Justin Trudeau today announced he is happy to give American women full control of their bodies and welcomes them to Canada for abortions....Just as soon as they give up all control of their bodies and get vaxxed.
"In the immediate wake of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, I repeatedly came across the same meme floating around social media. It consists of a still from the famous “I’m Just a Bill” musical segment from the 1970s educational television series “Schoolhouse Rock!” In it, a personified piece of legislation, aptly named Bill, sits on the steps of the Capitol with a little boy. In the show, he is about to explain the basics of American civics to the boy through song, but in the meme, it is captioned: “Sorry, kid. There’s no song to explain this crap.”"
and...
"The irony is that the very people sharing this meme – the same people who paint the overturning of Roe as “undemocratic” – are patently doing so out of an ignorance of precisely the sort of basic civics that “Schoolhouse Rock!” educated children about through song and cartoon in the 1970s."
It's so true. Though I don't see him going into this at all, but if you put all your feelings and emotions and opinions aside on whether abortion is right or wrong... and you look at this PURELY from a legal definition, this was a VERY correct decision.
I absolutely have been upset by SCOTUS decisions in the past, but I ACCEPT for the most part the logic behind it. For example, the Supreme Court decision to not overturn ObamaCare... Chief Justice's comments were, "We are not here to save you from bad decisions at the voting booth." Their job is to determine *CONSTITUTIONALITY* of law.
YES, under the 4th Amendment, Roe (Norma McCorvey) had a general right to privacy for any medical procedures or concerns. This was later codified through the Privacy Act of 1974 (for which Roe v Wade was the catalyst), and later in 1996 with HIPPA. But there was absolutely nothing in the US Constitution, not the 5th Amendment, or the 14th Amendment that declared the government's authority to regulate FOR or AGAINST abortion. There was no legal standing for that ruling, but the majority-left SCOTUS believed it to be their (societal) moral obligation with which to decide that case in favor of abortion. This went against many Democrats (and Republicans) of the time, including well-known Democrat constitutionalists like Archibald Cox.
The fact is, because there was no law respecting for or against abortion, it simply goes back to the states by default. A lot of people suggest this is where it should be. Maybe... but it goes there by default since the Constitution was written, not to pass laws against the people, but to further define what the limitations of the Federal government are. Of course, with the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution, Federal law will always trump state law (unless unconstitutional).
And this is where the irony really exists with the meme he mentions... these Millennials, who haven't a f**king clue how Government works, and who think Senators are their "representatives" ... do not get that literally, it's going back to the states because for the past 50 years, the Legislative Branch of the U.S. Government chose not to pass a Federal law.
If tomorrow, a majority of Representatives, and 60 Senators agreed that abortion was legal in the first trimester... then that would be the law of the land. But why haven't they? It's because they know they can't get that many votes... EVEN when President Obama had a super-majority, literally a 60-vote majority. It's not like they didn't know this day was coming... they absolutely did, but they knew abortion was generally unpopular, and the ensuing discussion would result in people being educated, and likely less supportive of it.
Democrats absolutely HAVE to stop trying to use the courts for their ideological "progress." Democrats today simply do not respect process or institution. Democrats believe the "prevailing winds" of social-discourse should drive the narrative, every single time.
If the Democrats ACTUALLY, and I mean ACTUALLY cared about governing, and not just consolidating and keeping power, the President would have given a speech that went something like this:
"My fellow Americans... (blah blah), we need to come to a common consensus on abortion. (insert more crap) Today, I'm asking the legislative body to work in a bi-partisan fashion to define a collective "floor" of abortion rights and regulations."
It might include something like... - Partial Birth Abortion is illegal - The right to contraceptives shall not be infringed - Abortion is legal in cases of considerable harm to the mother - Abortion is legal in cases of Rape and Incest in the 1st Trimester
There are many here that would disagree with some or all of this. But I guarantee the senate would be able to get 10 GOP sensors to go across the isle. The problem is... there would be attempts to add in all kinds of stupid stuff, like investing in drag-queen children's library books, or funding for homosexual conversion therapy. I blame Pelosi, Schumer, McConnell, and maybe to some extent, McCarthy.
