So, we find out Jane Roe was paid to lie about her pro-life stance

[Dana7360]

Not that this information will win over the lunatic pro-aborts here, but this sheds some light on their motivation to create this STORY

'AKA Jane Roe' producers have strong pro-abortion bias with ties to Planned Parenthood

The documentary that purportedly claims "Jane Roe" - Norma McCorvey - confessed to being paid to become pro-life should be eyed with suspicion. Here's why.

www.liveaction.org

THEN, Read THIS!

Keeping Track of Possible Supreme Court Abortion Cases - National Organization for Women

President Trump made it perfectly clear that one of his priorities in nominating justices was their likeliness to overturn Roe v. Wade.

now.org

What you don't want to admit is it doesn't matter what the makers of that movie think.

They didn't put those words into norma's mouth like the anti choice people did when they were paying her.

They didn't put those words into the anti choice man's mouth who admitted the whole thing, showed honest remorse for it by saying he will work the rest of his life to undo all the damage he did and all the lives he destroyed.

When the leaders of a movement admit it was all a lie and scam, people pay attention. They could care less what the views are of those who made the film.

If anyone thinks that an anti abortion group is going to make a film that exposes their movement for the total lie, scam and fraud it is and has been from the start, I have some wonderful ocean front property in Colorado to sell you super cheap.

 

[Vastator]

Documentary reveals 'Jane Roe' of Roe V. Wade was paid to reverse abortion stance

Norma McCorvey, known for years as Jane Roe the plaintiff from one of the most famous Supreme Court cases in history: Roe v. Wade, reveals that she was paid to reverse her stance from pro-choice to anti-abortion by Operation Rescue, now known as Operation Save America, according to a new...

www.msnbc.com

Well now, that changes everything. So no one on the pro-life side ever had anyone to really represent them during Roe vs. Wade. That explains everything. That just means the pro-life argument has been bs from the beginning. And it still is. They knew way back then they would never be able to prove the pro-life argument from a scientific point of view, so they up and paid someone to lie about it, with their instructions. These are such disgusting people. And look at the people these pro-life nuts murdered because of lies and payoffs.

The pro-life argument was BS from the beginning?

The entire premise of the decision on Roe v Wade was this purely invented “right to privacy”.

Rehnquist said it best:
To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.

Obviously you've never read the 4th amendment.

It very clearly says we have the right to our person or body. Which is what Roe V Wade was decided on. The right to privacy with our body.

The part of the 4th amendment that it was decided on:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated


So what you're saying is that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to women.

Men do get the right to privacy with their body. I have never seen anyone try to pass legislation that prohibits any man from having any medical procedure they want. Nor do they have to go through a waiting period or have to sit through propaganda they don't believe that it's only purpose is to convince them to not have the procedure. Nor do they have to have a totally medically unnecessary probe test which neither he or the doctor wants which he has to pay 100%. I don't see clinics for men being bombed or harassed or people screaming for the man to not go in. I don't see legislatures writing regulations specifically designed to close medical facilities for men.

I have never seen anyone protest to protect a man's right to privacy with their body. Or any thing else for that matter.

Who do you think you are? What makes you think you have any right to say you can take someone's rights from them and violate the constitution?

You don't. Plus, no one gives a rat's ass what you think and want.

If you work and pay taxes, work hard. Pay those taxes. Women need that money to pay for their contraception and for abortions. If you pay federal or state taxes, you're paying for abortions and contraception for women. I hope I that totally pisses you off.

Yup. Nobody ever attempted to violate a male's right to sovereignty over his body. But the anti-choice folks seem to think that women are public property, not people with rights under the Constitution. They also never protest the funding of "ED" medications for men who are not attempting to conceive a child and maybe are having sex with women who are too old to conceive. The sex that they want to have is purely recreational. Where is the scrutiny of this?

A right to privacy doesn’t give someone the right to kill an unborn child.

If men were “controlling” women’s bodies then they could force her to have an abortion when she doesn’t want one. When has that been put into law? Oh it hasn’t, so all this talk about “controlling women’s bodies” is BS.

Abortion is not "killing an unborn child. There are already criminal laws on the books that make forrcing a person to have an abortion illegal. They cover lots of criminal behavior, not just this. The politicians who pass laws that attempt to impede a woman from exercising her choice of whether or not to continue a pregnancy absolutely are attempts to control women's bodies. There is no denying this. It's big government in cahoots with some religious sects.

Killing a human being is illegal. You’re in denial of scientific fact, the fetus is a living human being, with unique DNA.

Show us the science that proves it is a fully developed human.

Show us the science that says a three year old is a fully developed human. An eight year old? Eleven...? I’ll wait...

