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?
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.
It looks increasingly likely that Dr. Caitlin Bernard, the OBGYN who originally made the claim to the Indianapolis Star, lied about the 10-year-old child rape story in order to sell a sympathetic abortion narrative to the pub...
I like the news story of the pregnant lady in Plano Texas that was driving in the HOV Lane. She tried to tell the cop that her unborn baby was the other occupant in the car.
I like the news story of the pregnant lady in Plano Texas that was driving in the HOV Lane. She tried to tell the cop that her unborn baby was the other occupant in the car.
Some of us don’t see a problem. Although there would be no contradiction of principle like The Simians like to start jumping about even if TX rules that a person entirely inside another doesn’t help reduce traffic and therefore doesn’t merit HOV status.
Huh, looks like everyone got tired and went home. Or they just all shot each other.
The conversation fizzled out just like the topic of abortion is fizzling out for voters. Recent New York Times poll had abortion as a concern for only 5% of the voters polled, falling behind the economy (20%), inflation (15%), state of democracy (11%), gun policy (10%).
It was the hot topic for a few weeks until people remembered that their lives are affected more by the economy than a SCOTUS ruling.
The US Supreme Court ruled that since the US Constitution doesn't mention uteruses or abortion, that states are free to lock up women who get abortions. Half the country no longer has bodily autonomy. Shouldn't we all be concerned about that? And what else doesn't the Constitution mention?
The US Supreme Court ruled that since the US Constitution doesn't mention uteruses or abortion, that states are free to lock up women who get abortions. Half the country no longer has bodily autonomy. Shouldn't we all be concerned about that? And what else doesn't the Constitution mention?
The avg voter is forgetful. The overturn was a too long ago to matter....unless voters are reminded of it. Even then, the overturn does not affect the avg person the way inflation does.
The US Supreme Court ruled that since the US Constitution doesn't mention uteruses or abortion, that states are free to lock up women who get abortions.
That is absolutely NOT what it ruled. Typical extremist propaganda. And, contrary to what pro-abortionists are saying, abortion is NOT illegal now. For the first 184 years of our nation's history, abortion decisions were in the hands of the individual state governments. Roe vs Wade put it in the hands of the federal government. The recent decision determined that the SCOTUS made a wrong decision according to the constitution in 1973 and returned the decision to the states.
States that have provisions for ballot initiatives or amedments will likely get abortion on the ballot. Pro-choice already won in Kansas. There are five or six more coming in November. More in 2023 and 2024. When these laws pass in red states, expect the state legislatures to try and repeal the ballot initiative laws so they can further pass laws restricting access.
States with no ballot initiatives will continue to have laws passed by old white men who restrict whatever it is they don't like, particularly anything having to do with women's rights.
