2022 SCOTUS rulings

[SDHornet]

Victimhood does not become you so I fixed your post ...

Remind me again how many BLM/ANTIFA idiots are rotting in jail? How many have been charged/convicted? How many were bailed out by the Hollywood elite? And how many who are openly violating the law in this case have been arrested/charged?

And then do the same for 1/6 protestors.

You’ll find (if you’re nonpartisan) that the law is NOT applied evenly. Not even close.

[GannonFan]

Like I said, they could stand outside of every church every day and harass people coming in and going out and that would be perfectly fair game. Did I not say that? They want to protest at parishioners homes, hey, have at it. That's fine too. Going into the house of worship, well, that crosses the line. I think anti-abortion folks going into Planned Parenthood crosses a line too, no?

As for the judges, I believe there's at least a federal law that bars protests at judges homes, especially when done to intimidate or to attempt to persuade them to rule in a particular direction with a decision pending. I think that makes sense. Heck, we have more than enough examples of disgruntled claimants going to judges houses and shooting people. No need to add to that tragic ledger.

It’s almost like you’re saying they have a right to privacy or something.

Who? And privacy is fine when it doesn't involve another human being. I know, hate to bring science into it, but science is pretty clear. Life is life. And I'm already on record that I would be fine with abortion continuing as is until science can provide us a way to have the fetus be viable outside of the woman's womb as early as possible. As for the judges, again, we've made it a point we don't want opinions of judges, at any level, being impacted by threats or other outside persuasions. Heck, we've even made a law saying that.

Another thing about this abortion debate is that it never gets into the nuance. On both sides, the loudest voices win. But there are plenty of cases where abortion needs to continue - babies that are already dead in the womb, pregnancies where the fetus implants outside of the uterus, babies that are so medically compromised in the womb they have no hope of survival, etc. Even when abortion is restricted or banned, we're going to still need to have the procedure of an abortion taught to physicians and still practiced in those cases where we should. But that's a nuance neither side likes to talk about when they're yelling at the other side.

[BDKJMU]

[BDKJMU]

Manchin to vote no on donk Roe vs Wade bill.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/joe-ma ... -wade-bill

[kalm]

It’s almost like you’re saying they have a right to privacy or something.

Who? And privacy is fine when it doesn't involve another human being. I know, hate to bring science into it, but science is pretty clear. Life is life. And I'm already on record that I would be fine with abortion continuing as is until science can provide us a way to have the fetus be viable outside of the woman's womb as early as possible. As for the judges, again, we've made it a point we don't want opinions of judges, at any level, being impacted by threats or other outside persuasions. Heck, we've even made a law saying that.

Another thing about this abortion debate is that it never gets into the nuance. On both sides, the loudest voices win. But there are plenty of cases where abortion needs to continue - babies that are already dead in the womb, pregnancies where the fetus implants outside of the uterus, babies that are so medically compromised in the womb they have no hope of survival, etc. Even when abortion is restricted or banned, we're going to still need to have the procedure of an abortion taught to physicians and still practiced in those cases where we should. But that's a nuance neither side likes to talk about when they're yelling at the other side.

Life is life when? That doesn’t seem very clear.

[kalm]

[GannonFan]

Who? And privacy is fine when it doesn't involve another human being. I know, hate to bring science into it, but science is pretty clear. Life is life. And I'm already on record that I would be fine with abortion continuing as is until science can provide us a way to have the fetus be viable outside of the woman's womb as early as possible. As for the judges, again, we've made it a point we don't want opinions of judges, at any level, being impacted by threats or other outside persuasions. Heck, we've even made a law saying that.

Another thing about this abortion debate is that it never gets into the nuance. On both sides, the loudest voices win. But there are plenty of cases where abortion needs to continue - babies that are already dead in the womb, pregnancies where the fetus implants outside of the uterus, babies that are so medically compromised in the womb they have no hope of survival, etc. Even when abortion is restricted or banned, we're going to still need to have the procedure of an abortion taught to physicians and still practiced in those cases where we should. But that's a nuance neither side likes to talk about when they're yelling at the other side.