 

[Vastator]

Documentary reveals 'Jane Roe' of Roe V. Wade was paid to reverse abortion stance

Norma McCorvey, known for years as Jane Roe the plaintiff from one of the most famous Supreme Court cases in history: Roe v. Wade, reveals that she was paid to reverse her stance from pro-choice to anti-abortion by Operation Rescue, now known as Operation Save America, according to a new...

www.msnbc.com

Well now, that changes everything. So no one on the pro-life side ever had anyone to really represent them during Roe vs. Wade. That explains everything. That just means the pro-life argument has been bs from the beginning. And it still is. They knew way back then they would never be able to prove the pro-life argument from a scientific point of view, so they up and paid someone to lie about it, with their instructions. These are such disgusting people. And look at the people these pro-life nuts murdered because of lies and payoffs.

The pro-life argument was BS from the beginning?

The entire premise of the decision on Roe v Wade was this purely invented “right to privacy”.

Rehnquist said it best:
To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.

Obviously you've never read the 4th amendment.

It very clearly says we have the right to our person or body. Which is what Roe V Wade was decided on. The right to privacy with our body.

The part of the 4th amendment that it was decided on:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated


So what you're saying is that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to women.

Men do get the right to privacy with their body. I have never seen anyone try to pass legislation that prohibits any man from having any medical procedure they want. Nor do they have to go through a waiting period or have to sit through propaganda they don't believe that it's only purpose is to convince them to not have the procedure. Nor do they have to have a totally medically unnecessary probe test which neither he or the doctor wants which he has to pay 100%. I don't see clinics for men being bombed or harassed or people screaming for the man to not go in. I don't see legislatures writing regulations specifically designed to close medical facilities for men.

I have never seen anyone protest to protect a man's right to privacy with their body. Or any thing else for that matter.

Who do you think you are? What makes you think you have any right to say you can take someone's rights from them and violate the constitution?

You don't. Plus, no one gives a rat's ass what you think and want.

If you work and pay taxes, work hard. Pay those taxes. Women need that money to pay for their contraception and for abortions. If you pay federal or state taxes, you're paying for abortions and contraception for women. I hope I that totally pisses you off.

Yup. Nobody ever attempted to violate a male's right to sovereignty over his body. But the anti-choice folks seem to think that women are public property, not people with rights under the Constitution. They also never protest the funding of "ED" medications for men who are not attempting to conceive a child and maybe are having sex with women who are too old to conceive. The sex that they want to have is purely recreational. Where is the scrutiny of this?

A right to privacy doesn’t give someone the right to kill an unborn child.

If men were “controlling” women’s bodies then they could force her to have an abortion when she doesn’t want one. When has that been put into law? Oh it hasn’t, so all this talk about “controlling women’s bodies” is BS.

Ignorant nonsense.

Murder concerns criminal law; the right to privacy civil law – one having nothing to do with the other.

It is neither the role nor responsibility of government to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not; the right to privacy safeguards citizens from government excess and overreach with regard to such personal decisions.

Again, no one is forcing a woman to have an abortion, although far leftwing states like China do. Interesting how you people defend China with their forced abortions yet claim you are against government dictating to women if they can have children. Which means you are all full of shit.

Outlawing the killing of human life isn’t anymore of an “overreach” of government anymore than government outlawing rape.

Again, you keep circle jerking over your same failed argument. You still fail to prove anyone is killing a fully developed human being. Why? Because there is no known science out there that identifies a fully developed human being with a functioning brain that uses reason in the womb. Keep circle jerking and you will always go back to where you started.

The only one circle jerking is you. Age has never been a consideration in regard to the protections the Constitution was meant to secure for Americans.

 

[Vastator]

Documentary reveals 'Jane Roe' of Roe V. Wade was paid to reverse abortion stance

Norma McCorvey, known for years as Jane Roe the plaintiff from one of the most famous Supreme Court cases in history: Roe v. Wade, reveals that she was paid to reverse her stance from pro-choice to anti-abortion by Operation Rescue, now known as Operation Save America, according to a new...

www.msnbc.com

Well now, that changes everything. So no one on the pro-life side ever had anyone to really represent them during Roe vs. Wade. That explains everything. That just means the pro-life argument has been bs from the beginning. And it still is. They knew way back then they would never be able to prove the pro-life argument from a scientific point of view, so they up and paid someone to lie about it, with their instructions. These are such disgusting people. And look at the people these pro-life nuts murdered because of lies and payoffs.

The pro-life argument was BS from the beginning?

The entire premise of the decision on Roe v Wade was this purely invented “right to privacy”.

Rehnquist said it best:
To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.

Obviously you've never read the 4th amendment.

It very clearly says we have the right to our person or body. Which is what Roe V Wade was decided on. The right to privacy with our body.

The part of the 4th amendment that it was decided on:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated


So what you're saying is that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to women.

