Jump to content

Overturning Roe V Wade Is Rigged.


57 replies to this topic

#1 feeWAIVER

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,146 posts

Posted 24 June 2022 - 07:27 PM


Just in time for WWIII, we start building our reinforcements now, and they'll be ready in 18 years. The SC wouldn't hear the case of the uniparty rigging the 2020 election, but they're happy to rabble rouse every moron with a hot button issue in time for the elections. This isn't a victory for anyone but the political class and the oligarchs who own them.



This was a gift to the Democrats, right in the middle of summer.. Perfect protesting weather, and right before a holiday weekend. RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE.


#2 ScrapIron Prime

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 4,173 posts
  • LocationSmack dab in the middle of Ohio

Posted 25 June 2022 - 08:00 AM

I don’t think they had Democrats on their minds. This is something the right has been building toward for a couple decades.

Problem is, they knocked over a cornerstone of legal precedent to do it. The wacky *** reasoning they based this on opened the way to overturn same sex marriage, interracial marriage, access to contraceptives, privacy in general, and a whole lot of other things.

we’re in for a wild ride, and it’s one neither side of the political coin is going to enjoy.

#3 LordNothing

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 14,949 posts

Posted 25 June 2022 - 12:49 PM

im not exactly pro life but i had hoped that abortion (especially late term) would have become obsolete by now. i cant really get behind the life begins at conception nonsense you see from religious protesters. but if the fetus has more synapses than a house cat then perhaps its a little to late. i wouldn't kill my kitties out of convenience. maybe if it was trying to kill me.

Edited by LordNothing, 25 June 2022 - 12:55 PM.


#4 Sawk

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Star Captain
  • Star Captain
  • 353 posts

Posted 25 June 2022 - 03:44 PM

LOL well we had some room in the PRISONS, for dirt bags, i do not care about FED level, choices are made at the LOCAL level, and now we get to throw all the MOODY folks in JAIL where they belong : )

SAWK CLANNER

#5 Meep Meep

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,400 posts
  • LocationBehind You

Posted 26 June 2022 - 06:42 AM

The reason it was overturned was due to it being on shaky ground to begin with formed on a false precedent. Nothing really changes with its removal other than states getting to decide for themselves as the constitution requires. By our founding laws if something isn't in the constitution or amended to it then its a state level issue not a federal and abortion is not mentioned anywhere in it.

Even ruth bader ginsberg the hero of the left said as much and was recorded on several occasions saying it should be repealed and a federal law codified instead. Nothing stopping congress from holding a vote and codifying abortion at a future date. But as it stands if you are in a state that doesn't allow for abortions there will be a state nearby usually next door that you can go to. Also if you look at statistics then 98% of abortions were 100% elective for no reason other than the women didn't want the baby. The other 2% are **** and ****** and medical combined which most states are still going to allow. Some are banning it outright but thats only a handful of states.

As to the perception that this will be used to overturn gay marriage etc the actual ruling the scotus put out says exactly the opposite. That this ruling has no bearing on anything other than abortion and shouldn't be used as such. It was the extra undocumented off the cuff comments of one scotus who mused that it might be time to look into other cases which has generated that bit of news. The other scotus don't agree.

Also there is a sure fire way to ~not~ get pregnant. Stop having indiscriminate unprotected sex. There are a zillion modern ways to not get pregnant and most of them are provided free at the local health clinic if you can't afford them yourself. I'd add in that abstinence is also a sure fire way but no one is going to stop having sex in this day and age for any reason.

#6 ScrapIron Prime

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 4,173 posts
  • LocationSmack dab in the middle of Ohio

Posted 26 June 2022 - 08:42 AM

View PostMeep Meep, on 26 June 2022 - 06:42 AM, said:

Even ruth bader ginsberg the hero of the left said as much and was recorded on several occasions saying it should be repealed and a federal law codified instead. Nothing stopping congress from holding a vote and codifying abortion at a future date.


Agreed. Congress played hot-potato with this issue for decades, not wanting their opponents to use support for an actual law against them in primaries and things. And here we are. With 70% public support, you'd think a law would be a sensible thing to do, but this is congress... public support has no bearing whatsoever on whether a bill becomes a law.

View PostMeep Meep, on 26 June 2022 - 06:42 AM, said:

But as it stands if you are in a state that doesn't allow for abortions there will be a state nearby usually next door that you can go to.