They wouldn't have just lost support if they had passed a law allowing abortion nationwide. The money train would have dried up. Think of how much money they got over the years from the Pro Abortion lobby while they sat in offices and declared they were fighting to get a law passed, they just needed more money.
The unborn babies don't have much control over their own bodies do they, they are vulnerable, mom is supposed to protect them. Not supposed to kill them. Seems like this shouldn't have to be said.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 06-30-2022).]
Justin Trudeau today announced he is happy to give American women full control of their bodies and welcomes them to Canada for abortions....Just as soon as they give up all control of their bodies and get vaxxed.
President Biden recounted or referenced the story. Many said it was a story so suspiciously convenient for the abortion rights agenda that it likely wasn't true—even a fact checker-style columnist for the famously liberal Washington Post. But now it's confirmed. So says MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes in this near 7-minute broadcast segment from Wednesday, July 13. https://www.msnbc.com/all-i...-220713-144017989511
I would post a transcript in addition to the video, but it's not yet available. But I'll post this instead:
"Arrest made in rape of Ohio girl that led to Indiana abortion and international attention" Bethany Bruner, Monroe Trombly and Tony Cook for USA Today; July 13, 2022. https://www.usatoday.com/st...bortion/10049383002/
Includes video report and text. The text is just long enough to do full justice to all obviously relevant aspects of the story. So if you're just not "into" Chris Hayes... "you do you." This report from USA Today is just as good and perhaps a quicker way to get the full story.
"I've been following the Jan-6 committee hearings, and I swear, it's almost like a face lift. I can't believe what I'm seeing in my mirror the last few weeks."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-14-2022).]
"We already have “proper democratic procedures” in place for all these ways of expressing the will of the people through legitimate law; it was the judicial activism of Roe that stood in the way of their exercise. If this nation’s civic literacy were better, more people would realize that, and this decision would have come as no surprise to anyone.
Maybe it’s time for “Schoolhouse Rock!” to make a comeback."
It was intended as a way to run the affairs of state, not to micro-manage or own the lives of individuals. THATS called slavery, and it matters little if the master is one or many. Constitutions world-wide were designed for that very purpose, but that hasnt worked out so well since there are so many profiting finding ways to circumvent constitutions.
Screw the "will of the people". We need to return to "the will of the one".
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 07-14-2022).]
President Biden recounted or referenced the story. Many said it was a story so suspiciously convenient for the abortion rights agenda that it likely wasn't true—even a fact checker-style columnist for the famously liberal Washington Post. But now it's confirmed. So says MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes in this near 7-minute broadcast segment from Wednesday, July 13. https://www.msnbc.com/all-i...-220713-144017989511
I would post a transcript in addition to the video, but it's not yet available. But I'll post this instead:
"Arrest made in rape of Ohio girl that led to Indiana abortion and international attention" Bethany Bruner, Monroe Trombly and Tony Cook for USA Today; July 13, 2022. https://www.usatoday.com/st...bortion/10049383002/
Includes video report and text. The text is just long enough to do full justice to all obviously relevant aspects of the story. So if you're just not "into" Chris Hayes... "you do you." This report from USA Today is just as good and perhaps a quicker way to get the full story.
"I've been following the Jan-6 committee hearings, and I swear, it's almost like a face lift. I can't believe what I'm seeing in my mirror the last few weeks."
This is not a story about the failure of the Supreme Court. It is a story about the failure of our government to protect our borders.
*Edited to remove the image. I haven't even had breakfast yet.*
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 07-14-2022).]
It was intended as a way to run the affairs of state, not to micro-manage or own the lives of individuals. THATS called slavery, and it matters little if the master is one or many. Constitutions world-wide were designed for that very purpose, but that hasnt worked out so well since there are so many profiting finding ways to circumvent constitutions.
