Politico: Roe to be overturned per draft opinion

[HoosierJimbo89]

No, I'm not and don't play stupid. Just answer my question. Why are you avoiding it?

Non-violent protests are fine, but you cannot try to influence a judge's decision.

Aren't those pro-lifers who do such thing doing time in prison for their violent actions? As far as "harrassing" women, that's just peaceful protesting, isn't it?

Why bring up Hitler? I don't get it. Are you saying it is ok to murder "bad" people if you believe it will save lives or your religion requires it?

The 1st Amendment applies to the protests at the judge's houses, even if you don't like it. A protest by itself does not amount to obstruction of justice: pretty big jump you are making.

Women walking into a health care provider are not public figures: Supreme Court justices are. If you are ok with pro lifers harassing these women, then you should be ok with the pro choice protests at the Justice's houses. These pro choice protests have a ways to go before they reach the violence some pro lifers have displayed in their protests.

 

[GuyDatHoo]

You sound like you are equating Hitler to the murdered doctor: am I wrong?

You are also pretty fired up about a nonviolent protest, but pro-lifers have been killing doctors, setting fire to and vandalizing abortion clinics, protesting abortion clinics, and harassing women that go to abortion clinics for 50 years. That is a pretty serious double standard.

Yeah. No. That’s not really happening. Send me the article of the last pro lifer plotting to kill a doctor. Was it 40 years ago?

You seem to frequent the left wing version of QAnon. God help you, what a partisan hack.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Yeah. No. That’s not really happening. Send me the article of the last pro lifer plotting to kill a doctor. Was it 40 years ago?

You seem to frequent the left wing version of QAnon. God help you, what a partisan hack.

Guy killed people at an abortion clinic in Colorado back in 2015. Before that, a doctor was assassinated in Kansas in 2009. In the meantime, there's been nonstop violence against property and threats against people. Are you living in a hole? This stuff happens on the regular.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

Yeah. No. That’s not really happening. Send me the article of the last pro lifer plotting to kill a doctor. Was it 40 years ago?

You seem to frequent the left wing version of QAnon. God help you, what a partisan hack.

Do you want me to read it to you?

Anti-abortion violence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DANC]

Why bring up Hitler? I don't get it. Are you saying it is ok to murder "bad" people if you believe it will save lives or your religion requires it?

The 1st Amendment applies to the protests at the judge's houses, even if you don't like it. A protest by itself does not amount to obstruction of justice: pretty big jump you are making.

Women walking into a health care provider are not public figures: Supreme Court justices are. If you are ok with pro lifers harassing these women, then you should be ok with the pro choice protests at the Justice's houses. These pro choice protests have a ways to go before they reach the violence some pro lifers have displayed in their protests.

Maybe you really aren't that bright. I asked how YOU would feel about it. Not whether it was OK. And yet, you feign ignorance of the question. That's OK - I know how you would answer.

Are you a 1st Amendment literalist then? You do know there's are laws against influencing judges, right?

You don't have to be protesting against a public figure to protest. You are confused.

It's not what I'm "OK" with. It's the law you should concern yourself with. You on the left seem to get your feelings confused with actual law.

 

[DANC]

Guy killed people at an abortion clinic in Colorado back in 2015. Before that, a doctor was assassinated in Kansas in 2009. In the meantime, there's been nonstop violence against property and threats against people. Are you living in a hole? This stuff happens on the regular.

Weren't those people jailed? Why are you using violence to justify potential violence against judges?

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

Maybe you really aren't that bright. I asked how YOU would feel about it. Not whether it was OK. And yet, you feign ignorance of the question. That's OK - I know how you would answer.

Are you a 1st Amendment literalist then? You do know there's are laws against influencing judges, right?

You don't have to be protesting against a public figure to protest. You are confused.

It's not what I'm "OK" with. It's the law you should concern yourself with. You on the left seem to get your feelings confused with actual law.

What is with the name calling and nastiness? I'm just trying to figure out the point of the question, and I don't have to do anything. I'm not a big fan of Hitler or Nazis, and I'm all for Hitler being dead sooner rather than later: what is your point?

I have represented people charged with obstruction of justice: have you? I know what it is, lol. How do you think judges are being influenced? Is somebody threatening them, trying to bribe them, or blocking their access to the court? Somebody isn't committing a crime just because they are exercising the 1st Amendment in a way you don't like: try again.

The ability to criticise the government, which includes Supreme Court justices, is one of the main functions of the 1st Amendment. Once again, I'm not the one complaining about anybody protesting.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Weren't those people jailed? Why are you using violence to justify potential violence against judges?

I'm not justifying anything. I'm only correcting your mistaken impression that this violence stopped 40 years ago.

 

[luviubball]

I’m just saying your argument doesn’t hold water. The leak was long after the opinion was formulated and not long before it would become public anyway. For fundraising reasons it would make sense to leak it long ago.

Campaign $$$$,, plenty of time to spend it before November. Certainly wasn’t about raising more $$$ for the more pro-baby killing democrats, most all are for it.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Guy killed people at an abortion clinic in Colorado back in 2015. Before that, a doctor was assassinated in Kansas in 2009. In the meantime, there's been nonstop violence against property and threats against people. Are you living in a hole? This stuff happens on the regular.

Seven and thirteen years is “on the regular?” Seems there was more property destruction and violence during the riots surrounding the BLM protests of last summer than in the last 15 years of Pro-Life protests.

Of course I don’t condone property destruction and violence by any protest group. And I’m 100 percent pro-choice before viability and pro-life after with exceptions for the physical health of the mother or severe health issues with the unborn child. I’m not protesting on either side.

 

[Stuffshot]

Yeah. No. That’s not really happening. Send me the article of the last pro lifer plotting to kill a doctor. Was it 40 years ago?

You seem to frequent the left wing version of QAnon. God help you, what a partisan hack.

Take your pick from the attacks summarized here:

Anti-abortion violence - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Your request about "plotting to kill a doctor" covers only some of the violence mentioned in the post you were responding to, so no need to find an article limited to just that.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

Seven and thirteen years is “on the regular?” Seems there was more property destruction and violence during the riots surrounding the BLM protests of last summer than in the last 15 years of Pro-Life protests.

Of course I don’t condone property destruction and violence by any protest group. And I’m 100 percent pro-choice before viability and pro-life after with exceptions for the physical health of the mother or severe health issues with the unborn child. I’m not protesting on either side.

I think Goat meant that the violence as a whole has been pretty regular since Roe v. Wade. True, there has been more property destruction, arson, etc. than doctor murders, but one doctor murdered is way too much. There was basically a hit list of doctors created by a pro life group, and the only term to describe the violence by some pro lifers, especially fundamentalist Christians, toward abortion clinics and doctors is domestic terrorism.

 

[Stuffshot]

What is with the name calling and nastiness? I'm just trying to figure out the point of the question, and I don't have to do anything. I'm not a big fan of Hitler or Nazis, and I'm all for Hitler being dead sooner rather than later: what is your point?

I have represented people charged with obstruction of justice: have you? I know what it is, lol. How do you think judges are being influenced? Is somebody threatening them, trying to bribe them, or blocking their access to the court? Somebody isn't committing a crime just because they are exercising the 1st Amendment in a way you don't like: try again.

The ability to criticise the government, which includes Supreme Court justices, is one of the main functions of the 1st Amendment. Once again, I'm not the one complaining about anybody protesting.

Aren't the prohibitions against "influencing judges" (as he put it) limited to actions meant to influence a judge's specific decision in a particular pending case, i.e. not applicable to actions meant to change a judge's general attitude about a matter of general interest ?

All these federal judges/justices themselves give speeches all the time discussing general topics already at issue in their caseloads, like "crime," " violence," "fraud," "power of federal government," etc.

