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.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues across the U.S. and throughout the World. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
Post Reply
Matt
Posts: 11505
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Home of the National Champions

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Unread post by Matt »

audiophile wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:29 pm
bmw wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:12 pm
MotorCityRadioFreak wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:35 pm When you voted for DJT in 2016...
Days like yesterday and today were precisely the reason I encouraged never-Trumpers back in 2016 to vote for Trump. Trump's presidency may have only lasted 4 years, but his legacy will last for decades through the Supreme Court.
You were right, I just didn't believe he was serious. I did not vote for him in 2016. I don't think Matt did either.
I voted for Trump both times.
This is a pro-Harris/Walz account

"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7178
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Unread post by Bryce »

I'm wondering if TC talks is shoving a coat hanger up his ass even as I type.
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.
User avatar
MotorCityRadioFreak
Posts: 7333
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
Location: Warren, MI

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Unread post by MotorCityRadioFreak »

Don't blame me, I voted for Hillary.
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.
User avatar
MotorCityRadioFreak
Posts: 7333
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
Location: Warren, MI

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Unread post by MotorCityRadioFreak »

Copied from a Facebook friend:

I'm not pro-murdering babies.

I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20-week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.

I'm pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.

I'm pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.

I'm pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11-year-old body isn't mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.

I'm pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her.

I'm pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child.

I'm pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE number of fetuses.

I'm pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child.

I'm pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.

I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.

I'm pro-Courtney who just found out she's already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.

You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:
I'm pro-life.
Their lives.
Women's lives.

You don't get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted. It's not about which stories you don't agree with. It's about fighting for the women in the stories that you do agree with and the CHOICE that was made.

Women's rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!

Overturning Roe does not stop abortions, it stops SAFE abortions!

Abortion is healthcare.
And I have personally dealt with friends who have been raped and sexually assaulted so that's why I am pissed, Matty.
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.
Matt
Posts: 11505
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Home of the National Champions

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Unread post by Matt »

MotorCityRadioFreak wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:07 pm Don't blame me, I voted for Hillary.
Don't blame me, I voted for Trump.
This is a pro-Harris/Walz account

"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
Matt
Posts: 11505
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Home of the National Champions

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Unread post by Matt »

MotorCityRadioFreak wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:26 am Copied from a Facebook friend:

I'm not pro-murdering babies.

I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20-week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.

I'm pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.

I'm pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.

I'm pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11-year-old body isn't mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.

I'm pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her.

I'm pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child.

I'm pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE number of fetuses.

I'm pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child.

I'm pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.

I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.

I'm pro-Courtney who just found out she's already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.

You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:
I'm pro-life.
Their lives.
Women's lives.

You don't get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted. It's not about which stories you don't agree with. It's about fighting for the women in the stories that you do agree with and the CHOICE that was made.

Women's rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!

Overturning Roe does not stop abortions, it stops SAFE abortions!

Abortion is healthcare.
And I have personally dealt with friends who have been raped and sexually assaulted so that's why I am pissed, Matty.
Most states will end up with rape exceptions and health of the mother - there is NO reason to be so overly emotional about a correct decision.
This is a pro-Harris/Walz account

"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
Matt
Posts: 11505
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Home of the National Champions

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Unread post by Matt »

From Justice Alito:
Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.
This is a pro-Harris/Walz account

"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
User avatar
MotorCityRadioFreak
Posts: 7333
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
Location: Warren, MI

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Unread post by MotorCityRadioFreak »

Matt wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:33 am
MotorCityRadioFreak wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:26 am Copied from a Facebook friend:

I'm not pro-murdering babies.

I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20-week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.

I'm pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.

I'm pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.

I'm pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11-year-old body isn't mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.

I'm pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her.

I'm pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child.

I'm pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE number of fetuses.

I'm pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child.

I'm pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.

I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.

I'm pro-Courtney who just found out she's already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.

You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:
I'm pro-life.
Their lives.
Women's lives.

You don't get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted. It's not about which stories you don't agree with. It's about fighting for the women in the stories that you do agree with and the CHOICE that was made.

