What are the effects of the Roe Overturn today?

[Lesh]

The Senators were foolish and wrong to phrase such questions with presumptions. The fault is entirely on those Senators. It is not for Senators to blackmail prospective Justices with a requirement to define law as settled or not.

Horse shit

These creeps lied

 

[Rogue AI]

Horse shit

These creeps lied

Nope, the blackmailing Senators misapprehended the answers to their questions. Too bad, in fact this should have been settled long ago.

 

[Lesh]

Nope, the blackmailing Senators misapprehended the answers to their questions. Too bad, in fact this should have been settled long ago.

"Blackmailing"?

"Misapprehended the answers"?

Just stop talking

 

[Rogue AI]

"Blackmailing"?

"Misapprehended the answers"?

Just stop talking

Only when you stop whining.

 

[task0778]

Horse shit

These creeps lied

Every nominee to the SC lies or at best dissembles, both dem and repub. It's all part of the political games everybody plays in DC.

 

[Care4all]

Oh, that old phony gerrymandering claim again? Gerrymandering doesn't affect state elections, only federal elections, that's besides the fact Democrats do it just as much as Republicans do.

And again, the $10,000 reward only applies to people who report those breaking the law which is no abortions after six weeks.

Of course it affects state elections for legislators as well!

It's the Stasi, having citizens rat out other citizens for a reward, a secret police, of sort.....

That's just p!ain wrong Ray.

 

[Redfish]

The majority of Americans support abortion access in general

access, yes. But on demand for any reason, no. as a means of birth control, no. late in pregnancy, no. partial birth, no. those are the significant differences.

 

[Redfish]

Of course it affects state elections for legislators as well!

It's the Stasi, having citizens rat out other citizens for a reward, a secret police, of sort.....

That's just p!ain wrong Ray.

why do you object to the voters of each state deciding this for their state?

 

[Care4all]

why do you object to the voters of each state deciding this for their state?

Because the voters aren't deciding for themselves, partisan hacks are intentionally gerrymandering to weight votes in their own party favor, using computers to draw the lines or squiggly lines.... This diminishes and weakens the voter's vote cast. On both sides of the aisle.

 

[eddiew37]

an interesting perspective​

Pro Lifer: Well the mother should just give the baby up for adoption if she doesn’t want the baby
Me: So who will adopt the baby?
PL: I don’t know there’s lots of couples who want to adopt
Me: Do you know any couple who is waiting to adopt?
PL: Um well not personally but like I know there’s lots of people waiting to adopt.
Me: Do you know what a domestic adoption costs?
PL: I don’t know. $15,000 maybe?
Me: The average cost of domestic adoption in the United States is $70,000 if you go through a private agency.
PL: Oh I didn’t realize it was that much
Me: Yep it’s really expensive. It can be more if you want a newborn straight from the hospital. Up to $120,000.
PL: We’ll all life is precious.
Me; it really is. I’ve adopted through foster care and am currently a licensed foster parent. Would you be interested in becoming a foster parent yourself?
PL: Oh no I couldn’t do it.
Me: Why not?
PL: It would just be too much for me right now.
Me: Why is that?
PL: It would be too hard to handle all the issues that came with it.I’ve heard horror stories.
Me: Yep it can be extremely difficult. But what if I told you that you were required by law to become a foster parent?
PL: what?
Me; what if you had to become a foster parent by law?
PL: they would never do that. That would never happen.
Me; Well, if a woman is forced to bear a child she doesn’t want, and she goes ahead and has that child, someone has to care for the child either through adoption or foster care. You have to do one of those two things.
PL; But I don’t want any more kids.
Me: So you don’t want someone forcing you to have a child in your home that you don’t want or aren’t able to care for?
PL: no, that’s not my job to raise someone else’s child.
There it is, folks. Have the baby, but we don’t want anything to do with it afterwards”

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course it affects state elections for legislators as well!

It's the Stasi, having citizens rat out other citizens for a reward, a secret police, of sort.....

That's just p!ain wrong Ray.

it may be unethical and wrong but there is no advantage lying about what the law actually says.

 

[Care4all]

it may be unethical and wrong but there is no advantage lying about what the law actually says.

What's the result of the law, Ray? Rats....spying on fellow citizens, to enforce a law via the citizens pitted against each other and ratting one out for a reward, for a law the govt wrote ....of which the govt couldn't enforce. without having citizens doing it for them...?

That's not okay, Ray!!!!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What's the result of the law, Ray? Rats....spying on fellow citizens, to enforce a law via the citizens pitted against each other and ratting one out for a reward, for a law the govt wrote ....of which the govt couldn't enforce. without having citizens doing it for them...?

That's not okay, Ray!!!!

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. My only point is you twist the story to make it fit your narrative.

Let me ask while on the subject: If you know of somebody that was wanted by the police for breaking a law, and a $5,000 reward was offered, are you offended that the government would pay people to give them information about this person? Are you offended that they post WANTED posters at the Post Office and on the internet, perhaps Face Book or some other social medias?

 

[Redfish]

Because the voters aren't deciding for themselves, partisan hacks are intentionally gerrymandering to weight votes in their own party favor, using computers to draw the lines or squiggly lines.... This diminishes and weakens the voter's vote cast. On both sides of the aisle.

LOL, when the voters of a state vote on any referendum there are not district lines, everyone in the state votes. Whoever told you that is lying to you.

 

[Redfish]

What's the result of the law, Ray? Rats....spying on fellow citizens, to enforce a law via the citizens pitted against each other and ratting one out for a reward, for a law the govt wrote ....of which the govt couldn't enforce. without having citizens doing it for them...?

That's not okay, Ray!!!!

how is that different from any other law? What you cannot seem to grasp is that the SC ruling DOES NOT make abortion illegal. All it does is clarify that its not a federal/constitutional issue and that each state's voters must decide how/if it will be legal in their state. Fear not, it will remain legal in the blue states of Cal and NY, and probably more.

now old senile joe wants to use taxpayer money to fly people to states where abortion is legal and cover all the costs. Do you think this is a good plan? How much of YOUR tax money do you want allocated for this?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

LOL, when the voters of a state vote on any referendum there are not district lines, everyone in the state votes. Whoever told you that is lying to you.

I told her that. Redistricting only changes congressional districts and that's that.

 

[task0778]

I do not understand why it so bad when the people in each state can decide for themselves what their abortion laws should be. Who better than the voters to decide that? Should 9 unelected people in DC decide for everybody? For some things yes, we can't have discrimination anywhere in this country. But for things like abortion, no. And if the people don't like what their state gov't is doing about that or anything else, they can vote their asses out of office, or they can vote with their feet and move to another state.

And if the US Congress can get their act together and come up with a federal abortion law, so be it. That is what we elected them to do, and I don't see the Supreme Court overturning whatever that law says, unless it discriminates against somebody. Same deal as the states, the voters can vote out the incumbents if they don't like what they're doing. That is the way it should be in this country.

 

[Lastamender]

Poll Finds Majority of Americans Support Supreme Court Decision Overturning Roe v. Wade - LifeNews.com

A new Rasmussen poll finds a majority of Americans support the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Rasmussen finds 50% of Americans favor the decision allowing states to protect babies from abortion while just 45% oppose it. The new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online...

www.lifenews.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I do not understand why it so bad when the people in each state can decide for themselves what their abortion laws should be. Who better than the voters to decide that? Should 9 unelected people in DC decide for everybody? For some things yes, we can't have discrimination anywhere in this country. But for things like abortion, no. And if the people don't like what their state gov't is doing about that or anything else, they can vote their asses out of office, or they can vote with their feet and move to another state.

And if the US Congress can get their act together and come up with a federal abortion law, so be it. That is what we elected them to do, and I don't see the Supreme Court overturning whatever that law says, unless it discriminates against somebody. Same deal as the states, the voters can vote out the incumbents if they don't like what they're doing. That is the way it should be in this country.

The Roe decision back in the 70's gave them protection from state laws. They always had something to back them up if states got too aggressive with their abortion laws.

So the MSM's new approach is to lie to their viewers by telling them the overturning of the ruling means abortion will be illegal. The world is coming to an end. The conservative judges are practicing judicial legislation. Of course none of that is true.

Yes, if the Democrats want to, they can pass a federal law that no state can restrict abortions under 20 weeks into pregnancy or more. I can't see anything stopping them. If the Republicans get enough power, they can change it to 10 weeks or even eliminate abortions altogether which I think would never happen; it would be political suicide.

 

[task0778]

Yes, if the Democrats want to, they can pass a federal law that no state can restrict abortions under 20 weeks into pregnancy or more

The democrats would need 60 votes to do that, and I doubt they'll get 10 repubs to vote for that. I'm not sure they'd even get 10 GOP votes if they lowered the number to 10 weeks, and maybe some democrats wouldn't support that. If I was them I'd settle for a simple bill that says abortion bans are illegal and let the states iron out how they want to handle it. I'm sure the GOP would demand some sort of limit for when a state could legally determine an abortion to be legal, say at 15 weeks. Each state could designate the limit as long as it was equal to or less than 15, and maybe even throw in some exceptions: rape, incest, mother's health. They ain't saying abortion is a constitutional right, just a civil one that I don't think the Supreme Court can argue or overturn.