Do liberals understand that the SCOTUS is not debating whether to ban abortion?

[jillian]

And that’s what I just said. It should be up to each individual state to decide whether to allow their residents to kill their unborn babies. The Supreme Court can’t force them to ban the practice.

Di you have problems reading English. I explained why a “constitutional right” cannot be up to the individual states.

you’re welcome .

 

[Lisa558]

As far as rightwingers are concerned, any pregnant woman becomes a slut when she has an unwanted pregnancy.


I’m using “you cons” the same way you used “you libs”. You cons are perfectly fine using authoritarianism to prevent women from making a medical decision over her own body while simultaneously voting down common sense anti-abortion measures like free birth control and increased assistance or programs for single parents and babies, no exemptions for rape or incest. Pretty much indicates it isn’t about helping mothers or women’s health, but enforcing your view of morality around women, sex and responsibility.



And like “all rightists” of course it isn’t about her, it never was. She is, to most of you, a slut who needs to pay for her mistake.

If we were to move away from broadbrushing insults to entire groups of people….maybe we could see what is at stake from each point of view: two competing sets of rights and a different opinion on who’s are paramount when.


So fundamental rights are left up to states now? So 17% of you want abortion to be illegal with no exceptions. What happens when they gain enough power to effect legislation?

Well that’s the $64K question, isn’t it? IS it a constitutional right to take the life of a viable fetus? That will be revisited by the SCOTUS.

 

[rightnow909]

I swear, every time I talk to a liberal, I SMH at how misinformed they are - and how deceitful the liberal media is. Just yesterday I spoke to a liberal, and in addition to her usual moaning about Republicans (to me, knowing I am a Republican), she bemoaned the “fact” that “Trump’s Republican Supreme Court” (her words) may ban abortion. When I corrected her, she said that MSNBC made it sound as though all abortions would be banned.

Listen up: for any of you libtards getting your news through MSNBC, the SCOTUS is not debating a ban. It doesn’t even have that right, just as it didn’t have the fight to force states to make it legal. It is merely debating whether the decision in Roe v Wade was constitutional, and if not, THE DECISION GOES TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATES.

scotus can overcome precedent if they choose

Dred Scott
Plessy Ferguson were overturned.. precedent-busting

 

[Lisa558]

Di you have problems reading English. I explained why a “constitutional right” cannot be up to the individual states.

you’re welcome .

Except it isn’t necessarily a constitutional right to end the life of a viable human being.

 

[Lisa558]

scotus can overcome precedent if they choose

Dred Scott
Plessy Ferguson were overturned.. precedent-busting

SCOTUS can change it if they determine the original decision was wrong. Time will tell.

 

[rightnow909]

….and that is why we have Biden as president. These gullible, ignorant people fell for the liberal media’s lies.

we have him for president bc the libs are willing to violate ANY law of God or man to get power

I mean... voters should have figured it out.. that anyone who can murder or condone murdering a helpless child in the womb..

what will such people not do?

the election was stolen. It's just that the system is so corrupt... few want to fix it...

 

[rightnow909]

SCOTUS can change it if they determine the original decision was wrong. Time will tell.

it was as wrong as u can get.

even pro abort lawyers say it was "bad law"

it was loony tunes law...

un-Constitutional doesn't begin to say it

 

[Coyote]

Well that’s the $64K question, isn’t it? IS it a constitutional right to take the life of a viable fetus? That will be revisited by the SCOTUS.

A viable fetus?

Depends. Once a fetus is viable (outside the womb) there are a lot of restrictions. But that isn’t what tbe SCoTUS is revisiting.

 

[Coyote]

we have him for president bc the libs are willing to violate ANY law of God or man to get power

I mean... voters should have figured it out.. that anyone who can murder or condone murdering a helpless child in the womb..

what will such people not do?

the election was stolen. It's just that the system is so corrupt... few want to fix it...

And yet a sizable minority of you lot want no exceptions for abortion, not even the woman’s life. And you are passing laws rewarding rapists who impregnate their victims.

 

[Coyote]

SCOTUS can change it if they determine the original decision was wrong. Time will tell.

In other words…there is no longer any such thing as settled law or precedent. Anything can be changed for partisan purposes.

 

[Lisa558]

it was as wrong as u can get.

even pro abort lawyers say it was "bad law"

it was loony tunes law...

un-Constitutional doesn't begin to say it

From a strict interpretation of the Constitution, yes….the original ruling was wrong. Still. I suspect the SCOTUS will uphold it for fear of the libersl reaction. Thomas and Alito will vote to reverse, and possibly Comey-Bardeft, but that’s it. Unfortunately.

 

[Lisa558]

A viable fetus?

Depends. Once a fetus is viable (outside the womb) there are a lot of restrictions. But that isn’t what tbe SCoTUS is revisiting.

They are revisiting whether they can prevent states from writing their own laws re abortion. The 1973 decision was wrong.

 

[rightnow909]

From a strict interpretation of the Constitution, yes….the original ruling was wrong. Still. I suspect the SCOTUS will uphold it for fear of the libersl reaction. Thomas and Alito will vote to reverse, and possibly Comey-Bardeft, but that’s it. Unfortunately.

u cou;d be righ

but maybe, just maybe there will be a majority who CARE about

truth
murder
innocent children being slaughtered by the millions

60 million and counting

 

[Lisa558]

In other words…there is no longer any such thing as settled law or precedent. Anything can be changed for partisan purposes.

No, anything can be changed if it is determined that the original ruling was unconstitutional.

 

[Coyote]

They are revisiting whether they can prevent states from writing their own laws re abortion. The 1973 decision was wrong.

Their argument also opens the door to making contraception illegal again.

 

[rightnow909]

They are revisiting whether they can prevent states from writing their own laws re abortion. The 1973 decision was wrong.

also, what a lot of people don't realize is that Roe made it legal to kill a child at ANY stage of development up until 9 months... (if one can find a "doctor" to do it)

 

[rightnow909]

Their argument also opens the door to making contraception illegal again.

big difference btwn contraception and murder

big one

(although, that said, some contraceptives are really abortifacients)

 

[Coyote]

No, anything can be changed if it is determined that the original ruling was unconstitutional.

And then a future SCOTUS can decide it was and reverse it.

 

[Lisa558]

u cou;d be righ

but maybe, just maybe there will be a majority who CARE about

truth
murder
innocent children being slaughtered by the millions

60 million and counting

The reason I think that is because they approved Obamacare, which was unconstitutional. Roberts twisted himself into a pretzel to get it through.

I do think the same will happen here.

 

[Coyote]

also, what a lot of people don't realize is that Roe made it legal to kill a child at ANY stage of development up until 9 months... (if one can find a "doctor" to do it)

No…it didn’t.