Women's rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!

Overturning Roe does not stop abortions, it stops SAFE abortions!

Abortion is healthcare.
And I have personally dealt with friends who have been raped and sexually assaulted so that's why I am pissed, Matty.
Most states will end up with rape exceptions and health of the mother - there is NO reason to be so overly emotional about a correct decision.
Shit a pro life man says....
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.
User avatar
MotorCityRadioFreak
Posts: 7333
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
Location: Warren, MI

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Unread post by MotorCityRadioFreak »

Matt wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:36 am From Justice Alito:
Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.
So, womens' rights change based on who is elected office? Fuck that. Rights are rights.
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.
bmw
Posts: 7749
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Unread post by bmw »

MotorCityRadioFreak wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:51 am
Matt wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:36 am From Justice Alito:
Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.
So, womens' rights change based on who is elected office? Fuck that. Rights are rights.
Rights don't "change." What the court specifically found was that no such right ever existed and that the Court got it wrong in the past when they claimed such a right did exist.

I do agree that "rights are rights." However, having an abortion is not and never was one of them.

btw - why all the pissing and moaning from the left on this ruling? There's nothing that says the federal government can't codify everything that was contained in Roe and Casey. And if there's not enough votes to do that, then too bad.
User avatar
MotorCityRadioFreak
Posts: 7333
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
Location: Warren, MI

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Unread post by MotorCityRadioFreak »

It’s all about fucking control. Almost every country in Europe recognizes the right to choose for women and now we don’t. Guns have more rights in this damn country than women. You have freedom to carry whereas they are forced to carry.
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.
Matt
Posts: 11505
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Home of the National Champions

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Unread post by Matt »

MotorCityRadioFreak wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 1:19 am It’s all about fucking control. Almost every country in Europe recognizes the right to choose for women and now we don’t. Guns have more rights in this damn country than women. You have freedom to carry whereas they are forced to carry.
Don't even start with that after your cheerleading for shutting everything down...

Also, guns don't have any rights, but keep parroting the leftist victim talking points. What's next: throwing racial slurs at Clarence Thomas?
This is a pro-Harris/Walz account

"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
User avatar
FakeAndyStuart
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2015 7:07 pm
Location: MOVED! Now residing in CurmudgeonLand

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Unread post by FakeAndyStuart »

bmw wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:58 am btw - why all the pissing and moaning from the left on this ruling? There's nothing that says the federal government can't codify everything that was contained in Roe and Casey. And if there's not enough votes to do that, then too bad.
I think there are a few points that need to be clarified concerning "pissing and moaning" -

1) True, the feds can codify the whole thing. EXCEPT we live in a country where 21% of the population controls 40% of the Senate, which is enough to stop anything a majority wants to accomplish. Perhaps that will be a good thing in the future, when 40 senators can stop the new majority from limiting voting rights, etc. But overall, the current Congressional model is nothing happens. (Face it, the bi-partisan "gun" bill is a whole bunch of nothing.)

2) I believe that abortion should be safe, legal and very rare. I'm open to different approaches and methods to get there. But I don't want politicians making medical decisions. AND until you are ready to save baby's lives AFTER they are born (health care, food assistance, child care for single moms who have to work to pay to raise the child etc.) your comments and efforts are duplicitous.
User avatar
kager
Posts: 1473
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:10 pm
Location: GPS lost

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Unread post by kager »

The talking heads @ 2much2day this morning teased the story on this decision as - quoting now -

The End Of The Constitutional Right To Abortion

Why? Is there any truth to that? Or is it just...

Sell, sell, sell!
"Enjoy every sandwich."
User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7178
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Unread post by Bryce »

bmw wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:58 am
btw - why all the pissing and moaning from the left on this ruling? There's nothing that says the federal government can't codify everything that was contained in Roe and Casey. And if there's not enough votes to do that, then too bad.
I don't think they can. Congress does not have the power to nullify state law. The Supreme Court can if they find it to be unconstitutional.
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.
Post Reply