I hope we don't have a rule that lets them pontificate on such things without the citizens also having the chance to give general comments about the same topics within their hearing,

Edit to add: Long Dong Silver rides again:

Critics Erupt After Clarence Thomas Tells Americans To Deal With It On Roe v. Wade

Supreme Court Justice chides the public to "live with" it, but that doesn't seem to be the route his wife took after the election.

www.yahoo.com

Clarence Thomas says Supreme Court won’t be ‘bullied’ in wake of abortion opinion leak - Washington Examiner

Days after a Supreme Court opinion leaked and signaled the possible overturning of a long-standing precedent for women's abortion access, Justice Clarence Thomas declared that the high court cannot be "bullied."Thomas, the longest-serving justice on the Supreme Court now and an appointee of...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

---

---

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

Aren't the prohibitions against "influencing judges" (as he put it) limited to actions meant to influence a judge's specific decision in a particular pending case, i.e. not applicable to actions meant to change a judge's general attitude about a matter of general interest ?

All these federal judges/justices themselves give speeches all the time discussing general topics already at issue in their caseloads, like "crime," " violence," "fraud," "power of federal government," etc.

I hope we don't have a rule that lets them pontificate on such things without the citizens also having the chance to give general comments about the same topics within their hearing,

Edit to add: Long Dong Silver rides again:

Critics Erupt After Clarence Thomas Tells Americans To Deal With It On Roe v. Wade

Supreme Court Justice chides the public to "live with" it, but that doesn't seem to be the route his wife took after the election.

www.yahoo.com

---

---

The 1st Amendment absolutely permits nonviolent protests towards public figures and public debate of political topics. I think some people don't like the fact people are going to somebody's house, and I get that. But, the 1st Amendment permits a lot: Nazi's marched through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors in Skokie, IL, people protest at funerals, etc.

In order to obstruct justice, a person has to threaten a judicial player (ex. - if you rule this way or testify, then I will harm you), attempt to bribe them, block them from from doing their job, etc. If people are just protesting in general, then it is not obstruction of justice. A person has to intentionally obstruct the judicial process.

 

[zeke4ahs]

I disagree. A pro-abortion stance will automatically remove any candidate for consideration among many people.

It may not to you or others, and that's OK. But I think the number of people who whom it's a primary consideration is considerable.

There's a reason Republicans have had it as a plank on their platform.

Exactly. The same reason Republicans have had a problem with women for decades. It’s not going to get better .

 

[zeke4ahs]

You have to give Zeke credit - she's got the leftist talking points down pat. It's her only means of communicating.

None of what she posts are her ideas or thoughts. You can watch MSNBC and know exactly how she will respond.

Tommy's just a marketing goof.

Bless your heart Danno. Haven’t watched MSNBC since I can remember. Election night, maybe?

 

[zeke4ahs]

That was my first reaction also but the conservative angle seems to be gaining some speculation and like all good conspiracy theories....it makes sense (you have the votes now, you know one or more is waffling, get it out publicly so their name is tied to it in the hopes of sealing it).

Oh and repeating what has been said, please post more.

My favorite conspiracy theory is that it was Ginni Thomas. No idea why she would, but I’m not sure I understand all of her thought processes .

 

[iuwclurker]

My favorite conspiracy theory is that it was Ginni Thomas. No idea why she would, but I’m not sure I understand all of her thought processes .

Ginni Thomas is a conspiracy of one.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Exactly. The same reason Republicans have had a problem with women for decades. It’s not going to get better .

Many women, yes. Not all women or even close to it. Remember, Republicans have won the white women vote in several national elections in recent decades.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Your theory that this was leaked by Conservatives doesn’t hold water. Look at how radicalized the Left has become and absolutely nut-crazed. It accomplished its goal. Galvanized the base and brought in tons of money. We are likely to see months of inner city destruction next.

Yep all these women are headed to the inner cities to start fires. Sign me up!

 

[zeke4ahs]

Many women, yes. Not all women or even close to it. Remember, Republicans have won the white women vote in several national elections in recent decades.

Do you need me to quantify every single time? I’ll try to start doing so. I’m relying on math. Do you disagree that the Republicans have been upside down with women for decades?

 

[zeke4ahs]

You are F**ing nuts. What the hell do you do for a living? Seriously.

WTH is this?

 

[vesuvius13]

Defecating on the floor, laying pipe bombs, beating police officers, that’s the definition of peaceful in my book. Absolutely.

Have you noticed why they haven't come out with who set those pipe bombs as it wasn't the protestors. You keep coming up with MSM that lies to make the right look bad but don't research to find out the truth. Much of what the MSM says is untrue ie Steele report Covington Boys, Jessie Smollet, Brown [St Louis] hands up don't shoot, etc.

 

[zeke4ahs]

More of the latter. He's Democrat talking point word vomit in every thread.


I believe a parent has all sorts of rights when it comes to their children. Those rights end at a certain point though. We all agree on that. We don't tolerate abuse and we don't tolerate homicide from parents against their children.

Let me repeat that, we don't allow parents to kill their children. We don't allow it if they aren't ready to be parents. We don't allow it if they just don't have the funds. We don't allow it if they are in a bad spot with their mental health. We don't allow it if they have school to finish. We don't allow it if they are scared their child may pass on some disease to them and cause them to die. We don't allow it if they feel that breastfeeding their child makes the child a "parasite". We don't allow it.

So this is not a "both ways" argument. It is a really consistent argument.

I am going to moralize a bit. This country is broke. Just morally bankrupt and the position that the country finds itself in is reflective of that. This is a narcissistic, self indulgent, hateful place. "But, but conservatives XYZ..." Did I stutter? A narcissistic, self indulgent, hateful place. And maybe that is just human nature, no, I am pretty sure it is human nature. Responsibility is hard. Deferred gratification is hard. So we choose the "easy" path. Boy has that path been great for us. (DWS in case that was not clear.)

So in answer to a few questions above. I support a social safety net. Sometimes stuff happens. Sometimes we have people in society that are not going to be able to care for themselves like a "normal" adult would. I have a son like that. A piece of the genetic puzzle just didn't click right for him. I will do everything I can to help set him up for when I am gone. Conventional wisdom from many of you would say he doesn't deserve a life. Too expensive, a drain on resources...he's a really sweet kid though. I had a cousin who passed away a few years ago. Cerebral palsy. She went to a home when she hit adulthood. My aunt and uncle just could not do the lifting and moving she required anymore. Her home neglected to monitor some things and she died of an infection. She never could talk. Loved listening to music, would get super upset if anyone said bye. She should have never seen the light of day either. I know the daughter my wife miscarried wasn't a clump of cells. Only girl my wife had and we never got to meet her.

"Abortions aren't fun for women..." Well, the sane ones at least. You want to know why? Because deep down we all know that is a person getting killed. When my wife had to get the D&C with the miscarriage, all the talk went from baby to "fetus". People think that makes it feel better. It didn't. You can try to lie to yourself that something else has happened here, doesn't make it so.

40 million people snuffed out before they ever got a chance. And why? Because some of them weren't going to be like you and me. So they were dehumanized and killed. Some of them were going to be a burden. So the easy path was chosen. 40 million potential stars just snuffed out. 40 million sons and daughters. Brothers and sisters. Future Moms and Dads. Never got a chance. And many of it supported because people have convinced themselves that they were of lesser value. Some because of economics. Some because, hey, me having a good time right now is more important than their life.

Anyways, I am rambling. Several of you on this site and in the culture at large can ridicule and mock me and try and play all the stupid little logic games with me that you want and at the end of the day it amounts to an ant hill. I am 100% comfortable in my position because it is the right position.

The easy path was chosen. My goodness. You can certainly feel 100% right for your position. You don’t have the right to impose your position on everyone else. You can be 100% sure of how you feel about something until it actually affects you. I know you think you’d make a 12 year old daughter who was pregnant carry to term, but you don’t know that until it happens to your family. There are all kinds of reasons for abortions and I don’t feel it’s my right to impose my religious beliefs on others when I have no idea the impact it will make on their life and the child, were it to be born. It takes a certain amount of arrogance to feel 100% certain that yours is the correct judgement not just for you, but for everyone else in the entire world. And I do respect your position and believe that you would try to help others. It’s just not always black and white.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Have you noticed why they haven't come out with who set those pipe bombs as it wasn't the protestors. You keep coming up with MSM that lies to make the right look bad but don't research to find out the truth. Much of what the MSM says is untrue ie Steele report Covington Boys, Jessie Smollet, Brown [St Louis] hands up don't shoot, etc.

Oh it wasn’t the protestors? Lol. Who was it then? Do tell!!

 

[zeke4ahs]

No mention of the fact by all the self-righteous that the vast majority of babies killed are black.

Planned Parenthood started out as a way to limit black children, and they are succeediing.

Oh? Who exactly forces them, or anyone for that matter to have an abortion?

 

[zeke4ahs]

The left is the most f.o.s. hypocritical mess of lying scum on the planet. Talking about my choice my body. How many lost jobs over a jab. Because they HAD to get it or else. It's a joke. Absolute joke all of it. And there are people that still buy into it. Lmao.

These people are scumbags. People have had it. They are done. The view video yesterday "I don't understand black and Latino pubs?" Hahaha people see through your BS libs.

Then you watch video of these people protesting and none of them can even define a woman. Hilarious they look at the interviewer dumbfounded...gee wonder why?

Thank you Dinesh for exposing them AGAIN in doing 2000 Mules. It's all on video all of it. You all defending this are becoming smaller and smaller. There is a wave coming. People are tired of all of it.

This admin is broke. The party is uncommon sense broken. Do the opposite of what needs to be done. Why do you still get its back. It bends you over and hammers you at every turn.

Trump Trump Trump Trump
Trump Trump Trump Trump
Trump Trump Trump Trump
Trump Trump Trump Trump
Trump Trump Trump Trump
Trump Trump Trump Trump
Trump Trump Trump Trump
Trump Trump Trump Trump

View embedded media

We have to fix our education system and improve our mental health services.

 

[zeke4ahs]

So you’re good with abortion for any reason between conception and birth if I read that correctly. That’s an extremely radical position on abortion. It makes it hard to believe you actually feel anything about a miscarriage if aborting a baby the day before birth is OK with you.

Aborting a baby the day before birth? Doesn’t that just happen when the baby/mother is going to die?

 

[zeke4ahs]

I’ve asked this question before. I’d bet most people on here think they don’t know anyone who has had an abortion. ( maybe I’m wrong) .I bet in reality most of you know several people who have, you just weren’t told. Abortions have always been with us and always will be. Those with means it will be easy and safe. Those without will be riskier for the woman. Some states now have said they will now go after IUD, Plan B , etc. How does that help?

 

[zeke4ahs]

I've yet to watch 2000 Mules, but hope to soon.

If it shows what is reported - that 'mules' were tracked dumping ballots in drop-off boxes by video and cell phone tracking, that should be enough proof for any judge to look at.

Of course, we know any evidence coming from a conservative will be poo-poo'd and ignored, while any rumors spread by leftists will be considered Gospel.

You’re counting on a film by that nutcase? I’d hold out for the my pillow guy at least. Lol

 

[zeke4ahs]

Without the leak, there is no content to galvanize the fund raising. Can you seriously say that with intellectual honesty: if the White House maintains their focus on the content; rather than the huge ramifications of someone actually leaking ANYTHING from SCOTUS? Another point, Conservatives hold the US Constitution in far greater gravitas than liberals do.

Oh they do? What makes you think that?

 

[zeke4ahs]

Campaign $$$$,, plenty of time to spend it before November. Certainly wasn’t about raising more $$$ for the more pro-baby killing democrats, most all are for it.

Hyperbole much? You left out a few right wing buzz words: commie, socialist, want to steal our guns.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

Exactly. The same reason Republicans have had a problem with women for decades. It’s not going to get better .

This has nothing to do with why MEN have problems with women for 20 years.
Signed, Johnny Deep.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Aborting a baby the day before birth? Doesn’t that just happen when the baby/mother is going to die?

