant was if you were a freed slave, the descendant of a freed slave, or an immigrant, you had to take the test. If you were a native born white male 21 years or older, you didn't have to take the test.

In the oral arguments before the Court, the original intent argument was challenged by the Solicitor General, with documents establishing that at the time the Constitution was written, the law allowed for abortion. That was countered by the justices by pointing out that the right was bestowed upon the husband, and not the wife, because women had no rights that did not originate from the husband or father.

According to one senator "all life is created in gods own image" - I'll bet he isn't a vegan!
And even if he is Plant Life?

Let's go down the road a bit and imagine a worst case scenario; the conservative SC follows through on Thomas's "threat"; gay marriage goes and there are limits to contraception and various other rights. Red states will introduce legislation to dissolve gay marriages, in much the same way as they are now doing with regard to abortion; i.e. trigger laws. (They probably won't do the same with contraception). We know the cruelty of laws that target women who've had abortions, not to mention laws against Trans people; we can only imagine what kind of extremist legislation will be introduced down the road. But what effect will this have on these states, and their economies? I think we will gradually see an even greater division between red states and blue states. In an ironic sense, by giving more powers to states, the SC is effectively giving them more rope to hang themselves. Will companies want to set up businesses/factories in states which victimise minorities? I think it's been proven in many instances that diversity is good for business; businesses that rely on intellectual capital don't discriminate. Likewise, economies too; it would seem to follow, then, that economies which go in the opposite direction will suffer economically. Their best and brightest will leave; commerce likes certainty; why would a company want to set up in a state which regresses and which victimises people for exercising freedoms and living in a manner perfectly legal in more enlightened states?

For the GOP, I think it is a bigger question? If they look beyond the short term, do they understand that for an organisation which is, basically, a champion of big business and capitalism, allying with religious regressives might not be their best long term strategy. The results of their efforts will end up being very ironic; frightening big business and blue chip companies out of Red states. So this organisation, once the champion of small government, is now turning into an organisation which is effectively the legislative department of hardline religion. Is that a healthy objective? They might celebrate this now, but I wonder if any senior GOP people are now looking at the situation and, much like Yamamoto after Pearl Harbor, thinking all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant. Now, they have not just reawakened a generation, got a very large and important constituency active, and they are on the wrong side of it.

How does this play out? I don't see any long term good coming from this; indeed, I think it is taking a massive pick-axe/pneumatic drill to already existing faultlines, potentially widening them - irreparably so. Has America ever been as disunited, in the last 100 years?

Rudy is getting called out for his embellishment of his "assault"

https://nypost.com/2022/06/28/eric-adams-rudy-giuliani-filed-false-report-in-si-supermarket-attack/

Even Newsmax is calling him out, lol!

https://www.thedailybeast.com/even-newsmax-isnt-buying-rudy-giulianis-assault-story-says-it-doesnt-look-that-bad

STT757 wrote:

Rudy is getting called out for his embellishment of his "assault"

https://nypost.com/2022/06/28/eric-adams-rudy-giuliani-filed-false-report-in-si-supermarket-attack/

Even Newsmax is calling him out, lol!

https://www.thedailybeast.com/even-newsmax-isnt-buying-rudy-giulianis-assault-story-says-it-doesnt-look-that-bad

I wonder where he caught the lying bug?

Well if you claim January 6 was a peaceful protest, mass shootings are just "meh", then an assault with no bullets flying isn't really an assault.

kaitak wrote:

Let's go down the road a bit and imagine a worst case scenario; the conservative SC follows through on Thomas's "threat"; gay marriage goes and there are limits to contraception and various other rights. Red states will introduce legislation to dissolve gay marriages, in much the same way as they are now doing with regard to abortion; i.e. trigger laws. (They probably won't do the same with contraception). We know the cruelty of laws that target women who've had abortions, not to mention laws against Trans people; we can only imagine what kind of extremist legislation will be introduced down the road. But what effect will this have on these states, and their economies? I think we will gradually see an even greater division between red states and blue states. In an ironic sense, by giving more powers to states, the SC is effectively giving them more rope to hang themselves. Will companies want to set up businesses/factories in states which victimise minorities? I think it's been proven in many instances that diversity is good for business; businesses that rely on intellectual capital don't discriminate. Likewise, economies too; it would seem to follow, then, that economies which go in the opposite direction will suffer economically. Their best and brightest will leave; commerce likes certainty; why would a company want to set up in a state which regresses and which victimises people for exercising freedoms and living in a manner perfectly legal in more enlightened states?

