KD in CA Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Stay tuned.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Here ya go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Good for them. If the Supreme Court said it was a state issues, and a state decides to ban it, what's the big deal. If the state doesn't like it then the mojority can elect new representatives. Can't have it every way you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 This is what happens when you have religious nutballs making and enforcing laws... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 This is what happens when you have religious nutballs making and enforcing laws... 619338[/snapback] Better then jerseyites fighting poles and squirting dogs with ammonia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Better then jerseyites fighting poles and squirting dogs with ammonia. 619345[/snapback] You think living in WV you'd support abortion, with all of the inbreeding going on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Good for them. If the Supreme Court said it was a state issues, and a state decides to ban it, what's the big deal. If the state doesn't like it then the mojority can elect new representatives. Can't have it every way you want. 619321[/snapback] I think your real argument is that it is not covered as part of the constitutional right to privacy thus it is a valid target for local and state law. If it is a constitutional right, it is not a valid target for local or state law. States rights is not the issue, the constitutional right to privacy, whether there is one and what it covers is the issue. This particular law makes it a crime, a doctor can go to jail for 5 years for performing one and it makes no exceptions for rape or incest. It does if it is necessary to save the life of the mother but given that the doctor goes to jail if she is wrong when she makes that judgment, I don't see many doctors performing abortions for that reason, too risky. That "exception" given the punishment, is no exception at all. Getting back to the notion that letting states decide this because you "can have it every way you want" is a good way to go, I think that reasoning is short sighted. If fails to appreciate that the right to life movement is not going to be happy with abortions being available in other states. They will certainly press for a federal ban and if you can pass a federal ban on "partial birth" abortions, why not all abortions? What, in the absence of Roe, would prevent that? The states rights, let them all decided democratically, etc, justification is a load of bull in my opinion. States rights won't matter a bit when they try to stop abortions in California, NY, Mass and Ill. Further, the way the law is now, we can all have it the "way we want". You can't stop someone from having one and they can't make you have one. I don't see why its a bad thing for the federal government to decide this for all individuals but it is okay for a state government to decide this for all individuals. If deciding the way we want is such a great goal, then let people decide for themeselves. Peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 This is what happens when you have religious nutballs making and enforcing laws... 619338[/snapback] This is actually a controversial action within the pro-life movement. Many favor a piece meal approach leading to Roe withering on the vine so that the SCOTUS doesn't have to directly overrule a clear precedent, one that has been reaffirmed. Its dicey asking the court to do that, they might balk, even one as conservative as this one. On top of that, this one has criminal charges for doctors and no exception for the life or health of the mother. The lack of a life and health exception could be fatal leading to, essentially, another reaffirmation of Roe. That would make it even harder for the court to overrule Roe. That would require them to overrule it after they reaffirm it. Before you celebrate this law being enacted you might want to check and see if Planned Parenthood is celebrating with you. The easiest law to defeat would be one with criminal charges for both mother and doctor and no exceptions for rape, incest or health of the mother. This law has half of those features. Wouldn't that be ironic? South Dakota jumps the gun on an anti-abortion law that leads ultimately to Roe being dug in just a little deeper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Before Roe it was a states issue Overturning Roe woulkd make it that way again. Mickey, you're a lawyer. Show me where in the Constitution there is a right to an abortion. No a court ruling, but where in the Constitution is it stated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Before Roe it was a states issue Overturning Roe woulkd make it that way again.Mickey, you're a lawyer. Show me where in the Constitution there is a right to an abortion. No a court ruling, but where in the Constitution is it stated? 619465[/snapback] First, you show me where in the Consitution it says that people are allowed to be this stupid. I don't mean any court ruling protecting stupid people, I mean literally it saying that people have a right to be stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 I'm not celebrating anything. I'm observing how people react to a 21st century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I think they should move all the unwanted kids in the nation in with you zealots. Let's see how long you care about them when they're screwing up your life in every way possible. Fuggin' hypocrites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 7, 2006 Author Share Posted March 7, 2006 I'm not celebrating anything. I'm observing how people react to a 21st century. 619482[/snapback] Badly on all counts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I think they should move all the unwanted kids in the nation in with you zealots. Let's see how long you care about them when they're screwing up your life in every way possible. Fuggin' hypocrites. 619520[/snapback] You think that's hypocrisy? Wait 'til they start bitching about the plight of young, low-income, unwed mothers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 First, you show me where in the Consitution it says that people are allowed to be this stupid. I don't mean any court ruling protecting stupid people, I mean literally it saying that people have a right to be stupid. 619479[/snapback] In the case of Wacka vs. Forces of Reason, 365 US 442 (2003), Justice Souter, writing for the majority, held that "There is no specific right to 'not to be shot in the face during a quail hunt' however, it has long been considered an inalienable right accept in cases of the extremely stupid where it is thought to be an act of mercy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I'm not celebrating anything. I'm observing how people react to a 21st century. 619482[/snapback] ...and what have you observed my son? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I think they should move all the unwanted kids in the nation in with you zealots. Let's see how long you care about them when they're screwing up your life in every way possible. Fuggin' hypocrites. 619520[/snapback] Correction: Fuggin' morally righteous hypocrites. I love it how these idiots believe they should come between someone else and their doctor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Correction: Fuggin' morally righteous hypocrites. I love it how these idiots believe they should come between someone else and their doctor. 619586[/snapback] They are coming to protect a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 They are coming to protect a child. 619596[/snapback] No, they are trying to butt in and impose their beliefs on someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 They are coming to protect a child. 619596[/snapback] They ought to work a little harder protecting the ones already out of the womb. Ah, screw them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts