'Daily Show' Mocks ‘Crazy-Ass’ Alabama Law Protecting the Unborn

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Now... understand, these are the same people who are standing upon the sanctity of "Law", where normalizing Sexual Abnormality is concerned... (after they disregarded the sodomy laws and used judicial subversion to overturn the laws passed, adhering to the natural standard of marriage).

"Last July, Alabama amended House Bill 494 to allow attorneys to represent the rights of the unborn child in cases where a minor was seeking an abortion. Predictably, the media certainly reacted negatively, calling it heinous, absurd, and insane. On the Jan.15, “Daily Show,” correspondent Jessica Williams interviewed both sides – an Alabama civil rights attorney in favor of the law, Julian McPhillips, and Susan Watson, Exec. Director of the ACLU in Alabama, who is challenging the law. After mocking the idea that a fetus could have a lawyer, Williams defended her satirical line of questioning to McPhillips: “You have a crazy-ass job, sir. I don’t know what’s in the realm of possibility, and what’s in the realm of not possible.” - See more at: Daily Show Mocks Crazy-Ass Alabama Law Protecting the Unborn"


utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=daily-show-mocks#sthash.KT1WRgLy.dpuf

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Since many states already treat the unborn as people in the case of drunk dfriving fatalities say, this isn't as over-the-top at it might seem at first glance. Just the logical extension of murder charges for the death of an unborn person. If that makes sense, then so to does defending an unborn person's right to exist vis a vis abortion.

 

[Roadrunner]

Now... understand, these are the same people who are standing upon the sanctity of "Law", where normalizing Sexual Abnormality is concerned... (after they disregarded the sodomy laws and used judicial subversion to overturn the laws passed, adhering to the natural standard of marriage).

"Last July, Alabama amended House Bill 494 to allow attorneys to represent the rights of the unborn child in cases where a minor was seeking an abortion. Predictably, the media certainly reacted negatively, calling it heinous, absurd, and insane. On the Jan.15, “Daily Show,” correspondent Jessica Williams interviewed both sides – an Alabama civil rights attorney in favor of the law, Julian McPhillips, and Susan Watson, Exec. Director of the ACLU in Alabama, who is challenging the law. After mocking the idea that a fetus could have a lawyer, Williams defended her satirical line of questioning to McPhillips: “You have a crazy-ass job, sir. I don’t know what’s in the realm of possibility, and what’s in the realm of not possible.” - See more at: Daily Show Mocks Crazy-Ass Alabama Law Protecting the Unborn"


utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=daily-show-mocks#sthash.KT1WRgLy.dpuf

Lot's safer than mocking the Prophet.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Since many states already treat the unborn as people in the case of drunk dfriving fatalities say, this isn't as over-the-top at it might seem at first glance. Just the logical extension of murder charges for the death of an unborn person. If that makes sense, then so to does defending an unborn person's right to exist vis a vis abortion.

Correct.

The point of posting the article is to expose the Left's inbred hypocrisy. They claim to be the defender of the defenseless... and the video clearly demonstrates their true nature, which is to mock, berate and belittle the defenseless and to do the same for those who are literally defending those who cannot otherwise defend themselves. NOW... with that said... THE ACLU, is literally mocking the defense of the defenseless... .

It doesn't GET any better that THAT video in terms of demonstrations of Leftist hypocrisy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Now... understand, these are the same people who are standing upon the sanctity of "Law", where normalizing Sexual Abnormality is concerned... (after they disregarded the sodomy laws and used judicial subversion to overturn the laws passed, adhering to the natural standard of marriage).

"Last July, Alabama amended House Bill 494 to allow attorneys to represent the rights of the unborn child in cases where a minor was seeking an abortion. Predictably, the media certainly reacted negatively, calling it heinous, absurd, and insane. On the Jan.15, “Daily Show,” correspondent Jessica Williams interviewed both sides – an Alabama civil rights attorney in favor of the law, Julian McPhillips, and Susan Watson, Exec. Director of the ACLU in Alabama, who is challenging the law. After mocking the idea that a fetus could have a lawyer, Williams defended her satirical line of questioning to McPhillips: “You have a crazy-ass job, sir. I don’t know what’s in the realm of possibility, and what’s in the realm of not possible.” - See more at: Daily Show Mocks Crazy-Ass Alabama Law Protecting the Unborn"


utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=daily-show-mocks#sthash.KT1WRgLy.dpuf

Lot's safer than mocking the Prophet.

The Prophet?

.

.

.

OH! You're speaking of the pedophile psychotic, who labeled Satan "Allah" and established the first known socialist advocacy group, which he labeled a 'religion'?

Good point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A fetus can't have rights that conflict with woman's right to an abortion under Roe v Wade.

 

[Roadrunner]

Now... understand, these are the same people who are standing upon the sanctity of "Law", where normalizing Sexual Abnormality is concerned... (after they disregarded the sodomy laws and used judicial subversion to overturn the laws passed, adhering to the natural standard of marriage).

"Last July, Alabama amended House Bill 494 to allow attorneys to represent the rights of the unborn child in cases where a minor was seeking an abortion. Predictably, the media certainly reacted negatively, calling it heinous, absurd, and insane. On the Jan.15, “Daily Show,” correspondent Jessica Williams interviewed both sides – an Alabama civil rights attorney in favor of the law, Julian McPhillips, and Susan Watson, Exec. Director of the ACLU in Alabama, who is challenging the law. After mocking the idea that a fetus could have a lawyer, Williams defended her satirical line of questioning to McPhillips: “You have a crazy-ass job, sir. I don’t know what’s in the realm of possibility, and what’s in the realm of not possible.” - See more at: Daily Show Mocks Crazy-Ass Alabama Law Protecting the Unborn"


utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=daily-show-mocks#sthash.KT1WRgLy.dpuf

Lot's safer than mocking the Prophet.

The Prophet?

.

.

.

OH! You're speaking of the pedophile psychotic, who labeled Satan "Allah" and established the first known socialist advocacy group, which he labeled a 'religion'?

Good point.

Yeah, that guy.

I suspect the Daily Show types might temper their speech a bit, but, I wouldn't be surprised to see some home-bred jihadist go after a "celebrity" soon.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

A fetus can't have rights that conflict with woman's right to an abortion under Roe v Wade.

Nazis use to call Jews anything but humans. Made it easier to exterminate them. Fetus? Call them babies and then crush their skulls.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A fetus can't have rights that conflict with woman's right to an abortion under Roe v Wade.

Nazis use to call Jews anything but humans. Made it easier to exterminate them. Fetus? Call them babies and then crush their skulls.

Take it up with the Constitution and its case law.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

A fetus can't have rights that conflict with woman's right to an abortion under Roe v Wade.

And, as Stewart pointed out, we're trampling on Constitutionally guaranteed rights of defendants.

That was the point of the segment.

Not at all surprising that some missed that.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

A fetus can't have rights that conflict with woman's right to an abortion under Roe v Wade.

Nazis use to call Jews anything but humans. Made it easier to exterminate them. Fetus? Call them babies and then crush their skulls.

Take it up with the Constitution and its case law.

Show me where you can crush a baby's skull in the Constitution. And not some bogus interpretation.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A fetus can't have rights that conflict with woman's right to an abortion under Roe v Wade.

Good point.

Which, given that a fetus is a distinct human life and human life is endowed by its creator with unalienable rights, that is all one needs to know, to know that the decision that is "Roe": is LUDICROUS, thus irrelevant in terms of law.

The video in the article, demonstrates that beautifully... but it's nice that you took the time to offer another perspective.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A fetus can't have rights that conflict with woman's right to an abortion under Roe v Wade.

Nazis use to call Jews anything but humans. Made it easier to exterminate them. Fetus? Call them babies and then crush their skulls.

Take it up with the Constitution and its case law.

OH... Now THAT was unfortunate.

Ya see scamp, "Roe" is not in the Constitution... . But IF it were... THAT would be one really strong point ya had there. Sadly, given reality and all... well, you see how it is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A fetus can't have rights that conflict with woman's right to an abortion under Roe v Wade.

Nazis use to call Jews anything but humans. Made it easier to exterminate them. Fetus? Call them babies and then crush their skulls.

Take it up with the Constitution and its case law.

OH... Now THAT was unfortunate.

Ya see scamp, "Roe" is not in the Constitution... . But IF it were... THAT would be one really strong point ya had there. Sadly, given reality and all... well, you see how it is.

So states CAN constitutionally ban all abortion?

Prove it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A fetus can't have rights that conflict with woman's right to an abortion under Roe v Wade.

Nazis use to call Jews anything but humans. Made it easier to exterminate them. Fetus? Call them babies and then crush their skulls.

Take it up with the Constitution and its case law.

OH... Now THAT was unfortunate.

Ya see scamp, "Roe" is not in the Constitution... . But IF it were... THAT would be one really strong point ya had there. Sadly, given reality and all... well, you see how it is.

It's amazing how people like you who have no idea how the Constitution functions still have the comical audacity to pontificate on it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A fetus can't have rights that conflict with woman's right to an abortion under Roe v Wade.

Good point.

Which, given that a fetus is a distinct human life and human life is endowed by its creator with unalienable rights, that is all one needs to know, to know that the decision that is "Roe": is LUDICROUS, thus irrelevant in terms of law.

The video in the article, demonstrates that beautifully... but it's nice that you took the time to offer another perspective.

Read the actual case law:

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; [n53] in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. [n54] [n55]

Roe v. Wade LII Legal Information Institute

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A fetus can't have rights that conflict with woman's right to an abortion under Roe v Wade.

And as reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A fetus can't have rights that conflict with woman's right to an abortion under Roe v Wade.

Nazis use to call Jews anything but humans. Made it easier to exterminate them. Fetus? Call them babies and then crush their skulls.

Take it up with the Constitution and its case law.

OH... Now THAT was unfortunate.

Ya see scamp, "Roe" is not in the Constitution... . But IF it were... THAT would be one really strong point ya had there. Sadly, given reality and all... well, you see how it is.

So states CAN constitutionally ban all abortion?

Prove it.

Prove it?

You're asking me to demonstrate the truth or existence of (your implication) by evidence or argument; which is to say that you're asking me to establish the genuineness and validity of your interpretation of your implication?

Ok...

Welcome to Article 10 of the United States Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Did you need anything else?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A fetus can't have rights that conflict with woman's right to an abortion under Roe v Wade.

Good point.

Which, given that a fetus is a distinct human life and human life is endowed by its creator with unalienable rights, that is all one needs to know, to know that the decision that is "Roe": is LUDICROUS, thus irrelevant in terms of law.

The video in the article, demonstrates that beautifully... but it's nice that you took the time to offer another perspective.

Read the actual case law:

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; [n53] in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. [n54] [n55]

Roe v. Wade LII Legal Information Institute

Well, luckily, we're discussing human beings, in general terms; a person is a human being in specific terms. The good news here is that ALL human beings are endowed by their creator with rights SO CERTAIN that those rights are inseparable, from their being.

 

[Stephanie]

Liberals get their own show then they believe they are the knower of everything. The problem is they don't know a damn thing of what middle America feels. It's an ugly thing with them. Take Bill Maher, Rosie O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow, Sharpton, etc

the shame is our young people are getting their information on politics and important news from these idiots