For the GOP, I think it is a bigger question? If they look beyond the short term, do they understand that for an organisation which is, basically, a champion of big business and capitalism, allying with religious regressives might not be their best long term strategy. The results of their efforts will end up being very ironic; frightening big business and blue chip companies out of Red states. So this organisation, once the champion of small government, is now turning into an organisation which is effectively the legislative department of hardline religion. Is that a healthy objective? They might celebrate this now, but I wonder if any senior GOP people are now looking at the situation and, much like Yamamoto after Pearl Harbor, thinking all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant. Now, they have not just reawakened a generation, got a very large and important constituency active, and they are on the wrong side of it.

How does this play out? I don't see any long term good coming from this; indeed, I think it is taking a massive pick-axe/pneumatic drill to already existing faultlines, potentially widening them - irreparably so. Has America ever been as disunited, in the last 100 years?

That’s definitely an interesting possibility. The rub comes when those states start offering huge tax incentives to stay. I suppose said companies would have to find the point of diminishing returns based on being able to hire top talent and the tax breaks.

kaitak wrote:

Let's go down the road a bit and imagine a worst case scenario; the conservative SC follows through on Thomas's "threat"; gay marriage goes and there are limits to contraception and various other rights. Red states will introduce legislation to dissolve gay marriages, in much the same way as they are now doing with regard to abortion; i.e. trigger laws. (They probably won't do the same with contraception). We know the cruelty of laws that target women who've had abortions, not to mention laws against Trans people; we can only imagine what kind of extremist legislation will be introduced down the road. But what effect will this have on these states, and their economies? I think we will gradually see an even greater division between red states and blue states. In an ironic sense, by giving more powers to states, the SC is effectively giving them more rope to hang themselves. Will companies want to set up businesses/factories in states which victimise minorities? I think it's been proven in many instances that diversity is good for business; businesses that rely on intellectual capital don't discriminate. Likewise, economies too; it would seem to follow, then, that economies which go in the opposite direction will suffer economically. Their best and brightest will leave; commerce likes certainty; why would a company want to set up in a state which regresses and which victimises people for exercising freedoms and living in a manner perfectly legal in more enlightened states?

For the GOP, I think it is a bigger question? If they look beyond the short term, do they understand that for an organisation which is, basically, a champion of big business and capitalism, allying with religious regressives might not be their best long term strategy. The results of their efforts will end up being very ironic; frightening big business and blue chip companies out of Red states. So this organisation, once the champion of small government, is now turning into an organisation which is effectively the legislative department of hardline religion. Is that a healthy objective? They might celebrate this now, but I wonder if any senior GOP people are now looking at the situation and, much like Yamamoto after Pearl Harbor, thinking all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant. Now, they have not just reawakened a generation, got a very large and important constituency active, and they are on the wrong side of it.

How does this play out? I don't see any long term good coming from this; indeed, I think it is taking a massive pick-axe/pneumatic drill to already existing faultlines, potentially widening them - irreparably so. Has America ever been as disunited, in the last 100 years?

Look at all the firms that have outsourced production to Asian countries knowing the horrendous conditions of the factories that make their products. They only care about profits. Unless blue states can match the generous financial incentives offered by places like Texas as well as adopting right to work policies, ( which they can't) then no corporate exodus will take place.

I wonder .. will the Thomas ‘threat’ and conservative roll back of rights as it relates to abortion and contraception strike a different chord than gay marriage?

The former two rotate around deeply personal and private physical interactions which may be hard to publicly align with or argue for.

The latter revolves around the dissolution of legal unions/marriages between your neighbors, folks in your neighborhood, family members and colleagues.

Put another way - its easy to be a keyboard warrior for the repealing of gay marriage until you realize the devastating, real life Impact that has, and it slaps you in the face … versus the former two matters where the ability to position it politically is much more difficult given their private and sensitive nature

Very sad and scary to see women losing rights across the U.S. This ruling opens the door to further restrict the rights of women and other groups of people. I cancelled my trip to Idaho and Texas to protest their awful, anti women policies. I will not go to any state that restricts the rights of women. So sad to see the Supreme Court take away rights women have had for decades. We need to declare a public health emergency for women and offer free, freedom flights for women in red states restricting rights.

skyservice_330 wrote:

I wonder .. will the Thomas ‘threat’ and conservative roll back of rights as it relates to abortion and contraception strike a different chord than gay marriage?

The former two rotate around deeply personal and private physical interactions which may be hard to publicly align with or argue for.

The latter revolves around the dissolution of legal unions/marriages between your neighbors, folks in your neighborhood, family members and colleagues.

Put another way - its easy to be a keyboard warrior for the repealing of gay marriage until you realize the devastating, real life Impact that has, and it slaps you in the face … versus the former two matters where the ability to position it politically is much more difficult given their private and sensitive nature

Thomas doesn't care. He has three traitor appointed lackeys to do his bidding now along with Alito. They will say down is up just to prove a political point. This Supreme court's ruling will never stand the test of time.

SL1200MK2 wrote:

kaitak wrote:

Let's go down the road a bit and imagine a worst case scenario; the conservative SC follows through on Thomas's "threat"; gay marriage goes and there are limits to contraception and various other rights. Red states will introduce legislation to dissolve gay marriages, in much the same way as they are now doing with regard to abortion; i.e. trigger laws. (They probably won't do the same with contraception). We know the cruelty of laws that target women who've had abortions, not to mention laws against Trans people; we can only imagine what kind of extremist legislation will be introduced down the road. But what effect will this have on these states, and their economies? I think we will gradually see an even greater division between red states and blue states. In an ironic sense, by giving more powers to states, the SC is effectively giving them more rope to hang themselves. Will companies want to set up businesses/factories in states which victimise minorities? I think it's been proven in many instances that diversity is good for business; businesses that rely on intellectual capital don't discriminate. Likewise, economies too; it would seem to follow, then, that economies which go in the opposite direction will suffer economically. Their best and brightest will leave; commerce likes certainty; why would a company want to set up in a state which regresses and which victimises people for exercising freedoms and living in a manner perfectly legal in more enlightened states?

For the GOP, I think it is a bigger question? If they look beyond the short term, do they understand that for an organisation which is, basically, a champion of big business and capitalism, allying with religious regressives might not be their best long term strategy. The results of their efforts will end up being very ironic; frightening big business and blue chip companies out of Red states. So this organisation, once the champion of small government, is now turning into an organisation which is effectively the legislative department of hardline religion. Is that a healthy objective? They might celebrate this now, but I wonder if any senior GOP people are now looking at the situation and, much like Yamamoto after Pearl Harbor, thinking all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant. Now, they have not just reawakened a generation, got a very large and important constituency active, and they are on the wrong side of it.

How does this play out? I don't see any long term good coming from this; indeed, I think it is taking a massive pick-axe/pneumatic drill to already existing faultlines, potentially widening them - irreparably so. Has America ever been as disunited, in the last 100 years?

That’s definitely an interesting possibility. The rub comes when those states start offering huge tax incentives to stay. I suppose said companies would have to find the point of diminishing returns based on being able to hire top talent and the tax breaks.

Seeing what has been happening with Boeing, Airbus, Tesla, Raytheon, etc... profit will always be ahead of corporate virtue signaling.

Pi7472000 wrote:

Very sad and scary to see women losing rights across the U.S. This ruling opens the door to further restrict the rights of women and other groups of people. I cancelled my trip to Idaho and Texas to protest their awful, anti women policies. I will not go to any state that restricts the rights of women. So sad to see the Supreme Court take away rights women have had for decades. We need to declare a public health emergency for women and offer free, freedom flights for women in red states restricting rights.

Even adultery could be criminalized if this ruling is interpreted in certain ways.

Why do so many who preach smaller government have a fetish with getting all levels of government into everyone else's bed matters?

kaitak wrote:

Let's go down the road a bit and imagine a worst case scenario; the conservative SC follows through on Thomas's "threat"; gay marriage goes and there are limits to contraception and various other rights. Red states will introduce legislation to dissolve gay marriages, in much the same way as they are now doing with regard to abortion; i.e. trigger laws. (They probably won't do the same with contraception). We know the cruelty of laws that target women who've had abortions, not to mention laws against Trans people; we can only imagine what kind of extremist legislation will be introduced down the road. But what effect will this have on these states, and their economies? I think we will gradually see an even greater division between red states and blue states. In an ironic sense, by giving more powers to states, the SC is effectively giving them more rope to hang themselves. Will companies want to set up businesses/factories in states which victimise minorities? I think it's been proven in many instances that diversity is good for business; businesses that rely on intellectual capital don't discriminate. Likewise, economies too; it would seem to follow, then, that economies which go in the opposite direction will suffer economically. Their best and brightest will leave; commerce likes certainty; why would a company want to set up in a state which regresses and which victimises people for exercising freedoms and living in a manner perfectly legal in more enlightened states?