Life is life when? That doesn’t seem very clear.

If we stick to the science, it's at conception, and there's no real argument against it. No one would say a tree isn't a tree until it breaks through the ground - it starts being one the moment a seed begins the biological process of growing. If we talk about when a "soul" enters the body or something along those lines, then we're not talking about science anymore (and I don't begrudge spirituality or anything of the like, it's just a different conversation). Like I said, I'm fine with abortion continuing at this point, even for unwanted pregnancies, because science hasn't developed to a point yet where we can let a fetus, at the earliest stages, live outside of the woman's womb, maybe in some kind of artificial womb. But when science does deliver on that, we're still left with the undeniable conclusion that, even when it's just a collection of cells, just because it's at its earliest doesn't mean that it's not a human life even then. Of course it is.

[kalm]

Life is life when? That doesn’t seem very clear.

If we stick to the science, it's at conception, and there's no real argument against it. No one would say a tree isn't a tree until it breaks through the ground - it starts being one the moment a seed begins the biological process of growing. If we talk about when a "soul" enters the body or something along those lines, then we're not talking about science anymore (and I don't begrudge spirituality or anything of the like, it's just a different conversation). Like I said, I'm fine with abortion continuing at this point, even for unwanted pregnancies, because science hasn't developed to a point yet where we can let a fetus, at the earliest stages, live outside of the woman's womb, maybe in some kind of artificial womb. But when science does deliver on that, we're still left with the undeniable conclusion that, even when it's just a collection of cells, just because it's at its earliest doesn't mean that it's not a human life even then. Of course it is.

A seed requires nurture, various inputs of rain and weather plus some luck to become a tree. It is not a tree as a seed. Many seeds never become trees.

Hence Chizzy’s old line of God being the #1 in world serial abortionist rankings.

[Skjellyfetti]

Do "stand-your-ground" laws apply to the fetus in utero? Maybe abortion could be legal in states with a stand-your-ground law. The woman asks the fetus to exit her uterus. If the fetus refuses to comply, she is justified in killing it.

[kalm]

Do "stand-your-ground" laws apply to the fetus in utero? Maybe abortion could be legal in states with a stand-your-ground law. The woman asks the fetus to exit her uterus. If the fetus refuses to comply, she is justified in killing it.

No. A woman is not the queen of even her own castle. Sorry.

[AZGrizFan]

Do "stand-your-ground" laws apply to the fetus in utero? Maybe abortion could be legal in states with a stand-your-ground law. The woman asks the fetus to exit her uterus. If the fetus refuses to comply, she is justified in killing it.

I'll try that with my kid.

"You won't leave my house???" BLAM BLAM BLAM!!!

[BDKJMU]

These protestors are violating fed law (picketing outside a judge’s house, and VA & MD state laws (picketing outside a private residence (maybe also judge’s too, although state might only apply to state judges). How come there haven’t been mass arrests? If Biden DOJ is blatantly ignoring fed law and this blatant attempt at judge intimidation, there’s no reason the conk govs in VA amd MD shouldn’t send in state troopers in mass amd clear these people out.

[Ibanez]

These protestors are violating fed law (picketing outside a judge’s house, and VA & MD state laws (picketing outside a private residence (maybe also judge’s too, although state might only apply to state judges). How come there haven’t been mass arrests? If Biden DOJ is blatantly ignoring fed law and this blatant attempt at judge intimidation, there’s no reason the conk govs in VA amd MD shouldn’t send in state troopers in mass amd clear these people out.

Now you care about protestors breaking the law...?

[UNI88]

These protestors are violating fed law (picketing outside a judge’s house, and VA & MD state laws (picketing outside a private residence (maybe also judge’s too, although state might only apply to state judges). How come there haven’t been mass arrests? If Biden DOJ is blatantly ignoring fed law and this blatant attempt at judge intimidation, there’s no reason the conk govs in VA amd MD shouldn’t send in state troopers in mass amd clear these people out.

