Over 200 Lawmakers Ask SCOTUS to Reconsider Roe v Wade

[Weatherman2020]

The time is nigh.

200 lawmakers urge Supreme Court to reconsider Roe vs. Wade

View attachment 298168

BTW- 207 lawmakers is less than half of the 535 members of congress. Apparently most lawmakers don’t want RvW overturned.

Democrats love dead babies.

Wrong! I am a democrat and would be over joyed to see roe v wade overturned. I am not alone. It will not happen the republicans are not truely interested in doing it. We will see what happens.

This is indeed little more than a campaign stunt.

Thanks for acknowledging Americans are disgusted with the baby killing.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The time is nigh.

200 lawmakers urge Supreme Court to reconsider Roe vs. Wade

View attachment 298168

BTW- 207 lawmakers is less than half of the 535 members of congress. Apparently most lawmakers don’t want RvW overturned.

Democrats love dead babies.

Wrong! I am a democrat and would be over joyed to see roe v wade overturned. I am not alone. It will not happen the republicans are not truely interested in doing it. We will see what happens.

You think you’re a Democrat then.

But you are not.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The time is nigh.

200 lawmakers urge Supreme Court to reconsider Roe vs. Wade

View attachment 298168

Too bad that is not how the Supreme Court chooses the cases it will hear.

Too bad neither of the judges Trump appointed will vote to overturn it.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The time is nigh.

200 lawmakers urge Supreme Court to reconsider Roe vs. Wade

View attachment 298168

Too bad that is not how the Supreme Court chooses the cases it will hear.

Too bad neither of the judges Trump appointed will vote to overturn it.

Well, they actually do. Lawmakers are asking for guidance.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Look, overturning RvW would be bad.You religious wacks think you have a monopoly on morals and ethic. Fact is you don’t. You’re not going to stop women from getting abortions, and banning abortions will just make some abortion providers criminals while endanger young women. Why don’t you put your efforts to making adoption more prevalent?

And people go overseas because of limited number of US adoptees.

No, they go overseas because of the high cost of adoption in the US.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Look, overturning RvW would be bad.You religious wacks think you have a monopoly on morals and ethic. Fact is you don’t. You’re not going to stop women from getting abortions, and banning abortions will just make some abortion providers criminals while endanger young women. Why don’t you put your efforts to making adoption more prevalent?

And people go overseas because of limited number of US adoptees.

No, they go overseas because of the high cost of adoption in the US.

Wrong again.

 

[pknopp]

The time is nigh.

200 lawmakers urge Supreme Court to reconsider Roe vs. Wade

View attachment 298168

BTW- 207 lawmakers is less than half of the 535 members of congress. Apparently most lawmakers don’t want RvW overturned.

Democrats love dead babies.

Wrong! I am a democrat and would be over joyed to see roe v wade overturned. I am not alone. It will not happen the republicans are not truely interested in doing it. We will see what happens.

This is indeed little more than a campaign stunt.

Thanks for acknowledging Americans are disgusted with the baby killing.

If they were they would demand an end to the wars.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Look, overturning RvW would be bad.You religious wacks think you have a monopoly on morals and ethic. Fact is you don’t. You’re not going to stop women from getting abortions, and banning abortions will just make some abortion providers criminals while endanger young women. Why don’t you put your efforts to making adoption more prevalent?

And people go overseas because of limited number of US adoptees.

No, they go overseas because of the high cost of adoption in the US.

Wrong again.

Nope. But you are...again.

 

[rightwinger]

The time is nigh.

200 lawmakers urge Supreme Court to reconsider Roe vs. Wade

View attachment 298168

That is not how it works

It is not a popularity contest. A specific case impacting Roe v Wade must be brought before the court and it will be decided based on Constitutional law and legal precedents

Read linky poo!

“in a brief supporting a Louisiana law that would severely limit access to the procedure”

Again it is not a popularity contest

The SCOTUS does not care what Congress thinks.

 

[whitehall]

It's not true. It's based on an op-ed blog by somebody named Darryl Cootes. The state lawmakers urged the Court to uphold a Louisiana law that has something to do with abortions and hospital admissions. The blog headline seems to be yet another dirty trick to alarm and mobilize mostly pro-abortion democrats in upcoming elections. There is no upcoming Roe v Wade decision envisioned in the S.C. schedule

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The time is nigh.

200 lawmakers urge Supreme Court to reconsider Roe vs. Wade

View attachment 298168

Conservatives need to be careful what they wish for.

 

[pknopp]

It's not true. It's based on an op-ed blog by somebody named Darryl Cootes. The state lawmakers urged the Court to uphold a Louisiana law that has something to do with abortions and hospital admissions. The blog headline seems to be yet another dirty trick to alarm and mobilize mostly pro-abortion democrats in upcoming elections. There is no upcoming Roe v Wade decision envisioned in the S.C. schedule

To uphold the law would be to overturn RvW.

 

[White 6]

You mean Roe v Wade installed by Republican Warren Burger?

Republicans have a nasty habit of shooting themselves in the foot.

Roe v Wade was the worst SCOTUS decision since Plessy v Ferguson (separate but equal). To reach that decision, the Court had to invent a phantom right to "privacy" and ignore medical evidence regarding the increasing viability of less-than-full-term babies. (The idiotic "trimester" analysis is now considered junk science and universally ignored.)

The bogus right to privacy rationale was only supported by four Justices; three Justices wrote concurring opinions based on other Constitutional arguments, while two dissented outright. As for Chief Justice Warren Burger, he wrote a concurrence in which he wrote that he thought it would be permissible to allow a state to require two physicians to certify an abortion before it could be performed.

The bottom line was that a group of would-be social scientists decided to override the right of individual states to write their own criminal statutes and replace them with one of their own.

I have nothing against Roe vs Wade. Abortion is not often the best solution, but the often alternative of raising the child in poverty stricken, drug infested, single mother home for welfare benefits is not a good solution either. Heck, we got lots of people in Maximum Security that the world, their families, their victims, the cops, the tax payers would all have be better off if their mother had chosen abortion. My wife and I raised our three kids through their college years and took them to church, but I don't set myself or the government up to decide reproduction decision by fiat across the land.

 

[jwoodie]

So spend your time and effort promoting adoption here in the states rather than restricting the constitutional rights of women.

Ho hum, another libtard straw man argument.

Libtard? Jwoodiesucker I am more conservative than you. I’m just not a religious idiot.

"Promoting adoption" is a straw man argument to evade discussion about the merits of Roe v Wade.

 

[jwoodie]

Abortion is not often the best solution, but the often alternative of raising the child in poverty stricken, drug infested, single mother home for welfare benefits is not a good solution either. Heck, we got lots of people in Maximum Security that the world, their families, their victims, the cops, the tax payers would all have be better off if their mother had chosen abortion.

A good way to reduce the Black population?

 

[OldLady]

Look, overturning RvW would be bad.You religious wacks think you have a monopoly on morals and ethic. Fact is you don’t. You’re not going to stop women from getting abortions, and banning abortions will just make some abortion providers criminals while endanger young women. Why don’t you put your efforts to making adoption more prevalent?

A few will still get abortions but most women will have the child, regardless if she is financially or emotionally equipped to make the lifelong commitment to parenthood, and it will invariably reshape her entire life (seldom for the better) and be less than ideal for the child growing up in her care.
But who cares about the quality of life for the kid or the mother? I too would prefer the government put money and effort toward better adoption services and reversible birth control procedures until abortion is an option far down the list when an unplanned pregnancy occurs. But

 

[White 6]

Abortion is not often the best solution, but the often alternative of raising the child in poverty stricken, drug infested, single mother home for welfare benefits is not a good solution either. Heck, we got lots of people in Maximum Security that the world, their families, their victims, the cops, the tax payers would all have be better off if their mother had chosen abortion.

A good way to reduce the Black population?

Not that worried about the black population. Plenty of young dumb white girls, black girls, hispanic girls, jewish girls, catholic girls, girls from broken homes, girls rebelling against their parents, girls that got drunk and fell asleep in the wrong place or else stayed awake having too good a time to care, girls of every type and color along with ignorant horny irresponsible, sometimes evil men young and old. The girl only carries and in most cases, raises the baby. Often times, they do it very poorly. I will not pass judgement on women deciding if they are up to the task, deciding it for them across the board, and neither should the government.

 

[Dragonlady]

Look, overturning RvW would be bad.You religious wacks think you have a monopoly on morals and ethic. Fact is you don’t. You’re not going to stop women from getting abortions, and banning abortions will just make some abortion providers criminals while endanger young women. Why don’t you put your efforts to making adoption more prevalent?

Because the goal isn't to stop women from having abortions. The goal is to punish women for having sex. To shame them for having their birth control fail.

Abortion shaming is the continuation of a long, long history of slut shaming by the male heirarchy which celebrates male sexual predators as heroes and role models for their nation, elevating them to the highest offices in the land, while saying that a woman who once had an affair with a much older man was unfit for public office.

If they truly cared about the children, the USA wouldn't have the highest rate of infant mortality in the first world.

 

[Blackrook]

Look, overturning RvW would be bad.You religious wacks think you have a monopoly on morals and ethic. Fact is you don’t. You’re not going to stop women from getting abortions, and banning abortions will just make some abortion providers criminals while endanger young women. Why don’t you put your efforts to making adoption more prevalent?

Because the goal isn't to stop women from having abortions. The goal is to punish women for having sex. To shame them for having their birth control fail.

Abortion shaming is the continuation of a long, long history of slut shaming by the male heirarchy which celebrates male sexual predators as heroes and role models for their nation, elevating them to the highest offices in the land, while saying that a woman who once had an affair with a much older man was unfit for public office.

If they truly cared about the children, the USA wouldn't have the highest rate of infant mortality in the first world.

Dragonlady you have all sorts of eloquent reasons why it should be legal to murder unborn babies.

Someday, you'll have to explain it again to Jesus.

But guess what? He's not going to buy that load of malarky.

 

[pknopp]

Look, overturning RvW would be bad.You religious wacks think you have a monopoly on morals and ethic. Fact is you don’t. You’re not going to stop women from getting abortions, and banning abortions will just make some abortion providers criminals while endanger young women. Why don’t you put your efforts to making adoption more prevalent?

Because the goal isn't to stop women from having abortions. The goal is to punish women for having sex. To shame them for having their birth control fail.

Abortion shaming is the continuation of a long, long history of slut shaming by the male heirarchy which celebrates male sexual predators as heroes and role models for their nation, elevating them to the highest offices in the land, while saying that a woman who once had an affair with a much older man was unfit for public office.

If they truly cared about the children, the USA wouldn't have the highest rate of infant mortality in the first world.

Dragonlady you have all sorts of eloquent reasons why it should be legal to murder unborn babies.

Someday, you'll have to explain it again to Jesus.

But guess what? He's not going to buy that load of malarky.

Nor will he understand cutting people off of things like food stamps.