why do you think a federal law regulating abortions would be unconstitutional?Bullshit. SCOTUS can over turn laws just as easily
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.
why do you think a federal law regulating abortions would be unconstitutional?Bullshit. SCOTUS can over turn laws just as easily
Do you think women are utterly helpless and can't control any aspect of their lives?Where in the constitution was power given to our government to force a 9 month pregnancy on a woman or girl if she and her husband or partner are not ready to have children in their lives yet? Not enough money to be a good parent, still in college, still a child and under age, date raped, or birth control didn't work, or partner left when they found out and were not ready to be a father etc etc etc???
where in the constitution does it give government the power to know what goes on in our bedrooms, or in our doctor's offices, about our own medical conditions, to even know we have had sex and gotten pregnant???
The purpose of the Constitution is not to grant rights to Americans; it never was. Its purpose is to set limits on the power of the Federal government. The 10th Amendment says the powers not granted to the government are reserved for the States and the People; the People then decide what regulations they wish.The opposite! It strengthens it!
And we have fundamental rights granted to us, in the constitution...rights not mentioned.... The constitution specifically says we have so many more rights not mentioned in the constitution, and specifically states that our rights are NOT LIMITED to what they listed in the bill of rights?
I think most women do control every aspect of their lives, except when the few make a mistake, and don't.... We all fall short of the glory of God, as the Bible states. 10 million child bearing age females are on birth control....taking the pill...and millions of others using other forms of birth control like sponges, diaphrams and IUDs etc..... and millions of other women wanting pregnancy and million abstain from sex until marriage.... there are about 800,000 abortions a year now, (down from 1.5 million a year...) It's been going in the preferred direction of fewer and rare.... for near 40 years now....Do you think women are utterly helpless and can't control any aspect of their lives?
It depends on how a case is presented, however Congress didn’t do a damn thing for 50 years and could have put this to bed a long time ago and our Congress failed us as usual, the Republicans and Democrats are too busy playing games and we allow it. This is totally on the American people.Bullshit. SCOTUS can over turn laws just as easily
I think most women do control every aspect of their lives, except when the few make a mistake, and don't.... We all fall short of the glory of God, as the Bible states. 10 million child bearing age females are on birth control....taking the pill...and millions of others using other forms of birth control like sponges, diaphrams and IUDs etc..... and millions of other women wanting pregnancy and million abstain from sex until marriage.... there are about 800,000 abortions a year now, (down from 1.5 million a year...) It's been going in the preferred direction of fewer and rare.... for near 40 years now....
While 800k is still a lot, as a percentage it's quite low, below 5-10% of child bearing age women, having abortions....so, as I said, most women do control every aspect of their lives....
as much as men, or even moreso.
"Individual" and "self defense" rights are too obvious to be required in writing. Dont you think that if they didnt mean for private citizens to own firearms, they would have made it more clear the day after they wrote the Constitution... you know, when everyone was still wearing guns on their hips and stuff? No one ever made any attempts to clarify this?‘Read back to back, the rulings conveyed nothing but contempt. "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision," Samuel Alito wrote for the majority in Dobbs. In Bruen, meanwhile, Clarence Thomas wrote passionately and at length about a constitutional right to "individual self-defense," which he described—quoting the court's earlier decision against Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller—as "'the central component' of the Second Amendment right.” The Constitution, of course, makes no reference to individual self-defense, and those words certainly do not appear in the amendment where Thomas described them as being the central component.’
Such hypocrisy and inconsistency are typical of conservative jurists.
The right to privacy is no more a ‘made up’ right than the individual right to possess a firearm and the right to self-defense.
Indeed, nowhere in the text of the Second Amendment will one find the words ‘individual’ or ‘self-defense.’
Whereas the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments clearly recognize and codify the right to privacy – the Fourth Amendment in particular.
I know that the Bill of Rights was specifically for the citizens of the U.S. but SCOTUS has ruled, prior to Heller, that the right protected by the 2nd was not an individual right to keep and bear arms, but a right of the state.Why would a government, the source of POWER in the country need to codify a Right for itself?
That is such a ridiculously stupid interpretation it could only come from a progressive.
The Bill of Rights, was SPECIFICALLY for the citizens of this country.
