|
Post by gar on May 15, 2019 20:01:14 GMT
You can’t ban abortion, you can only ban safe, legal abortion. This is totally abhorrent in the 21st century. Appalling and shameful and wrong. Women will die because of this 😩
|
|
huskergal
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,044
Jun 25, 2014 20:22:13 GMT
|
Post by huskergal on May 15, 2019 20:03:01 GMT
What needs to happen is women need to have the majority at every level of government. They need to start making laws regulating men's bodies and their reproductive rights. The tide needs to turn.
|
|
|
Post by gar on May 15, 2019 20:07:47 GMT
What needs to happen is women need to have the majority at every level of government. They need to start making laws regulating men's bodies and their reproductive rights. The tide needs to turn. Wouldn’t that be amazing to see. I will just mention that this is being featured on our main news shows...BBC etc...it raising eyebrows around the world.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on May 15, 2019 20:36:42 GMT
Well...trump has said that all women getting abortions should be punished. Now it’s becoming reality. And yet the men that got them pregnant face no consequences. And just think... Who are going to support girls/women who are raped? Financially, emotionally, legally? Alabama isn’t going to do it. They are one of the worse states for medical care for women. After these rape pregnancies are born, will the rapist be held accountable for child support? Will the rapists have their rights to the child abolished?
|
|
RosieKat
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
PeaJect #12
Posts: 5,455
Jun 25, 2014 19:28:04 GMT
|
Post by RosieKat on May 15, 2019 20:46:09 GMT
I think the point of these bills is to chip and chip away at the rights, sending them all over to the SC until they finally hear one of the cases, with enough conservatives on the bench who are anti-abortion and move to overturn Row v Wade. Agreed, I think this has to be the endgame. Difficult decisions are not served by horrible legislation and judgement. Shame on Alabama. They are not interested in helping anyone, just punishing. Also agreed. Look, this is, among other things, stupid. Women who want abortions will get them. And still agreeing. When your pro-Trump relatives fresh from church insist they must support him because of abortion, you might ask: How much of that is really about the unborn, and how much is just a righteous excuse for a far less noble agenda? You might refer them to revered Catholic nun Joan Chittister , who’s anti-abortion, but has famously said, “Your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. . . . That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth.”And this is the one that frustrates me in real life. Many of you are aware that I am probably just one step below completely anti-abortion. But making abortion illegal is not going to solve the problem of abortion! Why can't we work on the pro-life things that we CAN change? I want to throttle so many people I know and respect because they just won't even really have the discussion. "Well, if you don't have life, you don't have anything." Sure, but I guess I just see things differently. Anti-abortion and pro-life do not mean the same things!
|
|
PrettyInPeank
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,691
Jun 25, 2014 21:31:58 GMT
|
Post by PrettyInPeank on May 15, 2019 20:55:59 GMT
I'm angry that I am being labeled as being pro-abortion if I simply want women to have control of how her body is used. I don't want abortions to happen! It's not the same damn thing!
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on May 15, 2019 21:02:09 GMT
This will be so dangerous. “Back alleys” are no longer needed. You can learn how to build a bomb on the internet. Order a 3D printer and make a gun. Do they really not realize that some women and girls will be so desperate that they will try anything they see suggested online? More like, they don’t care.
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on May 15, 2019 21:33:07 GMT
This will be so dangerous. “Back alleys” are no longer needed. You can learn how to build a bomb on the internet. Order a 3D printer and make a gun. Do they really not realize that some women and girls will be so desperate that they will try anything they see suggested online? More like, they don’t care. No, they don't. Because marginalized women will be the ones most affected. Rich conservatives will still be able to access safe abortions if they really need one. That's exactly what went down pre-Roe. Fuck all of 'em. So, if y'all want to help, check out the info in this thread:
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 15, 2019 21:33:35 GMT
I'm angry that I am being labeled as being pro-abortion if I simply want women to have control of how her body is used. I don't want abortions to happen! It's not the same damn thing! You are so very correct! Most women who decide, with much difficulty, do not want to have an abortion either! Each person with their medical providers should be allowed to do what is best for the woman's health.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 15, 2019 21:37:20 GMT
Televangelist Pat Robertson, who is opposed to abortion, criticized an anti-abortion bill passed by the Alabama legislature Tuesday as "extreme."“I think Alabama has gone too far," he said during a Wednesday appearance on "The 700 Club", referencing the bill's 99-year maximum sentence for doctors who perform abortions and the fact that it does not provide exceptions for rape or incest cases. He added that he does not think the bill would be upheld by the Supreme Court. "It’s an extreme law, and they want to challenge Roe vs. Wade, but my humble view is that this is not the case we want to bring to the Supreme Court because I think this one will lose," he said. ** thehill.com/policy/healthcare/abortion/443870-pat-robertson-says-alabama-has-gone-too-far-with-extreme-abortionI don't believe in his end goal but even he knows this law is far too EXTREME!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 15, 2019 21:40:07 GMT
""(State)Representative Kelly Townsend(AZ-R) on Thursday
Our country is sovereign, our State is sovereign, our family is sovereign, our God is sovereign and the most holy and sacred last frontier of sovereignty is our own body.
Dearest friends and people of Arizona, it seems we are prepared to give up our liberty, the very sovereignty of our body, because of measles. I read yesterday that the idea is being floated that if not enough people get vaccinated, then we are going to force them to. The idea that we force someone to give up...""
After some online backlash, Townsend wrote another Facebook post later Thursday defending her comments, saying that “maybe [she] meant to say Socialist.”
“The point here isn't whether or not we should vaccinate, that's for another post,” she said. “The point is whether or not your body is sovereign or if the government can force you to be injected against your will.”
** thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/432168-arizona-republican-mandatory-vaccines-are-communist
There is a difference! Vaccines affect everyone we come in contact with and who they come in contact with! An abortion is individual.
|
|
scrappinghappy
Pearl Clutcher
“I’m late, I’m late for a very important date. No time to say “Hello.” Goodbye. I’m late...."
Posts: 4,306
Jun 26, 2014 19:30:06 GMT
|
Post by scrappinghappy on May 15, 2019 21:40:42 GMT
What needs to happen is women need to have the majority at every level of government. They need to start making laws regulating men's bodies and their reproductive rights. The tide needs to turn. You do know that both the Representative who pushed for this law, Rep. Terry Collins, and the governor who is expected to sign it, Kay Ivey, ARE BOTH WOMEN!!! SHOCKING!!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 15, 2019 21:44:18 GMT
What needs to happen is women need to have the majority at every level of government. They need to start making laws regulating men's bodies and their reproductive rights. The tide needs to turn. You do know that both the Representative who pushed for this law, Rep. Terry Collins, and the governor who is expected to sign it, Kay Ivey, ARE BOTH WOMEN!!! SHOCKING!! They have good healthcare, as well as can afford whatever they choose for themselves and their daughters !
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on May 15, 2019 22:14:03 GMT
What needs to happen is women need to have the majority at every level of government. They need to start making laws regulating men's bodies and their reproductive rights. The tide needs to turn. You do know that both the Representative who pushed for this law, Rep. Terry Collins, and the governor who is expected to sign it, Kay Ivey, ARE BOTH WOMEN!!! SHOCKING!! Women are notorious for fucking our own selves over. Evidence: 52% of white women
|
|
|
Post by christine58 on May 15, 2019 22:33:20 GMT
And she did sign it...shit
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on May 15, 2019 22:37:57 GMT
ACLU confirmed they're suing Alabama.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on May 15, 2019 22:39:31 GMT
Ironic—
“Every life is a gift from God” and worth saving.
Yet Alabama executes people. More than Texas.
Fucking hypocrites.
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on May 15, 2019 22:40:35 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 6, 2024 18:31:55 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2019 22:41:06 GMT
You do know that both the Representative who pushed for this law, Rep. Terry Collins, and the governor who is expected to sign it, Kay Ivey, ARE BOTH WOMEN!!! SHOCKING!! They have good healthcare, as well as can afford whatever they choose for themselves and their daughters ! Nor have they ever been the victim of rape, incest, had a husband that demanded his conjugal rights nor experienced sleepless nights worrying about where the next meal is coming from to feed the child/children they already have. Neither have they been faced with carrying a fetus that is so deformed that it has no chance of developing normally or to ever survive after birth. They ought to be ashamed of themselves and I hope they never ever decry the rights of women in other countries when their own country chooses to live in an anachronistic existence.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on May 15, 2019 22:43:41 GMT
And she did sign it...shit
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on May 15, 2019 22:49:25 GMT
I know it's planned because the originators themselves said in public they want this to be the test case to make it to the SC. ETA: And not likely to happen. By making their law so restrictive and making public their end goal is for the SC to overturn Roe v Wade, they shot themselves in the foot. The SC does not like reviewing cases that are based on a naked desire to have them rule. Their choice of which case to take up is based on the merits of the case.
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on May 15, 2019 23:03:38 GMT
I know it's planned because the originators themselves said in public they want this to be the test case to make it to the SC. ETA: And not likely to happen. By making their law so restrictive and making public their end goal is for the SC to overturn Roe v Wade, they shot themselves in the foot. The SC does not like reviewing cases that are based on a naked desire to have them rule. Their choice of which case to take up is based on the merits of the case. You don’t think it (or a similar case that will come from a Republican-controlled state) will be granted a writ of certiorari? Because I truly do.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on May 15, 2019 23:06:12 GMT
I know it's planned because the originators themselves said in public they want this to be the test case to make it to the SC. ETA: And not likely to happen. By making their law so restrictive and making public their end goal is for the SC to overturn Roe v Wade, they shot themselves in the foot. The SC does not like reviewing cases that are based on a naked desire to have them rule. Their choice of which case to take up is based on the merits of the case. I would have agreed with your ETA before this court, but I think this court is likely to make decisions based on the majority's personal religious beliefs rather than law or precedent, don't you? I think at least four of them, and possibly five, are champing at the bit to review this case.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on May 15, 2019 23:08:26 GMT
I know it's planned because the originators themselves said in public they want this to be the test case to make it to the SC. ETA: And not likely to happen. By making their law so restrictive and making public their end goal is for the SC to overturn Roe v Wade, they shot themselves in the foot. The SC does not like reviewing cases that are based on a naked desire to have them rule. Their choice of which case to take up is based on the merits of the case. You don’t think it (or a similar case that will come from a Republican-controlled state) will be granted a writ of certiorari? Because I truly do. No. I don’t even consider it a longshot. I consider it a no-shot. By the time this case makes it past the district court into the court of appeals, it’ll be 2020. No justice will take up a controversial case like this in an election year. Certainly not Roberts. My money is on this ending at the appeals level whereby it’s likely to be judged unconstitutional (because it is). If the SC wanted to review an abortion case, there are gads of them making their way through the courts right now, and they're not as restrictive as Alabama's.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on May 15, 2019 23:13:30 GMT
I know it's planned because the originators themselves said in public they want this to be the test case to make it to the SC. ETA: And not likely to happen. By making their law so restrictive and making public their end goal is for the SC to overturn Roe v Wade, they shot themselves in the foot. The SC does not like reviewing cases that are based on a naked desire to have them rule. Their choice of which case to take up is based on the merits of the case. I would have agreed with your ETA before this court, but I think this court is likely to make decisions based on the majority's personal religious beliefs rather than law or precedent, don't you? I think at least four of them, and possibly five, are champing at the bit to review this case. No, I don't think so. As it is, I only count three votes - Alito's, Thomas', and Kavanaugh's. Roberts won't strike down Roe; it's more likely he'll weaken it, but not overturn. I also don't see Gorsuch overturning based on how he answered this question during his confirmation hearing.
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on May 15, 2019 23:21:06 GMT
You don’t think it (or a similar case that will come from a Republican-controlled state) will be granted a writ of certiorari? Because I truly do. No. I don’t even consider it a longshot. I consider it a no-shot. By the time this case makes it past the district court into the court of appeals, it’ll be 2020. No justice will take up a controversial case like this in an election year. Certainly not Roberts. My money is on this ending at the appeals level whereby it’s likely to be judged unconstitutional (because it is). If the SC wanted to review an abortion case, there are gads of them making their way through the courts right now, and they're not as restrictive as Alabama's. OMG, I really hope you’re right!!!
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on May 15, 2019 23:24:42 GMT
No. I don’t even consider it a longshot. I consider it a no-shot. By the time this case makes it past the district court into the court of appeals, it’ll be 2020. No justice will take up a controversial case like this in an election year. Certainly not Roberts. My money is on this ending at the appeals level whereby it’s likely to be judged unconstitutional (because it is). If the SC wanted to review an abortion case, there are gads of them making their way through the courts right now, and they're not as restrictive as Alabama's. OMG, I really hope you’re right!!! In spite of my opinion, the importance of wrapping Ginsburg in bubble wrap to protect her while there’s a Republican president cannot be overstated. One can say it’s not only vital, it’s an imperative.
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on May 15, 2019 23:27:35 GMT
OMG, I really hope you’re right!!! In spite of my opinion, the importance of wrapping Ginsburg in bubble wrap to protect her while there’s a Republican president cannot be overstated. One can say it’s not only vital, it’s an imperative. 10/10 would take a bullet for her at this point.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 15, 2019 23:28:33 GMT
Gorsuch tapped to replace Biden as chair of constitutional education centerBY JACQUELINE THOMSEN - 05/14/19 10:32 AM EDT The National Constitution Center announced Tuesday that Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has been elected the honorary chair of its board of trustees, replacing former Vice President Joe Biden. Gorsuch said in a statement that he is “honored” to serve as the honorary head of the nonprofit center, which is dedicated to educating people about the Constitution and promoting civics education. ** “The work of the Supreme Court and the future of the American Republic depend on citizens educated about constitutional liberties, which makes the nonpartisan mission of the National Constitution Center so urgently important,” Gorsuch said. ** “The Constitution Center’s mission—to educate all Americans about the U.S. Constitution—inspires us all,” he added. The National Constitution Center’s president and CEO, Jeffrey Rosen, also said in a statement that Gorsuch “understands the urgent need to educate Americans of all ages about the constitutional principles that unite us.” ** thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/443558-gorsuch-tapped-to-replace-biden-as-chair-of-constitutional-educationLet us see how honorable he is! ! ! !
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 15, 2019 23:29:51 GMT
In spite of my opinion, the importance of wrapping Ginsburg in bubble wrap to protect her while there’s a Republican president cannot be overstated. One can say it’s not only vital, it’s an imperative. She is in my signature!
|
|