Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Leaving abortion rights to the states is not sustainable? Because democrats believe that not all women want to kill babies? It's a state's rights issue. The only wrong decision was Roe.“Leaving abortion rights to the states is not sustainable and, unlike what Trump would have you believe, it’s not a middle ground.”
Why not keep it a woman’s rights issue?Leaving abortion rights to the states is not sustainable? Because democrats believe that not all women want to kill babies? It's a state's rights issue. The only wrong decision was Roe.
It is. By the authority of every state.Why not keep it a woman’s rights issue?
reproductiverights.org
About 3/4 of all women want the right to decide for themselves. Just wait.Leaving abortion rights to the states is not sustainable? Because democrats believe that not all women want to kill babies? It's a state's rights issue. The only wrong decision was Roe.
Then they will get it. They will see to it that laws are passed in their state that legalize abortion.About 3/4 of all women want the right to decide for themselves. Just wait.
Speaking of stupid and lying:
So here you have one take on the recent Arizona court decision. It is...shall we call it...the "stupid" take?
President Trump, echoing the wise decision of the USSC in Dobbs, said that abortion is a matter for the STATES. You know, Constitution, and stuff. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution about it, so it's a matter for the STATES.
Now the Arizona Supreme Court concludes that an archaic law is still binding.
What to do...what to do?
It's not complicated or difficult. The Arizona legislature will craft a new law that supersedes the old one and, by definition, encapsulates the "will of the People."
But for a few months, Abortion in Arizona will be, at least theoretically, banned with the usual exceptions.
This is how it is supposed to work. Leave it to the Washington Post to declare this an "upending" of Trump's statement on abortion, which merely re-stated the holding in Dobbs.
Again, are the writers at WAPO stupid or subversive? Draw your own conclusion.
Your link to this stupidity seems to be missing.Yes, the doctor said we put the baby in a room, keep it comfortable. Then the doctor can advise the mother if she wants to keep it or not.
I don’t see the big deal. I think repubs are missing a massive opportunity here. When it comes to democrats, I think abortions should be encouraged. It should be the first option, hell, maybe even financial incentive for it.
So here you have one take on the recent Arizona court decision. It is...shall we call it...the "stupid" take?
President Trump, echoing the wise decision of the USSC in Dobbs, said that abortion is a matter for the STATES. You know, Constitution, and stuff. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution about it, so it's a matter for the STATES.
Now the Arizona Supreme Court concludes that an archaic law is still binding.
What to do...what to do?
It's not complicated or difficult. The Arizona legislature will craft a new law that supersedes the old one and, by definition, encapsulates the "will of the People."
But for a few months, Abortion in Arizona will be, at least theoretically, banned with the usual exceptions.
This is how it is supposed to work. Leave it to the Washington Post to declare this an "upending" of Trump's statement on abortion, which merely re-stated the holding in Dobbs.
Again, are the writers at WAPO stupid or subversive? Draw your own conclusion.
Spoken like someone who has no respect for women and their rights of freedom unless they agree with you. Anti-choice rhetoric is not about anything but pandering to a base believing they have a moral conviction they want others to live up to. As a group of people who believe they're morally superior, they need the power to mandate morality for others by proclamation. Their conviction of belief in a superior faith is a goal and major tenant of Western religions, but presently, its weakness is the fellowship of the church protecting its exclusivity rather than helping people in need. Luckily, you don't have to go to church to feel righteous. Trump is a good example of that.I don’t see the big deal. I think repubs are missing a massive opportunity here. When it comes to democrats, I think abortions should be encouraged. It should be the first option, hell, maybe even financial incentive for it.
I say let dems abort their babies….i mean remove their unwanted tissue to their hearts desire!
Why are we standing in their way??
If I do you will have to say you agree with it. They did light up the new world trade pink after they passed late term abortion.Your link to this stupidity seems to be missing.
If you did you wouldn't look like a fool who believes complete bullshit and needs to project victory over a made-up strawman, but here we are.If I do you will have to say you agree with it. They did light up the new world trade pink after they passed late term abortion.
Don't know how to link, but on January 22, 2019 new york passed the late term abortion bill and celebrated it by lighting the new world trade center in pink. Google it.If you did you wouldn't look like a fool who believes complete bullshit and needs to project victory over a made-up strawman, but here we are.
What are you talking about? The left is pro abortion, right? I’m suggesting that they should abort MORE…I fail to see why you are pushing back on thisSpoken like someone who has no respect for women and their rights of freedom unless they agree with you. Anti-choice rhetoric is not about anything but pandering to a base believing they have a moral conviction they want others to live up to. As a group of people who believe they're morally superior, they need the power to mandate morality for others by proclamation. Their conviction of belief in a superior faith is a goal and major tenant of Western religions, but presently, its weakness is the fellowship of the church protecting its exclusivity rather than helping people in need. Luckily, you don't have to go to church to feel righteous. Trump is a good example of that.
On a personal basis, they believe they have the right to make their own decisions, but when it comes down to it, being a victim of rape or incest, or carrying a fetus that won't live or can even kill the mother is highly unlikely. And even in the unfortunate event of an unwanted pregnancy for an older, younger, or otherwise troubled lady, they know that safe abortion is available for those they love if need be. No coat hangers or back alleys for them.
They don't care about the women with threatened health or lives, or those with many children already, or desperately poor or foolish, or young, or carrying a non-viable baby, ... whatever. And that's kinda beside the point, you know? The extremely long and awful list of reasons a woman may not want to keep a fetus or carry it to term doesn't matter.
What matters is owning the high moral ground, even if you're a small minority. It's morale-building in a cult to have evil enemies to battle. And baby killers? What a good, evil, boogieman to battle, eh?
Too bad it's just an average, non-partisan woman deciding what happens to her own body.
There is no president Trump.
So here you have one take on the recent Arizona court decision. It is...shall we call it...the "stupid" take?
President Trump, echoing the wise decision of the USSC in Dobbs, said that abortion is a matter for the STATES. You know, Constitution, and stuff. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution about it, so it's a matter for the STATES.
Now the Arizona Supreme Court concludes that an archaic law is still binding.
What to do...what to do?
It's not complicated or difficult. The Arizona legislature will craft a new law that supersedes the old one and, by definition, encapsulates the "will of the People."
But for a few months, Abortion in Arizona will be, at least theoretically, banned with the usual exceptions.
This is how it is supposed to work. Leave it to the Washington Post to declare this an "upending" of Trump's statement on abortion, which merely re-stated the holding in Dobbs.
Again, are the writers at WAPO stupid or subversive? Draw your own conclusion.
They claim to be good folks but don't mind if several thousand pregnant women, babies and children are killed by war.What are you talking about? The left is pro abortion, right? I’m suggesting that they should abort MORE…I fail to see why you are pushing back on this
Exactly, so my advocating for democrats to have more abortions shouldn’t be an issueThey claim to be good folks but don't mind if several thousand pregnant women, babies and children are killed by war.
It used to be a sin to have sexExactly, so my advocating for democrats to have more abortions shouldn’t be an issue
