Well said. I agree 100%.Turkeytop wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 1:27 pm So, I know you've all been waiting for me to weigh in on this.
First of all, my views are not based on religion. I don't have a religious bone in my body.
I believe abortion is wrong. If the woman was a family member or someone else over whom I have influence, I would try to talk her out of it. I view it as immoral.
On the other hand, I don't believe we can legislate marality. I shouldn't be allowed to impose my morallity on others.
It's a decision between a woman and her Doctor, or her God (If that's what she believes in.)
Some registered account users are experiencing password recognition issues. The issue appears to have been triggered by a PHP update last night. If this is occurring, please try logging in and using the "forgot password?" utility. Bear in mind auto-generated password reset emails may appear in your spam folder. If this does not work, please click the "Contact Us" option near the lower right hand corner of the index page to contact me via email.
Thank you for your patience!
- M.W.
Thank you for your patience!
- M.W.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
- MotorCityRadioFreak
- Posts: 7333
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
- Location: Warren, MI
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
They/them, non-binary and proud.
Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
Very eloquent, well-spoken, and sound.Turkeytop wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 1:27 pm So, I know you've all been waiting for me to weigh in on this.
First of all, my views are not based on religion. I don't have a religious bone in my body.
I believe abortion is wrong. If the woman was a family member or someone else over whom I have influence, I would try to talk her out of it. I view it as immoral.
On the other hand, I don't believe we can legislate marality. I shouldn't be allowed to impose my morallity on others.
It's a decision between a woman and her Doctor, or her God (If that's what she believes in.)
The censorship king from out of state.
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
Only if you also support the harvesting and sale of organs, prostitution, and various other sundry things a woman could choose to do with her body that are currently illegalHoneyman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:42 pmand sound.Turkeytop wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 1:27 pm So, I know you've all been waiting for me to weigh in on this.
First of all, my views are not based on religion. I don't have a religious bone in my body.
I believe abortion is wrong. If the woman was a family member or someone else over whom I have influence, I would try to talk her out of it. I view it as immoral.
On the other hand, I don't believe we can legislate marality. I shouldn't be allowed to impose my morallity on others.
It's a decision between a woman and her Doctor, or her God (If that's what she believes in.)
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
and sound.Bryce wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:11 pm [quote=Honeyman post_id=703706 time=<a href="tel:1656376972">1656376972</a> user_id=8914]
[quote=Turkeytop post_id=703673 time=<a href="tel:1656350862">1656350862</a> user_id=8801]
So, I know you've all been waiting for me to weigh in on this.
First of all, my views are not based on religion. I don't have a religious bone in my body.
I believe abortion is wrong. If the woman was a family member or someone else over whom I have influence, I would try to talk her out of it. I view it as immoral.
On the other hand, I don't believe we can legislate marality. I shouldn't be allowed to impose my morallity on others.
It's a decision between a woman and her Doctor, or her God (If that's what she believes in.)
[/quote]
Only if you also support the harvesting and sale of organs, prostitution, and various other sundry things a woman could choose to do with her body that are currently illegal
[/quote]
Your business how exactly? This is what I don’t get… conservatives want government out of everything except peoples personal lives. Then it’s micromanagement mania.
Donald Trump… In your guts you know he’s nuts.
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
We all have certaine legal restrictions as to what we can do with our bodies. I Can't use my fists, feet or any other part of my body to assault another person.
I got arrested once for laying my body beneath the wheels of a bus full of scabs.
But there are no restictions at all as to what I do to my own body. I can get it pierced or tattooed fattened, slimmed, tanned, bleached or shaved.
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
Okay. I read the thread all the way thru earlier today. Like others, I am pro-life. I feel abortion is murder. You get the idea. Others on here of course are pro-choice. It's a woman's choice to do whatever she wants with her body.
Having said all that, how do y'all feel about this:
Both sides agree that it's legal up to 15 weeks. That covers a rape. At 15 weeks, preemies are making it. At 15 weeks, the doctors know if there is something wrong.
Can anyone else set aside their personal beliefs, as I am now, and agree it's time for both sides to meet in the middle?
Having said all that, how do y'all feel about this:
Both sides agree that it's legal up to 15 weeks. That covers a rape. At 15 weeks, preemies are making it. At 15 weeks, the doctors know if there is something wrong.
Can anyone else set aside their personal beliefs, as I am now, and agree it's time for both sides to meet in the middle?
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
I am personally against abortion but don’t feel it’s the governments business. However I could sign on to something like this as a compromise if we could settle it that way.In The Bleachers wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:30 pm Okay. I read the thread all the way thru earlier today. Like others, I am pro-life. I feel abortion is murder. You get the idea. Others on here of course are pro-choice. It's a woman's choice to do whatever she wants with her body.
Having said all that, how do y'all feel about this:
Both sides agree that it's legal up to 15 weeks. That covers a rape. At 15 weeks, preemies are making it. At 15 weeks, the doctors know if there is something wrong.
Can anyone else set aside their personal beliefs, as I am now, and agree it's time for both sides to meet in the middle?
Donald Trump… In your guts you know he’s nuts.
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
Me too. I would clearly sign on to that. Roberts would agree. But the other 5 decided they are not only judge and jury, but want to play God too.In The Bleachers wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:30 pm Okay. I read the thread all the way thru earlier today. Like others, I am pro-life. I feel abortion is murder. You get the idea. Others on here of course are pro-choice. It's a woman's choice to do whatever she wants with her body.
Having said all that, how do y'all feel about this:
Both sides agree that it's legal up to 15 weeks. That covers a rape. At 15 weeks, preemies are making it. At 15 weeks, the doctors know if there is something wrong.
Can anyone else set aside their personal beliefs, as I am now, and agree it's time for both sides to meet in the middle?
The censorship king from out of state.
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
As the Supreme Court ruled, "meeting in the middle' is not something that should take place on a national level. "Meeting in the middle," compromise and regulations pertaining such are to be reached by the legislature and voters of each state.In The Bleachers wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:30 pm Okay. I read the thread all the way thru earlier today. Like others, I am pro-life. I feel abortion is murder. You get the idea. Others on here of course are pro-choice. It's a woman's choice to do whatever she wants with her body.
Having said all that, how do y'all feel about this:
Both sides agree that it's legal up to 15 weeks. That covers a rape. At 15 weeks, preemies are making it. At 15 weeks, the doctors know if there is something wrong.
Can anyone else set aside their personal beliefs, as I am now, and agree it's time for both sides to meet in the middle?
The Tenth Amendment is pretty clear on that.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
However there are a number of ways you could justify a national law legalizing abortion based on clauses in the constitution. Interstate commerce and treaties come to mind. You just have to tailor the language to fit said definitions. The womens health protection act of 2021 (not passed) had several examples of this in it. The U.S. has ratified treaties that recognize the right to an abortion. Is SCOTUS really going to bend over backwards and get rid of the law ignoring that treaties are one of the powers delegated to the congress?Bryce wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:55 amAs the Supreme Court ruled, "meeting in the middle' is not something that should take place on a national level. "Meeting in the middle," compromise and regulations pertaining such are to be reached by the legislature and voters of each state.In The Bleachers wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:30 pm Okay. I read the thread all the way thru earlier today. Like others, I am pro-life. I feel abortion is murder. You get the idea. Others on here of course are pro-choice. It's a woman's choice to do whatever she wants with her body.
Having said all that, how do y'all feel about this:
Both sides agree that it's legal up to 15 weeks. That covers a rape. At 15 weeks, preemies are making it. At 15 weeks, the doctors know if there is something wrong.
Can anyone else set aside their personal beliefs, as I am now, and agree it's time for both sides to meet in the middle?
The Tenth Amendment is pretty clear on that.The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Donald Trump… In your guts you know he’s nuts.
- MotorCityRadioFreak
- Posts: 7333
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
- Location: Warren, MI
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
I am personally pro life myself but feel that women should have control of their bodies. I would sign on to this if the exceptions were rape, incest, and the life of the mother.In The Bleachers wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:30 pm Okay. I read the thread all the way thru earlier today. Like others, I am pro-life. I feel abortion is murder. You get the idea. Others on here of course are pro-choice. It's a woman's choice to do whatever she wants with her body.
Having said all that, how do y'all feel about this:
Both sides agree that it's legal up to 15 weeks. That covers a rape. At 15 weeks, preemies are making it. At 15 weeks, the doctors know if there is something wrong.