I actually looked this up because I thought New York had the least restrictive abortion laws. Is there another state? https://www.findlaw.com/state/new-york-law/new-york-abortion-laws.html

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Aborting a baby the day before birth? Doesn’t that just happen when the baby/mother is going to die?

No. I linked to studies that found that the reasons provided for third trimester abortion are essentially the same as given for those in the first.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

No. I linked to studies that found that the reasons provided for third trimester abortion are essentially the same as given for those in the first.

Can you do me a solid and repost? I really wanted to read that stuff when I got time, but I lost it.

 

[bub-rub]

No. I linked to studies that found that the reasons provided for third trimester abortion are essentially the same as given for those in the first.

I keep seeing third trimester abortions make up about 1% of total abortions. $ seems like a big thing. I don’t know anything about kff.org (Kaiser Family Foundation) but the smart wife says they are legit and are great w medical insurance data

“Almost half of individuals who obtained an abortion after 20 weeks did not suspect they were pregnant until later in pregnancy, and other barriers to care included lack of information about where to access an abortion, transportation difficulties, lack of insurance coverage and inability to pay for the procedure. This is unsurprising, given abortions can be cost-prohibitive for many; in a study from 2011-2012, the median cost of a surgical abortion at 10 weeks was $495, jumping to $1,350 at 20 weeks (range $750-$5,000) excluding the cost of travel and lost wages. Yet the Federal Reserve Board found 40% of U.S. adults do not have enough in savings to pay for a $400 emergency expense, meaning many individuals may need to delay having an abortion until they can raise the necessary funds.”

Abortions Later in Pregnancy in a Post-Dobbs Era | KFF

This brief explains why individuals may seek abortions later in pregnancy, how often these procedures occur, and the various laws which regulate access to abortions later in pregnancy across the country.

www.kff.org

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Since you are peddling a centrist hate for all, while pushing an obvious theme to be one sided, will you tell me your stats on being correct? 1 in 100, 4 in 100?
Or are you just another agitator, in a trailer park on the west side of Bloomington?

where did i ever say or imply i'm a centrist?

and by "one sided", you mean pro Joe Citizen pro working class, rather than being a blind tool for either money owned party?

as for my stats, i'm old, and my stats over the yrs on being right, is why i do have the confidence of my convictions.

as for abortion, i think both sides can and do make a compelling argument for their side.

so compelling, they see no other side.

that said, i think the matter is a lot more complicated than the forced birth side want to make it out to be.

a lot more.

it's that far far more complicated thing that in the end, has me backing pro choice vs forced birth.

but it's the most complicated of all the stances i have on things.

in the end, for me, it comes down to just who's body is it? the govt's, the church's, or the individual's?

that said, i also believe in a reasonable time restriction as well, other than in the case of the health of the mother, or some horrible later term discovery about the health situation of the child.

 

[IUCrazy2]

The easy path was chosen. My goodness. You can certainly feel 100% right for your position. You don’t have the right to impose your position on everyone else. You can be 100% sure of how you feel about something until it actually affects you. I know you think you’d make a 12 year old daughter who was pregnant carry to term, but you don’t know that until it happens to your family. There are all kinds of reasons for abortions and I don’t feel it’s my right to impose my religious beliefs on others when I have no idea the impact it will make on their life and the child, were it to be born. It takes a certain amount of arrogance to feel 100% certain that yours is the correct judgement not just for you, but for everyone else in the entire world. And I do respect your position and believe that you would try to help others. It’s just not always black and white.

We all impose our will on each other based on what we feel is right. Want to talk about schools? (That's rhetorical, I don't want to talk about schools in this thread).

Thank you for respecting my position even if I still feel you don't totally understand it. FWIW, I do understand yours and also believe that my position would probably necessarily involve some compromise on my end in other areas outside abortion.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

We all impose our will on each other based on what we feel is right. Want to talk about schools? (That's rhetorical, I don't want to talk about schools in this thread).

Thank you for respecting my position even if I still feel you don't totally understand it. FWIW, I do understand yours and also believe that my position would probably necessarily involve some compromise on my end in other areas outside abortion.

We really can have civil discussions about serious topics. Way to lead on that.