Oklahoma passes bill making performing abortions a felony

[Preacher]

Oklahoma's governor vetoed it anyway

There goes any chance of her being VP.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Women have free birth control, no need for abortions anymore.

How about this.. when you grow a uterus, you can talk about birth control

Right back at ya on abortion, bub

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Oklahoma's governor vetoed it anyway

There goes any chance of her being VP.

Actually the reason she vetoed it was logical, the wording of the bill was vague

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SC joined several states recently making abortions after 19 weeks, with several exceptions (mother's life in danger), illegal.

Trump was asked not long ago if abortions were made illegal and a woman broke the law should she be punished Liberals went betzerk when he said 'yes'.

(Trump never mentioned what the penalty should be. It was only the liberals who mentioned jail time.)

What do liberals have against enforcing laws?

Outlawing abortions has already been declared unconstitutional. What do you have against the Constitution?

There is a difference between something being declared unconstitutional and something actually being unconstitutional. 5 of 9 unlected lawyers may have the power to make crap up, but we don't have to accept it.

More ignorance and stupidity from the right – in addition to hypocrisy.

Supreme Court justices aren’t subject to elections for a very good and sound reason: the practice is consistent with the fact that we are not a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; and the rule of law would perish if jurists were subject to ‘popular vote,’ and the injustice inherent in the democratic process.

That this has to be explained to a conservatives comes as no surprise, and is frankly disturbing.

Moreover, when the Heller Court ruled un-Constitutional the DC handgun ban, we heard nothing from the ridiculous right about 5 of 9 unelected lawyers ‘making crap up,’ such as an individual right to possess a firearm.

When the Supreme Court rules that a given measure is un-Constitutional, it is actually un-Constitutional – whether that measure violates the rights of gun owners or the privacy rights of women.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

 

[JoeB131]

Right back at ya on abortion, bub

I wouldn't tell a woman to get an abortion.
I wouldn't tell a woman NOT to get an abortion.

It isn't any of my business

As a practical matter, it should be legal because women will get them whether they are legal or not

 

[Preacher]

Oklahoma's governor vetoed it anyway

There goes any chance of her being VP.

Actually the reason she vetoed it was logical, the wording of the bill was vague

I know I was watching the news it still wont matter she should have signed it anyways even if it was overturned.

 

[initforme]

And who is responsible for raising the child? If the mother wants nothing to do with it? I say the taxpayers should in the form of money.

 

[NoNukes]

SC joined several states recently making abortions after 19 weeks, with several exceptions (mother's life in danger), illegal.

Trump was asked not long ago if abortions were made illegal and a woman broke the law should she be punished Liberals went betzerk when he said 'yes'.

(Trump never mentioned what the penalty should be. It was only the liberals who mentioned jail time.)

What do liberals have against enforcing laws?

Outlawing abortions has already been declared unconstitutional. What do you have against the Constitution?

There is a difference between something being declared unconstitutional and something actually being unconstitutional. 5 of 9 unlected lawyers may have the power to make crap up, but we don't have to accept it.

In other words, the legal system does not matter, and neither does the Constitution unless it is something that you agree with. Got you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Right back at ya on abortion, bub

I wouldn't tell a woman to get an abortion.
I wouldn't tell a woman NOT to get an abortion.

It isn't any of my business

As a practical matter, it should be legal because women will get them whether they are legal or not

As a practical matter, abortion should be legal because there is no practicality based argument for making it illegal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Fallin vetoed it because she has national aspirations, and the nation doesn't want anti-abortion extremists in positions of national power.

 

[amrchaos]

Maybe not

It is a national embarrassment if your state is in the habit of passing unconstitutional laws.

 

[martybegan]

[Q
Kind of like fining and ruining bakers for not baking cakes?

I've got the perfect place for those bakers..

Asshole.

 

[martybegan]

SC joined several states recently making abortions after 19 weeks, with several exceptions (mother's life in danger), illegal.

Trump was asked not long ago if abortions were made illegal and a woman broke the law should she be punished Liberals went betzerk when he said 'yes'.

(Trump never mentioned what the penalty should be. It was only the liberals who mentioned jail time.)

What do liberals have against enforcing laws?

Outlawing abortions has already been declared unconstitutional. What do you have against the Constitution?

There is a difference between something being declared unconstitutional and something actually being unconstitutional. 5 of 9 unlected lawyers may have the power to make crap up, but we don't have to accept it.

More ignorance and stupidity from the right – in addition to hypocrisy.

Supreme Court justices aren’t subject to elections for a very good and sound reason: the practice is consistent with the fact that we are not a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; and the rule of law would perish if jurists were subject to ‘popular vote,’ and the injustice inherent in the democratic process.

That this has to be explained to a conservatives comes as no surprise, and is frankly disturbing.

Moreover, when the Heller Court ruled un-Constitutional the DC handgun ban, we heard nothing from the ridiculous right about 5 of 9 unelected lawyers ‘making crap up,’ such as an individual right to possess a firearm.

When the Supreme Court rules that a given measure is un-Constitutional, it is actually un-Constitutional – whether that measure violates the rights of gun owners or the privacy rights of women.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

1. I have never considered us a democracy, and have pointed out the nature of our republic several times.

2. What needs to be explained to progressive twats such as yourself that courts were never meant to create new rights, and legislate from the bench, which is the current progressive model of "progress".

3. The right to keep and bear arms is explicit in the document, unlike all the "rights" you idiots come up with.

4. A right is inherent, all the government can do is protect it or supress it, and saying something is unconstituional even if idiot judges decide it is not is my RIGHT, you snivelling drive by hack.

5. My views are far more consistent than any progressive twatwaddle you can come up with.

 

[ClosedCaption]

thank you Oklahoma.

Oklahoma passes bill making performing abortions a felony

Thank them? For what, wasting time and money?

For Grand Standing with Oklahoma citizens money! Yeaah!

 

[martybegan]

SC joined several states recently making abortions after 19 weeks, with several exceptions (mother's life in danger), illegal.

Trump was asked not long ago if abortions were made illegal and a woman broke the law should she be punished Liberals went betzerk when he said 'yes'.

(Trump never mentioned what the penalty should be. It was only the liberals who mentioned jail time.)

What do liberals have against enforcing laws?

Outlawing abortions has already been declared unconstitutional. What do you have against the Constitution?

There is a difference between something being declared unconstitutional and something actually being unconstitutional. 5 of 9 unlected lawyers may have the power to make crap up, but we don't have to accept it.

In other words, the legal system does not matter, and neither does the Constitution unless it is something that you agree with. Got you.

Progressives have been ignoring the legal system when it suits them for decades. your crocodile tears are noted.

 

[paulitician]

Oh well, you can't kill your baby in Oklahoma. Try another state that supports that. Bye.

 

[NoNukes]

SC joined several states recently making abortions after 19 weeks, with several exceptions (mother's life in danger), illegal.

Trump was asked not long ago if abortions were made illegal and a woman broke the law should she be punished Liberals went betzerk when he said 'yes'.

(Trump never mentioned what the penalty should be. It was only the liberals who mentioned jail time.)

What do liberals have against enforcing laws?

Outlawing abortions has already been declared unconstitutional. What do you have against the Constitution?

There is a difference between something being declared unconstitutional and something actually being unconstitutional. 5 of 9 unlected lawyers may have the power to make crap up, but we don't have to accept it.

More ignorance and stupidity from the right – in addition to hypocrisy.

Supreme Court justices aren’t subject to elections for a very good and sound reason: the practice is consistent with the fact that we are not a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; and the rule of law would perish if jurists were subject to ‘popular vote,’ and the injustice inherent in the democratic process.

That this has to be explained to a conservatives comes as no surprise, and is frankly disturbing.

Moreover, when the Heller Court ruled un-Constitutional the DC handgun ban, we heard nothing from the ridiculous right about 5 of 9 unelected lawyers ‘making crap up,’ such as an individual right to possess a firearm.

When the Supreme Court rules that a given measure is un-Constitutional, it is actually un-Constitutional – whether that measure violates the rights of gun owners or the privacy rights of women.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

1. I have never considered us a democracy, and have pointed out the nature of our republic several times.

2. What needs to be explained to progressive twats such as yourself that courts were never meant to create new rights, and legislate from the bench, which is the current progressive model of "progress".

3. The right to keep and bear arms is explicit in the document, unlike all the "rights" you idiots come up with.

4. A right is inherent, all the government can do is protect it or supress it, and saying something is unconstituional even if idiot judges decide it is not is my RIGHT, you snivelling drive by hack.

5. My views are far more consistent than any progressive twatwaddle you can come up with.

There are different interpretations, do you not realize that?

 

[NoNukes]

Oh well, you can't kill your baby in Oklahoma. Try another state that supports that. Bye.

Did the governor not veto the bill?

 

[martybegan]

SC joined several states recently making abortions after 19 weeks, with several exceptions (mother's life in danger), illegal.

Trump was asked not long ago if abortions were made illegal and a woman broke the law should she be punished Liberals went betzerk when he said 'yes'.

(Trump never mentioned what the penalty should be. It was only the liberals who mentioned jail time.)

What do liberals have against enforcing laws?

Outlawing abortions has already been declared unconstitutional. What do you have against the Constitution?

There is a difference between something being declared unconstitutional and something actually being unconstitutional. 5 of 9 unlected lawyers may have the power to make crap up, but we don't have to accept it.

More ignorance and stupidity from the right – in addition to hypocrisy.

Supreme Court justices aren’t subject to elections for a very good and sound reason: the practice is consistent with the fact that we are not a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; and the rule of law would perish if jurists were subject to ‘popular vote,’ and the injustice inherent in the democratic process.

That this has to be explained to a conservatives comes as no surprise, and is frankly disturbing.

Moreover, when the Heller Court ruled un-Constitutional the DC handgun ban, we heard nothing from the ridiculous right about 5 of 9 unelected lawyers ‘making crap up,’ such as an individual right to possess a firearm.

When the Supreme Court rules that a given measure is un-Constitutional, it is actually un-Constitutional – whether that measure violates the rights of gun owners or the privacy rights of women.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

1. I have never considered us a democracy, and have pointed out the nature of our republic several times.

2. What needs to be explained to progressive twats such as yourself that courts were never meant to create new rights, and legislate from the bench, which is the current progressive model of "progress".

3. The right to keep and bear arms is explicit in the document, unlike all the "rights" you idiots come up with.

4. A right is inherent, all the government can do is protect it or supress it, and saying something is unconstituional even if idiot judges decide it is not is my RIGHT, you snivelling drive by hack.

5. My views are far more consistent than any progressive twatwaddle you can come up with.

There are different interpretations, do you not realize that?

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Weatherman2020]