Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
Democrats Make Hay Out of Texas Abortion Ruling....
Democrats Make Hay Out of Texas Abortion Ruling....
By Skans
12 Dec 2023 8:29 am in No Holds Barred Political Forum
13 Dec 2023 7:20 am
You didn't answer the question...Z09 » 13 Dec 2023, 8:19 am » wrote: ↑ What's worse?
Asking the question....
Or being unable to answer it?
I rest my case
again.
13 Dec 2023 7:21 am
"wikipedia"
[https://i.imgflip.com/9z0a87.jpg][/img]
13 Dec 2023 7:22 am
You're a **** idiot.ConsRule » 13 Dec 2023, 8:13 am » wrote: ↑ There is no prosecution for traveling, regardless of the reason. Stop making **** up.
Oh..by the way, you don't need to have carried a pregnancy to term before you learn how to read.
The Whistleblower Law remains in effect.
Just shut the **** up and bear children.
13 Dec 2023 7:22 am
You're a **** idiot.
13 Dec 2023 7:23 am
13 Dec 2023 7:36 am
There is no whistleblower law in Texas...it only exist in your fantasy world. Apparently just like being prosecuted for traveling outside the state. Both are examples of you making **** up.R.Suave » 13 Dec 2023, 8:22 am » wrote: ↑ You're a **** idiot.
The Whistleblower Law remains in effect.
Just shut the **** up and bear children.
13 Dec 2023 7:45 am
This is exactly my concern as well. There is NO Republican strategy. No strategy = getting owned by the Democrats.jerrab » 12 Dec 2023, 4:24 pm » wrote: ↑ this is something that biden will use and may affect the results. I don't like biden and I wonder why republicans leave the door open, that said I would rather some else other than trump and biden get the nominations.
13 Dec 2023 7:59 am
You really are a **** idiot.ConsRule » 13 Dec 2023, 8:36 am » wrote: ↑ There is no whistleblower law in Texas...it only exist in your fantasy world. Apparently just like being prosecuted for traveling outside the state. Both are examples of you making **** up.
Now go **** yourself.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-n ... rcna129275
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2021/what-t ... oe-v-wade/
13 Dec 2023 8:01 am
You and Murdock are both worthless.R.Suave » 13 Dec 2023, 8:59 am » wrote: ↑ You really are a **** idiot.
Now go **** yourself.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-n ... rcna129275
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2021/what-t ... oe-v-wade/
13 Dec 2023 8:04 am
Mrkelly » 12 Dec 2023, 11:59 am » wrote: ↑ Stuff like this is why republicans will continue to take a beating over Roe
I don’t like abortion being used as birth control at a certain stage of the pregnancy
but this is a young loving mother of two that is going through something few of us will ever endure
and the republicans can’t get out of their own way
Cox’s fetus had trisomy 18, a chromosomal disorder. Trisomy 18 is a devastating diagnosis. Most pregnancies end in stillbirths; those infants born alive with the disorder live anguished, short and painful lives. Cox was informed that her fetus, in the sterile medical parlance, “could not sustain life”. The fetus had malformations of the spine, heart, brain and limbs. The pregnancy also posed dire threats to Cox’s health; most significantly, she was at risk of losing her future fertility if she remained pregnant.
the country sees her in interviews saying how they desperately want another child
she doesn’t what her baby to needlessly suffer
and risk not being able to have another
and you guys are calling it a political stunt
you deserve what you get on this case
Absolutely!
Republicans have used Roe for half a century to whip up their pro-life base, never REALLY wanting to actually lose that gold mine. After Dobbs, they began to see how that really hurts them with a large segment of the female population. This Cox move only increases the level of anger. They talk about being pro-life but seemed to totally not give a **** about the mother's life or the future children this woman desperately wanted to conceive.
I think that Dobbs and Cox are gifts that keep on giving and the Democrats should shamelessly work that angle for decades.
13 Dec 2023 8:12 am
You got another **** OP tamped up your ***...
Move on.
13 Dec 2023 8:31 am
Skans » 13 Dec 2023, 8:45 am » wrote: ↑ This is exactly my concern as well. There is NO Republican strategy. No strategy = getting owned by the Democrats.
they only think of the base but elections include both parties. trump takes full credit of over turning r v w so right there 0 dem votes for him. christy may come down to be more lenient, I am not sure but allowing medically necessary abortions will be an important factor in elections. and the 6 week cut off is not helpful. I am not a fan of abortion but I am looking at it logically. and if baby can survive all attempts to save it should be done.
13 Dec 2023 8:33 am
Your first link (NBC) refers to the law where private citizens can take legal action. YOUR OWN LINK doesn't even know if that would be possible. Additionally, that law is a civil matter (law suit) and is, in no way, a criminal action. Therefore, the reference to prosecution is something you made up. The word "prosecution" has a meaning. It is defined as "the institution and conducting of legal proceedings against someone in respect of a criminal charge."R.Suave » 13 Dec 2023, 8:59 am » wrote: ↑ You really are a **** idiot.
Now go **** yourself.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-n ... rcna129275
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2021/what-t ... oe-v-wade/
The second link is a liberal Op-Ed...no worthy of a response.
13 Dec 2023 8:35 am
I'm going to take you on here, Z09, and explain "what's wrong with that", since I doubt Maineman can elucidate the key points.Z09 » 13 Dec 2023, 9:21 am » wrote: ↑ So Maineman...
The rulling allows states to make their own decision with abortion.
Like the death penalty.
What's wrong with that?
I know asking you a direct question is useless...
- In states where abortion laws are quite strict (against abortion), there is a minority of people who's health and rights still need to be properly considered and protected. Just handing something over to the states simply allows the majority to make the decision on this, without any regard for the minority's rights in the matter.
- States do not have free-rein to make decisions on the death penalty. If they did, then we would still have hangings and Old Sparky (which I favor). There are laws, Constitutional authority and Supreme Court precedence, in place to protect the so-called rights of those who will face the death penalty. Not so with abortion.
- A federal abortion law (legislative solution) establishing a minimum window for pregnant women to obtain an abortion in all states is appropriate and legal. The Republicans could have (and should have) been working on this ever since they sought to overturn Roe v. Wade. Just handing this back to the states was, in my opinion, irresponsible and very short sighted. It was clearly not politically favorable for the Republicans to do this.
- There actually is a protection in the US Constitution favoring the right to an abortion. It is the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". In allowing states to prohibit abortions, this is actually allowing them to violate the 1st Amendment. At some point between conception and some time period thereafter, the objection to a termination of a pregnancy is on purely religious grounds and not based on the viable life of the potential baby. This is in fact, unconstitutional.
13 Dec 2023 8:39 am
ConsRule » 13 Dec 2023, 9:33 am » wrote: ↑ Your first link (NBC) refers to the law where private citizens can take legal action. YOUR OWN LINK doesn't even know if that would be possible. Additionally, that law is a civil matter (law suit) and is, in no way, a criminal action. Therefore, the reference to prosecution is something you made up. The word "prosecution" has a meaning. It is defined as "the institution and conducting of legal proceedings against someone in respect of a criminal charge."
The second link is a liberal Op-Ed...no worthy of a response.
the law you maintain isn't there?Your first link (NBC) refers to the law where private citizens can take legal action
Slack jawed FOX nursing rube,The second link is a liberal Op-Ed...no worthy of a response.
Nothing that falls from your mouth is worthy of a response other than ridicule and contempt, but that article carries every bit as much weight as the one that you believe denies the existence of the law.
**** yourself, and carry it to term.
13 Dec 2023 8:41 am
Overturning Roe v. Wade was proper. It was always bad law and founded upon nothingness. I gladly give Trump credit for overturning Roe v. Wade. However, Republicans should not have been so short sighted. They should have realized that in the absence of Roe, there needs to be a federal legislative solution providing some minimum restrictions on States to outlaw abortions. This is where Trump and all Republicans failed. They got it half right, and half-assed the other necessary piece to the puzzle by failing to give any consideration at all in safeguarding the rights of pregnant mothers.jerrab » 13 Dec 2023, 9:31 am » wrote: ↑ they only think of the base but elections include both parties. trump takes full credit of over turning r v w so right there 0 dem votes for him. christy may come down to be more lenient, I am not sure but allowing medically necessary abortions will be an important factor in elections. and the 6 week cut off is not helpful. I am not a fan of abortion but I am looking at it logically. and if baby can survive all attempts to save it should be done.
13 Dec 2023 8:45 am
I can agree with your "one size fits all" approach is not right. However, there does need to be some federal restrictions on States so that they are forced to take into consideration the rights of pregnant mothers in making laws that restrict abortions. This can easily be done through minimalist federal legislation. States can still be allowed to make their own abortion laws, but not overstep the minimum federal requirements. The Republicans were right in their position on Roe v. Wade - it has always been **** law. But, they were irresponsible in not having a well-thought out plan should Roe v. Wade be overturned.Z09 » 13 Dec 2023, 9:39 am » wrote: ↑ I think the one size fits all approach wasn't right.
Allow the states to decide and if you don't like their stance you vote people out of office.
And if you really, really want an abortion you can get one.
You might be inconvienced a bit though.
I think abortion should be allowed under certain circumstances.
I do understand your religious argument though.
13 Dec 2023 8:47 am
Never said there wasn't a law...I have said (correctly) it isn't a whistleblower law. And, even YOUR OWN LINK doesn't say her leaving the state was an issue. Perhaps you should look into a course on reading comprehension.
13 Dec 2023 8:50 am
There is nothing restricting a State from banning all abortions. States typically vote "the will of the people" without any consideration for protecting minority interests, in this case pregnant mothers. This is why we are a Constitutional Republic. On a highly technical matter like abortion, a matter that could not adequately have been dealt with by the Constitution at the time of its creation, it is just and proper for the Federal government to step in and make some law in this regard so that States do not overstep bounds with legislating abortion laws.
If Trump were a better leader, he would have seen this, recognized this and planned for this.
13 Dec 2023 8:50 am
Don't tell me what it says.ConsRule » 13 Dec 2023, 9:47 am » wrote: ↑ Never said there wasn't a law...I have said (correctly) it isn't a whistleblower law. And, even YOUR OWN LINK doesn't say her leaving the state was an issue. Perhaps you should look into a course on reading comprehension.
Never presume to interpret anything for anyone.
Who is online
In total there are 5945 users online :: 3 registered, 15 bots, and 5927 guests
Bots: MicroMessenger, GPTBot, TTD-Content, oBot, DuckDuckBot, proximic, YandexBot, facebookexternalhit, ADmantX, Mediapartners-Google, CriteoBot, Applebot, curl/7, Googlebot, bingbot