Can anyone else set aside their personal beliefs, as I am now, and agree it's time for both sides to meet in the middle?
They/them, non-binary and proud.
Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
Look at this nonsense:
Ok. Women are not being denied "the constitutional right to an abortion" as NO SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT EXISTS! Why does the media keep insisting that it does? The Supreme Court literally found that no such right exists, yet the media keeps talking as if it does.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... o-abortionJoe Biden is to sign an executive order offering protections to millions of American women denied the constitutional right to an abortion.
Ok. Women are not being denied "the constitutional right to an abortion" as NO SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT EXISTS! Why does the media keep insisting that it does? The Supreme Court literally found that no such right exists, yet the media keeps talking as if it does.
Talk about flipping the bird to the Supreme Court. Such an EO won't stand up in Court. SCOTUS returned this decision to elected officials, not to the President via executive order.According to a fact sheet released by the administration, Biden’s order will safeguard access to reproductive healthcare services, including abortion and contraception. This includes access to medication abortions, also known as abortion pills, approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
Among the provisions is a plan for Merrick Garland, the attorney general, and Dana Remus, the White House counsel, to convene private pro bono lawyers, bar associations and public interest organisations to encourage “robust legal representation of patients, providers, and third parties lawfully seeking or offering reproductive health care services throughout the country”.
Such representation could include protecting the right to travel out of state to seek an abortion. Biden and Garland have vowed to oppose any state or local official who attempts to interfere with women exercising that right.
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
Joe Biden is an authoritarian, an idiot, and a , but Dobbs doesn't preclude him from issuing an EO. His quote makes it more likely that executive power will be challenged and perhaps reigned in.bmw wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:59 am Look at this nonsense:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... o-abortionJoe Biden is to sign an executive order offering protections to millions of American women denied the constitutional right to an abortion.
Ok. Women are not being denied "the constitutional right to an abortion" as NO SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT EXISTS! Why does the media keep insisting that it does? The Supreme Court literally found that no such right exists, yet the media keeps talking as if it does.
Talk about flipping the bird to the Supreme Court. Such an EO won't stand up in Court. SCOTUS returned this decision to elected officials, not to the President via executive order.According to a fact sheet released by the administration, Biden’s order will safeguard access to reproductive healthcare services, including abortion and contraception. This includes access to medication abortions, also known as abortion pills, approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
Among the provisions is a plan for Merrick Garland, the attorney general, and Dana Remus, the White House counsel, to convene private pro bono lawyers, bar associations and public interest organisations to encourage “robust legal representation of patients, providers, and third parties lawfully seeking or offering reproductive health care services throughout the country”.
Such representation could include protecting the right to travel out of state to seek an abortion. Biden and Garland have vowed to oppose any state or local official who attempts to interfere with women exercising that right.
This is a pro-Harris/Walz account
"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- ... 3/579.html (Youngstown v. Sawyer)The President's power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law- ... ir-limits/Executive orders are not unchecked strokes of power from the president's pen;...executive orders must fit within a certain sphere of power and cannot simply defy Congressional intent.
Although this area of law remains in flux, executive orders have the most legitimacy when the president is acting with the implied or express authority of Congress. However, these executive orders may still legally shape policy if the laws or Congress have been silent on an issue.
Because Congress is rarely silent on major issues, executive orders are most common in areas where the president has been granted discretion by Congress. Regardless of the president's relationship with the federal legislature, executive orders will only allow a very small policy window in which to make changes.
Given that, I'd be curious to know the legal basis for such an executive order.
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
There isn't one.bmw wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:50 amhttps://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- ... 3/579.html (Youngstown v. Sawyer)The President's power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law- ... ir-limits/Executive orders are not unchecked strokes of power from the president's pen;...executive orders must fit within a certain sphere of power and cannot simply defy Congressional intent.
Although this area of law remains in flux, executive orders have the most legitimacy when the president is acting with the implied or express authority of Congress. However, these executive orders may still legally shape policy if the laws or Congress have been silent on an issue.
Because Congress is rarely silent on major issues, executive orders are most common in areas where the president has been granted discretion by Congress. Regardless of the president's relationship with the federal legislature, executive orders will only allow a very small policy window in which to make changes.
Given that, I'd be curious to know the legal basis for such an executive order.
This is a pro-Harris/Walz account
"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw