You are the Incel King of Lies on these boards. You seem able to nimbly transpose your Heritage Action talking points so very quickly here. BTW, Heritage is already pushing legislative action for a federal ban, so F-CK YOU with your iterative talking point lies about this now being a matter for the states. You right wing jerk offs won't be happy until this is something akin the Handmaid's Tale.
Where did I lie? 1. The need to travel for an abortion did exist prior to Dobb’s. Sometimes the woman had to travel great distances. This isn’t a new issue. It wasn’t uncommon for women to travel to a different state to get an abortion under Roe.
2. Women still have the right to get an abortion after Dobb’s. Women were traveling to other states for abortions under Roe, they still can now.
3. This is a matter for the states to decide. You can check the SCOTUS opinion on Dobb’s for why this is the case.
Again, where is the lie? There isn’t one. You just don’t like the ruling and the facts. When you resort to name calling, it usually shows that you don’t a valid talking point.
If I were going to be mad at anyone, it would be at Democratic leadership for allowing this to happen. The federalist society has been telling everyone for 40 years that there main aim was to overturn Roe. I guess for 40 years democrats were naive or incompetent or both.
You're despicable. The only reason women have had to travel for abortion was because of the endless harassment and needless bad faith restrictions passed by anti-abortion activist state officials in red states. Access to equal care, including abortion, should NEVER have difficult.
You know all of this and yet act as if it was just a natural thing that there were only a very few clinics in most of the red states for the last number of years. Abortion has been under continual assault by terroristic activists for decades now.
Your arguments, just like most of the right winger incels here, are almost always made in bad faith and rely on the same tricks that right wing think tanks dream up to work toward their vision of Gilead. Get out of here with your pitiful dissembling. You are worthy of contempt.
Where did I lie? 1. The need to travel for an abortion did exist prior to Dobb’s. Sometimes the woman had to travel great distances. This isn’t a new issue. It wasn’t uncommon for women to travel to a different state to get an abortion under Roe.
2. Women still have the right to get an abortion after Dobb’s. Women were traveling to other states for abortions under Roe, they still can now.
3. This is a matter for the states to decide. You can check the SCOTUS opinion on Dobb’s for why this is the case.
Again, where is the lie? There isn’t one. You just don’t like the ruling and the facts. When you resort to name calling, it usually shows that you don’t a valid talking point.
If I were going to be mad at anyone, it would be at Democratic leadership for allowing this to happen. The federalist society has been telling everyone for 40 years that there main aim was to overturn Roe. I guess for 40 years democrats were naive or incompetent or both.
You're despicable. The only reason women have had to travel for abortion was because of the endless harassment and needless bad faith restrictions passed by anti-abortion activist state officials in red states. Access to equal care, including abortion, should NEVER have difficult.
You know all of this and yet act as if it was just a natural thing that there were only a very few clinics in most of the red states for the last number of years. Abortion has been under continual assault by terroristic activists for decades now.
Your arguments, just like most of the right winger incels here, are almost always made in bad faith and rely on the same tricks that right wing think tanks dream up to work toward their vision of Gilead. Get out of here with your pitiful dissembling. You are worthy of contempt.
I read all of this the voice of Daffy Duck because of your first sentence. Thanks for the laugh, I guess.
Only cartoon villains would laugh at others rightfully calling them despicable. I guess if the shoe fits...
I sure as hell hope you work for Heritage. You should get paid for lifting water for those evil scumbags. It'll be blood money of course, but hey fella you have bills to pay, amiright?
Only cartoon villains would laugh at others rightfully calling them despicable. I guess if the shoe fits...
I sure as hell hope you work for Heritage. You should get paid for lifting water for those evil scumbags. It'll be blood money of course, but hey fella you have bills to pay, amiright?
It’s funny because you called me a liar and when asked to prove me a liar, you couldn’t. So you went with the “arguing in bad faith” bit, which was also funny because I read it in Daffy Duck’s voicing. You also have the word Incel in your username which is always a sure sign of high intellect.
Sure thing incel Heritage troll. Let's talk when almost every one of your posts in this thread is obliterated by the soon-to-come introduction of federal legislation banning abortion nationwide and declaring fetal personhood, which will bring legislation targeting contraception. You already know its in the works.
Rabbi in FL files suit challenging state constitutionality of its 15-week limit, basing it both on the state constitution protected right to privacy (despite SCOTUS’ admittance of privacy being a flawed argument) and as an assault on religious liberty because Judaism interestingly — this seems true — requires abortion in order to protect the life of the mother, however FL already allows exceptions to protect the life of the mother (but not rape/incest) even in the third trimester. FYI, 2% of abortions in FL happen beyond the 15th week including medically necessary ones.
A synagogue in Florida is suing the state for its new law slated to go into effect banning abortion at 15 weeks. NBC News’ Isa Gutiérrez reports on how the r...
Ok, so we don’t know the percentage then of abortive women who could travel the previous distance but can not travel the new distance.
