The Pro-Life Movement - Post-Roe v Wade

[DaShuckster]

The SCOTUS didn't make it illegal. They dumped it back in the laps of the states.

That's right, this abortion business -- as Republicans have told us over and over -- is a STATES RIGHTS issue! If Red States want to ban abortion, the SCOTUS said they CAN by golly! (Yeah, human rights in this country has always been a States Rights issue.)

But what's happened since Roe v Wade got overturned? Voters across the country (in both Red and Blue States) have said in a loud, clear and indisputable voice that they want abortion protections.

With last night's verdict in Ohio and a flood of similar abortion protection measures hitting the ballots of other States in 2024, guess what our MAGA crowd is saying now? Washington DC politicians and Republicans on the POTUS Debate stage have decided what this country REALLY needs to do is push for a FEDERAL abortion ban.

You can't make this stuff up.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

LOL. It would appear somebody here is obsessed with me.

It's so cute to see you start a thread based on something I said that is 100% true: the SCOTUS didn't ban abortion. They kicked it back to the states. And you know what? It would appear that is a good thing since the states that have voted on it in many instances have spoken accordingly.

For the billionth time: IDGAF about abortion. Zero. Zip. Nada. It's a dog whistle issue that riles up retards on both the right and the left that has absolutely no bearing on my life. I have also said that Republicans have pushed this wayyyyyyy too far after the SCOTUS ruling by removing exceptions for rape victims and the like.

Hope this helps...

 

[DaShuckster]

It's so cute to see you start a thread based on something I said that is 100% true: the SCOTUS didn't ban abortion. They kicked it back to the states.

And I responded that you were right. Oh the horror, right? My post was about how State voters are responding.

For the billionth time: IDGAF about abortion. Zero. Zip. Nada.

I originally planned to post to the Roe v Wade Overturned thread but decided bringing the whole thread back up was unnecessary when your old post hit on the point I wanted to make about the GOP’s whole states rights mantra. Sorry I got you panties in a wad by using something you posted to introduce it. Go run to 85 again and tell him I hurt your feelings.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

And I responded that you were right. Oh the horror, right? My post was about how State voters are responding.

I originally planned to post to the Roe v Wade Overturned thread but decided bringing the whole thread back up was unnecessary when your old post hit on the point I wanted to make about the GOP’s whole states right mantra. Sorry I got you panties in a wad by using something you posted to introduce it. Go run to 85 again and tell him I hurt your feelings.

Glad you came back and edited to add your 85 bit. I know you're butthurt over him slapping your pee pee, but I had nothing to do with it.

 

[DaShuckster]

SMH. Joe's sidetracks are worse than UCFBS.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

SMH. Joe's sidetracks are worse than UCFBS.

Cool story. Your obsession grows, loser.

 

[DaShuckster]

Anti-abortion Conservatives worked for 50 years to stack the SCOTUS to get 'their way.' But guess what? Leaving it up to the states hasn't worked out as they'd expected.

Prediction: We'll spend 12 years trampling on women's rights across the country until -- Presto! -- America will find itself all the way back where we were before Judge Alito and his Catholic theocrats struck Roe down.

Post Roe v Wade

 

[goodknightfl]

The states have every right to make their own laws on abortion. The Fed and other states should have no say in what they decide.

I aways expected some states to have liberal laws regarding it while others will restrict it more.

 

[DaShuckster]

The states have every right to make their own laws on abortion. The Fed and other states should have no say in what they decide.

How do you explain your fellow "States Rights" advocate, Senator Lindsey Graham's new bill in the Senate for a Federal Abortion Ban?

I aways expected some states to have liberal laws regarding it while others will restrict it more.

Yep, "Lib" California did it. Same with the other four states (to date) that have had it on the ballot. Weird, abortion rights passed overwhelmingly in Red States, Kansas and Kentucky too. You might want to check on how many Red States are likely to have it on the ballots next year. Do you think that will help the GOP's cause?

 

[goodknightfl]

How do you explain your fellow "States Rights" advocate, Senator Lindsey Graham's new bill in the Senate for a Federal Abortion Ban?

Yep, "Lib" California did it. Same with the other four states (to date) that have had it on the ballot. Weird, abortion rights passed overwhelmingly in Red States, Kansas and Kentucky too. You might want to check on how many Red States are likely to have it on the ballots next year. Do you think that will help the GOP's cause?

I disagree with him. He is wrong on this. Fed should not force it or stop it. They have no role now that supreme court decided. As a politician who is used to setting policy (in this case conservative) on other non-Federal issues (liberals do the same) he just likes the power he perceives he has or should have.

 

[DaShuckster]

I disagree with him. He is wrong on this. Fed should not force it or stop it. They have no role now that supreme court decided. As a politician who is used to setting policy (in this case conservative) on other non-Federal issues (liberals do the same) he just likes the power he perceives he has or should have.