It LIMITED what government is allowed to do to the individual, and the 2nd was specifically about empowering the PEOPLE the means to remove a corrupt government.
Apparently you do since you feel the government has to.Do you think women are utterly helpless and can't control any aspect of their lives?
A right to bodily autonomy would seem too obvious to be required in writing as well."Individual" and "self defense" rights are too obvious to be required in writing. Dont you think that if they didnt mean for private citizens to own firearms, they would have made it more clear the day after they wrote the Constitution... you know, when everyone was still wearing guns on their hips and stuff? No one ever made any attempts to clarify this?
This theory of yours make absolutely no sense.
I know that the Bill of Rights was specifically for the citizens of the U.S. but SCOTUS has ruled, prior to Heller, that the right protected by the 2nd was not an individual right to keep and bear arms, but a right of the state.
I was opining that during the time SCOTUS deemed the second to not be a personal right that our 2nd amendment rights were being violated.
‘Read back to back, the rulings conveyed nothing but contempt. "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision," Samuel Alito wrote for the majority in Dobbs. In Bruen, meanwhile, Clarence Thomas wrote passionately and at length about a constitutional right to "individual self-defense," which he described—quoting the court's earlier decision against Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller—as "'the central component' of the Second Amendment right.” The Constitution, of course, makes no reference to individual self-defense, and those words certainly do not appear in the amendment where Thomas described them as being the central component.’
Such hypocrisy and inconsistency are typical of conservative jurists.
The right to privacy is no more a ‘made up’ right than the individual right to possess a firearm and the right to self-defense.
Indeed, nowhere in the text of the Second Amendment will one find the words ‘individual’ or ‘self-defense.’
Whereas the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments clearly recognize and codify the right to privacy – the Fourth Amendment in particular.
A right to bodily autonomy would seem too obvious to be required in writing as well.
Not at all. I am not a leftist. Leftists believe women should not be held responsible for their actions; that's why they've been pushing abortion so hard for 5 decades. "Hey, a little trip to the clinic and you can get back out having fun! No need for a pesky brat to get in your way! It's just a clump of cells, a parasite! It's not human! It's not a person! Don't give it a second thought!"Apparently you do since you feel the government has to.
You support government control over a woman’s private medical decisions about her own body. That’s a rightest for you. Deep inside, Big Brother.Not at all. I am not a leftist. Leftists believe women should not be held responsible for their actions; that's why they've been pushing abortion so hard for 5 decades. "Hey, a little trip to the clinic and you can get back out having fun! No need for a pesky brat to get in your way! It's just a clump of cells, a parasite! It's not human! It's not a person! Don't give it a second thought!"
And that has resulted in the deaths of over twice the population of Texas in the years since RvW.
But don't you spend any time thinking about it. You might realize what a horror you've been supporting.
Possibly because the the SCOTUS just finished noting that such authority isn't part of the authority granted to the Federal government by the Constitution.why do you think a federal law regulating abortions would be unconstitutional?
You support government control over a woman’s private medical decisions about her own body. That’s a rightest for you. Deep inside, Big Brother.
Is it possible for you to post where the individual justices indicated that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and not one that must be connected to being a part of a militia or anything other than an individual right? I wasn't able to find anything but you are apparently more knowledgeable on this case than I am.That is not correct. The only ruling prior to Heller was US v Miller where SCOTUS stated a short barreled shotgun could be regulated because it had "NO FORSEABLE MILTARY PURPOSE".
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.— Id., at 178-179.
Is it possible for you to post where the individual justices indicated that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and not one that must be connected to being a part of a militia or anything other than an individual right? I wasn't able to find anything but you are apparently more knowledgeable on this case than I am.That is not correct. The only ruling prior to Heller was US v Miller where SCOTUS stated a short barreled shotgun could be regulated because it had "NO FORSEABLE MILTARY PURPOSE".
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.— Id., at 178-179.
The premise of your argument is false. The being inside her is not her body. If any woman wants to get plastic surgery on her nose or to amplify her breasts or to reduce the size of her breasts or to liposuction off some fat on her thighs, etc., nobody else has a right to say diddly dog about that.You support government control over a woman’s private medical decisions about her own body. That’s a rightest for you. Deep inside, Big Brother.