If she has a job, she almost certainly can take some sick days off on (hopefully) rare occasions as per most state laws. Not everyone has the luxury to take off for a vacation far away is what you are perhaps thinking of.
In any case, I’m glad we can all agree that the *only* practical impact of this supposedly historic ruling is to increase travel distance a couple times in their lifetime for an unknown fraction of women in conservative states. Sounds more like a travel tax than a wresting away of a constitutional right as decried.
Just read the Jia Tolentino article. It argues better than I can that this is not simply an inconvenience
In any case, I’m glad we can all agree that the *only* practical impact of this supposedly historic ruling is to increase travel distance a couple times in their lifetime for an unknown fraction of women in conservative states. Sounds more like a travel tax than a wresting away of a constitutional right as decried.
Just read the Jia Tolentino article. It argues better than I can that this is not simply an inconvenience
Of course I have. It read like social sciences hallways hyperbole, dramatic fear mongering, using an anecdotal example from pre-Roe (Lattice Black) to decry its overturn, lacking quantitative arguments, and statements like below that seem to dismiss the importance of fathers as “another [unaffected] person”. If there was anything more than travel inconvenience to it, it can’t be that hard to articulate.
”..that half of the country is in the hands of legislators who believe that your personhood and autonomy are conditional—who believe that, if you are impregnated by another person, under any circumstance, you have a legal and moral duty to undergo pregnancy, delivery, and, in all likelihood, two decades or more of caregiving, no matter the permanent and potentially devastating consequences for your body, your heart, your mind, your family, your ability to put food on the table, your plans, your aspirations, your life.”
Just read the Jia Tolentino article. It argues better than I can that this is not simply an inconvenience
Of course I have. It read like social sciences hallways hyperbole, dramatic fear mongering, using an anecdotal example from pre-Roe (Lattice Black) to decry its overturn, lacking quantitative arguments, and statements like below that seem to dismiss the importance of fathers as “another [unaffected] person”. If there was anything more than travel inconvenience to it, it can’t be that hard to articulate.
”..that half of the country is in the hands of legislators who believe that your personhood and autonomy are conditional—who believe that, if you are impregnated by another person, under any circumstance, you have a legal and moral duty to undergo pregnancy, delivery, and, in all likelihood, two decades or more of caregiving, no matter the permanent and potentially devastating consequences for your body, your heart, your mind, your family, your ability to put food on the table, your plans, your aspirations, your life.”
You say fear mongering but women should be afraid. If they get an abortion pill sent to them in Texas and they take it, they are going to be charged with murder. For doing something that most people do not think is wrong. Even if they take some home remedy that induces a miscarriage (outlined in the Bible btw), they will be charged with murder. There’s every reason to be afraid.
Also, your dismissals of social sciences are silly to me. There’s a lot of value in social sciences. We live in a society.
Of course I have. It read like social sciences hallways hyperbole, dramatic fear mongering, using an anecdotal example from pre-Roe (Lattice Black) to decry its overturn, lacking quantitative arguments, and statements like below that seem to dismiss the importance of fathers as “another [unaffected] person”. If there was anything more than travel inconvenience to it, it can’t be that hard to articulate.
”..that half of the country is in the hands of legislators who believe that your personhood and autonomy are conditional—who believe that, if you are impregnated by another person, under any circumstance, you have a legal and moral duty to undergo pregnancy, delivery, and, in all likelihood, two decades or more of caregiving, no matter the permanent and potentially devastating consequences for your body, your heart, your mind, your family, your ability to put food on the table, your plans, your aspirations, your life.”
You say fear mongering but women should be afraid. If they get an abortion pill sent to them in Texas and they take it, they are going to be charged with murder. For doing something that most people do not think is wrong. Even if they take some home remedy that induces a miscarriage (outlined in the Bible btw), they will be charged with murder. There’s every reason to be afraid.
Also, your dismissals of social sciences are silly to me. There’s a lot of value in social sciences. We live in a society.
Nope, if they travel, that won’t happen coz interstate travel is constitutionally protected. Please don’t change the premise of the argument on the fly.
Not all social sciences of course, only the portions that happens to be not quantitative and promoting a political agenda (which is a significant fraction portion). Intelligent quantitative-minded folks can see right through the word salad discourse and where exactly it breaks down if quantified.
You say fear mongering but women should be afraid. If they get an abortion pill sent to them in Texas and they take it, they are going to be charged with murder. For doing something that most people do not think is wrong. Even if they take some home remedy that induces a miscarriage (outlined in the Bible btw), they will be charged with murder. There’s every reason to be afraid.
Also, your dismissals of social sciences are silly to me. There’s a lot of value in social sciences. We live in a society.
Nope, if they travel, that won’t happen coz interstate travel is constitutionally protected. Please don’t change the premise of the argument on the fly.
Not all social sciences of course, only the portions that happens to be not quantitative and promoting a political agenda (which is a significant fraction portion). Intelligent quantitative-minded folks can see right through the word salad discourse and where exactly it breaks down if quantified.
