Roe vs Wade Overturned

[BillStime]

8 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

The video clip above is from February 2021.  The twit presents it as something recently proposed after the SCOTUS ruling.  That's a lie.

 

HR 705 was introduced in the House on February 2, 2021.  It was referred to a House committee on 3/22/21 and went nowhere.  The introduced HR bill did not outlaw abortion.  

 

The Congressional record (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/705/committees) states:

 

This bill makes it a crime for a physician to knowingly perform an abortion (1) without determining whether the fetus has a detectable heartbeat, (2) without informing the mother of the results, or (3) after determining that a fetus has a detectable heartbeat.

 

It provides an exception for an abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical (but not psychological or emotional) disorder, illness, or condition.

 

A physician who performs a prohibited abortion is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.

 

A woman who undergoes a prohibited abortion may not be prosecuted for violating or conspiring to violate the provisions of this bill.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that the cult isn’t trying to pass a nationwide ban on abortion?

 

Preventing women from crossing state lines to get an abortion?

 

Whats next? Forcing women to take a pregnancy test when going through TSA?

 

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

2 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Are you seriously trying to tell us that the cult isn’t trying to pass a nationwide ban on abortion?

 

Preventing women from crossing state lines to get an abortion?

 

Whats next? Forcing women to take a pregnancy test when going through TSA?

 

 

 

I'm stating facts.  This bill is 15 months old.  Am I right or wrong about that? 

[ChiGoose]

9 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I'm stating facts.  This bill is 15 months old.  Am I right or wrong about that? 

 

They are proposing it, though I don't know if there is more current draft legislation:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/politics/republican-reaction-abortion-congress/index.html

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

15 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

They are proposing it, though I don't know if there is more current draft legislation:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/politics/republican-reaction-abortion-congress/index.html

 

But that's not the same bill and 15 weeks is not a ban.  Its in line with what almost every other western nation has in effect.  

[BillStime]

7 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

But that's not the same bill and 15 weeks is not a ban.  Its in line with what almost every other western nation has in effect.  

I don’t care 

 

**********

 

When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. People know themselves much better than you do. That's why it's important to stop expecting them to be something other than who they are

 

Maya Angelou

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, BillStime said:

I don’t care 

 

**********

 

When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. People know themselves much better than you do. That's why it's important to stop expecting them to be something other than who they are

 

Maya Angelou

 

 

We ALL know you Billsy! No need to bring poor Maya into it. Leave the poetry out of it. 😂

[BillStime]

🎯

 

 

[ChiGoose]

17 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

But that's not the same bill and 15 weeks is not a ban.  Its in line with what almost every other western nation has in effect.  

 

Many of the laws in Europe have exceptions so large you can drive a truck through, such as the woman's mental health.

 

Ohio doesn't even have an exception for minors who are raped.

[Gene Frenkle]

This is a shocking development! /s

 

"Leave it up to the states!"

"Small government!"

 

Yeah, except when we're legislating christian morals. What a bunch of chickenschitt, two-faced hypocritical liars. The Dems might suck, but at least they're not shoving their 2000 year old fairy tale down everyone's throat.

 

I hope every Republican candidate gets absolutely slaughtered in the midterms.

 

How can you a-holes support this Taliban-like behavior?

[The Frankish Reich]

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

The video clip above is from February 2021.  The twit presents it as something recently proposed after the SCOTUS ruling.  That's a lie.

 

HR 705 was introduced in the House on February 2, 2021.  It was referred to a House committee on 3/22/21 and went nowhere.  The introduced HR bill did not outlaw abortion.  

 

The Congressional record (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/705/committees) states:

 

This bill makes it a crime for a physician to knowingly perform an abortion (1) without determining whether the fetus has a detectable heartbeat, (2) without informing the mother of the results, or (3) after determining that a fetus has a detectable heartbeat.

 

It provides an exception for an abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical (but not psychological or emotional) disorder, illness, or condition.

 

A physician who performs a prohibited abortion is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.

 

A woman who undergoes a prohibited abortion may not be prosecuted for violating or conspiring to violate the provisions of this bill.

Thanks. That is a sound clarification on that particular talking point, which is deceptive. 
I don’t have cites ready, but I do believe some Republicans in Congress are talking about introducing FEDERAL abortion bans. I’ll look. 

[SoCal Deek]

9 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

This is a shocking development! /s

 

"Leave it up to the states!"

"Small government!"

 

Yeah, except when we're legislating christian morals. What a bunch of chickenschitt, two-faced hypocritical liars. The Dems might suck, but at least they're not shoving their 2000 year old fairy tale down everyone's throat.

 

I hope every Republican candidate gets absolutely slaughtered in the midterms.

 

How can you a-holes support this Taliban-like behavior?

So I’ll put you down as a “no” for eternal salvation then. Excellent, it’ll open a spot for someone else. 😉

[Gene Frenkle]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

So I’ll put you down as a “no” for eternal salvation then. Excellent, it’ll open a spot for someone else. 😉

 

I'll return to nothing, just like you. I'll also likely appreciate my time more because I know this is it. But I'm sure you'll see your loved ones in heaven one day... Do you ever think about what a perfect tool was for the early church to keep the poor in line?

 

"Life sucks, cause you're poor, but if you work hard for us and give us what you own...well... The first shall be last and the last shall be first (but only after you die). Yeah, that's it. It's gonna be great!"

[SoCal Deek]

26 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

I'll return to nothing, just like you. I'll also likely appreciate my time more because I know this is it. But I'm sure you'll see your loved ones in heaven one day... Do you ever think about what a perfect tool was for the early church to keep the poor in line?

 

"Life sucks, cause you're poor, but if you work hard for us and give us what you own...well... The first shall be last and the last shall be first (but only after you die). Yeah, that's it. It's gonna be great!"

That’s what you got out of the Bible? Interesting take. Good luck with your plan. I’m sure it’ll be fine. 

[LeviF]

6 hours ago, Gene Frenkle said:

This is a shocking development! /s

 

"Leave it up to the states!"

"Small government!"

 

Yeah, except when we're legislating christian morals. What a bunch of chickenschitt, two-faced hypocritical liars. The Dems might suck, but at least they're not shoving their 2000 year old fairy tale down everyone's throat.

 

Well, it’s a fairy tale alright, what the Dems are shoving down our throats. It’s just an order of magnitude younger. 

 

6 hours ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

I'll return to nothing, just like you. I'll also likely appreciate my time more because I know this is it. But I'm sure you'll see your loved ones in heaven one day... Do you ever think about what a perfect tool was for the early church to keep the poor in line?

 

"Life sucks, cause you're poor, but if you work hard for us and give us what you own...well... The first shall be last and the last shall be first (but only after you die). Yeah, that's it. It's gonna be great!"

As opposed to the line now, “you’re gonna be poor, so you’re better off if your mother gets you cut up and vacuumed out of the womb.”

[Doc Brown]

7 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

But that's not the same bill and 15 weeks is not a ban.  Its in line with what almost every other western nation has in effect.  

Republicans are in an odd position as the messaging since Roe v Wade was overturned was it now rightfully belongs to the states to decide.  So, any federal proposal (like that one) makes them look like hypocrites.  

[Boatdrinks]

15 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

For one, I don’t think every single issue should be left up to the states. Should the right to contraceptives be left to the states? Should we let the states decide if they want to allow interracial marriage?

 

If I was offered a great job opportunity in Ohio, the state where my wife and I went to school and still have friends, it would be a really difficult decision because moving to Ohio would mean losing access to important healthcare.

 

Secondly, the whole “leave it up to the states” argument falls a little flat when the GOP is openly advocating for a nationwide ban through Congress. Ultimately, it likely won’t be left to the states one way or the other.

Obviously every single issue shouldn’t be left to the states. Contraception and interracial marriage are not particularly controversial and there is no reasonable argument for them to be illegal. Those examples don’t hold much water when there is virtually zero political will behind banning them. They aren’t “ issues” on anyones radar. 
 Lastly , I personally don’t support any nationwide law on abortion. I consider myself pro choice. Perhaps there’s a movement in the GOP for a nationwide law but I’d consider that a fools errand. Most people think it should remain legal, with restrictions after about 15 weeks. 

[ChiGoose]

35 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Obviously every single issue shouldn’t be left to the states. Contraception and interracial marriage are not particularly controversial and there is no reasonable argument for them to be illegal. Those examples don’t hold much water when there is virtually zero political will behind banning them. They aren’t “ issues” on anyones radar. 

The right to contraceptives was established in Connecticut v. Griswold, a case founded on the grounds to similar privacy rights as Roe v. Wade.

 

In his concurrence in Dobbs, Justice Thomas called for overturning Griswold. The main thrust of Dobbs is that abortion doesn’t appear in the text of the Constitution, but neither does contraceptive. Some GOP candidates are already running on a platform to ban access to contraceptives: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/michigan-gop-extremist-candidate-ban-contraception-1356393/amp/

 

As for interracial marriage, it too was established partly on privacy grounds in Loving v. Virginia, but you should note that the right to interracial marriage is also not in the text of the constitution. Oddly, while Thomas mentioned overturning privacy cases like Griswold, Obergefell, and Lawrence, he somehow forgot the fourth case in that line: Loving. 
 

That being said, it appears that Loving may be on the radar for some people: https://www.businessinsider.com/republican-senator-mike-braun-questions-whether-the-supreme-court-should-have-legalized-interracial-marriage-2022-3?amp

 

I’m not going to make predictions on whether or not these cases will be overturned, but to say that they are settled is ignoring the current environment on the far Right. 

[Boatdrinks]

55 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

The right to contraceptives was established in Connecticut v. Griswold, a case founded on the grounds to similar privacy rights as Roe v. Wade.

 

In his concurrence in Dobbs, Justice Thomas called for overturning Griswold. The main thrust of Dobbs is that abortion doesn’t appear in the text of the Constitution, but neither does contraceptive. Some GOP candidates are already running on a platform to ban access to contraceptives: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/michigan-gop-extremist-candidate-ban-contraception-1356393/amp/

 

As for interracial marriage, it too was established partly on privacy grounds in Loving v. Virginia, but you should note that the right to interracial marriage is also not in the text of the constitution. Oddly, while Thomas mentioned overturning privacy cases like Griswold, Obergefell, and Lawrence, he somehow forgot the fourth case in that line: Loving. 
 

That being said, it appears that Loving may be on the radar for some people: https://www.businessinsider.com/republican-senator-mike-braun-questions-whether-the-supreme-court-should-have-legalized-interracial-marriage-2022-3?amp

 

I’m not going to make predictions on whether or not these cases will be overturned, but to say that they are settled is ignoring the current environment on the far Right. 

Many things are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean they are easily banned or made illegal. It also does not create the political will of the people needed to do so. That a few extremists may exist on the fringes of our two major political parties doesn’t make such far fetched laws imminent. 

[L Ron Burgundy]

16 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

So I’ll put you down as a “no” for eternal salvation then. Excellent, it’ll open a spot for someone else. 😉

There you go, all about religion.   We thought so but refreshing for someone to admit it.

[ChiGoose]

7 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:

Many things are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean they are easily banned or made illegal. It also does not create the political will of the people needed to do so. That a few extremists may exist on the fringes of our two major political parties doesn’t make such far fetched laws imminent. 

One of those extremists is a sitting Supreme Court Justice.