Screw the "will of the people". We need to return to "the will of the one".
I agree with this.
The coordination of government's effort in a Democracy has a priority of political leaning, usually through vote buying schemes for political gain and pandering. Very few government organizations work towards non-political goals. Military, NASA and the USPS are examples, but they are hugely inefficient and wasteful.
Our republic was the most successful and prosperous government in the history of human civilization. Where we failed was vigilance.
We allowed ourselves to be enticed by carnival hucksters. Some of us were ignorant, some were greedy and some were just plain evil. In the end, we were sold our by our fellow countrymen for a few pieces of silver.
We are no longer free, because we have ignored the constitution.
Our republic was the most successful and prosperous government in the history of human civilization. Where we failed was vigilance.
We allowed ourselves to be enticed by carnival hucksters. Some of us were ignorant, some were greedy and some were just plain evil. In the end, we were sold our by our fellow countrymen for a few pieces of silver.
We are no longer free, because we have ignored the constitution.
Kick Alioto in the Aspercreme... how an abortion case from 1792 reveals that "Roe was right" and "Dobbs is wrong."
"A 1792 case reveals that key Founders saw abortion as a private matter"
quote
Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall and Patrick Henry didn’t advocate for prosecution of a woman who probably had an abortion
Strikes 1 and 2 against the Supreme Court's most recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, overturning "Roe".
quote
A basic premise of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was that the Constitution can protect the right to abortion only if it is “deeply rooted in our history and traditions.” This statement complements Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s concept of originalism, or the idea that the court should interpret the Constitution by trying to infer “the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it.”
Alito’s evidence that abortion was always considered a criminal act, and thus something the Constitution should not protect, consisted of a single criminal case that was prosecuted in 1652 in the (Catholic) colony of Maryland. He then jumped ahead to laws that states enacted, mostly in the mid-to-late-19th century, to criminalize abortion. This cursory survey of abortion in early America was hardly complete, especially because it ignored the history of abortion in the years in which the Constitution was drafted and ratified.
Strike 3... Alioto and the other court-cons down on strikes. Back to the dugout, Sam. And take ACB and Clarence Thomas with ya'. "Grab some pine, meat."
quote
The Federalist Marshall believed in a strong national government. Jefferson mostly supported a decentralized system. Henry was a populist. Yet all three tacitly agreed that abortion in this case was a private matter, not a criminal act worthy of further investigation and prosecution.
"Constitutional jurisprudence is Easy When You Know How"
"Grab some pine, meat." Mike Krukow's catchphrase when a batter is set down on strikes. Krukow (on the right) and Duane Kuiper are the mainstays in the video broadcast booth at Oracle Park during San Francisco Giants home games.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-19-2022).]
This is not a defense for anti-abortion advocates, but your premise for arguing about the founder's intent is a red herring.
Not a single state law will jail a woman for having an abortion. All these anti-abortion laws are all designed to punish the abortion providers, not the woman (or man) having the abortion.
This is not a defense for anti-abortion advocates, but your premise for arguing about the founder's intent is a red herring. Not a single state law will jail a woman for having an abortion. All these anti-abortion laws are all designed to punish the abortion providers, not the woman (or man) having the abortion.
I don't see how that "scores" as a logical argument or rebuttal.
But I think what's needed is federal legislation of nation-wide standards and protections for abortion, with certain restrictions. To establish with federal law a middle-of-the-road philosophy that would defeat the extremists on both sides of this issue. I think I am echoing "82" and perhaps some other forum members as well.
I call that (my previous message) an "attitude" post. An attempted or ostensibly attempted "agitation" of the forum, Or an ASS (Attention Seeking Syndrome) as one forum wag likes to say, although I think there are more accurate diagnoses of it to be had. (Not that I'm volunteering any.)
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-19-2022).]
But I think what's needed is federal legislation of nation-wide standards and protections for abortion, with certain restrictions. To establish with federal law a middle-of-the-road philosophy that would defeat the extremists on both sides of this issue.