For the GOP, I think it is a bigger question? If they look beyond the short term, do they understand that for an organisation which is, basically, a champion of big business and capitalism, allying with religious regressives might not be their best long term strategy. The results of their efforts will end up being very ironic; frightening big business and blue chip companies out of Red states. So this organisation, once the champion of small government, is now turning into an organisation which is effectively the legislative department of hardline religion. Is that a healthy objective? They might celebrate this now, but I wonder if any senior GOP people are now looking at the situation and, much like Yamamoto after Pearl Harbor, thinking all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant. Now, they have not just reawakened a generation, got a very large and important constituency active, and they are on the wrong side of it.

How does this play out? I don't see any long term good coming from this; indeed, I think it is taking a massive pick-axe/pneumatic drill to already existing faultlines, potentially widening them - irreparably so. Has America ever been as disunited, in the last 100 years?

Clarence and Ginnie Thomas’ own marriage would not have been legal until 1967. So he is playing with fire.

LCDFlight wrote:

kaitak wrote:

Let's go down the road a bit and imagine a worst case scenario; the conservative SC follows through on Thomas's "threat"; gay marriage goes and there are limits to contraception and various other rights. Red states will introduce legislation to dissolve gay marriages, in much the same way as they are now doing with regard to abortion; i.e. trigger laws. (They probably won't do the same with contraception). We know the cruelty of laws that target women who've had abortions, not to mention laws against Trans people; we can only imagine what kind of extremist legislation will be introduced down the road. But what effect will this have on these states, and their economies? I think we will gradually see an even greater division between red states and blue states. In an ironic sense, by giving more powers to states, the SC is effectively giving them more rope to hang themselves. Will companies want to set up businesses/factories in states which victimise minorities? I think it's been proven in many instances that diversity is good for business; businesses that rely on intellectual capital don't discriminate. Likewise, economies too; it would seem to follow, then, that economies which go in the opposite direction will suffer economically. Their best and brightest will leave; commerce likes certainty; why would a company want to set up in a state which regresses and which victimises people for exercising freedoms and living in a manner perfectly legal in more enlightened states?

For the GOP, I think it is a bigger question? If they look beyond the short term, do they understand that for an organisation which is, basically, a champion of big business and capitalism, allying with religious regressives might not be their best long term strategy. The results of their efforts will end up being very ironic; frightening big business and blue chip companies out of Red states. So this organisation, once the champion of small government, is now turning into an organisation which is effectively the legislative department of hardline religion. Is that a healthy objective? They might celebrate this now, but I wonder if any senior GOP people are now looking at the situation and, much like Yamamoto after Pearl Harbor, thinking all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant. Now, they have not just reawakened a generation, got a very large and important constituency active, and they are on the wrong side of it.

How does this play out? I don't see any long term good coming from this; indeed, I think it is taking a massive pick-axe/pneumatic drill to already existing faultlines, potentially widening them - irreparably so. Has America ever been as disunited, in the last 100 years?

Clarence and Ginnie Thomas’ own marriage would not have been legal until 1967. So he is playing with fire.

Playing with fire AND doesn’t care. Because God, or something. Or more likely, greed.

I do wonder how those justices expect to ever enjoy eating out again, at least in places with any sort of quality

Many local prosecutors won't enforce hard anti-abortion laws in their states as they went or shortly go into effect from the decision in the case that overturned Roe v. Wade. In part many object to such laws in general as to the ability of women to have the ability to control their own bodies, that some exclude exceptions for rape, incest and save the life of the women, as well as want to concentrate on prosecuting violent and other crimes. Most of them are in cities with high percentages of Democrats, non-White residents and for political purposes with voters (many are elected officials) or for future political office. https://www.audacy.com/krld/news/nation ... rtion-bans

Then you have some local prosecutors who believe in following the law absolutely, are in Republican dominate states and counties, likely looking for political gains by taking hard prosecutions. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/kent- ... ar-AAYVJik

ltbewr wrote:

Many local prosecutors won't enforce hard anti-abortion laws in their states as they went or shortly go into effect from the decision in the case that overturned Roe v. Wade. In part many object to such laws in general as to the ability of women to have the ability to control their own bodies, that some exclude exceptions for rape, incest and save the life of the women, as well as want to concentrate on prosecuting violent and other crimes. Most of them are in cities with high percentages of Democrats, non-White residents and for political purposes with voters (many are elected officials) or for future political office. https://www.audacy.com/krld/news/nation ... rtion-bans

Then you have some local prosecutors who believe in following the law absolutely, are in Republican dominate states and counties, likely looking for political gains by taking hard prosecutions. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/kent- ... ar-AAYVJik

The "I heart states' rights" crowd has already made it clear they will be send OUT OF STATE people, organizations, and money to get abortion bans in place or harass customers using such services in states where it remains legalized. It doesn't matter if they are not prosecuted, they will face psychological intimidation from the States Rights types who want to impose their state's laws on all other 49 states + their religion. Because they are for states rights, of course.

