Beyond ****ing stupid and in no way comparable.
Politico: Roe to be overturned per draft opinion
- Thread starter UncleMark
- Start date
iWhat are you personally doing to provide healthcare for the poor?
When is it any of your concern poor kids die? How many poor people have you taken to the doctor?
I know many "right wingers" who provide personal help to people and paid for medical care. I have put poor relatives on my insurance.
Stop making generalizations or repeating talking points you hear from your Party.
Please stop making him kill the children. Hand over your wallet. That is so much easier than doing the hard thing of holding people responsible for actions and showing them that there actually are optimal ways to approach life.
There is a safety net jackass.
I openly and freely confess to enjoying that too. When doing it and when reading it from others.
What "all kinds of things" would you like me to talk about? I have no problem discussing.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Yup, and just like a "Christian" to think it's their job to tell other people how to approach life
If a woman without health insurance is pregnant, are you willing to pay the thousands of dollars (possibly tens of thousands of dollars) to make a healthy pregnancy & delivery a reality? That precious life needs your full support.
Are you going to provide that young mother with paid time off work /family leave to bond with the baby? Why not? Is that "socialist nonsense"?
Are you going to provide social services to that child as he/she grows up? Or is that also "socialist nonsense"?
Pro-life ought not to be just pro-in-utero-life.
Per the news the case was argued in December so this would be when they write their opinions.
Rather than fighting about whether abortion should be legal or not...does it bother anyone else that this would be leaked purely to stir outrage to try to leverage political pressure on the court?
This is disturbing as hell and the justice that did it/looked the other way should be dismissed from the court.
This is disturbing as hell and the justice that did it/looked the other way should be dismissed from the court.
Save your moral outrage for impeaching Thomas and Kavanagh.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Can Justices get in trouble for lying to Congress about their intentions when they are nominated?
You mean like when our President lied about his intentions so he could get elected?
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
So all of this outrage about the "leaker' but not hearing much about the oath breaker....
So we are clear, you think a good compromise is to force teenage boys who are still going through puberty to have a surgery which impacts their fertility. The procedure is reversible but reversing is not 100% successful and the chances for success decrease with time.
Vasectomy reversal - Mayo Clinic
www.mayoclinic.org
And all of that because we would look to restrict women's ability to have an abortion which terminates a pregnancy. Something that can he avoided by abstinence and various forms of contraception, all of which do not require surgery and do not run the risk of sterilizing teenagers.
The idea is as stupid as saying women should have their tubes tied at 14.
If they did this...fine.
if you are somehow justifying what happened, then you need to take a step back and rethink your political blindness.
I must be misunderstanding your post. It sounds like you're arguing that the real story is that a draft opinion was leaked, and that the overturning of a 50 year-old precedent in one of the most consequential decisions of our time is secondary.
Help me out here. What am I missing?
Don't ever tell me house reps are special. God what an idiot.
How does he possibly believe this helps the pro-life cause in attracting women. How does this shitbag keep getting elected.
Thta's precisely the Fox News take. The Leak! Oh the Humanity!
Two separate topics and two separate discussions. I can tell from your post that you are clearly not prepared to have both discussions.
Move the age to 18 for men. No restrictions on abortion for women. Problem solved. Any men who have a baby out of penislock will be jailed for 5 years.So we are clear, you think a good compromise is to force teenage boys who are still going through puberty to have a surgery which impacts their fertility. The procedure is reversible but reversing is not 100% successful and the chances for success decrease with time.
Vasectomy reversal - Mayo Clinic
And all of that because we would look to restrict women's ability to have an abortion which terminates a pregnancy. Something that can he avoided by abstinence and various forms of contraception, all of which do not require surgery and do not run the risk of sterilizing teenagers.
The idea is as stupid as saying women should have their tubes tied at 14.
Clever but you’re using a bit of sophistry here. Roe v. Wade isn’t about what society can do to a woman’s body. It’s about what she can or cannot do to her own body. She has a right to privacy in the first trimester, somewhat limited right to privacy in the second trimester, and very little right to privacy in the third trimester. The only conceivable area where society can commit an act upon her body (as in a forced vasectomy) is in the third trimester in order to save her life.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
So we are clear, you think a good compromise is to force teenage boys who are still going through puberty to have a surgery which impacts their fertility. The procedure is reversible but reversing is not 100% successful and the chances for success decrease with time.
Vasectomy reversal - Mayo Clinic
And all of that because we would look to restrict women's ability to have an abortion which terminates a pregnancy. Something that can he avoided by abstinence and various forms of contraception, all of which do not require surgery and do not run the risk of sterilizing teenagers.