Lets break down what you'd lke to see. Qualifications for when would it be ok to kill babies? What age? 2 too old? 1? 6 mo? 1 mo? Fully developed but not past the magical canal yet? Due in a month? Due in 6 mo? Due in 9? Reasons... Rape? Incest? Just Lazy? Just feel like it? Don't have alot of money? Not married? Don't know who dad is?
"The most common abortion procedures and when they occur" Brittany Shammas, Aaron Steckelberg and Daniela Santamariña for the Washington Post; updated June 24, 2022. https://www.washingtonpost....abortion-procedures/
quote
On Friday [June 24, 2022] the Supreme Court overturned the right to abortion established almost 50 years ago in Roe v. Wade. The ruling triggers immediate bans in some states and major restrictions in others, dramatically reshaping access to a procedure that has been protected in America since 1973.
The number of abortions performed in the United States has been on a downward trend for three decades. In 2019, there were 629,898 abortions reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, compared with 765,651 in 2010 and 1.4 million in 1990. That data does not include numbers from California, Maryland and New Hampshire.
New research by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research organization that supports abortion rights, suggests the long-term decline may be reversing, with an increase in 2020.
Nearly 1 in 4 women in the United States will have the procedure by the age of 45, according to an estimate from the Guttmacher Institute. The group estimates that 18 percent of U.S. pregnancies end in induced abortions.
Most abortions happen in the first trimester. In 2019, nearly 80 percent of the procedures reported to the CDC were performed before the 10th week of pregnancy. Almost 93 percent were performed before the 13th week. . . .
quote
The viability of a fetus is determined on a case-by-case basis. It is generally understood to be reached around 24 weeks and sometimes as late as 28 weeks. In all, 44 states prohibit some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
Third-trimester abortions are rare and heavily restricted. Just 1 percent of abortions take place after 21 weeks; the third trimester begins around the 28th week.
“When abortions occur in the third trimester, most often something has gone terribly wrong in the pregnant person’s life or pregnancy,” . . .
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-20-2022).]
Originally posted by 2.5: So what is the middle-of-the-road philosophy that would defeat the "extremists"? Extremist I assume being those who say "don't kill babies", and those who say "I'll kill em cause I feel like it".
I'm not an expert. I can't say exactly. Nor is this an opportune time for me to engage in any online research.
First, I would look online to see if there already is some "middle of the road" proposal for national legislation that has been outlined.
I think it's fair to ask why Democrats and other "friends of Roe" have not pushed harder for national legislation. "Fats" had an idea about that (earlier in this thread) and I won't say that he is wrong.
However, I wonder about the laws that are being passed by the Republican-led states. Are these Republicans going overboard—out of control, so to speak—or is that just a mirage that's being created by the likes of MSNBC?
Think of the recent case that was highlighted where a 10-year old girl was impregnated by rape and had to cross over from Ohio to Indiana to have an abortion.
Should a girl that young ever be required to carry a pregnancy to birth? Even if there were some malfeasance of the girl, herself? I would think that it's an especially high risk pregnancy (medically) for both the girl herself and the anticipated newly born child. Just because of the very young age of the girl.
rinse, here in the area I live in, and nearly everyone I know feels pretty much the same way. Roe should have been overturned because it wasn't legislated into law. The Legislators should figure it out. Abortion should be available. Abortion shouldn't be a means of birth control. Abortion is a serious matter as it involves the destruction of a Human Being. There should be some way to figure this out calmly, intelligently and reasonably. It's important to elect good people in the coming midterms, and vote.
While I can't say I agree with everything olejoedad has ever said (here or in Technical) I do agree with " nearly everyone he knows" where he lives. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for at least a lot of the people in the area where I live, since I'm in Colorado, which has about the most pro-abortion legislation on the planet.
When I read that about 1 in 5 pregnancies in the U.S are terminated through abortion, I did not believe that. I was disappointed almost to depression when I did some research and found out that by most measures, that percentage is actually correct. That being the case, I absolutely do believe that a large percentage of these are after-the-fact avoidance of unwanted children. From the NIH -
The reasons (for an abortion) most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child.
I am a married white male with two adult children, so perhaps this is easy for me to say, but yeah, those numbers add up to termination of children that would otherwise simply "be in the way'. When did human life become so cheap that these abortions are preferable to whatever inconvenience they might cause to an existing life? How is there any valid argument that effective contraception would avoid so many abortions/
What I find most troubling is that the most vocal pro-abortion activists/protestors sound as if pregnant women (and society at large) should want and prefer abortions. My own feelings on the matter aside, even if a woman decides that abortion is her best option, does any woman ever really want one? Maybe feels like she must have one, but likes the idea? It seems that most pro-abortionists think abortion should be the first best option, rather than the last best option?
Regarding the overturn of Roe, the way I see it, this was a correction of judicial overreach some 50 years ago. Again, this is not with any regard to my personal feelings on the matter. But why are the pro-abortionists so violently (and illegally) attacking everything from churches to pregnancy clinics to SCOTUS? This is even happening here in Colorado, where the state has very neatly sidestepped all abortion restrictions and limits. The responsibility has merely been returned to the states, who may or may not restrict/limit abortion, based on the actions of the state legislatures and the voters. And regarding federal law, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch (who happens to be from CO, and has only avoided more severe pillorying because the more rabid protestors are focusing on Justice Kavanaugh) said it best:
"Originalism says the rights of the Constitution that were given in 1789 are the rights you enjoy today and they can never be taken -- and if you want to add to them, we the people add to them," "I think the Constitution is one of the greatest documents in all of human history and deserves our respect -- and if you want to change it, don't ask five people in Washington to change it for you,." "There's a process -- it's called the amendment process. It's actually there in the Constitution and you can do it -- and it has been done. It's been done 27 times."
f the people - not a violent and vocal faction, but a majority of the people - want different federal law than currently exists, why not do that instead of throwing a collective and destructive fit? If this does not net you the outcome you desire, I think it must be remembered that "The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few. Or the one."
To me, the Supreme Court is and must be sacrosanct. The Separation of Powers and the roles of the Legislative and Executive branches are and must be sacrosanct. But all require members to do their jobs to the best of their abilities and within their respective roles. It is my opinion that the Supreme Court is imperfect, but is very much closer to correctly and genuinely fulfilling its role than ore the other branches. The Legislative Branch is not meaningfully legislating, at least not to the will of its constituents, and the Executive Branch is not tending to the implementation and execution of existing law.
Finally, with respect to most previous and all future elections -
So in the end, it seems that we will never hear, that no one really cares who leaked the decision and caused so much chaos. I want to know who and why. I think it is important because it is part of the constant manipulation of public opinion. Someone keeps steering this "ship of state" into the rocks and we all deserve to know who and why.
There should be some way to figure this out calmly, intelligently and reasonably.
.
Exactly why this is the rhetoric of today, it divides us: ...the time is now, quick rush out and make rash decisions, get angry, blame your neighbor etc.
So in the end, it seems that we will never hear, that no one really cares who leaked the decision and caused so much chaos. I want to know who and why. I think it is important because it is part of the constant manipulation of public opinion. Someone keeps steering this "ship of state" into the rocks and we all deserve to know who and why.
She actually disagreed with the verbiage of the decision.she was in favor of abortion, but didn't like how the decision was ultimately worded. It's as if she knew that it was worded in such a way that made it vulnerable to appeal.
My new t-shirt just arrived. Wish they offered it in white, oh well. We may not be endangered, but it's amazing >/< half our population doesn't value pre developing human lives, nor post developing young human lives. Nor do some a-holes have the honesty to admit they have no personal responsibility or the mental capacity.
Screw each other first, think about it later. The world has been going this route on an end less loop. Leftist utopia: Assault, snort, inject, inhale, f**k, we'll make force those that don't to pay for it and submit. But you can't eat this or drink too much of that.