Men do get the right to privacy with their body. I have never seen anyone try to pass legislation that prohibits any man from having any medical procedure they want. Nor do they have to go through a waiting period or have to sit through propaganda they don't believe that it's only purpose is to convince them to not have the procedure. Nor do they have to have a totally medically unnecessary probe test which neither he or the doctor wants which he has to pay 100%. I don't see clinics for men being bombed or harassed or people screaming for the man to not go in. I don't see legislatures writing regulations specifically designed to close medical facilities for men.

I have never seen anyone protest to protect a man's right to privacy with their body. Or any thing else for that matter.

Who do you think you are? What makes you think you have any right to say you can take someone's rights from them and violate the constitution?

You don't. Plus, no one gives a rat's ass what you think and want.

If you work and pay taxes, work hard. Pay those taxes. Women need that money to pay for their contraception and for abortions. If you pay federal or state taxes, you're paying for abortions and contraception for women. I hope I that totally pisses you off.

Yup. Nobody ever attempted to violate a male's right to sovereignty over his body. But the anti-choice folks seem to think that women are public property, not people with rights under the Constitution. They also never protest the funding of "ED" medications for men who are not attempting to conceive a child and maybe are having sex with women who are too old to conceive. The sex that they want to have is purely recreational. Where is the scrutiny of this?

A right to privacy doesn’t give someone the right to kill an unborn child.

If men were “controlling” women’s bodies then they could force her to have an abortion when she doesn’t want one. When has that been put into law? Oh it hasn’t, so all this talk about “controlling women’s bodies” is BS.

Ignorant nonsense.

Murder concerns criminal law; the right to privacy civil law – one having nothing to do with the other.

It is neither the role nor responsibility of government to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not; the right to privacy safeguards citizens from government excess and overreach with regard to such personal decisions.

Again, no one is forcing a woman to have an abortion, although far leftwing states like China do. Interesting how you people defend China with their forced abortions yet claim you are against government dictating to women if they can have children. Which means you are all full of shit.

Outlawing the killing of human life isn’t anymore of an “overreach” of government anymore than government outlawing rape.

Again, you keep circle jerking over your same failed argument. You still fail to prove anyone is killing a fully developed human being. Why? Because there is no known science out there that identifies a fully developed human being with a functioning brain that uses reason in the womb. Keep circle jerking and you will always go back to where you started.

Really? Yet you can’t explain why killing a newborn is illegal when it isn’t a “fully developed” human being.

I never explained killing a newborn was illegal. I never offered that information, because the newborn is out of the womb. Something you don't get, or can argue about. Why do you make up shit that I never argued about? Answer, because your own argument is a failure.

In other words you can’t defend your idiotic position about “fully developed” humans not being real people. You were too dumb to realize the words you were using also described an infant.

More inventions! Boss, you can 't help yourself can you? Let's make up another scenario, of which I never made claim to. Why do you do this? Simple, you have lost the argument, and you are not smart enough to walk away from it.

Dude, get a hold of yourself. No one said anything about a fully devoloped person not being a human being. Science identifies a fully developed human being at birth. You continue to invent nonsense and lies.

Got a link to support that bullshit? Of course you don't. Because no scientist worth his lab coat will claim a newborn is a “fully developed” human. You’re easily one of the dumbest mother fuckers to ever “chime in” on this topic.

 

[Vastator]

Documentary reveals 'Jane Roe' of Roe V. Wade was paid to reverse abortion stance

Norma McCorvey, known for years as Jane Roe the plaintiff from one of the most famous Supreme Court cases in history: Roe v. Wade, reveals that she was paid to reverse her stance from pro-choice to anti-abortion by Operation Rescue, now known as Operation Save America, according to a new...

www.msnbc.com

Well now, that changes everything. So no one on the pro-life side ever had anyone to really represent them during Roe vs. Wade. That explains everything. That just means the pro-life argument has been bs from the beginning. And it still is. They knew way back then they would never be able to prove the pro-life argument from a scientific point of view, so they up and paid someone to lie about it, with their instructions. These are such disgusting people. And look at the people these pro-life nuts murdered because of lies and payoffs.

How amusing that you presuppose that gender endows a woman with God like abilities to declare with mere breath of word, or force of will, that which constitutes life... Amazing! If science only knew your secret...

I recorded the movie and watched it today.

Wow.

Even the anti choice jerk admitted that it was all a scam. He admitted that he used her. He even said a woman has the right to choose.

She lied the whole time.

They used her and she used them.

Wow.

All of the anti choice people have been scammed and manipulated. Just as I've been saying all these years.

They aren't pro life. They have never been pro life.

They have always hated women and always wanted to punish women for having sex. While having no problem with men having sex, making a woman pregnant then walking away without even looking back to see what he has done.

We see it on this board all the time. The woman is a slut or whore. Yet they have no problem with what they consider a slut or whore raising a child.