Now you care about protestors breaking the law...?

At least he's consistently inconsistent.

[BDKJMU]

These protestors are violating fed law (picketing outside a judge’s house, and VA & MD state laws (picketing outside a private residence (maybe also judge’s too, although state might only apply to state judges). How come there haven’t been mass arrests? If Biden DOJ is blatantly ignoring fed law and this blatant attempt at judge intimidation, there’s no reason the conk govs in VA amd MD shouldn’t send in state troopers in mass amd clear these people out.

Now you care about protestors breaking the law...?

The 1/6 protestors that tresspassed were charged enmasse . The fact that these aren’t shows the DOJ is just another corrupt 3 letter agency...

[BDKJMU]

There you have it. The donks are for partial birth abortion.

[kalm]

Now you care about protestors breaking the law...?

The 1/6 protestors that tresspassed were charged enmasse . The fact that these aren’t shows the DOJ is just another corrupt 3 letter agency...

[kalm]

There you have it. The donks are for partial birth abortion.

[houndawg]

Now you care about protestors breaking the law...?

The 1/6 protestors that tresspassed were charged enmasse . The fact that these aren’t shows the DOJ is just another corrupt 3 letter agency...

Somebody shit on the lawn?

[BDKJMU]

The 1/6 protestors that tresspassed were charged enmasse . The fact that these aren’t shows the DOJ is just another corrupt 3 letter agency...

Quick reminder to the morons out there: There’s a big difference between a bunch of people tresspassing through a govt building taking selfies, and hundreds of people outside multiple SCOTUS’s private homes threatening them, terrorizing their families, and trying to intimidate them over a major court case.

[kalm]

Quick reminder to the morons out there: There’s a big difference between a bunch of people tresspassing through a govt building taking selfies, and hundreds of people outside multiple SCOTUS’s private homes threatening them, terrorizing their families, and trying to intimidate them over a major court case.

[UNI88]

Quick reminder to the morons out there: There’s a big difference between a bunch of people tresspassing through a govt building taking selfies, and hundreds of people outside multiple SCOTUS’s private homes threatening them, terrorizing their families, and trying to intimidate them over a major court case.

You must have emptied a full gallon with that whitewashing of January 6.

[UNI88]

There you have it. The donks are for partial birth abortion.

Did it really attempt to legalize abortion nationwide until birth with effectively no limits? I keep seeing that as a conservative talking point but I haven't seen the actual language that backs it up.

From the bill(S.4132 - Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022):

(8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.
(9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.

Preventing government from prohibiting abortion before fetal viability or when the pregnancy risks the patient's life or health is not "no limits".

[GannonFan]

There you have it. The donks are for partial birth abortion.

Did it really attempt to legalize abortion nationwide until birth with effectively no limits? I keep seeing that as a conservative talking point but I haven't seen the actual language that backs it up.

From the bill(S.4132 - Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022):

(8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.
(9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.

Preventing government from prohibiting abortion before fetal viability or when the pregnancy risks the patient's life or health is not "no limits".

I think the debatable point is what constitutes a "risk to the pregnant patient's life or health". That phrase is rather open ended and could mean really anything, physical or mental, that could impact a woman's health.

[AZGrizFan]

Did it really attempt to legalize abortion nationwide until birth with effectively no limits? I keep seeing that as a conservative talking point but I haven't seen the actual language that backs it up.

From the bill(S.4132 - Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022):


Preventing government from prohibiting abortion before fetal viability or when the pregnancy risks the patient's life or health is not "no limits".

I think the debatable point is what constitutes a "risk to the pregnant patient's life or health". That phrase is rather open ended and could mean really anything, physical or mental, that could impact a woman's health.

….and what constitutes “fetal viability”….