Its all about control over others with these anti-abortionist 'conservatives.' If they can't get their way one way, they'll try to do it another. They love to talk freedom. But only as long as its about THEIR freedom.

 

[goodknightfl]

Its all about control over others with these anti-abortionist 'conservatives.' If they can't get their way one way, they'll try to do it another. They love to talk freedom. But only as long as its about THEIR freedom.

That is true with both parties. Just what they want control over is different. Both parties often have exempted congress from laws they create to control the average citizen. If you think this is a conservative thing you really need new glasses.

 

[DaShuckster]

That is true with both parties. Just what they want control over is different.

Okay, let’s play this ’both sides do it’ game. How do those godless, evil Dems seek to control the average citizen?

Is it trying to ban assault rifles or—at the very least—raise the age to purchase one?

Is it by (gasp!) attempting to restrict an individual’s ‘religious’ right to infringe on another person’s civil rights?

What is it? Inquiring minds want to know?

 

[goodknightfl]

doing away with gas and wood stoves, choosing the type of car you can buy, Killing free speech on social media,
No more cooling or warming house as you choose, unless of course you are one of the elites who we need flying around on private jets to huge homes and boats, because their convenience is needed to run the show for the rest of us. Sorry if you live with your little liberal glasses on thinking only one side infringes on freedom.

 

[DaShuckster]

doing away with gas and wood stoves, choosing the type of car you can buy ... No more cooling or warming house as you choose

Yikes, when did those things become illegal? I betcha once upon a time, we had folks in this country grousing about those new-fangled automobiles destroying the horse and buggy industry. Now THAT's gonna put a LOT of Americans out of jobs.

...killing free speech on social media...

Yelling FIRE! in a crowded movie theatre has never been protected by the First amendment. It's not your right to spread bullsh*t information that could cause harm to other people

Sorry if you live with your little liberal glasses on thinking only one side infringes on freedom.

Let me guess: did the COVID virus 'infringe on your freedom?
Many of the same dumbasses who were chanting 'my body, my right' when it came to getting the shot were the ones championing the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

 

[thall__]

"honey, i made another abortion thread"

 

[goodknightfl]

Yikes, when did those things become illegal?

Biden was pushing for them. He backed down after backlash.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/gas-stove-ban-proposal-when-and-why-rcna65078

Trial balloon was out there. NYC has already put it in place.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/03/us/new-york-natural-gas-ban-climate/index.html

 

[thall__]

Biden was pushing for them. He backed down after backlash.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/gas-stove-ban-proposal-when-and-why-rcna65078

Trial balloon was out there. NYC has already put it in place.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/03/us/new-york-natural-gas-ban-climate/index.html

stop trying to have a good-faith discussion with that retard

 

[DaShuckster]

MSN

www.msn.com

LINK ^^^^

From the article: "The Texas Supreme Court has paused a judge's decision that would have allowed a woman to terminate a pregancy in which her fetus has a fatal diagnosis.

The judge's order in question was issued just days ago and blocked the state from enforcing its strict abortion ban in the case of Kate Cox, a Dallas woman. The justices now say they intend to consider Attorney General Ken Paxton's petition, filed late Thursday night, to reverse the Travis County court's decision.

In his petition, Paxton argued the state would suffer an "irreparable loss" should Cox terminate her pregnancy.

"Because the life of an unborn child is at stake, the Court should require a faithful application of Texas statutes prior to determining that an abortion is permitted," Paxton's request reads."

GOOD GRIEF! When it comes to "Government Interference," it doesn't get much worse than this case.

 

[Cubs79]

MSN

www.msn.com

LINK ^^^^

From the article: "The Texas Supreme Court has paused a judge's decision that would have allowed a woman to terminate a pregancy in which her fetus has a fatal diagnosis.

The judge's order in question was issued just days ago and blocked the state from enforcing its strict abortion ban in the case of Kate Cox, a Dallas woman. The justices now say they intend to consider Attorney General Ken Paxton's petition, filed late Thursday night, to reverse the Travis County court's decision.

In his petition, Paxton argued the state would suffer an "irreparable loss" should Cox terminate her pregnancy.

"Because the life of an unborn child is at stake, the Court should require a faithful application of Texas statutes prior to determining that an abortion is permitted," Paxton's request reads."

GOOD GRIEF! When it comes to "Government Interference," it doesn't get much worse than this case.

She is going out of state for the abortion, this is some psychopath stuff. The funny part, is that Texas also has a current lawsuit because a pregnant prison guard lost her pregnancy because they wouldn't let her leave her job when she was having intense stomach pain. Guess what Texas is arguing in this case? That the fetus had no rights and the state can't be held liable. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/12/texas-fetus-rights-prison-guard-lawsuit-abortion

 

[DaShuckster]

She is going out of state for the abortion, this is some psychopath stuff.

No fooling, Cubs79. It's mindboggling that the Texas AG filed an emergency, overnight appeal in order to "insure the life" of the doctor-certified, terminal fetus. 🤪