Roe Vs Wade appears to be ripe for overturning

[JGalt]

Erroneous precedents in previous Supreme Court rulings are in no way sacred or set in stone. They are subject to the U.S. Constitution as it was written, originally understood, and intended. If former Supreme Court rulings are unconstitutional, then precedent must be overturned.

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred: Justices call for abandonment of 'mistaken' decisions

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

Even the author of the majority opinion in Roe, Harry Blackmun, admitted the ruling was on shaky ground. He warned that if the "personhood" of the unborn were to be established, their right to life would then be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment..."

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred - WND

 

[MindWars]

Have you watched "UNPLANNED" ?

 

[JLW]

You do realize that nearly all modern privacy law stems from Roe v. Wade. Overturn Roe and you may very well find many of privacy protections taken away. But Conservatives were never big believers in privacy anyway. As long as they received there tax cuts, everything else is fair game.

 

[Chuz Life]

Even the author of the majority opinion in Roe, Harry Blackmun, admitted the ruling was on shaky ground. He warned that if the "personhood" of the unborn were to be established, their right to life would then be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment..."

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred - WND

This position was also taken by Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart, during Roe.

Listen:

Then, consider how our nation's more the 35 State and Federal "Fetal Homicide" laws do exactly that. By making it a crime of MURDER, fetal homicide laws already establish the fact that the "child in the womb" is (was) a person. So much so that those laws have to make an exception to themselves, just to (for now) keep abortions "legal." Remove those exceptions and what will you have?

I have been pushing this message for 30+ Years (long before the first fetal homicide laws were contemplated.

The fucktarded left's house of cards (built on denials) is soon to fall!

 

[JGalt]

You do realize that nearly all modern privacy law stems from Roe v. Wade. Overturn Roe and you may very well find many of privacy protections taken away. But Conservatives were never big believers in privacy anyway. As long as they received there tax cuts, everything else is fair game.

How does all modern privacy law stem from Roe v. Wade? The fourteenth Amendment already provides for that.

 

[Chuz Life]

You do realize that nearly all modern privacy law stems from Roe v. Wade. Overturn Roe and you may very well find many of privacy protections taken away. But Conservatives were never big believers in privacy anyway. As long as they received there tax cuts, everything else is fair game.

Nobody has the right to murder a child and then hide the act behind a so called "right to privacy."

 

[Flash]

RvW stands along side the Dred Scott decision and being the worst ever made by the Supreme Court.

Imagine what an idiot you have to be to determine that a mother had the "right" to kill her child for the sake of convenience.

 

[OnePercenter]

More of the "grab her by the pussy" crap again?

 

[Lysistrata]

Erroneous precedents in previous Supreme Court rulings are in no way sacred or set in stone. They are subject to the U.S. Constitution as it was written, originally understood, and intended. If former Supreme Court rulings are unconstitutional, then precedent must be overturned.

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred: Justices call for abandonment of 'mistaken' decisions

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

Even the author of the majority opinion in Roe, Harry Blackmun, admitted the ruling was on shaky ground. He warned that if the "personhood" of the unborn were to be established, their right to life would then be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment..."

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred - WND

This is how you make freedom dissolve into tyranny. Soon the U.S. will allow religious cults to shove their "religion" straight up the genitals of Americans who are not members of these cults and have no interest in being so. No more freedom to choose your own religion. The politicians' choice will be forced upon you. Nazism seems to be rearing its ugly head again.

 

[Chuz Life]

RvW stands along side the Dred Scott decision and being the worst ever made by the Supreme Court.

Imagine what an idiot you have to be to determine that a mother had the "right" to kill her child for the sake of convenience.

 

[Chuz Life]

Erroneous precedents in previous Supreme Court rulings are in no way sacred or set in stone. They are subject to the U.S. Constitution as it was written, originally understood, and intended. If former Supreme Court rulings are unconstitutional, then precedent must be overturned.

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred: Justices call for abandonment of 'mistaken' decisions

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

Even the author of the majority opinion in Roe, Harry Blackmun, admitted the ruling was on shaky ground. He warned that if the "personhood" of the unborn were to be established, their right to life would then be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment..."

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred - WND

This is how you make freedom dissolve into tyranny. Soon the U.S. will allow religious cults to shove their "religion" straight up the genitals of Americans who are not members of these cults and have no interest in being so. No more freedom to choose your own religion. The politicians' choice will be forced upon you. Nazism seems to be rearing its ugly head again.

This doesn't have jack shit to do with religion.

You tardz need a new playbook.

 

[JGalt]

Erroneous precedents in previous Supreme Court rulings are in no way sacred or set in stone. They are subject to the U.S. Constitution as it was written, originally understood, and intended. If former Supreme Court rulings are unconstitutional, then precedent must be overturned.

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred: Justices call for abandonment of 'mistaken' decisions

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

Even the author of the majority opinion in Roe, Harry Blackmun, admitted the ruling was on shaky ground. He warned that if the "personhood" of the unborn were to be established, their right to life would then be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment..."

