Why do abortion rights people whine about a group of white men overturning Roe v. Wade?

Quite serious -- and the claim was substantiated .. sans one little nit picked detail about the type of ultrasound... you just learning that it was the "Vaginal Penetration" kind... can't remember the name "intra Vag Ultra" or some such thing .. google will tell you all you need to know...

 

"Pence indiana law ultrasound penetrative" returns no relevant Google results! You must have heard or read wrong.

 

Nope don't tar me with your pathetic investigative skills .. I did a search and came up .. the first result - in an article aptly titled "A More Familiar Monster"

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...ke-pence-hides-extremism-behind-boring-facade

Yup .. a real nutjob is Pence.. thats for sure

 

Using the absurd notion you want to learn, start by reading The New Jim Crow.

 

We need to remember that the supreme court does not write laws. It's primary purpose is to test their constitutionality as written, and the writing is done by congress.

However- To the extent the latitude of judgement allows, they do have the power to allow or disallow certain factors.

 

You're sure that "invasive" is referring to "penetrative?"

 

What does that have to do with voter ID laws?

 

LOL .. what else did you think it meant

 

The court doesn't enforce the law. The judicial branch and law enforcement enforces the law. The courts interpret the law and ensure they are being enforced under the constitution and laws passed by the legislature, and whether those laws are constitutional. It is not a democracy anymore that we as a nation are not a democracy.

No it is not "democratic" to use federal law to enforce congressional legislation and federal troops can ONLY be used domestically under an extremely limit scope and only at the request of a state for such assistance in an emergency. But the fact is if this ruling goes through it is doing exactly as you claim should be done, handing the decision to the states where there are democratic process for the people to decide such matters. EXACTLY what Alito is saying in the draft.

Voting is a STATE matter not a FEDERAL matter. The only thing the Constitution is concerned is equal protection based on race, sex or religion. IF there is a vote you must be treated equally with others based on such and cannot be denied a vote because of those factors. The time place and manner for elections is NOT a federal matter except for those for members of Congress and only so that the final election day is consistent throughout the country.

Don't see why.

Blocked by Malwarebytes as a Trojan Horse website.

 

And those new President Biden proclaimed "Jim Crowe aka Eagle Crowe" laws in Georgia produced the largest primary turn out in Georgia history BY FAR and I have heard of zero problems with people being able to cast their votes.

The Georgia Law Biden Compared to Jim Crow Leads to Record Early Voter Turnout

As President Biden gives another speech attempting to blur the line between his regular political opposition and extreme hate groups, perhaps it is worth looking back to a bit more than a year ago when Biden called a sweeping elections bill signed into law in Georgia “Jim Crow in the 21st Century” and “an atrocity.” Biden also said, “I am convinced that we’ll be able to stop this because it is the most pernicious thing. This makes Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle. I mean, this is gigantic what they’re trying to do, and it cannot be sustained.”

But a funny thing happened in the first primary with this new elections law in place. Early voting turnout in the primaries is going to hit a new record. Georgia’s deputy secretary of state, Gabriel Sterling, reports, “with the final Monday of voting we’ve seen a total of 461,816 voters. Early voters are 245,996 GOP, 176,902 Democratic & 2,667 Nonpartisan. Absentee 17,204 GOP, 18,517 Democratic & 530 Nonpartisan.” As of Sunday, the state was seeing a 217 percent increase from the same time point in the early voting period in the 2018 primary election and a 155 percent increase in the 2020 primary election.

If this was a voter suppression law as President Biden contended, it is doing a terrible job.....
https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...jim-crow-leads-to-record-early-voter-turnout/

 

Yeah but... IT'S RACIST!

 

Why could it not mean the below?

 

Do you think that Roe v Wade and Obergefel v Hodges are examples of the Supreme Court writing laws?

 

Haha. How utterly pathetic that this is your response to my multi-sectioned reply! Look, I know that my reply must have been extremely challenging and difficult for you to know how to deal with and you probably had no idea where to even start with it! But come on! Can you not try a little harder and do better with another attempt? Here it is: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ning-roe-v-wade.599475/page-6#post-1073455053

 

It's not an argument I find compelling, but no it's not hypocritical. The idea is that men have no stake in the issue since they cannot get pregnant, and so shouldn't dictate what happens to womens' bodies. Roe isn't hypocritical because it protects their freedom rather than giving a green light to nutter states to take it away. That said, the crux of the issue really is when personhood begins foremost.

 

Which is when?

 

So then what’re you crying about white men for?

 

Yes

 

It begins at conception.

Dont believe me? Go find you a woman who just found out she’s two weeks pregnant and assault her and make her lose the baby and watch how fast you get slapped with a murder charge.

 

Not in the sense of writing. SOTUS ruling define or interpret, thus can change conclusions and what the law is considered to do. It can change the interpretation without changing the letter of the law.
This is sometimes like the shades of grey concept, where a field may transition from black to white. Where is the dividing line that separates the two?
Thus, in my opinion, the best laws are written with the fewest words- carefully chosen to both state their intent and leave nothing to argue or redefine. That doesn't mean people won't try of course, but it make it much harder to define black as almost white.

We do not have a amendment regarding abortion, so everything is based on opinions and perceptions of how constitutional elements may apply to the question. I see a lot of arguments, and most people think the basis for their particular view should be the prime consideration.

Personally- I think most of these views are absent the most important relevant principle, which is that I do not get to make your personal decisions, and you do not get to make mine. That covers everything from what you decide to have for supper to your own body. Thus I view most of the arguments on abortion as people attempting to impose their personal opinion (they think value) on others- who would have to deal with all the consequences of that decision they didn't get to make, while those who impose it bear none. Fundamentally wrong, and there is no clear law that tells us we must mind our own business.

 

Definitely when a mind exists. Later than 20 weeks.

 

Law doesn't determine truth, only consequences. Conception is a silly standard. The main difference is that then there is a new recombined set of genetic traits, but uniqueness of the genetic code doesn't determine personhood, as illustrated by the fact that we don't treat identical twins as one person, or even siamese twins as one person. Personhood lies in having a human mind capable of suffering, having a mental existence, even a simple one.

 

As in, brain activity?

 

.

 

What's an example of the Supreme Court writing laws?