I think you’re out of touch with impoverished people which is pretty normal. They cannot afford to travel, and planned parenthood type organizations will not be able to send everyone. Some women will either have to abort at home with a pill or home remedy or have the baby. Those will be the only options, and the abortion option might put them in jail. Pro life people are usually fine with this because they want them to have the baby, but let’s not pretend that there’s going to be a choice for everyone to travel. That’s not the reality of the situation.
I think you’re out of touch with impoverished people which is pretty normal. They cannot afford to travel, and planned parenthood type organizations will not be able to send everyone. Some women will either have to abort at home with a pill or home remedy or have the baby. Those will be the only options, and the abortion option might put them in jail. Pro life people are usually fine with this because they want them to have the baby, but let’s not pretend that there’s going to be a choice for everyone to travel. That’s not the reality of the situation.
Yeah, but these requirements won't impact the mediocre white males so what does it matter? I can only wish on the "so what" crowd that a girlfriend, daughter, wife experiences some tragic pregnancy situation so they get to experience what an apparently huge 'non-issue' the reversal of Roe will be for their personal lives.
Nope, if they travel, that won’t happen coz interstate travel is constitutionally protected. Please don’t change the premise of the argument on the fly.
Not all social sciences of course, only the portions that happens to be not quantitative and promoting a political agenda (which is a significant fraction portion). Intelligent quantitative-minded folks can see right through the word salad discourse and where exactly it breaks down if quantified.
I think you’re out of touch with impoverished people which is pretty normal. They cannot afford to travel, and planned parenthood type organizations will not be able to send everyone. Some women will either have to abort at home with a pill or home remedy or have the baby. Those will be the only options, and the abortion option might put them in jail. Pro life people are usually fine with this because they want them to have the baby, but let’s not pretend that there’s going to be a choice for everyone to travel. That’s not the reality of the situation.
The premise you challenged was that travel cost is the only practical downside of this ruling. I take it you withdrew your opposition to that premise.
I think you’re out of touch with impoverished people which is pretty normal. They cannot afford to travel, and planned parenthood type organizations will not be able to send everyone. Some women will either have to abort at home with a pill or home remedy or have the baby. Those will be the only options, and the abortion option might put them in jail. Pro life people are usually fine with this because they want them to have the baby, but let’s not pretend that there’s going to be a choice for everyone to travel. That’s not the reality of the situation.
The premise you challenged was that travel cost is the only practical downside of this ruling. I take it you withdrew your opposition to that premise.
I’m a little drunk so none of this is thought out but I think you should work on the EQ. There’s a reason we don’t let logic brained scientists control anything.
The premise you challenged was that travel cost is the only practical downside of this ruling. I take it you withdrew your opposition to that premise.
I’m a little drunk so none of this is thought out but I think you should work on the EQ. There’s a reason we don’t let logic brained scientists control anything.
Always chuckleworthy to see someone move entirely from attacking the position to attacking the person.
I’m a little drunk so none of this is thought out but I think you should work on the EQ. There’s a reason we don’t let logic brained scientists control anything.
Always chuckleworthy to see someone move entirely from attacking the position to attacking the person.
Rabbi in FL files suit challenging state constitutionality of its 15-week limit, basing it both on the state constitution protected right to privacy (despite SCOTUS’ admittance of privacy being a flawed argument) and as an assault on religious liberty because Judaism interestingly — this seems true — requires abortion in order to protect the life of the mother, however FL already allows exceptions to protect the life of the mother (but not rape/incest) even in the third trimester. FYI, 2% of abortions in FL happen beyond the 15th week including medically necessary ones.
See, this is what happens when you play footsie with another fake lawyer type such as Armstrongluvs -- you turn into a fake lawyer type yourself. There is stench afoot.
The SCOTUS didn't "admit" anything in Dobbs. And they didn't say there aren't privacy rights in the Constitutional, only that abortion is not one of them.
The SCOTUS in Dobbs certainly never even looked at the Florida Constitution, which expressly states that "Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life . . ." The Florida Supreme Court says the right to terminate a pregnancy is private within the meaning of the Florida Constitution and has previously struck down Florida statue provisions restricting abortion. The SCOTUS decision in Dobbs has nothing to do with the lawsuit filed by the Florida rabbi/mohel. Whatever you think the SCOTUS said about privacy is irrelevant to what the Florida Constitution and Florida courts says about privacy. The Florida Supreme Court could give a flying H. Christ about what the SCOTUS thinks about privacy and/or abortion in Florida.
Always chuckleworthy to see someone move entirely from attacking the position to attacking the person.
Not attacking. Just trying to help.
Really? You can’t honestly think you’d say that to someone in real life without an intent to be insulting and without having them hear it as such, or would you?
Really? You can’t honestly think you’d say that to someone in real life without an intent to be insulting and without having them hear it as such, or would you?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.