B-Man Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 WHY ARE VIRGINIA DEMOCRATS SO RACIST? VA House Democrats Storm Out As Black Pastor Prays Against Abortion and Gay Marriage. Okay, I guess Virginia’s Democratic Governor posing in blackface/a KKK outfit might have been a tipoff. Meanwhile in Indiana. Hundreds Join Indiana Attorney General to Bury Thousands of Dead Babies Found at Abortion Doctor’s House “These babies deserved better than a cold, dark garage or the trunk of a car.” . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoudyBills Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 Slim Shady's ghost is a baby, just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 On 1/10/2020 at 12:18 PM, B-Man said: How pro-abortion is Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrats in Congress? So pro-abortion that they refused a vote on a measure to protect unborn babies from harmful chemicals, even though the vote had absolutely nothing to do with abortion. Today, the House today approved legislation to designate chemicals found in cooking spray, cosmetics and other grease-resistant products as health hazards. But before the Hosue voted, Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the Republican Leader on the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce, offered a motion to send the bill H.R. 535 back to committee. She wanted the panel to amend the bill to include protections for unborn children exposed to such chemicals. Pelosi and Democrats voted no. Some 219 Democrats voted against extending these protections from harmful chemicals to the vulnerable unborn. As Cathy, a pro-life mother of three, said on the House floor, “By rejecting this amendment, the Majority would be denying the science of the development of a child in the womb.” . Good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 Not NYS but 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 ...time for Big Fredo's water to break......this azzclown has overstayed his welcome but NYC controls his re-election......another NYS skank..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 Ninth Circuit Upholds Trump Admin Rule Stripping Funding for Abortions Posted by Mary Chastain They “found that the rule is a ‘reasonable interpretation’ of Section 1008 of Title X, which forbids using Title X funds ‘in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.'” The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a court known for its liberal leanings, ruled today that President Donald Trump’s administration can withdraw Title X funding from clinics associated with abortions. (more…) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 15 minutes ago, B-Man said: Ninth Circuit Upholds Trump Admin Rule Stripping Funding for Abortions Posted by Mary Chastain They “found that the rule is a ‘reasonable interpretation’ of Section 1008 of Title X, which forbids using Title X funds ‘in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.'” The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a court known for its liberal leanings, ruled today that President Donald Trump’s administration can withdraw Title X funding from clinics associated with abortions. (more…) . The War on The Poor continues! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 25 minutes ago, Tiberius said: The War on The Poor continues! close but no. it is a war on the unborn that your side is embracing and the loss of their profiteering that emanates from that. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 10 minutes ago, Foxx said: close but no. it is a war on the unborn that your side is embracing and the loss of their profiteering that emanates from that. The poor should have access to reproductive health rights, too. You guys just want to make the lives of the poor harder. Most pro-lifers don't give a crap about the unborn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Foxx said: close but no. it is a war on the unborn that your side is embracing and the loss of their profiteering that emanates from that. May I respectfully add, this is much too important a subject to try and engage Tiberius with. I mean.........war on the poor............pro-lifers don't care about the unborn.......... You are arguing with an imbecile. Back to the thread. Leftists: it's only considered "a newborn baby" if you want it. Otherwise it's "just a fetus" not a baby. Fetus definition: a developing HUMAN from usually two months after conception to birth. . Edited February 25, 2020 by B-Man 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedge Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 1 hour ago, Foxx said: close but no. it is a war on the unborn that your side is embracing and the loss of their profiteering that emanates from that. ? It's also less of our tax dollars being funneled into Leftist campaign financing. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 1 hour ago, B-Man said: May I respectfully add, this is much too important a subject to try and engage Tiberius with. I mean.........war on the poor............pro-lifers don't care about the unborn.......... You are arguing with an imbecile. Back to the thread. Leftists: it's only considered "a newborn baby" if you want it. Otherwise it's "just a fetus" not a baby. Fetus definition: a developing HUMAN from usually two months after conception to birth. . Yes, discussing this subject with Tiberius has less of a chance of anything coherent coming out of it than giving a monkey the dictionary and expecting him to write the next great novel. I see he has adopted the Left's way of disguising issues with misleading language. Abortions are really a part of "reproductive rights". Sure, like killing babies is productive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 Democrat Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand says bills to protect unborn babies and abortion survivors are violations of women’s ‘civil rights, human rights’ [video] . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 12 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: That's like saying the deaf and dumb can't protest their getting chopped up so it's ok to do it to them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 Pro-aborts who don’t celebrate abortion sure seem to love abortion [video] The pro-abort party wasn’t over after Chuck Schumer finished vowing that SCOTUS Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch “will pay the price” if pro-aborts don’t get the June Medical Services v. Russo outcome they want. No, the party kept going: “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.” That’s the pro-abort message we’re supposed to swallow. Footage like what you just watched above is why we don’t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 (edited) This morning, the Supreme Court heard what may end up being the most significant abortion case since Roe vs. Wade. This is the background: In 2014, Louisiana passed a law, State Law 620, which required all abortions to be performed by a doctor who had admitting privileges in a hospital within 30 miles. The law was very similar to a Texas law that was struck down by the Supreme Court in June 2016 in the case called Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. This was 5-3 decision, Justice Scalia having recently died, in which Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the law. So it was no surprise when an abortuary sued and, given Whole Woman’s Health, a district court judge issued an injunction. When the case was appealed, the Fifth Circuit, the same court that ruled against Texas upheld the Louisiana law. Heads exploded. An emergency appeal was lodged with the Supreme Court and, by 5-4, an injunction was granted. In this case, Roberts voted for the injunction. When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, now called June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, it said it wanted to focus on two questions: (1) Whether abortion providers can be presumed to have third-party standing to challenge health and safety regulations on behalf of their patients absent a “close” relationship with their patients and a “hindrance” to their patients’ ability to sue on their own behalf; and (2) whether objections to prudential standing are waivable – per the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th and Federal Circuits – or non-waivable per the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C., 2nd, and 6th Circuits. This is not the battleground the abortion industry wants to fight on. The cases supporting abortion that arrive in the courts are invariably brought by a third party, usually an abortuary, on the behalf of an amorphous class of “patients” . Generally, Article III of the Constitution prevents you from going into court so sue someone for doing something that doesn’t affect you. This gets to the whole idea of standing. The second standing issue is one of creation by the state: “The abortion providers counter that it is too late for the state to argue that they lack a legal right to sue on behalf of their patients. Earlier in the case, the providers stress, the state agreed that the clinic had a right to sue, and it didn’t raise any objection to the providers’ right to sue until the providers filed their petition for Supreme Court review.” Bottom line, if the abortuaries are not allowed to sue on behalf of people, many of whom they don’t even know, then that means that every suit against an abortion law must be brought by a woman seeking to have an abortion who can’t get one because of a law. This means, for all intents and purposes, that any state that wishes to basically ban abortion will have the tools it needs to do so. More at the link: https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2020/03/04/793499/ . Edited March 5, 2020 by B-Man 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts