Is Roe v Wade Finally At Deaths Door?

[SectionC3]

35 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

How is the Janus decision unconstitutional?

 

Seems like the SCOTUS had an opportunity to shoot down Trump's funding "scheme" for border security and fortuitous preemption of allowing virus infected people into our country but declined to do so. Sounds like that is part of the President's job description and you, as a vocal critic of Trump's handling of the virus should recognize his foresight and brilliance to prepare so well for our security and safety. The aforementioned assumes that you would look at things in an open and honest manner and not allow your partisan bias to creep into the equation. 

One would think that the more the merrier for a baby murderer like BillSlime. 

 Nobody said Janis is unconstitutional.  Except you.  Hoaxer. 

[Unforgiven]

[I-town Bills]

On 9/19/2020 at 8:21 AM, Tiberius said:

A whole bunch of you people have been screaming that abortion is murder. Well, is it time to “save the babies”? 

 

I doubt it, just more GOP hypocrisy, as if they give a fig about the issue. Just something to scream about like little children. 

15000 children under age five will die today. 

[3rdnlng]

18 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 Nobody said Janis is unconstitutional.  Except you.  Hoaxer. 

I guess SCOTUS just ruled in an illegal way, eh? Or is it that they just didn't follow the law? This is what you posted, 3rd Chair:

 

"If you're so concerned about legality and following the law, perhaps you should complain about the recent Janus decision"

 

Refuting your ridiculous statements is like "Children's Whack-A-Mole". I think I'll move up to the next level. It's called "Tiberius Whack-A-Mole".

[dpberr]

23 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Even Plessy v Ferguson?

 

I'd say subsequent decisions by several SCs have chipped away at it but no court went out of its way to overturn it. 

 

I'd say Roe v. Wade has been chipped away at similarly, or at least attempted.  However, I think there are folks who have a singular objective/dream of a future Supreme Court *overturning* Roe v. Wade in its entirety and that's what I believe would be a red line for the SC.  

[Doc Brown]

4 minutes ago, dpberr said:

 

I'd say subsequent decisions by several SCs have chipped away at it but no court went out of its way to overturn it. 

 

I'd say Roe v. Wade has been chipped away at similarly, or at least attempted.  However, I think there are folks who have a singular objective/dream of a future Supreme Court *overturning* Roe v. Wade in its entirety and that's what I believe would be a red line for the SC.  

True.  It's fair to say it was de facto overturned.  I don't even know how much it would matter much anyways as the abortion rate is the lowest since Roe v Wade.  Plus, most Americans favor the right to abortion in the early stages so I don't know how aggressively Republicans could campaign against abortion without losing Independent support.

[Golden Goat]

5 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Plus, most Americans favor the right to abortion in the early stages so I don't know how aggressively Republicans could campaign against abortion without losing Independent support.

 

Not just Independent support. There are plenty of Republicans who would rather not die on that hill -- many just keep quiet on the issue to keep the peace.

[ALF]

I don't think a more conservative SC will overturn Roe v. Wade  but will allow states rights more leeway to decide.

[Tiberius]

21 hours ago, I-town Bills said:

15000 children under age five will die today. 

And? 

1 minute ago, ALF said:

I don't think a more conservative SC will overturn Roe v. Wade  but will allow states rights more leeway to decide.

That is overturning it. Roe says states can't take away the right 

[SectionC3]

21 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

I guess SCOTUS just ruled in an illegal way, eh? Or is it that they just didn't follow the law? This is what you posted, 3rd Chair:

 

"If you're so concerned about legality and following the law, perhaps you should complain about the recent Janus decision"

 

Refuting your ridiculous statements is like "Children's Whack-A-Mole". I think I'll move up to the next level. It's called "Tiberius Whack-A-Mole".

 

Stare decisis.  Binding precedent.  Not an issue of constitutionality.  Happy Monday, hoaxer. 

[Tiberius]

21 hours ago, Unforgiven said:

You guys when Trump loses the election? 

[ALF]

In 1994, McCorvey published her autobiography, I Am Roe. At a book signing, McCorvey was befriended by Flip Benham, an evangelical minister and the national director of the anti-abortion organization Operation Rescue. She converted to Christianity and was baptized on August 8, 1995, by Benham, in a Dallas, Texas, backyard swimming pool – an event that was filmed for national television.

 

Two days later, she announced that she had quit her job at an abortion clinic and had become an advocate of Operation Rescue's campaign to make abortion illegal. She voiced remorse for her part in the Supreme Court decision and said she had been a pawn of abortion activists.