The fact that they do all they can to prevent women from having contraceptives, from having any health care, no living wage, no reliable child care and no job security screams it's not about life to those people. They don't give one damn about any life. It's all about making themselves feel superior and punishing women for having sex.

Remember when he said the gig was up? That was priceless. The pro-life folks boxed themselves in with payoffs, ignorance of science, and their false claims about the sanctity of life. They're pro-birth. They could give two shits about life. Look at how they are so eager to sacrifice others to Corona. They make you want to puke.

Yes I remember. I was floored. How he could say that so casually.

All the people who are hurt. All the people they murdered. All the people they scammed money from. All the lives they destroyed.

All the lies and deceptions.

It's all sickening. They are seriously disgusting human beings.

And that is why this anti-abortion crowd stay in the gutter with the same nonsensical arguments. They go round and round like the chickens with the head cut off. Science is not on their side. They cannot determine intelligently, and scientifically when life begins. They just can't. So what do they do? They invent a time table in their heads.

They claim that life begins at conception but I always ask them about ectopic pregnancies.

There's only 2 outcomes to that pregnancy,

1. Nothing is done, the woman dies. If the woman is lucky and is able to get to a doctor immediately, she has a chance to live but zero chance to retain or preserve her fertility.

2. An abortion is performed the woman lives.

Life begins when the woman chooses. Period. If she chooses to carry that pregnancy to term great. If she chooses to terminate it, that's her choice.

That's what it comes down to. Men don't make that choice. Men can't control it anymore. That control was taken from them by us women.

They have made it quite clear. They will lie, cheat, scam, deceive, blow up buildings, even murder people to regain that control.

How amusing that you presuppose that gender endows a woman with God like abilities to declare with mere breath of word, or force of will, that which constitutes life... Amazing! If science only knew your secret...

 

[theHawk]

Documentary reveals 'Jane Roe' of Roe V. Wade was paid to reverse abortion stance

Norma McCorvey, known for years as Jane Roe the plaintiff from one of the most famous Supreme Court cases in history: Roe v. Wade, reveals that she was paid to reverse her stance from pro-choice to anti-abortion by Operation Rescue, now known as Operation Save America, according to a new...

www.msnbc.com

Well now, that changes everything. So no one on the pro-life side ever had anyone to really represent them during Roe vs. Wade. That explains everything. That just means the pro-life argument has been bs from the beginning. And it still is. They knew way back then they would never be able to prove the pro-life argument from a scientific point of view, so they up and paid someone to lie about it, with their instructions. These are such disgusting people. And look at the people these pro-life nuts murdered because of lies and payoffs.

The pro-life argument was BS from the beginning?

The entire premise of the decision on Roe v Wade was this purely invented “right to privacy”.

Rehnquist said it best:
To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.

Obviously you've never read the 4th amendment.

It very clearly says we have the right to our person or body. Which is what Roe V Wade was decided on. The right to privacy with our body.

The part of the 4th amendment that it was decided on:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated


So what you're saying is that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to women.

Men do get the right to privacy with their body. I have never seen anyone try to pass legislation that prohibits any man from having any medical procedure they want. Nor do they have to go through a waiting period or have to sit through propaganda they don't believe that it's only purpose is to convince them to not have the procedure. Nor do they have to have a totally medically unnecessary probe test which neither he or the doctor wants which he has to pay 100%. I don't see clinics for men being bombed or harassed or people screaming for the man to not go in. I don't see legislatures writing regulations specifically designed to close medical facilities for men.

I have never seen anyone protest to protect a man's right to privacy with their body. Or any thing else for that matter.

Who do you think you are? What makes you think you have any right to say you can take someone's rights from them and violate the constitution?

You don't. Plus, no one gives a rat's ass what you think and want.

If you work and pay taxes, work hard. Pay those taxes. Women need that money to pay for their contraception and for abortions. If you pay federal or state taxes, you're paying for abortions and contraception for women. I hope I that totally pisses you off.

Yup. Nobody ever attempted to violate a male's right to sovereignty over his body. But the anti-choice folks seem to think that women are public property, not people with rights under the Constitution. They also never protest the funding of "ED" medications for men who are not attempting to conceive a child and maybe are having sex with women who are too old to conceive. The sex that they want to have is purely recreational. Where is the scrutiny of this?

A right to privacy doesn’t give someone the right to kill an unborn child.

If men were “controlling” women’s bodies then they could force her to have an abortion when she doesn’t want one. When has that been put into law? Oh it hasn’t, so all this talk about “controlling women’s bodies” is BS.

Ignorant nonsense.

Murder concerns criminal law; the right to privacy civil law – one having nothing to do with the other.

It is neither the role nor responsibility of government to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not; the right to privacy safeguards citizens from government excess and overreach with regard to such personal decisions.

Again, no one is forcing a woman to have an abortion, although far leftwing states like China do. Interesting how you people defend China with their forced abortions yet claim you are against government dictating to women if they can have children. Which means you are all full of shit.

Outlawing the killing of human life isn’t anymore of an “overreach” of government anymore than government outlawing rape.

Again, you keep circle jerking over your same failed argument. You still fail to prove anyone is killing a fully developed human being. Why? Because there is no known science out there that identifies a fully developed human being with a functioning brain that uses reason in the womb. Keep circle jerking and you will always go back to where you started.

Really? Yet you can’t explain why killing a newborn is illegal when it isn’t a “fully developed” human being.

I never explained killing a newborn was illegal. I never offered that information, because the newborn is out of the womb. Something you don't get, or can argue about. Why do you make up shit that I never argued about? Answer, because your own argument is a failure.

In other words you can’t defend your idiotic position about “fully developed” humans not being real people. You were too dumb to realize the words you were using also described an infant.

More inventions! Boss, you can 't help yourself can you? Let's make up another scenario, of which I never made claim to. Why do you do this? Simple, you have lost the argument, and you are not smart enough to walk away from it.

Dude, get a hold of yourself. No one said anything about a fully devoloped person not being a human being. Science identifies a fully developed human being at birth. You continue to invent nonsense and lies.

Got a link to support that bullshit? Of course you don't. Because no scientist worth his lab coat will claim a newborn is a “fully developed” human. You’re easily one of the dumbest mother fuckers to ever “chime in” on this topic.

He’s a leftwing zealot, abortion is a sacred pillar of his beliefs. Rational scientific facts won’t sway him. Calling out his bullshit only enrages him even more and make him more irrational.

 

[theHawk]

Not that this information will win over the lunatic pro-aborts here, but this sheds some light on their motivation to create this STORY

'AKA Jane Roe' producers have strong pro-abortion bias with ties to Planned Parenthood

The documentary that purportedly claims "Jane Roe" - Norma McCorvey - confessed to being paid to become pro-life should be eyed with suspicion. Here's why.

www.liveaction.org

THEN, Read THIS!

Keeping Track of Possible Supreme Court Abortion Cases - National Organization for Women

President Trump made it perfectly clear that one of his priorities in nominating justices was their likeliness to overturn Roe v. Wade.

now.org

What you don't want to admit is it doesn't matter what the makers of that movie think.

They didn't put those words into norma's mouth like the anti choice people did when they were paying her.

They didn't put those words into the anti choice man's mouth who admitted the whole thing, showed honest remorse for it by saying he will work the rest of his life to undo all the damage he did and all the lives he destroyed.

When the leaders of a movement admit it was all a lie and scam, people pay attention. They could care less what the views are of those who made the film.

If anyone thinks that an anti abortion group is going to make a film that exposes their movement for the total lie, scam and fraud it is and has been from the start, I have some wonderful ocean front property in Colorado to sell you super cheap.

What exactly about the pro-life movement is a “lie”?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

There was no scientific argument in the Roe decision. Neither for nor against.

 

[BWK]

Documentary reveals 'Jane Roe' of Roe V. Wade was paid to reverse abortion stance

Norma McCorvey, known for years as Jane Roe the plaintiff from one of the most famous Supreme Court cases in history: Roe v. Wade, reveals that she was paid to reverse her stance from pro-choice to anti-abortion by Operation Rescue, now known as Operation Save America, according to a new...

www.msnbc.com

Well now, that changes everything. So no one on the pro-life side ever had anyone to really represent them during Roe vs. Wade. That explains everything. That just means the pro-life argument has been bs from the beginning. And it still is. They knew way back then they would never be able to prove the pro-life argument from a scientific point of view, so they up and paid someone to lie about it, with their instructions. These are such disgusting people. And look at the people these pro-life nuts murdered because of lies and payoffs.

The pro-life argument was BS from the beginning?

The entire premise of the decision on Roe v Wade was this purely invented “right to privacy”.

Rehnquist said it best:
To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.

Obviously you've never read the 4th amendment.

It very clearly says we have the right to our person or body. Which is what Roe V Wade was decided on. The right to privacy with our body.

The part of the 4th amendment that it was decided on:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated


So what you're saying is that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to women.

Men do get the right to privacy with their body. I have never seen anyone try to pass legislation that prohibits any man from having any medical procedure they want. Nor do they have to go through a waiting period or have to sit through propaganda they don't believe that it's only purpose is to convince them to not have the procedure. Nor do they have to have a totally medically unnecessary probe test which neither he or the doctor wants which he has to pay 100%. I don't see clinics for men being bombed or harassed or people screaming for the man to not go in. I don't see legislatures writing regulations specifically designed to close medical facilities for men.