If you can afford it. If said person can take 3 days off work and travel 100's of miles and stay in a hotel... or convince their mom to do that and take them... That was the state such healthcare procedures were in BEFORE the ruling. Now the distance will increase and some states will arrest you and charge you with a felony if you cross the state line for such a purpose, whether you're the patient or just the driver.

View PostMeep Meep, on 26 June 2022 - 06:42 AM, said:

As to the perception that this will be used to overturn gay marriage etc the actual ruling the scotus put out says exactly the opposite. That this ruling has no bearing on anything other than abortion and shouldn't be used as such. It was the extra undocumented off the cuff comments of one scotus who mused that it might be time to look into other cases which has generated that bit of news. The other scotus don't agree.


They also all said that they would not overturn Roe. Each one of them said so under oath. So when one of them says they should come for Oberfell or Griswold or other statutes, should we ignore that and just attribute that as an offhanded comment? Or should we take that for what it is... an old man telling the world who he's going after next?

You think they'd have a problem with a society where viagra pills are legal but birth control pills are illegal? Because the old judge just said exactly that.

View PostMeep Meep, on 26 June 2022 - 06:42 AM, said:

Also there is a sure fire way to ~not~ get pregnant. Stop having indiscriminate unprotected sex. There are a zillion modern ways to not get pregnant and most of them are provided free at the local health clinic if you can't afford them yourself. I'd add in that abstinence is also a sure fire way but no one is going to stop having sex in this day and age for any reason.


Yes, in a perfect world if you choose to have sex and the birth control fails... congratulations you're going to be a parent. But what about when the person doesn't have a choice? Or is too intoxicated to make the choice? Or isn't legally old enough to make such a choice?

See, it works GREAT... until the act is forced upon you. Or until a pregnancy complication threatens to kill you. Or until the supreme court follows through with the old man's threat to overturn the right to purchase birth control.

Edited by ScrapIron Prime, 26 June 2022 - 08:44 AM.


#7 Meep Meep

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,400 posts
  • LocationBehind You

Posted 26 June 2022 - 09:11 AM

View PostScrapIron Prime, on 26 June 2022 - 08:42 AM, said:

If you can afford it. If said person can take 3 days off work and travel 100's of miles and stay in a hotel... or convince their mom to do that and take them... That was the state such healthcare procedures were in BEFORE the ruling. Now the distance will increase and some states will arrest you and charge you with a felony if you cross the state line for such a purpose, whether you're the patient or just the driver.


I doubt that if a women is in critical need of an abortion they will not be able to get one. There are already non profits starting up to specifically transport and legally defend women who leave their state to get an abortion. This is mostly going to effect the entirely elective abortions which make up the absolute bulk of them.

Quote

They also all said that they would not overturn Roe. Each one of them said so under oath. So when one of them says they should come for Oberfell or Griswold or other statutes, should we ignore that and just attribute that as an offhanded comment? Or should we take that for what it is... an old man telling the world who he's going after next?

You think they'd have a problem with a society where viagra pills are legal but birth control pills are illegal? Because the old judge just said exactly that.


None of the judges said they would vote one way or another. You can't ask a potential judge to prerule a case and when they were asked they simply stated that roe was settled. Well that doesn't mean it won't be unsettled. Scotus have overturned over three hundred 'settled' cases in their rulings over the decades and will no doubt overturn hundreds more. Thats their entire job after all.


Quote

Yes, in a perfect world if you choose to have sex and the birth control fails... congratulations you're going to be a parent. But what about when the person doesn't have a choice? Or is too intoxicated to make the choice? Or isn't legally old enough to make such a choice?

See, it works GREAT... until the act is forced upon you. Or until a pregnancy complication threatens to kill you. Or until the supreme court follows through with the old man's threat to overturn the right to purchase birth control.


But forced pregnancy via **** or ****** accounts for less than 1% of current abortions? Just basic over the counter birth control will stop pregnancy in its tracks and there is legislation now to allow over the counter day after pills so you can screw like jackrabbits and pop a pill next morning and not worry about getting knocked up? Education and enlightenment will stop unwanted pregnancies far better than abortions which emotionally scar a majority of women who get them as per studies.


edit: I should also add that statistically the states that have the majority of current abortions will still allow fully unrestricted abortions and some of those states are now passing legislation to not only allow abortion up to the point of birth but in some cases ~after~ birth. The states that are banning abortion completely are the states that statistically had very little abortions to begin with. So really nothing is going to change with the passing of roe and abortions will actually become ~easier~ to obtain in the places it was happening in a majority anyways.¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edited by Meep Meep, 26 June 2022 - 09:17 AM.


