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.
Now that the law has been overturned, they can shore up the legalities to the wording of a medical necessity.
This isn't rocket science, and nobody is trying to kill anyone who needs a medical procedure.
Sheesh you guys are pulling out all the stops.
yes on the safety of the justices and no the constitution doesnt say the government should take care of people regardless of what the good book says,,It's in the Book of Matthew, which I listened to last night on James Earl Jones reading of the New Testament. It's also mentioned in the first or second chapter of Daniel, which I read last month. I was trying to reread the Old Testament books I hadn't read in a spell earlier this year. Now that I got James Earl Jones cds, I finally am getting to reread the books I have read numerous times in years ago. I think it's a few chapters past the Sermon on the Mount which seems to my memory is in or around Chapter 5, but it's before Chapter 16. lol I listened to the first 16 chapters of Matthew last night.
Not exactly. The Declaration/or/Constitution mimics the good book by declaring all men are created equal, and the new Amendments added when the war between the States was over forbad slavery, through the Equal Rights for Women amendment. It took America 100 years to stop slavery and give voting rights to black men, and another 60 or 70 years to give women voting rights and equal opportunities for all. The New Testament was written a couple of thousand years ago, and it warned mankind that in Christ there is no east or west, meaning we are to help one another on equal terms, regardless of race, clan, sex, etc. We have three branches of government. The once were in accordance with the Bible, but now, with the Executive Branch and the House Chairman, not to mention the Senate majority leader who threatened two Justices by name a few days ago, I'm not sure why they are ignoring Constitutional law that forbids the harrassment of the Judical Branch justices when they are deciding the legality of truly bad earlier judgments that resulted in the deaths of 70,000,000 Americans with a decision that ignored the fact that a child in the womb is not the mother's body, and the mother is not the human being in her stomach area.
By the way, I've put the safety and happiness of our beloved Justices on my prayer list. They are just doing their job, and the majority of them placed abortion decisions in the states where its people live, which the earlier court failed to see. It would have seen if it knew one case would cause 70,000,000 "legalistic" murders of the unborn future American citizens and hard-hitting the dna handed down from the Founders to end in the 70,000,000 children who died before birth. Each state needs to figure out for itself where science places the beginning of a human life. Right now, it's apparent the DNA of a human zygote has the answer whether there are one or two human beings in the same body.
It's clear to me that the small human being with different DNA sequences than either parent is not its mother's body. Not by a long shot.
You're a liar. Lose your job or get the vaccine.There is no point to miss.
No one was forced to get a vaccine.
Poverty is not a personal choice, but a reflection of our society. Our culture ignores the root causes which are shaped by society and beyond the control of the individual. Like any disease dealing with the symptoms, crime, drugs, and deteriorating neighborhoods is not a cure it only relives the symptoms. It doesn't matter where the money comes from. If it does deal with the source of the problem, the children, then the money at best will only relieve current suffering and will do little to fix the problem.the bible yes,, the constitution no,,
You are the LIARYou're a liar. Lose your job or get the vaccine.
You're not looking good in this thread. Your responses are idiotic and desperate
Patently false.Government has a duty to provide help to people in need -- first to their own citizens.
Is this an excuse for O’s fallure?
The USG is doing numerous things not granted in the constitution and this has gone on for decades. Seldom does the SC declare these things unconstitutional.
Obama proclaimed many times during his 2008 campaign that he would enact an abortion law, then once in office he dropped it.
Government help? So now taking my money at the point of a gun is helping me to donate to charity? And an armed robber robbing me in Manhattan is just helping me be more biblical by donating to the poor robber?Sadly, most people would not obey Biblical Laws on charity without government help.
No way to know that. Speculation.Even if congress had passed a law that protected abortion rights, this court would almost surely have struct it down with Row because if the court in 1970 did not have constitutional authority to protect abortion rights, the US congress would not have not have that authority.
When women are delayed in getting an abortion, they will often change their mind. When they're traveling with the thought of killing their baby on their mind the entire time, many will turn around and go home.As it stands now maybe as much as 20% of the women in the country will lose their right to an abortion within their state. However, many states that ban abortion allow it during the first 6 weeks, 12 weeks, or 15 weeks which happens to be the time when most women seek abortions. Even thou they may not be able to get and abortion at a clinic in the state there is always the abortion pill and out of state abortions. I don't expect the court ruling to have the result pro-lifers are looking for.
It's not necessarily over, especially as long as the doctrine of substantive due process stands. It could and should be argued that the life of the baby cannot be taken without due process and that the government giving permission to doctors and mothers to take that life violates substantive due process or procedural due process or both. In such a case they would have to, it seems to me, rule that life begins at conception.SCOTUS is done with abortion. It's a state issue.
So in one post you suggest that Congress can pass a law to make abortion a federal right and the Court would uphold it. Then in this post you suggest that if Congress were to pass a national ban on abortion the Court would be required to overturn it as a States Rights issue. Talk about having it both ways.Yet, overturning Row may prove to be a huge problem for pro-lifers because it will prevent the federal government from being involved in any right to abortion issue. It is all up to each individual state. That may sound good now but when the time comes when republicans have a strong control of congress and the presidency, a federal ban on abortion will be impossible because the SCOTUS ruling made abortion a state issue. What pro-lifers want is a total abolishment of abortion and overturning Roe has made that all but impossible.
Thomas wants to overturn Griswold vs Connecticut which would allow states to dictate what type of contraception if any their citizens could use. Thomas is a firm believer in a strict interpretation of the enumerated powers in the constitution . All power that are not specifically declared a power of the federal government is a state power. No matter what the consequence would be he wants to bring America into a non-interpreted adherence to the constitution. So if Thomas had his way, he would restore state control of contraceptives', reverse the gay marriage ruling, eliminate Medicaid as a federal program as well as Medicare, Social Security, Financial assistance to Education, etc. However most of his fellow justices are not willing to destroy the nation and rebuild it in a strict accordance with the constitution.
Bull crapWhen women are delayed in getting an abortion, they will often change their mind. When they're traveling with the thought of killing their baby on their mind the entire time, many will turn around and go home.
But, if it saves just one baby, the entire effort was worth it. We all know it will save many thousands.
Fetal pain as it has been called is simply a reaction to a stimulus. It is not perceived by the fetus in the way and adult perceives pain creating anxiety, fear, and need to escape . Typically a fetus will not experience fetal until 26 week of gestation and very few can experience it during the 1st trimester when 90% of abortions occur.The reason I don't like abortion, and I assume the reason everyone else that hates abortion hates it, is that it kills a living baby, often a baby developed to the point of feeling pain. On Fox last week they showed video from an in-the-womb blood draw of a very small baby. When the needle went in, you could see the baby squirm in pain.
Abortion is ripping apart the body of a living, feeling, human being, limb from limb, pulling the head from the neck and spine, and sucking out the parts with a vacuum.
Last I heard, the abortion of babies created from rape or incest are aborted exactly the same. There's no special, not-painful, not violent, not evil, way to abort a rape baby or an incest baby. Aborting a rape or incest baby is every bit as cruel, painful, and evil as is aborting a baby for birth control.
Is the sin of a rape baby's conception justification to do this to the baby?
That's true. I can only tell you how I feel as a conservative. I assume other conservatives feel like I do.Well, there are associations between empathy and the temperaments. But that is something that needs and awful lot of study as opposed to trying to post it as comments on a forum.
Most certainly. I feel like the left is trying hard to destroy him and his family and all of his companies and all of his employees. If they succeed, it is certainly possible that he becomes a pauper from no fault of his own. That is the classic case of for whom conservatives do have empathy.If Trump went bankrupt and became poor, would you pity and have empathy for Trump?
Same thing; work or fight. I fight my own Republican congress person because he's a fraud. I donate to his primary opponents. I do what I can.And rather than fight government, why work with them and vote for the independent candidate that would make a politician. Both in the UK and US, the majority seem stuck with tunnel vision of two parties.
Wow. This is just sad. Your vote is bought with just a knock on the door? He didn't even have to give you a schilling and you sold your vote? No care for whether his plans or goals align with what you believe, you like him personally?I don't normally vote in local elections, I normally just vote Tory in the general election, but this time, I voted for the Green candidate in the local election, simply because he got off his backside to come see the constituents.
You just want to date her.BS. I watched that and other videos after that was brought up.
She wants to go after them using TITLE IX. Her legal team stated it was a losing case when it goes to court.
Her words were to not WASTE TIME on a battle that can't legally be won. I looked into the Title IX and it is where the Trans and NCAA uses it to FORCE THE ISSUE. If you don't do as we say we will sue you and bring you up on charges. That is TITLE IX.
She wants to Change that 1972 law to stop the insanity of transmen into women's sports. That IS THE LAW THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED TO END THIS.
I LEARNED THIS after people like you attacked her for this.
I STAND BY HER and DISREGARD your saying it's Bull Crap. I read up on it and MADE AN INFORMED DECISION. She is RIGHT. And YOU ARE WRONG in my opinion.
If the court overturned every law that is not in strict adherence to the constitution and without interpretations imposed by the philosophy of the living constitution, it would destroy the Unites States as we know it today. I'm sure many conservatives would welcome it because they hate this country as it is today believing that a new nation founded on the constitution as founders wrote it would arise out of the ashes. Thankfully, there are few that share these beliefs.The government has no authority except that provided in strict accordance with the Constitution. Thomas is exactly right and, I think it was Scalia that said something about that just because a violation of the Constitution was long-standing doesn't make it right and it still needs to be remedied. If the government can give itself powers outside of the Constitution then we have just tyranny and not a constitutional republic at all.
Thomas is 100% correct and, painful or not, the authority and limits of the Constitution must be restored.
What you're suggesting is more like where an infant is kidnapped and is found 10 years later, thinking the woman who kidnapped her is her actual mother. It would be like saying, well, the pain of returning the child to her actual mother is too great so we let the kidnapping stand.
It is very sad that the child was stolen and has to go through the pain of learning the truth and living with it.
It will be sad and difficult for many who have based their lives on the unconstitutional powers of government but it will have to be done.
No more so than abortion, birth control and same sex marriage.
The 14th Amendment does not mention marriage at all. And for the past few days we have been told that if the Constitution does not mention is specifically then it is left up to the states.
And I hope you all run on that platform as well as doing away with same sex marriage. It is a sure winning strategy.