I have never seen anyone protest to protect a man's right to privacy with their body. Or any thing else for that matter.

Who do you think you are? What makes you think you have any right to say you can take someone's rights from them and violate the constitution?

You don't. Plus, no one gives a rat's ass what you think and want.

If you work and pay taxes, work hard. Pay those taxes. Women need that money to pay for their contraception and for abortions. If you pay federal or state taxes, you're paying for abortions and contraception for women. I hope I that totally pisses you off.

Yup. Nobody ever attempted to violate a male's right to sovereignty over his body. But the anti-choice folks seem to think that women are public property, not people with rights under the Constitution. They also never protest the funding of "ED" medications for men who are not attempting to conceive a child and maybe are having sex with women who are too old to conceive. The sex that they want to have is purely recreational. Where is the scrutiny of this?

A right to privacy doesn’t give someone the right to kill an unborn child.

If men were “controlling” women’s bodies then they could force her to have an abortion when she doesn’t want one. When has that been put into law? Oh it hasn’t, so all this talk about “controlling women’s bodies” is BS.

Ignorant nonsense.

Murder concerns criminal law; the right to privacy civil law – one having nothing to do with the other.

It is neither the role nor responsibility of government to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not; the right to privacy safeguards citizens from government excess and overreach with regard to such personal decisions.

Again, no one is forcing a woman to have an abortion, although far leftwing states like China do. Interesting how you people defend China with their forced abortions yet claim you are against government dictating to women if they can have children. Which means you are all full of shit.

Outlawing the killing of human life isn’t anymore of an “overreach” of government anymore than government outlawing rape.

Again, you keep circle jerking over your same failed argument. You still fail to prove anyone is killing a fully developed human being. Why? Because there is no known science out there that identifies a fully developed human being with a functioning brain that uses reason in the womb. Keep circle jerking and you will always go back to where you started.

Really? Yet you can’t explain why killing a newborn is illegal when it isn’t a “fully developed” human being.

I never explained killing a newborn was illegal. I never offered that information, because the newborn is out of the womb. Something you don't get, or can argue about. Why do you make up shit that I never argued about? Answer, because your own argument is a failure.

In other words you can’t defend your idiotic position about “fully developed” humans not being real people. You were too dumb to realize the words you were using also described an infant.

More inventions! Boss, you can 't help yourself can you? Let's make up another scenario, of which I never made claim to. Why do you do this? Simple, you have lost the argument, and you are not smart enough to walk away from it.

Dude, get a hold of yourself. No one said anything about a fully devoloped person not being a human being. Science identifies a fully developed human being at birth. You continue to invent nonsense and lies.

Got a link to support that bullshit? Of course you don't. Because no scientist worth his lab coat will claim a newborn is a “fully developed” human. You’re easily one of the dumbest mother fuckers to ever “chime in” on this topic.

He’s a leftwing zealot, abortion is a sacred pillar of his beliefs. Rational scientific facts won’t sway him. Calling out his bullshit only enrages him even more and make him more irrational.

You have not given rational scientific facts against the no brainer scientific facts I gave you. Do we have to school you all over again?

 

[BWK]

There was no scientific argument in the Roe decision. Neither for nor against.

Then what does that tell you? Lol! If they had crossed that path, Roe would have gotten a real ass kicking.

 

[BWK]

Not that this information will win over the lunatic pro-aborts here, but this sheds some light on their motivation to create this STORY

'AKA Jane Roe' producers have strong pro-abortion bias with ties to Planned Parenthood

The documentary that purportedly claims "Jane Roe" - Norma McCorvey - confessed to being paid to become pro-life should be eyed with suspicion. Here's why.

www.liveaction.org

THEN, Read THIS!

Keeping Track of Possible Supreme Court Abortion Cases - National Organization for Women

President Trump made it perfectly clear that one of his priorities in nominating justices was their likeliness to overturn Roe v. Wade.

now.org

What you don't want to admit is it doesn't matter what the makers of that movie think.

They didn't put those words into norma's mouth like the anti choice people did when they were paying her.

They didn't put those words into the anti choice man's mouth who admitted the whole thing, showed honest remorse for it by saying he will work the rest of his life to undo all the damage he did and all the lives he destroyed.

When the leaders of a movement admit it was all a lie and scam, people pay attention. They could care less what the views are of those who made the film.

If anyone thinks that an anti abortion group is going to make a film that exposes their movement for the total lie, scam and fraud it is and has been from the start, I have some wonderful ocean front property in Colorado to sell you super cheap.

What exactly about the pro-life movement is a “lie”?

The science and the lies.

 

[theHawk]

Not that this information will win over the lunatic pro-aborts here, but this sheds some light on their motivation to create this STORY

'AKA Jane Roe' producers have strong pro-abortion bias with ties to Planned Parenthood

The documentary that purportedly claims "Jane Roe" - Norma McCorvey - confessed to being paid to become pro-life should be eyed with suspicion. Here's why.

www.liveaction.org

THEN, Read THIS!