#8 Rain Dark Sky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 162 posts

Posted 22 October 2022 - 11:37 AM

The abortion "controversy" is a false flag, 99.999% of abortion single issue voters were going to vote for the dems anyways.

FWIW I do believe abortion should be legal, as it is legal to kill in self defense, and self defense only.

If a mother wants an abortion in any other context she should get it, along with her tubes tied (mandatory for elective abortion).

I've seen women in the hospital on their 5th methamphetamine baby... thankfully (I suppose) #5 died in the womb. :-( IDK why she should have been allowed to get to #2. I know that sounds...harsh...perhaps. But her other 4 kids were permanently and severely disabled physically and mentally (for life) and in the foster care system due to her recreational drug use. Posted Image

If she must have a child later in life after getting cleaned up, then a doctor can attempt to reattach her tubes, it is a very successful surgery, though not guaranteed.

And not nearly as permanent as what hospitals are doing right now with trans gendering children by chemically castrating them or chopping off their breasts. Children as young as 14 have had permanent life altering surgeries...and then changed their mind.

But don't take my word for it, lets see what Ms. Chloe Cole says about it.

https://rumble.com/v...oles-story.html

We don't let kids vote or buy cigarettes or alcohol or guns... why let them decide to chop off parts of their anatomy or take life altering drugs like puberty blockers?

#9 Escef

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 8,524 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationNew England

Posted 27 October 2022 - 01:43 PM

View PostMeep Meep, on 26 June 2022 - 06:42 AM, said:

By our founding laws if something isn't in the constitution or amended to it then its a state level issue not a federal and abortion is not mentioned anywhere in it.


The 9th Amendment says otherwise.

#10 Meep Meep

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,400 posts
  • LocationBehind You

Posted 27 October 2022 - 02:29 PM

View PostEscef, on 27 October 2022 - 01:43 PM, said:

The 9th Amendment says otherwise.


The 9th is widely considered to be of no legal impact to constitutional law and has never been successfully used to win a case. It's one of those amendments on the chopping block for pruning as its too vague to be taken seriously. Roe was also one of those verdicts that were pruned because it was based on false premises and shaky legal doctrine which former sitting scotus admitted and wanted congress to codify it via properly vetted legislation. Now the states get to decide and all is well as the less the federal government has to do with your daily life the better.

#11 Escef

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 8,524 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationNew England

Posted 27 October 2022 - 03:11 PM

View PostMeep Meep, on 27 October 2022 - 02:29 PM, said:


The 9th is widely considered to be of no legal impact to constitutional law and has never been successfully used to win a case. It's one of those amendments on the chopping block for pruning as its too vague to be taken seriously. Roe was also one of those verdicts that were pruned because it was based on false premises and shaky legal doctrine which former sitting scotus admitted and wanted congress to codify it via properly vetted legislation. Now the states get to decide and all is well as the less the federal government has to do with your daily life the better.


The recent ruling is the first time in US history a right was taken away by a Supreme Court ruling. If the states can decide to ban it, it is no longer a protected freedom. I mean, are you seriously going to sit here and tell us it's ok if the boot on our throats has a state flag embroided on it? Because that's pretty screwed up.

Especially as the recent ruling cites judgments by a man that believed witchcraft was a real threat to society. I mean, you want to talk about shaky doctrine? Please. And to be perfectly honest, I don't think you even understand a word of what you are saying. Especially as you are sitting here genuinely saying that one of the amendments that is part of The Bill of Rights is "on the chopping block"? For that matter, what other amendments are "on the chopping block"?

So, apparently, in your eyes, we do not have a Constitutionally protected right to control our own procreation? That we have to rely on state legislators to decide that for us? That's dangerous ground. Giving the government the power to do such things creates an incredibly bad legal precedent, you realize this? How long before someone in the government decides that you need to be sterilized? Don't say it can't happen, because such things have happened before. And, yes, it could unfold like that; it wouldn't be the first time that an abusive power given to government was swiftly used against those that gave it that power.