The idea is as stupid as saying women should have their tubes tied at 14.
So about the same level of stupidity as you butting into woman's rights?
I am not a doctor but there are many 100% natural and unfortunate reasons why an abortion may be medically necessary. Many are abnormalities that often naturally trigger miscarriages, but in some women and for some reason the miscarriage is not automatically triggered. These include
-severe chromosomal abnormalities. Not just Down Syndrome, which you can usually live with, but many others (e.g., trisomy 13, trisomy 18, Turner syndrome, Tay-Sachs disease, Potter's Syndrome)
-Severe birth defects that are usually not survivable (e.g., spina bifida, meningocele, kidney defects, heart defects, anencephaly, hydrocephalus)
-partial miscarriage
-premature membrane rupture
-placental abruption
-maternal cancer
-advanced preeclampsia
These are exceptions not often mentioned with the oft-discussed rape and incest reasoning.
While such cases may seem statistically infrequent, they are encountered pretty much every day in every maternity ward and I don't hear a damn thing about keeping abortion as an option when they happen.
-severe chromosomal abnormalities. Not just Down Syndrome, which you can usually live with, but many others (e.g., trisomy 13, trisomy 18, Turner syndrome, Tay-Sachs disease, Potter's Syndrome)
-Severe birth defects that are usually not survivable (e.g., spina bifida, meningocele, kidney defects, heart defects, anencephaly, hydrocephalus)
-partial miscarriage
-premature membrane rupture
-placental abruption
-maternal cancer
-advanced preeclampsia
These are exceptions not often mentioned with the oft-discussed rape and incest reasoning.
While such cases may seem statistically infrequent, they are encountered pretty much every day in every maternity ward and I don't hear a damn thing about keeping abortion as an option when they happen.
Yeah, this is dumb enough that I am not entertaining it anymore. Seriously stupid.
We are quite loathsome. I can barely stand myself.
Yes, and I don't fully get it. I know the leak provides exciting hope for a "gotcha" against an evil lib Justice (or her law clerk or other staff member) but overturning Roe is something the GOP has campaigned on (and presumably wanted) for 50 years. Where's the backslapping? Where are the celebrations? Or is this a case of be careful what you wish for?
To be clear, you are upset that you don’t see enough Cons spiking the football?
I’ve seen plenty but to the extent that there are less than you expected I think it’s largely because Cons don’t view the court as a political instrument to the extent that Democrats do.
Their job is to interpret the law and most honest legal experts that I’ve seen would concede that R v W is bad law.
I also think Cons have a better understanding that this is far from a death knell for legal abortions, something the more hysterical people on the left seem to have trouble grasping.
Last edited:
Not at all Lars, the law is a conservative institution by nature, fighting its bastardization for political purposes would actually fit as a oversimplified definition for what scotus is supposed to do. When you get a clearly political decision made out of whole cloth like R v W, it’s incumbent upon the court to overturn it.
What? You really think Republicans don't use the Supreme Court as a political instrument? Seriously?
Here's what Mitch McConnell said in September 2020 as he announced that Trump's nominee would receive a confirmation vote in the Senate to fill the Ruth Ginsburg vacancy after McConnell blocked Obama's nominee:
"In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise."
McConnell: Trump's Supreme Court nominee 'will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate'
Senate Republicans have signaled that they would likely fill a vacancy to the Supreme Court ahead of the presidential election, but it is unclear whether the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will change their stance.
Your denial that Republicans use the Supreme Court as a political instrument makes no sense whatsoever because it contradicts Mitch McConnell.
Don’t think your post was cold hearted, or you don’t think?
Wait. What?
I indicated surprise, not distress, at the relatively muted response - - - to the opinion itself - - by Pubs. There seems to be much more interest in the leak.
Your dispassionate analysis is interesting but it doesn't comport with reality. Landmark Supreme Court decisions (Brown, Roe, etc.) often/usually address emotionally-charged issues, with public celebrations by those on the prevailing side. As I said, I haven't seen much evidence of that. Maybe it'll happen in June when the final draft is released.
Wait. What?
Roe v. Wade was a 7-2 decision. The majority opinion was written by a lifelong Republican, Justice Blackmun, a Nixon appointee, and five of the seven Justices who voted pro-choice in Roe were appointed by Republican presidents. One dissenter was appointed by a Democrat president and the other by a Republican.
Last edited:
If it proves to be a liberal justice that’s responsible for the leak, Republicans will be so outraged they’ll demand immediate resignation, but replacement of the justice in January, 2025.