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred - WND

This is how you make freedom dissolve into tyranny. Soon the U.S. will allow religious cults to shove their "religion" straight up the genitals of Americans who are not members of these cults and have no interest in being so. No more freedom to choose your own religion. The politicians' choice will be forced upon you. Nazism seems to be rearing its ugly head again.

This doesn't have jack shit to do with religion.

You tardz need a new playbook.

Now it becomes painfully evident why they hate Trump so much.

 

[JLW]

You do realize that nearly all modern privacy law stems from Roe v. Wade. Overturn Roe and you may very well find many of privacy protections taken away. But Conservatives were never big believers in privacy anyway. As long as they received there tax cuts, everything else is fair game.

How does all modern privacy law stem from Roe v. Wade? The fourteenth Amendment already provides for that.

It was Roe, building on Griswald, that found a right to privacy under a Penumbra of rights under the constitution. Taking into consideration all the amendments of the constitution, the Court found that a right to privacy was a "fundamental right". A "fundamental right" is one where any law that impinges on such a right requires strict scrutiny of judicial review. There is no right to privacy enshrined in the constitution, it may be inferred, such as from the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments, for example, but there is nothing explicit in the constitution.

 

[JGalt]

You do realize that nearly all modern privacy law stems from Roe v. Wade. Overturn Roe and you may very well find many of privacy protections taken away. But Conservatives were never big believers in privacy anyway. As long as they received there tax cuts, everything else is fair game.

How does all modern privacy law stem from Roe v. Wade? The fourteenth Amendment already provides for that.

It was Roe, building on Griswald, that found a right to privacy under a Penumbra of rights under the constitution. Taking into consideration all the amendments of the constitution, the Court found that right. There is not right to privacy enshrined in the constitution, it may be inferred, such as in the 4th and 5th amendments but there is nothing explicit int he constitution.

The 14th Amendment states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If that unborn child has a heartbeat, he or she is a person, and cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

It's a simple concept.

 

[alang1216]

Erroneous precedents in previous Supreme Court rulings are in no way sacred or set in stone. They are subject to the U.S. Constitution as it was written, originally understood, and intended. If former Supreme Court rulings are unconstitutional, then precedent must be overturned.

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred: Justices call for abandonment of 'mistaken' decisions

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

Even the author of the majority opinion in Roe, Harry Blackmun, admitted the ruling was on shaky ground. He warned that if the "personhood" of the unborn were to be established, their right to life would then be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment..."

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred - WND

Is this a case of those unelected, "activist judges" that conservatives are always outraged about?

 

[Chuz Life]

You do realize that nearly all modern privacy law stems from Roe v. Wade. Overturn Roe and you may very well find many of privacy protections taken away. But Conservatives were never big believers in privacy anyway. As long as they received there tax cuts, everything else is fair game.

How does all modern privacy law stem from Roe v. Wade? The fourteenth Amendment already provides for that.

It was Roe, building on Griswald, that found a right to privacy under a Penumbra of rights under the constitution. Taking into consideration all the amendments of the constitution, the Court found that a right to privacy was a "fundamental right". A "fundamental right" is one where any law that impinges on such a right requires strict scrutiny of judicial review. There is no right to privacy enshrined in the constitution, it may be inferred, such as from the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments, for example, but there is nothing explicit in the constitution.

So the so called right to privacy is inferred.

I agree.

However, it is insane to conclude that a woman's right to her privacy trumps her child's right to their life.

I am a firm supporter of women's rights. I just believe a woman's rights should begin when her life does and not just when we as a society can not stomach or justify the denial of her rights as a child anymore.

 

[JGalt]

Erroneous precedents in previous Supreme Court rulings are in no way sacred or set in stone. They are subject to the U.S. Constitution as it was written, originally understood, and intended. If former Supreme Court rulings are unconstitutional, then precedent must be overturned.

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred: Justices call for abandonment of 'mistaken' decisions

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

Even the author of the majority opinion in Roe, Harry Blackmun, admitted the ruling was on shaky ground. He warned that if the "personhood" of the unborn were to be established, their right to life would then be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment..."

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred - WND

Is this a case of those unelected, "activist judges" that conservatives are always outraged about?

Roe vs. Wade was decided by "unelected activist judges" in the first place. It deserves to be given a second look.

 

[Chuz Life]

More of the "grab her by the pussy" crap again?

No.

This is not about Biden or the criminal investigation against him.

 

[alang1216]

Roe vs. Wade was decided by "unelected activist judges" in the first place. It deserves to be given a second look.

How about Citizens United and the recent decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual right possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia? Be careful we may be opening Pandora's Box and these things have a way of coming back to bite you. Just ask Harry Reid about his 'nuclear option'.

 

[Lysistrata]

You do realize that nearly all modern privacy law stems from Roe v. Wade. Overturn Roe and you may very well find many of privacy protections taken away. But Conservatives were never big believers in privacy anyway. As long as they received there tax cuts, everything else is fair game.

Actually, there is a whole line of cases that predated Roe v. Wade.
The Right to Privacy - CT Judicial Branch Law Library Services