This place hasn't changed a bit. Just checking in.

" Is Bad Better Or Worse Than Not Good In Continuing Resolutions "

* Standardization Of Good Versus Not Good Public Protection *


The roe v wade ruled that in second trimester states could regulate abortion to ensure that the procedures were safe .

The diagnosis of second trimester developmental anomalies in fetus are available through ultrasound at 13 weeks , through amniocentesis at 15 - 20 , through microvilli at 13 weeks , assuming services are available , with miscarriage risks for the latter .

The roe v wade ruled that in third trimester states could proscribe abortion , as an ability of a fetus to survive an imminent live birth - at natural viability was substituted in lieu of a live birth requirement for legitimate interests of a federate or state to provide equal protection with a citizen .

The roe v wade ruled that first trimester abortions were between doctor and patient and did not represent a significant public safety risk , even as d&c was more frequent then modern medical abortion .

To establish independence of the individual through equal protection of negative liberties , as per us 9th amendment , and to institute legitimate interests of a state for ensuring public safety and security , there is not a constitutional reason for states not to have roe v wade laws .
Roe died. Can't have the dead litigating.
 
" Witless Protection Programs "

* Every Living Us Citizen Is Entitled To Legal Standing Against Dumbfounded Sedition And Malfeasance Of Dobbs *

Roe died. Can't have the dead litigating.
Any us citizen has legal standing to contest that federal or state proscription of abortion violates the enumerated rite to equal protection clause of us 14th amendment .
 
" Witless Protection Programs "

* Every Living Us Citizen Is Entitled To Legal Standing Against Dumbfounded Sedition And Malfeasance Of Dobbs *


Any us citizen has legal standing to contest that federal or state proscription of abortion violates the enumerated rite to equal protection clause of us 14th amendment .
She is dead. The dead are not living citizens.

Norma Leah Nelson McCorvey (née Nelson; September 22, 1947 – February 18, 2017), also known by the pseudonym Jane Roe, was the plaintiff in the landmark 1973 American legal case Roe v. Wade in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individual state laws banning abortion were unconstitutional.<a href="Norma McCorvey - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a>
 

sure, internet warrior...

sure.
comic book guy.gif


comic book guy.gif
 
" Holding Copy Write As Intellectual Property For Humiliation Of Fee Press Through Informed Consent Of The Public "

* Long Standing Challenges Can Not Be Averted And Stupid Assertions That Legal Standing Requires Jane Roe In Person *

She is dead. The dead are not living citizens.
Norma Leah Nelson McCorvey (née Nelson; September 22, 1947 – February 18, 2017), also known by the pseudonym Jane Roe, was the plaintiff in the landmark 1973 American legal case Roe v. Wade in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individual state laws banning abortion were unconstitutional.<a href="Norma McCorvey - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a>
The constitutional basis for the ruling of roe v wade has not changed from a live birth requirement for equal protection with a us citizen , though the cabal of traitors among jurisprudence , political parties and pundits of the fee press of a us republic , who pander and support the dumbfounded sedition and malfeasance of the dobbs decision , refuse to acknowledge it .

The idiots from both sides of the aisle played the public for fools by pandering a rite to privacy as the basis for roe v wade , however a rite to privacy was not ever the basis of roe v wade and the entire bunch are negligent for behaving as buffoons .
 
Last edited:
Um, okay. Now, how do you enforce it?

I promise you, every OB/GYN will just declare every fetus they aborted was at 11 weeks or less.

This is why SCOTUS passed Roe in 1973. They knew the laws were unworkable and not being followed, but the legislatures simply didn't have the political courage to take them off the books.
Who among us has the right to bargain with and make compromises with the basic human rights of others?
 
Chuz. Is that pronounced the way it is spells?



Rhymes with because?
Way back when personalized plates were first allowed in my State, I tried to register "Choose Life" but too many characters. So, I tried to shorten it to ChuzLife and was told that was already pre-registered by Planned Parenthood. True story.
 

Attachments

  • SmartSelect_20241203_130939_Bluesky.webp
    SmartSelect_20241203_130939_Bluesky.webp
    23.6 KB · Views: 13
" Entropy Goad Suggests Blow It Out Yearn Pretentious Sanctimonious Anus "

* Anthropocentric Psychosis Of Conceited Damned Dirty Apes *

Who among us has the right to bargain with and make compromises with the basic human rights of others?
The basics of hue mammon rites conform with a universal scale of exploitation , else a macrocosm of magnanimous primordial ego is more inclined to adversely punish the arrogance of hue mammon .

- 95 -
. This place hasn't changed a bit. Just checking in. .
- 98 -
, This place hasn't changed a bit. Just checking in. .
- 99 -
. This place hasn't changed a bit. Just checking in. .

* Imbecilic And Moronic Proteges *

The term right as it has been applied in the previous post sentence , as a poor attempt at valid terminology , is slang and one of the greater faux pas of english vernacular which continues to persist with morose stupidity with and among english speaking public .

. Applying THe Term Rights As A Descriptor For Articles Of Constitution Is Slang And A Profound Error In Diction .
 
Who among us has the right to bargain with and make compromises with the basic human rights of others?

Who among us has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body?

This is where you anti-choice fanatics always fall.

You assume that because you declare your principles, everyone is just going to go along with them.

This is the same mistake the people who promoted Prohibition thought. After they tricked dumb people into thinking banning alcohol would help beat the Kaiser or something, people promptly went about finding ways to flaunt the law. Police didn't care to enforce the laws (they needed to get drunk, too!)

Women had no problems getting an abortion before Roe, when all but five states restricted it in some way. OB/GYN's would perform the abortion, write something else down on the chart, insurance would happily pay for it, and everyone went home happy. (Except little Globby, he ended up in a medical waste container.)
 
Who among us has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body?

This is where you anti-choice fanatics always fall.

You assume that because you declare your principles, everyone is just going to go along with them.

This is the same mistake the people who promoted Prohibition thought. After they tricked dumb people into thinking banning alcohol would help beat the Kaiser or something, people promptly went about finding ways to flaunt the law. Police didn't care to enforce the laws (they needed to get drunk, too!)

Women had no problems getting an abortion before Roe, when all but five states restricted it in some way. OB/GYN's would perform the abortion, write something else down on the chart, insurance would happily pay for it, and everyone went home happy. (Except little Globby, he ended up in a medical waste container.)

1753011428961.webp
 

Attachments

  • 20241007_203234.webp
    20241007_203234.webp
    21.5 KB · Views: 13
I've explained this to you multiple times.

Her Body, her choice.

Now, I have no respect for a woman who has an abortion because she didn't use birth control, or her plan to get her boyfriend to marry her didn't work, so the fetus becomes expendable.

All that said, it's not my decision, and it's not your decision, either.

Learn to cope.
 
" Pathetic Imbeciles Conferring Correctness To Miscreants With Right As A Label "

* Laws Are Rites While Any Behavior Is A Ritual *

Who among us has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body?
That statement fails to include assertions by anti-choice that any other entity also exists , which anti-choice assert is entitled to representation by proxy .

The principles of individualism stipulate that self ownership includes an autonomy to determine progeny by the individual and not by a collective of individuals , while legal positivism from us constitution directs that a live birth is required for legitimate state interests in providing equal protection .

* Unlimited Limitations Of Nature *
This is where you anti-choice fanatics always fall.
You assume that because you declare your principles, everyone is just going to go along with them.
A natural law theorist presumes that the means to the ends justifies its deontology , by expecting a logical fallacy for bandwagon abdication to nomian authority of its goad .

* Puritanical Chastisement By Craggy Shrew Bitching For Domination Of Natural Wields Into Absolute Submission *
This is the same mistake the people who promoted Prohibition thought. After they tricked dumb people into thinking banning alcohol would help beat the Kaiser or something, people promptly went about finding ways to flaunt the law. Police didn't care to enforce the laws (they needed to get drunk, too!)
...

* Freak Farmer Fanatics Fashion Fervor Postponed Poised By Executive Order To Abate Political Revolts "
Women had no problems getting an abortion before Roe, when all but five states restricted it in some way. OB/GYN's would perform the abortion, write something else down on the chart, insurance would happily pay for it, and everyone went home happy. (Except little Globby, he ended up in a medical waste container.)
The illicit unregulated markets often work well for civil liberties , however as the quality of products or services are not regulated , compliance with public safety and security standards is not determined .

The scotus deferred ruling on mifepristone through federal mail , which remains pending since june 2024 .
 
Last edited:
I've explained this to you multiple times.

Her Body, her choice.

Now, I have no respect for a woman who has an abortion because she didn't use birth control, or her plan to get her boyfriend to marry her didn't work, so the fetus becomes expendable.

All that said, it's not my decision, and it's not your decision, either.

Learn to cope.
1753014913670.webp
 

Attachments

  • 20250115_044208.webp
    20250115_044208.webp
    39.1 KB · Views: 9
15th post
" Individual Interests In Progeny Override Collective State Interests For Citizens "

* Obtrusive Intersession With Absurdities By Due Good Hairs *

When did I say I was a defender of human rights?
Fetuese aren't viable, and as long as they require another person to keep them alive, that person's buy in is required.
The lithograph depicts a little girl in a car seat as the victim of basic hue mammon rites , as is typical of abortion anti choice its depictions render a poster child icon at idealistic stages of development , when with cause abortion is optioned for developmental anomalies .

* Safety Security Frivolity Beckoning All Identities Entering *

The puritanical prurient cloister clans continue to pass legislation that remote viewing of adult content constitutes a significant risk to public safety such that adults are directed to a department of public safety to receive digital verification .

The gun control fanatics may iconize the little girl about school shootings and bring forth legislation that violent video games should only be available via adult digital verification , rather than resigning accountability for moral direction to parental controls .
 
Last edited:
When did I say I was a defender of human rights?

Fetuese aren't viable, and as long as they require another person to keep them alive, that person's buy in is required.
 
" Enumerated Rite Of Equal Protection With A Live Birth Requirement "

* Dumbfounded Dobbs Is Sedition And Malfeasance *


The term person is deconstructed into per - meaning countable by census , and son - meaning male , whereby only males are defined as us citizens which includes an entitlement to vote .

After years of bantering politicians about the per son loose end , in 2002 during the bush administration , congress stepped forward to dispel the disparity and the term person as clarified in title 1 section 8 of us code , and the person definition does not and can not include the unborn , which only goes to more greatly prove that the dumbfounded decision of dobbs by scotus is not only sedition against us 14th , 9th , 1st and 10th amendments , it is also intentional malfeasance against title 1 section 8 of us code .

The enumerated rite to equal protection in us 14th amendment includes a live birth requirement as does the definition of a per son .

The sanctimonious sacrosanct anthropocentric psychopathic anti-choice traitors against us republic could not swing the necessary constitutional amendment so its miscreants optioned sedition of us constitution and malfeasance .
 
Last edited:


But at the end of the day, the courts didn't establish fetal personhood in Roe.

They didn't establish it in Dodd, either.

Because Fetal personhood would be legally problematic.

Every miscarriage would have to be investigated as a potential homicide.

Pregnant women could be charged with assault for having a sip of wine or smoking a cigarette after a particularly stressful day.
 
Back
Top Bottom