I have no idea why it is that you seem to think regulating reproduction is an acceptable power to hand to the government, or why it is just fine so long as it is individual states abridging people's freedom rather than having it guaranteed by the federal government.

None of what you have to say makes any damned sense at all.

#12 Meep Meep

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,400 posts
  • LocationBehind You

Posted 27 October 2022 - 03:24 PM

View PostEscef, on 27 October 2022 - 03:11 PM, said:

The recent ruling is the first time in US history a right was taken away by a Supreme Court ruling. If the states can decide to ban it, it is no longer a protected freedom. I mean, are you seriously going to sit here and tell us it's ok if the boot on our throats has a state flag embroided on it? Because that's pretty screwed up.


Abortion was never a protected right. Even the roe ruling didn't make it a protected right which is why it was overturned as it was unconstitutional and not even based on any legitimate legal precedent. Roe was judicial legislation which is not allowed. Only legal codification via congressional legislation can grant a right that didn't exist before. Besides yet again nothing is going to change. States that statistically had the lions share of abortions will still be able to get them on demand and states that statistically didn't have many abortions will ban them. The will of the people are then done.

Also you may wish to read this. https://www.law.uchi...aw-school-visit

#13 Escef

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 8,524 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationNew England

Posted 27 October 2022 - 03:40 PM

View PostMeep Meep, on 27 October 2022 - 03:24 PM, said:

Abortion was never a protected right.


This is blatantly untrue. The Roe ruling stated that reproductive rights were protected rights, which is why none of the states was ever able to ban abortion while Roe was recognized as the proper interpretation of the law.

View PostMeep Meep, on 27 October 2022 - 03:24 PM, said:

Only legal codification via congressional legislation can grant a right that didn't exist before.


You mean like the 9th Amendment? Just because you don't like it, does not mean it doesn't exist.

View PostMeep Meep, on 27 October 2022 - 03:24 PM, said:

Besides yet again nothing is going to change.


Are you truly that ignorant? Things have already changed. Several states have already passed draconian abortion restrictions, and influential lawmakers in D.C. have already floated the prospect of a similarly draconian federal ban. At least one state has already had a complete ban put on the ballet. People are being forced to travel across state lines in order to get what once was considered a federally protected medical procedure. A 10 year old girl that was sexually assaulted had to be ferried across state lines, and you think it is ok for the state to say that a 10 year old girl should be forced to give birth to her ******'s baby? This is not hyperbole, this is a thing that actually happened. Do you seriously think this is a good thing?

It amazes me how you talk about it being wrong for the federal government to be involved in abortion, yet the states are just fine? You are against the federal government protecting a right, but think states regulating it away is just fine? I mean, no, put your so-called "legal opinion" aside for a second, and tell me if you think this is in any way just, moral, ethical, or humane?

#14 Meep Meep

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,400 posts
  • LocationBehind You

Posted 27 October 2022 - 04:30 PM

The roe ruling was found to be unconstitutional and illegal. Period. You wishing it was otherwise has no bearing on how things play out here. If you want roe to be codified as a legal amendment or right then run for congress and submit the bill or get an organization started up to pressure lawmakers to do it for you. The federal government was never supposed to have the power it now has and it all started after ww2 when the bureaucracy took off like a rocket 'to save us from the red menace' etc. The founders never intended the federal government to have the power it has and the nation was structured from the start to allow that states to determine their own laws with the federal government mainly relegated to foreign trade and war. Thats it. So why are you so hot to have the federal government trample states rights? The states that are banning abortion are doing so via referendums where the public decides not the legislature. So are you against the public making up their own minds on a position? Why do you feel your personal opinion on this matter overrides the will of the people in other states than yours? A bit selfish yes? Posted Image

#15 Escef

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 8,524 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationNew England

Posted 27 October 2022 - 05:02 PM

View PostMeep Meep, on 27 October 2022 - 04:30 PM, said:

A bit selfish yes? Posted Image


Let me see if I got this right... You are saying that protecting the rights of individuals to regulate their own reproductive health is "selfish" and unfair to the states?

Since you have refused to answer my questions as to whether you consider any of this foolishness just, ethical, moral, or humane; and then you posit this bit of mental diarrhea... I'm just going to assume that you think it is, or that you simply don't care if it is or not. And at this point, there is no point in continuing this conversation.

Edited by Escef, 27 October 2022 - 05:03 PM.


