BREAKING: SCOTUS to overturn Roe?

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

[BillStime]

23 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

How many abortions did King MAGA pay for?

[dickleyjones]

12 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Abortion, racism, eugenics: Charles Payne and Sen. Tim Scott say the quiet part out loud

by Monica Showalter

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/05/abortion_racism_eugenics_charles_payne_and_sen_tim_scott_say_the_quiet_part_out_loud.html

 

 

 

 

 

spewing nonsense as if it were fact. abortion unthinkable before the 1920's? abortion has been around since ancient times.

 

i mean, i'm ready to have a reasonable conversation and many others are as well. but when you post nonsense like this it makes it difficult to take you seriously.

[Orlando Buffalo]

15 minutes ago, dickleyjones said:

spewing nonsense as if it were fact. abortion unthinkable before the 1920's? abortion has been around since ancient times.

 

i mean, i'm ready to have a reasonable conversation and many others are as well. but when you post nonsense like this it makes it difficult to take you seriously.

 I will challenge you find me an example of a politician or someone publicly endorsing abortion prior to the 1920's in a civilized society? 

[B-Man]

Clarence Thomas Explains Just How Badly the Leak Has Hurt the Supreme Court

By Nick Arama

 

 

One of the things that has sustained the Supreme Court as an institution — despite differences in legal philosophy — has been an agreement on procedure and protecting the integrity of the Court. That’s why Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer have both spoken out against court-packing because they thought that would harm the nature of the court. Democrats don’t care about that integrity, which is why they have been pushing court-packing to take over the Court and encouraging marching on the homes of the justices to try to affect their vote.

 

But Justice Clarence Thomas’ new remarks at a judicial conference in Dallas indicate just how badly the leak of the draft opinion dealing with Roe v. Wade has hurt the Court.

 

From Fox News:

 

“I do think that what happened at the court is tremendously bad… I wonder how long we’re going to have these institutions at the rate we’re undermining them,” Thomas said at the Old Parkland Conference.

 

The leak — not the decision’s potential implication of overturning Roe v. Wade — has potentially done irreparable harm to people’s trust in the institution, the veteran justice said.

 

“When you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I’m in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder. It’s like kind of an infidelity that you can explain it, but you can’t undo it,” Thomas added.

 

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/05/14/clarence-thomas-explains-just-how-badly-the-leak-has-hurt-the-supreme-court-n564483

 

 

The high court’s secrecy has been an integral part of the judicial process, allowing justices to deliberate free of outside pressures, he added, noting the members of the court did not think such a leak could even occur.

 

 

[dickleyjones]

1 hour ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

 I will challenge you find me an example of a politician or someone publicly endorsing abortion prior to the 1920's in a civilized society? 

Will Aristotle do? He wrote about the difference between lawful and unlawful abortion. he wrote about "delayed ensoulment" which described how before a certain amount of time in the womb, the unborn was not considered to be human.

Edited May 14, 2022 by dickleyjones

[The Frankish Reich]

13 hours ago, BillStime said:

How many abortions did King MAGA pay for?

Are you suggesting that he had personal reasons for his political views?

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-in-1999-i-am-very-pro-choice-480297539914

[Orlando Buffalo]

4 hours ago, dickleyjones said:

Will Aristotle do? He wrote about the difference between lawful and unlawful abortion. he wrote about "delayed ensoulment" which described how before a certain amount of time in the womb, the unborn was not considered to be human.

So you have to go to a time when human sacrifices were acceptable. In civil society from at least the 1600's till the eugenics movement the concept of an abortion was not proper.

[dickleyjones]

18 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

So you have to go to a time when human sacrifices were acceptable. In civil society from at least the 1600's till the eugenics movement the concept of an abortion was not proper.

i didn't "have to" go anywhere. i merely answered your question just as you asked, and because i answered it you are posing a new challenge now?

[Orlando Buffalo]

15 minutes ago, dickleyjones said:

i didn't "have to" go anywhere. i merely answered your question just as you asked, and because i answered it you are posing a new challenge now?

You went to a time frame where the science is basically non existentent. You called it nonsense but in civil society abortion it was considered an abomination until the concept of eugenics came about. I did not consider anyone prior to about 1500 AD when asking the question.

[Boatdrinks]

Saw a bunch of girls carrying pro abortion signs walking toward Niagara square this AM. Don’t these idiots know where they live ? Absolutely nothing is going to change in NYS, regardless of Roe. 

[BillStime]

🎯

 

 

[dickleyjones]

14 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

You went to a time frame where the science is basically non existentent. You called it nonsense but in civil society abortion it was considered an abomination until the concept of eugenics came about. I did not consider anyone prior to about 1500 AD when asking the question.

it would have been helpful if you worded the question clearly. incidentally, i'm seeing multiple examples in italy, england and north america where abortion was legal in the 1600s, depending on circumstance. it was illegal in more places, no question, that much i will agree with.  France's perception and laws changed later (they started to regard it as family planning in the 1800s).  if you need me to cite those examples, i will.  point is, it's not accepted fact that abortion was illegal everywhere before 1920.

 

the article i responded about says "The Bolsheviks introduced abortion in 1920 explicitly to break up families in order to make the survivors loyal only to the state.  Prior to that, abortion was unthinkable. "  turns out, it was accepted many places, legal in some, far from "unthinkable".

[Orlando Buffalo]

14 hours ago, dickleyjones said:

it would have been helpful if you worded the question clearly. incidentally, i'm seeing multiple examples in italy, england and north america where abortion was legal in the 1600s, depending on circumstance. it was illegal in more places, no question, that much i will agree with.  France's perception and laws changed later (they started to regard it as family planning in the 1800s).  if you need me to cite those examples, i will.  point is, it's not accepted fact that abortion was illegal everywhere before 1920.

 

the article i responded about says "The Bolsheviks introduced abortion in 1920 explicitly to break up families in order to make the survivors loyal only to the state.  Prior to that, abortion was unthinkable. "  turns out, it was accepted many places, legal in some, far from "unthinkable".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_France#:~:text=Abortion was a felony%2C with,save the pregnant woman's life.

I just took France from your example since it is easiest. It was allowed to save the mothers life starting in 1939. Not sure where you are reading that highly Catholic Italy and France  allowed it then but they are wrong. 

England had very harsh punishments also. Until the 20th century

[dickleyjones]

1 hour ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_France#:~:text=Abortion was a felony%2C with,save the pregnant woman's life.

I just took France from your example since it is easiest. It was allowed to save the mothers life starting in 1939. Not sure where you are reading that highly Catholic Italy and France  allowed it then but they are wrong. 

England had very harsh punishments also. Until the 20th century

Easy is it? It is more complicated than you pretend. Abortion to save the life of the mother was permitted by the French Medical Academy in 1852, to be revoked by the Vatican in 1895. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12335904/

 

In the US "Abortifacient advertising was highly effective in the United States, though apparently less so across the Atlantic. Contemporary estimates of mid-19th century abortion rates in the United States suggest between 20% and 25% of all pregnancies in the United States during that era ended in abortion." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion So, it was accepted by a large amount women at that time at least. The point is, it was not "unthinkable", and it was quite common at least in the USA. 25% is a large number.

[Orlando Buffalo]

4 hours ago, dickleyjones said:

Easy is it? It is more complicated than you pretend. Abortion to save the life of the mother was permitted by the French Medical Academy in 1852, to be revoked by the Vatican in 1895. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12335904/

 

In the US "Abortifacient advertising was highly effective in the United States, though apparently less so across the Atlantic. Contemporary estimates of mid-19th century abortion rates in the United States suggest between 20% and 25% of all pregnancies in the United States during that era ended in abortion." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion So, it was accepted by a large amount women at that time at least. The point is, it was not "unthinkable", and it was quite common at least in the USA. 25% is a large number.

25% is higher than our current numbers so I doubt the veracity of the 20-25%. But I do see your point, that the underground abortions was a large influence on society even in the times it was not acceptable in polite society. I would compare it more to drug usage now, but I accept your premise as valid 

[B-Man]

 

 

SAFE, LEGAL, AND . . . THAT’S IT

 

Bill Clinton’s political genius in 1992 was his keen sense of effective rhetorical straddles that enabled him to appeal to moderate voters who were thoroughly turned off by the doctrinaire liberalism of the 1980s-era Democrats. His “Sister Souljah” moment is legendary, as well as his tough-on-crime rhetoric and pledge to “end welfare as we know it.” (Leave for some other day that he was mostly lying about all of these positions. . .)

 

But don’t forget his view that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” That language appeared in the Democratic platform beyond the Clinton years, and Hillary repeated it in her 2008 White House run. It was an acknowledgment that even many pro-choice Americans regard the “choice” of abortion to be morally ambiguous, if not a tragedy.

 

But by 2016, the term “rare” was dropped from the Democratic platform and Hillary changed her language and dropped the term “rare,” as the secular left has made abortion a sacrament, and believe abortion should be celebrated as a positive good, like that other “peculiar institution” at the core of the Democratic Party’s enduring legacy for America.

 

Vox admitted as much, in a 2019 story entitled “How the abortion debate moved away from ‘safe, legal, and rare.” Vox struggles mightily to avoid admitting that anyone once could have through that abortion was morally ambiguous, but they really can’t pull it off. 

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/05/safe-legal-and-thats-it.php

 

https://www.vox.com/2019/10/18/20917406/abortion-safe-legal-and-rare-tulsi-gabbard

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

On 5/14/2022 at 2:10 PM, Boatdrinks said:

Saw a bunch of girls carrying pro abortion signs walking toward Niagara square this AM. Don’t these idiots know where they live ? Absolutely nothing is going to change in NYS, regardless of Roe. 

Funny you mention that. I was walking down the street in Palm Springs sometime in early 2017 and there were a bunch of women in the middle of the street, disturbing the peace with a loud protest of the 2016 election. It made no sense to me. Hillary won California by a landslide....and Palm Springs tends to be a really progressive city. I was dying to yell out to them that they should take their protest to the heartland....but my wife said to leave them alone. 😂

[Big Blitz]

Shocking to no one......this absolutely confirms Roberts worked to actively find a way to make the ACA "work:"

 

 

 

Clarence Thomas calls out John Roberts as Supreme Court edges closer to overturning Roe v. Wade

 

Last week at a Dallas conference, Thomas took a surprising, public jab at Roberts. Thomas has long touted the good relations inside the court and avoided public criticism of colleagues. He might not always have embraced his colleagues, but he avoided letting any enmity slip.

 

Thomas last week recalled the court atmosphere before 2005, when Roberts joined, and said, "We actually trusted each other. We may have been a dysfunctional family, but we were a family, and we loved it....."

 

Thomas' remarks pulled back the curtain on the tensions inside. Perhaps they revealed long simmering sentiment for a chief who has wrenched relations over the years. Or perhaps they reflected the internal recriminations over who might be responsible for disclosing the draft opinion. Or perhaps they indicate that the apparent five-justice majority to overturn Roe is not so secure.

 

It is not unusual to hear Thomas deride the court's traditional adherence to precedent, what's known by the Latin phrase of stare decisis. "We use stare decisis as a mantra when we don't want to think," he insisted in an Atlanta speech in early May.

 

But Thomas' sudden aim at Roberts' leadership is new. In the Dallas appearance, his message to the chief justice came down to: The court was better before you arrived.

 

As Thomas responded to a question about relations between justices, such as the celebrated friendship of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia, Thomas said, "This is not the court of that era."

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/politics/clarence-thomas-john-roberts-supreme-court-roe-wade/index.html

 

 

 

I'm rooting for this to be reversed.

 

Will likely lead to seccession ... because we're done here.  

Edited May 20, 2022 by Big Blitz

[BillStime]

Yes, the freaks must control everything