Keeping Track of Possible Supreme Court Abortion Cases - National Organization for Women

President Trump made it perfectly clear that one of his priorities in nominating justices was their likeliness to overturn Roe v. Wade.

now.org

What you don't want to admit is it doesn't matter what the makers of that movie think.

They didn't put those words into norma's mouth like the anti choice people did when they were paying her.

They didn't put those words into the anti choice man's mouth who admitted the whole thing, showed honest remorse for it by saying he will work the rest of his life to undo all the damage he did and all the lives he destroyed.

When the leaders of a movement admit it was all a lie and scam, people pay attention. They could care less what the views are of those who made the film.

If anyone thinks that an anti abortion group is going to make a film that exposes their movement for the total lie, scam and fraud it is and has been from the start, I have some wonderful ocean front property in Colorado to sell you super cheap.

What exactly about the pro-life movement is a “lie”?

The science and the lies.

Says a lefty, you probably think gender can be chosen by thinking it.

 

[BWK]

I'm going to post what someone else said on a different site.


Two possibilities here.

1) she was a pro choice liar this whole time, which indicates that pro choice advocates are dishonest

or

2) she was pro life this whole time and pro choice advocates deceptively quoted her and lied.

Both make their side the liars. Again.

I'm choosing #2. I will not trust a leftist.

Makes no difference either way. The whole case was premised and paid off as a lie. And that's what counts. The pro-life suit committed to lies for the win, and they lost. They failed on the non-existent science, and the payoffs to lie. And now look at these scum bags. They murder people at clinics after being proven liars and failures on the science. Pathetic people.

When you step back from the leftist spin, you find info like this:

In the documentary, Sweeney produces documents showing McCorvey received $456,000 over several years from pro-life groups, payment for reciting “scripted anti-abortion lines” in front of cameras. But such a revelation is hardly a bombshell, Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry told me.

“She made her living from contributions and speaking engagement fees,” Terry said. He often traveled around the country with McCorvey and once put her up in his house for a month. Pro-life leaders occasionally helped McCorvey write speeches. “But that amount over all those years is not a lot of money.”

McCorvey “could say things that were controversial,” Cheryl Sullenger, a friend of McCorvey and senior vice president of Operation Rescue, told me. She recalled a few times that McCorvey, tired after a long speaking engagement, used colorful language to put off pro-lifers who asked her personal questions.

“The chances are zero that her pro-life beliefs were fake,” Sullenger said.

Pro-life advocate Abby Johnson said Wednesday in a statement that McCorvey called her days before she died to talk with someone else who had a “big number”—abortions for which she felt responsible. “She felt like she owned them all,” Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood director, said.

Johnson also encouraged people to listen to Pavone’s assessment of McCorvey’s position: “He knew the real Norma. And he knew the sincerity of her conversion.”

Pavone says he witnessed firsthand McCorvey’s regret. Although she never had an abortion, she once attended a Rachel’s Vineyard retreat, a ministry to post-abortive women. Pavone helped lead the retreat. He doesn’t think she would have put herself through it if she hadn’t felt she needed to.

“We saw the grief, the pain, the crying,” Pavone said.

Pavone disputed the claim that the McCorvey interview was a “deathbed confession.” Pavone said the filming occurred in May 2016, nine months before she died. Pavone encouraged Sweeney to release all his footage.

“She could be erratic, but her journey isn’t captured in a single story,” Pavone said. Pavone, who also officiated at McCorvey’s funeral, spoke with her on the phone the day she died. She was coherent and made him promise that he and other pro-lifers would “continue with the cause.”

Pro-life critics say documentary’s Jane Roe bombshell is a dud - WORLD

Film claims advocates manipulated the woman who went from landmark abortion case plaintiff to pro-life activist

world.wng.org

Irrelevant argument. She got paid to lie. Nothing more revealing than that.

 

[BWK]

Not that this information will win over the lunatic pro-aborts here, but this sheds some light on their motivation to create this STORY

'AKA Jane Roe' producers have strong pro-abortion bias with ties to Planned Parenthood

The documentary that purportedly claims "Jane Roe" - Norma McCorvey - confessed to being paid to become pro-life should be eyed with suspicion. Here's why.

www.liveaction.org

THEN, Read THIS!

Keeping Track of Possible Supreme Court Abortion Cases - National Organization for Women

President Trump made it perfectly clear that one of his priorities in nominating justices was their likeliness to overturn Roe v. Wade.

now.org

What you don't want to admit is it doesn't matter what the makers of that movie think.

They didn't put those words into norma's mouth like the anti choice people did when they were paying her.