#16 Meep Meep

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,400 posts
  • LocationBehind You

Posted 27 October 2022 - 07:14 PM

View PostEscef, on 27 October 2022 - 05:02 PM, said:


Let me see if I got this right... You are saying that protecting the rights of individuals to regulate their own reproductive health is "selfish" and unfair to the states?


Well first off this protecting reproductive health is a false narrative. 98% of all abortions are 100% elective as in there is no reason other than the woman doesn't want to be inconvenienced with a child. Those 98% should have used contraceptives or other safe sex procedures like responsible adults are expected to do so they can avoid unwanted pregnancy. The other 2% are a combined total of **** and ****** and medical. The vast majority of states are going to allow abortion for those 2% of cases and a tiny minority will ban it outright. So no matter where you are in the nation an abortion is just a short day trip away or even closer. As to the selfish and unfair to the states I just explained that overturning roe and kicking it back to the states now allows those that live in those states to determine the law not the federal government deciding for everyone no matter what their own public populations might think or want. Freedom was increased not restricted. Again why do you want the federal government to decide what women can and cannot do over the wishes of those same women that live in their respective states? Posted Image

#17 ScrapIron Prime

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 4,173 posts
  • LocationSmack dab in the middle of Ohio

Posted 28 October 2022 - 03:55 AM

Yes, such a short day trip away. So easy!

until of course you consider the cost of such a trip. Or the fact that some states want to make crossing a state line for such a trip into a Felony.

human rights should not be determined by your zip code. As I recall, we had a discussion about this in the 1860’s.

#18 Cerulean Knight

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Guardian
  • Guardian
  • 86 posts
  • LocationWisconsin

Posted 28 October 2022 - 08:47 AM

Quote

[color=#959595]As I recall, we had a discussion about this in the 1860’s.[/color]


Considering the use of "states rights" by Meep Meep, I get the feeling he's a "northern aggression " adherent.

#19 LordNothing

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 14,949 posts

Posted 28 October 2022 - 07:34 PM

i always take the libertarian argument on stuff like this. the federal government has too much power and is corrupt af. they are also grossly out of touch with any state that doesn't have a large number of seats in the house, or a large number of electoral votes. i dont think people in other states should get to override the will of the people in my own state.

abortion really isn't a big issue for me. energy policy is the thing that usually grinds my gears. like how we choose to import oil when we have an abundance of the stuff domestically. which not only stifles economic growth in my state while also making the us look bad internationally. with whats going on in russia we could be exporting oil to europe instead of siphoning the world's gas tank. i don't like people in california dictating to us what we can do with our state's resources.

despite being in one of the more libertarian states, and a red state as well, we have always supported abortion. none of the local november candidates are riding on a pro life platform, even those with pro life values (presumably because they are also against government overreach). i think pro-choicers are barking up the wrong tree, they need to find support for their position in their own states and let other states make up their own minds. nothing good happens at the federal level.

#20 Meep Meep

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,400 posts
  • LocationBehind You

Posted 28 October 2022 - 10:18 PM

View PostScrapIron Prime, on 28 October 2022 - 03:55 AM, said:

Yes, such a short day trip away. So easy!

until of course you consider the cost of such a trip. Or the fact that some states want to make crossing a state line for such a trip into a Felony.

human rights should not be determined by your zip code. As I recall, we had a discussion about this in the 1860’s.


Killing an unborn child is not a human right. It's cold blooded fully calculated physician assisted murder and you will never in a million years convince me otherwise. Period. As to cost I already told you that non profits are already fully organized at this point to pay for both the abortion and any legal representation that comes up. Abortion on demand is still fully alive and well.

View PostCerulean Knight, on 28 October 2022 - 08:47 AM, said:

Considering the use of "states rights" by Meep Meep, I get the feeling he's a "northern aggression " adherent.


States rights are a key element of the Federalist papers. The founders formed our constitution and bill of rights with the idea that the states would be their own soveriegn entities with the federal government only there to help in time of war and disaster and to manage foreign trade. It has nothing to do with the civil war past the democrat slave owners who tried to use it to justify enslaving millions of human beings.

I feel that few in this conversation have ever read the constitution or bill of rights or the federalist papers.

https://www.archives...tion-transcript

https://www.archives...ghts-transcript

https://guides.loc.g...apers/full-text

It might help with future debates to be well versed on their contents. Posted Image





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users