Post a source for fact based statements.

CometII wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Many local prosecutors won't enforce hard anti-abortion laws in their states as they went or shortly go into effect from the decision in the case that overturned Roe v. Wade. In part many object to such laws in general as to the ability of women to have the ability to control their own bodies, that some exclude exceptions for rape, incest and save the life of the women, as well as want to concentrate on prosecuting violent and other crimes. Most of them are in cities with high percentages of Democrats, non-White residents and for political purposes with voters (many are elected officials) or for future political office. https://www.audacy.com/krld/news/nation ... rtion-bans

Then you have some local prosecutors who believe in following the law absolutely, are in Republican dominate states and counties, likely looking for political gains by taking hard prosecutions. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/kent- ... ar-AAYVJik

The "I heart states' rights" crowd has already made it clear they will be send OUT OF STATE people, organizations, and money to get abortion bans in place or harass customers using such services in states where it remains legalized. It doesn't matter if they are not prosecuted, they will face psychological intimidation from the States Rights types who want to impose their state's laws on all other 49 states + their religion. Because they are for states rights, of course.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pr ... -rcna35268
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-a ... rtion-bans

And, Gov. Inslee (D-WA) has directed all Washington state law enforcement to not comply with other states' abortion bans

https://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/ ... on-related

States rights and all

SL1200MK2 wrote:

I do wonder how those justices expect to ever enjoy eating out again, at least in places with any sort of quality

I guess those six should resign if they want to live a peaceful life....

Just heard on the radio this morning that a 10 year old girl has been denied abortion in Ohio.

You know what, all things considered, henceforth I’m just going to use the name Gilead when referring to the US.

B777LRF wrote:

Just heard on the radio this morning that a 10 year old girl has been denied abortion in Ohio.

You know what, all things considered, henceforth I’m just going to use the name Gilead when referring to the US.

The girl is now going to Indiana to get the abortion.
She was 6 weeks and 3 days pregnant, a few days too long to qualifty for abortion in Ohio.
Insanity.

https://telanganatoday.com/us-10-year-o ... oe-vs-wade

B777LRF wrote:

Just heard on the radio this morning that a 10 year old girl has been denied abortion in Ohio.

There's so much wrong in just that one line. SMH. The pro-lifers must be really proud.

scbriml wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

Just heard on the radio this morning that a 10 year old girl has been denied abortion in Ohio.

There's so much wrong in just that one line. SMH. The pro-lifers must be really proud.

The abuse and cruelty to the already born is their point.

It is no longer a private medical decision and child protective services action. It has to be broadcast through the courts, and the cruelty is delivered onto a young girl.

seb146 wrote:

CometII wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Many local prosecutors won't enforce hard anti-abortion laws in their states as they went or shortly go into effect from the decision in the case that overturned Roe v. Wade. In part many object to such laws in general as to the ability of women to have the ability to control their own bodies, that some exclude exceptions for rape, incest and save the life of the women, as well as want to concentrate on prosecuting violent and other crimes. Most of them are in cities with high percentages of Democrats, non-White residents and for political purposes with voters (many are elected officials) or for future political office. https://www.audacy.com/krld/news/nation ... rtion-bans

Then you have some local prosecutors who believe in following the law absolutely, are in Republican dominate states and counties, likely looking for political gains by taking hard prosecutions. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/kent- ... ar-AAYVJik

The "I heart states' rights" crowd has already made it clear they will be send OUT OF STATE people, organizations, and money to get abortion bans in place or harass customers using such services in states where it remains legalized. It doesn't matter if they are not prosecuted, they will face psychological intimidation from the States Rights types who want to impose their state's laws on all other 49 states + their religion. Because they are for states rights, of course.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pr ... -rcna35268
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-a ... rtion-bans

And, Gov. Inslee (D-WA) has directed all Washington state law enforcement to not comply with other states' abortion bans

https://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/ ... on-related

States rights and all

Theatrics States don't enforce other States laws.

bpatus297 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

CometII wrote:

The "I heart states' rights" crowd has already made it clear they will be send OUT OF STATE people, organizations, and money to get abortion bans in place or harass customers using such services in states where it remains legalized. It doesn't matter if they are not prosecuted, they will face psychological intimidation from the States Rights types who want to impose their state's laws on all other 49 states + their religion. Because they are for states rights, of course.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pr ... -rcna35268
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-a ... rtion-bans

And, Gov. Inslee (D-WA) has directed all Washington state law enforcement to not comply with other states' abortion bans

https://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/ ... on-related

States rights and all

Theatrics States don't enforce other States laws.