They didn't put those words into the anti choice man's mouth who admitted the whole thing, showed honest remorse for it by saying he will work the rest of his life to undo all the damage he did and all the lives he destroyed.

When the leaders of a movement admit it was all a lie and scam, people pay attention. They could care less what the views are of those who made the film.

If anyone thinks that an anti abortion group is going to make a film that exposes their movement for the total lie, scam and fraud it is and has been from the start, I have some wonderful ocean front property in Colorado to sell you super cheap.

What exactly about the pro-life movement is a “lie”?

The science and the lies.

Says a lefty, you probably think gender can be chosen by thinking it.

Non-argument. Please continue. The more you say, the more you say nothing.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

The Jane Roe crap was cooked up by Planned Parenthood.

They think it will somehow swing SC decisions

 

[BWK]

The Jane Roe crap was cooked up by Planned Parenthood.

They think it will somehow swing SC decisions

Please link the proof of that, or you are a liar.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

The Jane Roe crap was cooked up by Planned Parenthood.

They think it will somehow swing SC decisions

Please link the proof of that, or you are a liar.

Already have. You guys made it up and useful idiots like you run with it.

You're FAKE NEWS

 

[BWK]

The Jane Roe crap was cooked up by Planned Parenthood.

They think it will somehow swing SC decisions

Please link the proof of that, or you are a liar.

Already have. You guys made it up and useful idiots like you run with it.

You're FAKE NEWS

No you didn't. You're a liar. Move along. You are boring.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

The Jane Roe crap was cooked up by Planned Parenthood.

They think it will somehow swing SC decisions

Please link the proof of that, or you are a liar.

Already have. You guys made it up and useful idiots like you run with it.

You're FAKE NEWS

No you didn't. You're a liar. Move along. You are boring.

You've been exposed.

Everybody involved with this "documentary " has ties to bloody Planned Parenthood

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I'm going to post what someone else said on a different site.


Two possibilities here.

1) she was a pro choice liar this whole time, which indicates that pro choice advocates are dishonest

or

2) she was pro life this whole time and pro choice advocates deceptively quoted her and lied.

Both make their side the liars. Again.

I'm choosing #2. I will not trust a leftist.

Makes no difference either way. The whole case was premised and paid off as a lie. And that's what counts. The pro-life suit committed to lies for the win, and they lost. They failed on the non-existent science, and the payoffs to lie. And now look at these scum bags. They murder people at clinics after being proven liars and failures on the science. Pathetic people.

When you step back from the leftist spin, you find info like this:

In the documentary, Sweeney produces documents showing McCorvey received $456,000 over several years from pro-life groups, payment for reciting “scripted anti-abortion lines” in front of cameras. But such a revelation is hardly a bombshell, Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry told me.

“She made her living from contributions and speaking engagement fees,” Terry said. He often traveled around the country with McCorvey and once put her up in his house for a month. Pro-life leaders occasionally helped McCorvey write speeches. “But that amount over all those years is not a lot of money.”

McCorvey “could say things that were controversial,” Cheryl Sullenger, a friend of McCorvey and senior vice president of Operation Rescue, told me. She recalled a few times that McCorvey, tired after a long speaking engagement, used colorful language to put off pro-lifers who asked her personal questions.

“The chances are zero that her pro-life beliefs were fake,” Sullenger said.

Pro-life advocate Abby Johnson said Wednesday in a statement that McCorvey called her days before she died to talk with someone else who had a “big number”—abortions for which she felt responsible. “She felt like she owned them all,” Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood director, said.

Johnson also encouraged people to listen to Pavone’s assessment of McCorvey’s position: “He knew the real Norma. And he knew the sincerity of her conversion.”

Pavone says he witnessed firsthand McCorvey’s regret. Although she never had an abortion, she once attended a Rachel’s Vineyard retreat, a ministry to post-abortive women. Pavone helped lead the retreat. He doesn’t think she would have put herself through it if she hadn’t felt she needed to.

“We saw the grief, the pain, the crying,” Pavone said.

Pavone disputed the claim that the McCorvey interview was a “deathbed confession.” Pavone said the filming occurred in May 2016, nine months before she died. Pavone encouraged Sweeney to release all his footage.

“She could be erratic, but her journey isn’t captured in a single story,” Pavone said. Pavone, who also officiated at McCorvey’s funeral, spoke with her on the phone the day she died. She was coherent and made him promise that he and other pro-lifers would “continue with the cause.”

Pro-life critics say documentary’s Jane Roe bombshell is a dud - WORLD

Film claims advocates manipulated the woman who went from landmark abortion case plaintiff to pro-life activist

world.wng.org

Irrelevant argument. She got paid to lie. Nothing more revealing than that.

Do you understand what she lied about. She sure wasn't arguing any kind of scientific position. When life begins and what is a human being never occurred to her.