ChiGoose

Don't be dumb. I would expect this from some of the posters here, but this idiotic straw man is beneath you. If laws leave gray areas, doctors will consult their lawyers before giving what would normally be a standard of care. If the exception simply reads "when the woman's life is in danger" or as it does in some cases, "when the woman's life is in immediate danger" then what do you do with someone who is not in imminent danger, but their condition will almost assuredly deteriorate if the pregnancy is not ended? We are already seeing women sent home while miscarrying instead of getting an abortion, only to return to the hospital with sepsis. What do you do if the woman has cancer that cannot be treated safely while they are pregnant? If the cancer is not about to cause her death, do they have to let it grow throughout the pregnancy because it is not currently endangering her life? Why does the government get to tell her that her only option is to carry the baby to term and risk allowing the cancer to spread so much it kills her shortly after? Why isn't that her decision? And I am sure that the 10 year old rape victim who had to leave her state for treatment because Ohio doesn't have an exception for rape is very much reassured that she can trust the process.

Or we could look at the laws already being put in place and see that they do not include these common sense exceptions and are worded vaguely, causing confusion and resulting in woman not getting proper care and endangering their lives.

Judge orders trial for Twitter’s suit against Musk to be held in October. Twitter had asked for September, Musk asked for early next year.

Yes, hypothetically, I suppose you could find a compromise where early in the pregnancy, the rights of the mother are prioritized but as the fetus approaches viability, the state has an interest in its rights.

(Citation needed)

Interesting that the “by other means” number is generally consistent across states.

That’s correct. And it’s also correct that I don’t live in a theocracy.

If life begins at conception, then God is the single most prolific abortionist in history.

It’s the year 2170. Our descendants are living a life that we today cannot possibly imagine. One of them logs into their metaverse account and types the words that will never die: “…but Hillary’s emails”

Looks like there were backups for the missing texts:

The runway at a Royal Air Force base has melted.

Don’t forget the Russian SAM site that shot itself. That was fun.

Case 1: Congress would need a 2/3rds majority to override the veto. Both in the House and Senate. Otherwise, the bill fails and does not become law. Case 2: Yes. If the GOP enacts an abortion ban in 2024, the Dems can override it in 2028. All the same legislative caveats apply to both laws: majority vote in the House, 60 votes in the senate (or filibuster override and 50 votes), and the president signs it into law. Essentially, for a bill to become law, it needs to pass both the Senate and the House, and then be signed by the president. Currently, the Senate requires a 60% threshold to pass most legislation.

Haha, fair enough. Trump was so annoying and bad at his job that he managed to do the impossible and unite the Democratic Party. And once having accomplished that, they went back to their main task of infighting.

The left is a circular firing squad. I'm not sure it's possible for them to all get in line for something.

By definition, it's not an inalienable right if it can be taken away. Part of the purpose of the constitution and the judiciary is to provide a check on the tyranny of the majority. If absolutely everything was left to popular vote, we could usher in some truly terrible things. Where exactly to draw the line between what a legislature can do and what it cannot is a place where reasonable people can (and do) disagree. But to say that everything not explicitly stated in the constitution should be up to the whims of the public means that we do not have a right to privacy. We just have privacy at the leisure of the current government. Also, to say that "nobody is currently advocating for X, therefore people who can be harmed by X shouldn't worry" right after the Supreme Court says "there are no protections against X" is of little comfort to people who could be harmed by it. Not only does Clarence Thomas think that Obergefell should be overturned, but half of the current conservative majority on SCOTUS dissented on that case (the other half were not yet on the Court). There is also a push by some conservative activists to undo gay marriage. Do you think it's unreasonable for married gay couples in red states to be concerned for the legal status of their relationship?

It’s not an inalienable right if a legislature can take it away.

My position is that we should have rights that are inviolable, ones that the government cannot legislate. We may disagree on the specifics of those rights, but not everything should be subject to the whims of the legislature. I think that if you just throw everything to the government to decide for you, then you're asking for trouble.

That will come as some shock to Trump's 2020 Campaign Chair, Trump's White House Attorneys, and the leadership of Trump's Department of Justice, all of whom looked into the claims of fraud and did not find it despite their jobs literally depending on Trump remaining in office.

So this is where we get to the question of how to interpret the Constitution. Remember, the Founders themselves felt that just because a right wasn't explicitly clear in the text, doesn't mean it didn't exist. In fact, many of them originally opposed the Bill of Rights because they feared that specifically enumerating some rights might be interpreted as an exhaustive list. Since they couldn't possibly think of ever right that a person might have, if they forget one, people would later take that to mean it doesn't exist. That is why we have the 9th Amendment, which states that just because a right isn't spelled out in the text doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Despite this, there is a strong modern movement to say just the opposite of what the Founder's intended: if it's not in the text, it doesn't exist. There are a myriad of problems with this, but I'm not going to go into them right now. So if we follow the Founder's intent, the question is simply: is there a right to consensual sexual activity inside one's own home? I would like to believe that the answer to this is yes. I do not like the idea of the government being able to legislate what two consenting adults do in the bedroom. At the time of Lawrence, three states had laws explicitly banning same-sex sexual activity while another 11 had laws banning sexual activity that cannot lead to procreation. I would prefer we don't have a government with the power to outlaw BJs. Others, however, are fine with leaving that decision to the government.

One of their exes called the police, I believe to report a gun or something. When the police came in, the two individuals were having sex so they were arrested.

One of their exes called the police on them.

The couple in the Lawrence case were inside their home when they were arrested.

Just want to reiterate that Lawrence v. Texas was decided in 2003, which was a bit past Leave It To Beaver’s prime…

The Straw Man is strong with this one… The Secret Service has an Inspector General, which oversees stuff like this. We know that the IG is investigating this because that’s what the reporting shows. I believe this is a good thing as IG’s are very important to a functioning government. Frankly, we should have more of them. I started this thread because I think it’s an important story that the text messages from the Secret Service during a time when the Capitol was under attack were deleted. I also specifically stated that I am not jumping to conclusions and that it is possible, even likely, that this was an accident and not nefarious. If you have a problem with what someone else said in this thread, address it to them. I’m only responsible for what I say, not others. I’m not a government employee, but if I were, I would know that my texts on my work phone could be subpoenaed by a congressional committee, no matter how much (or little) faith I had in its members. I’m sure it’s annoying but it literally comes with the job. Don’t like it? Go work in the private sector. Oh wait, I do.