It’s not about enforcing another state’s laws, but declining to assist other state’s efforts to enforce their own anti-abortion laws.

Gov. Jay Inslee announced this past weekend he was preparing to direct the Washington State Patrol to refuse cooperation with any investigatory requests related to abortion that come from agencies in states that don’t allow or significantly constrain access to abortion.

So the Republican candidates lied! Where's the news in that. R candidate has become synonymous with "I never tell the truth" Wait until they ban contraception (and adoption) - Legally Blonde lives!!!

So we have a case where a 10 year old girl in Ohio was raped and got pregnant, Because of the sick perverted laws in Ohio, she had to leave the state for an abortion. This is just the beginning. I have nothing but disgust and contempt for the people on this site who are so sick that they believe that this poor girl, after being raped, should have to go through a pregnancy. This makes me so sick. The Republicans are the new Taliban.

petertenthije wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

Just heard on the radio this morning that a 10 year old girl has been denied abortion in Ohio.

You know what, all things considered, henceforth I’m just going to use the name Gilead when referring to the US.

The girl is now going to Indiana to get the abortion.
She was 6 weeks and 3 days pregnant, a few days too long to qualifty for abortion in Ohio.
Insanity.

https://telanganatoday.com/us-10-year-o ... oe-vs-wade

Typical "letter of the law" out-of-control US legal logic. State-sponsored child abuse is what this is.

Reminds me of the Wisconsin "Butt Doctor" case where a 6 year old was actually charged with felonious sexual assault:

https://madison.com/news/local/crime_an ... ted-bottom

victrola wrote:

So we have a case where a 10 year old girl in Ohio was raped and got pregnant, Because of the sick perverted laws in Ohio, she had to leave the state for an abortion. This is just the beginning. I have nothing but disgust and contempt for the people on this site who are so sick that they believe that this poor girl, after being raped, should have to go through a pregnancy. This makes me so sick. The Republicans are the new Taliban.

I note our resident pro-lifers have declined to comment on this one.

victrola wrote:

So we have a case where a 10 year old girl in Ohio was raped and got pregnant, Because of the sick perverted laws in Ohio, she had to leave the state for an abortion. This is just the beginning. I have nothing but disgust and contempt for the people on this site who are so sick that they believe that this poor girl, after being raped, should have to go through a pregnancy. This makes me so sick. The Republicans are the new Taliban.

I am pro life and I am torn on this. No I don't want a 10 year old to be pregnant and have to deal with this at such a young age, but on the other hand, this is a human life that is in her belly and unfortunately an Abortion is fatal to that human life. The only way I see out of this for both sides is to come up with a way to end a pregnancy without it being harmful to the unborn child.

On this note however, because of the availability of Abortion, I also believe that Abortion is used way more than you think to cover up rapes and sexual abuse. From what I have heard, most abortion clinics will look the other way on this. If an underage girl is pregnant and she goes to the clinic to get an abortion, that is statutory rape and IMO the clinics have an obligation to report it, but they never do. In the case of this ten year old, this is hard proof of statutory rape and once the DNA test comes back, who ever this perp is should be put away for a long time. I also believe Abortion is what allowed Epstein to get away with his crimes for so long, and also why we have heard no names. If some of these babies had been born, and DNA is traced to powerful people associated with Epstein, its a smoking gun and game over.


As for the ruling itself. The Supreme Court got the ruling correct from a Legal standpoint. The issue with court rulings these days, is that they are looked at from a political aspect and not a legal one. The court is not around to issue political rulings, it is around to issue legal ones. I do believe the Majority opinion was very sound legally speaking and was proper. The dissent in this case was making a political argument, and not a legal one. The dissenters looked at the bad things that could happen and ruled based on that rather than on what the law actually says. That is not their job. That is the job of the US Congress to make laws. Just because a ruling has bad effects or isn't popular politically doesnt mean it is a bad ruling or even an incorrect one. For example, the Citizens United ruling has led to disastrous results for our democracy as now both Parties have been bought by the billionaire class in this country as a result. I don't like that. However, if you look at the way the law was written, the ruling was correct legally and was the proper ruling.

Interestingly enough, the Democrats are not doing much about this at all. They had ample opportunity to codify roe, especially in the Obama administration when they had a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate. Yet they did nothing. Nancy Pelosi is supposed to be this master legislator, but all we are getting out of her is poetry. And the Democratic base is getting fed up. Go look at any young turks segment from the past couple of weeks to see what I mean.

apodino wrote:

victrola wrote:

So we have a case where a 10 year old girl in Ohio was raped and got pregnant, Because of the sick perverted laws in Ohio, she had to leave the state for an abortion. This is just the beginning. I have nothing but disgust and contempt for the people on this site who are so sick that they believe that this poor girl, after being raped, should have to go through a pregnancy. This makes me so sick. The Republicans are the new Taliban.

I am pro life and I am torn on this. No I don't want a 10 year old to be pregnant and have to deal with this at such a young age, but on the other hand, this is a human life that is in her belly and unfortunately an Abortion is fatal to that human life. The only way I see out of this for both sides is to come up with a way to end a pregnancy without it being harmful to the unborn child.

On this note however, because of the availability of Abortion, I also believe that Abortion is used way more than you think to cover up rapes and sexual abuse. From what I have heard, most abortion clinics will look the other way on this. If an underage girl is pregnant and she goes to the clinic to get an abortion, that is statutory rape and IMO the clinics have an obligation to report it, but they never do. In the case of this ten year old, this is hard proof of statutory rape and once the DNA test comes back, who ever this perp is should be put away for a long time. I also believe Abortion is what allowed Epstein to get away with his crimes for so long, and also why we have heard no names. If some of these babies had been born, and DNA is traced to powerful people associated with Epstein, its a smoking gun and game over.


As for the ruling itself. The Supreme Court got the ruling correct from a Legal standpoint. The issue with court rulings these days, is that they are looked at from a political aspect and not a legal one. The court is not around to issue political rulings, it is around to issue legal ones. I do believe the Majority opinion was very sound legally speaking and was proper. The dissent in this case was making a political argument, and not a legal one. The dissenters looked at the bad things that could happen and ruled based on that rather than on what the law actually says. That is not their job. That is the job of the US Congress to make laws. Just because a ruling has bad effects or isn't popular politically doesnt mean it is a bad ruling or even an incorrect one. For example, the Citizens United ruling has led to disastrous results for our democracy as now both Parties have been bought by the billionaire class in this country as a result. I don't like that. However, if you look at the way the law was written, the ruling was correct legally and was the proper ruling.

Interestingly enough, the Democrats are not doing much about this at all. They had ample opportunity to codify roe, especially in the Obama administration when they had a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate. Yet they did nothing. Nancy Pelosi is supposed to be this master legislator, but all we are getting out of her is poetry. And the Democratic base is getting fed up. Go look at any young turks segment from the past couple of weeks to see what I mean.

The Supreme Court Decision in Dobbs was flat out wrong. It abandoned the health and liberty concerns of the living for the unborn. The example of the 10 year old girl is precisely that. The state would rather that unprepared child bring a baby into the world that that Child has no means to support, not withstanding her own support in a world where she was raped.

The health care of that child should be between her and her doctor, and not regulated by a backwards state that has no respect for the living, in pursuit of willing a citizen into existence. Roe was right for all the reasons that faith and science can't answer. As to when and where the health of a woman and a child diverge. And that point in Roe was 24 weeks. Which was a reasonable mark. Now aside from the societal costs to these woman, their abusers, and their social interactions, the health care costs will be much higher in those states that choose to ban abortions.
There will be costs for healthcare for these mothers, and their will be costs associated with the sure to occur private abortions outside of medical care.


The Democrats believed Roe vs Wade was settled law. Little could they have foreseen how untruthful and fraudulent the GOP Senate and Trump were in bringing forth 3 very dishonorable judges to will the destruction of Roe.

Now we will have to see the fallout.

Biden Today has announced an Executive Order

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/politics ... index.html

The executive order attempts to safeguard access to medication abortion and emergency contraception, protect patient privacy, launch public education efforts as well as bolster the security of and the legal options available to those seeking and providing abortion services.

apodino wrote:

I am pro life and I am torn on this.

I'm really struggling to see how you can be torn on this. She's 10 and has been raped.

apodino wrote:

No I don't want a 10 year old to be pregnant and have to deal with this at such a young age, but on the other hand, this is a human life that is in her belly and unfortunately an Abortion is fatal to that human life. The only way I see out of this for both sides is to come up with a way to end a pregnancy without it being harmful to the unborn child.

Calling a six week embryo "a baby" is just emotive language. It doesn't achieve anything other than stir up the anti-abortion camp, but perhaps that's the aim? A six week embryo is not viable.

apodino wrote:

On this note however, because of the availability of Abortion, I also believe that Abortion is used way more than you think to cover up rapes and sexual abuse. From what I have heard, most abortion clinics will look the other way on this. If an underage girl is pregnant and she goes to the clinic to get an abortion, that is statutory rape and IMO the clinics have an obligation to report it, but they never do. In the case of this ten year old, this is hard proof of statutory rape and once the DNA test comes back, who ever this perp is should be put away for a long time. I also believe Abortion is what allowed Epstein to get away with his crimes for so long, and also why we have heard no names. If some of these babies had been born, and DNA is traced to powerful people associated with Epstein, its a smoking gun and game over.

This is pretty extreme, frankly. It sounds as though you'd be happy to force a raped woman to have a baby because there's a chance you might be able to prove who the father is? That doesn't necessarily prove she was raped (assuming she's of the age of consent).

scbriml wrote:

apodino wrote:

If some of these babies had been born, and DNA is traced to powerful people associated with Epstein, its a smoking gun and game over.

This is pretty extreme, frankly. It sounds as though you'd be happy to force a raped woman to have a baby because there's a chance you might be able to prove who the father is? That doesn't necessarily prove she was raped (assuming she's of the age of consent).

If you really want to, DNA can be traced from the aborted embryo.
That said, more than 90% of sexual abuse of minors happens within the close environment of the child - parents, uncles, aunts, teachers and other guardians. Even 'professional' child trafficking usually starts with someone gaining the child's trust. Random abductions on the street are very rare. If the child calls for help, the suspects are often pretty easy to find.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... n-deported

Makes me wonder, if the account above is true, if we're seeing these decisions starting to seep into the federal government.

What reason does *ANY* CBP officer have to ask a transiting woman her pregnancy status or abortion history? I hope these "officers" are investigated and all fired/named if the investigation coroborates her account.

SEAorPWM wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jul/13/have-you-recently-had-an-abortion-australian-transiting-through-us-questioned-then-deported

Makes me wonder, if the account above is true, if we're seeing these decisions starting to seep into the federal government.

What reason does *ANY* CBP officer have to ask a transiting woman her pregnancy status or abortion history? I hope these "officers" are investigated and all fired/named if the investigation coroborates her account.

There are some pretty big errors in that article. First, she was not deported, she was denied entry. It may not seem like it, but that is a huge difference from a legal standpoint. The also talk about her and another person not knowing the conditions of their entry. I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone who visits a foreign country and doesn't care to learn the rules concerning their permission to get in. With that said, the pregnant question can be a valid immigration question. There is a pretty big birth tourist industry where people will visit a country, like the US, as a visitor or other non-immigrant visa classification for the purpose of giving birth. Via the concept of Jus Soli (law of soil), almost all babies born in the US are citizens. Once that child is a citizen, there are a lot more avenues for the parent to become a US Citizen. Its a backdoor to getting citizenship. The abortion question is very very strange. I would be interested as to why they thought that was a pertinent question to ask.

bpatus297 wrote:

The abortion question is very very strange. I would be interested as to why they thought that was a pertinent question to ask.

It's beyond strange. I'd venture to suggest it's none of CBP's goddamned business whatsoever.

bpatus297 wrote:

With that said, the pregnant question can be a valid immigration question. There is a pretty big birth tourist industry where people will visit a country, like the US, as a visitor or other non-immigrant visa classification for the purpose of giving birth. Via the concept of Jus Soli (law of soil), almost all babies born in the US are citizens.

I doubt that there are going to be a lot of Australians trying to get citizenship this way.

petertenthije wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

With that said, the pregnant question can be a valid immigration question. There is a pretty big birth tourist industry where people will visit a country, like the US, as a visitor or other non-immigrant visa classification for the purpose of giving birth. Via the concept of Jus Soli (law of soil), almost all babies born in the US are citizens.

I doubt that there are going to be a lot of Australians trying to get citizenship this way.

It is mostly Russians, Chinese, and Central Americans.

The Democrats have played this issue so pathetically. They should introduce legislation in Congress that permits abortion in the case of rape or incest. That would force everyone in Congress to vote on this. I'm sick of an extremist minority in this country shoving their perverted ignorant religious views on the reasonable majority of Americans who were in favor of Roe vs Wade.