 

On August 17, 1998, McCorvey was received into the Catholic Church in a Mass celebrated by Father Edward Robinson and concelebrated by Father Frank Pavone, director of Priests for Life, at Saint Thomas Aquinas Church in Dallas. McCorvey's second book, Won by Love, described her religious conversion and was published in 1998. In the book, she said that her change of heart occurred in 1995, when she saw a fetal development poster in an Operation Rescue office.

 

In 2004, McCorvey sought to have the U.S. Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, saying that there was now evidence that the procedure harms women, but the case was ultimately dismissed in 2005.On January 22, 2008, McCorvey endorsed Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul because of his anti-abortion position.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey

[SoCal Deek]

Defund Planned Parenthood.

[WEATHER DOT COM]

Defund Planet Hollywood

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Stare decisis.  Binding precedent.  Not an issue of constitutionality.  Happy Monday, hoaxer. 

No 3rd Chair, you stated that the SCOTUS illegally ruled regarding the Janus decision. How would you describe an illegal decision by SCOTUS? What exactly is it that was illegal about their decision? Who actually can legally decide that the SCOTUS made an illegal decision? We'll see if you can actually answer without deflecting and claiming everything is a hoax. If you were in court you'd be held in contempt, but here you're just contemptible. You are too chickenshit to actually get into a discussion but fall back on deflection or the pompous use of Latin based legal terms in an attempt to bs your way out of a substantial discussion. 

[SectionC3]

12 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

No 3rd Chair, you stated that the SCOTUS illegally ruled regarding the Janus decision. How would you describe an illegal decision by SCOTUS? What exactly is it that was illegal about their decision? Who actually can legally decide that the SCOTUS made an illegal decision? We'll see if you can actually answer without deflecting and claiming everything is a hoax. If you were in court you'd be held in contempt, but here you're just contemptible. You are too chickenshit to actually get into a discussion but fall back on deflection or the pompous use of Latin based legal terms in an attempt to bs your way out of a substantial discussion. 

 

You didn’t bother to read the prior post.  Binding precedent. Now try Abood.  Happy Monday, hoaxer. 

13 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

No 3rd Chair, you stated that the SCOTUS illegally ruled regarding the Janus decision. How would you describe an illegal decision by SCOTUS? What exactly is it that was illegal about their decision? Who actually can legally decide that the SCOTUS made an illegal decision? We'll see if you can actually answer without deflecting and claiming everything is a hoax. If you were in court you'd be held in contempt, but here you're just contemptible. You are too chickenshit to actually get into a discussion but fall back on deflection or the pompous use of Latin based legal terms in an attempt to bs your way out of a substantial discussion. 

 

Also, you seem a bit triggered early this morning.  I’d maybe try a cup of coffee, relax a bit, get the blood pressure down, and try to enjoy life.  I’m sorry that I triggered you by telling the truth.  

[Unforgiven]

I guess...this sums it up best how liberals feel...

Has anyone even mentioned anywhere that the SC want to overturn roe vs wade,

or is this another ghost lurking around every corner.

[Cinga]

On 9/19/2020 at 11:11 AM, BillsToast said:

But Roe v Wade being reversed would just accomplish 2 things:

1. Revert back to state rights

2. Stop the Supreme Court from making laws; which was unconstitutional from the beginning. Only the Congress shall write law

 

No, I don't think it will. You see, because of technology now, we know that a fetus is a real beating heart person much earlier than was thought back in 1972. This is going to effectively grant that unborn baby the same rights as any other citizen of the US. That beating heart is as early as 5 weeks, much earlier than many women will even know they are pregnant yet.

[BillsToast]

20 minutes ago, Cinga said:

 

No, I don't think it will. You see, because of technology now, we know that a fetus is a real beating heart person much earlier than was thought back in 1972. This is going to effectively grant that unborn baby the same rights as any other citizen of the US. That beating heart is as early as 5 weeks, much earlier than many women will even know they are pregnant yet.

 

I agree with you 100%. The problem isn't the truth, that is rarely important in politics. If a party has already legalized infanticide where the baby is already BORN in NC and NY, forget beating heart at 5 weeks, do you really think they will find it a cause of murder? Of course not. 

 

We're in a gruesome time friend, one that will be looked at by historians as humorous as we're taught to hate ourselves, our heritage and praise murder as being responsible as the entire West is destroyed through apathy, laziness, and imbecility. 

[SoCal Deek]

6 hours ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:

Defund Planet Hollywood

Their food wasn’t so good.