Roe v Wade is on deck

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not that God did it, that god created an intelligently designed human body that couldn't prevent it. Unlike whales, with regards to cancer....

The bible doesn't claim that God made a race of Super Humans who could eat kryptonite with impunity.

Correct, it doesn't.

Also, Shriners is packed full of children that didn't eat kryptonite with impunity.

 

[Elixir]

Not that God did it, that god created an intelligently designed human body that couldn't prevent it. Unlike whales, with regards to cancer....

The bible doesn't claim that God made a race of Super Humans who could eat kryptonite with impunity.

Correct, it doesn't.

Also, Shriners is packed full of children that didn't eat kryptonite with impunity.

Look here, dude.
Good shit? God.
Bad shit? Not God.
Got it?
Allah Akbar, ya fookin maroons!

 

[TomC]

The difference between what pro-lifers say, and what they do… is what they do.

I've got no trouble expanding on your excellent post.

The thing I find most aggravating about people who consider themselves Pro-Life is that it's a flat out lie. What they usually mean is anti-abortion, which is not the same thing at all.
I also see a raft of issues revolving around people choosing death for other people. From "pre-emptive" war, to dire poverty, to environmental degradation, to capital punishment, the list is long. And most often the self-described Pro-Life people are Pro-Death on every other issue. Issues that are much more important than meddling in abortion.
Tom

 

[TV and credit cards]

Justice Thomas misses Supreme Court session Monday with no explanation

The 75-year-old also is not participating remotely in arguments, as justices sometimes do when they are ill or otherwise can’t be there in person.

apnews.com

 

[Elixir]

Justice Thomas misses Supreme Court session Monday with no explanation

The 75-year-old also is not participating remotely in arguments, as justices sometimes do when they are ill or otherwise can’t be there in person.

apnews.com

It’d be a shame if something happened to that avaricious fuck.

 

[TomC]

Justice Thomas misses Supreme Court session Monday with no explanation

The 75-year-old also is not participating remotely in arguments, as justices sometimes do when they are ill or otherwise can’t be there in person.

apnews.com

It’d be a shame if something happened to that avaricious fuck.

You're such a racist.
Black man makes good and you want bad things to happen to that uppity...
Tom

 

[TV and credit cards]

Justice Thomas misses Supreme Court session Monday with no explanation

The 75-year-old also is not participating remotely in arguments, as justices sometimes do when they are ill or otherwise can’t be there in person.

apnews.com

It’d be a shame if something happened to that avaricious fuck.

Yeah, him and Ginni don't exactly look like they're big into salads. For life expectancy, he's on borrowed time now.

 

[laughing dog]

Justice Thomas misses Supreme Court session Monday with no explanation

The 75-year-old also is not participating remotely in arguments, as justices sometimes do when they are ill or otherwise can’t be there in person.

apnews.com

It’d be a shame if something happened to that avaricious fuck.

Yeah, him and Ginni don't exactly look like they're big into salads. For life expectancy, he's on borrowed time now.

I think he is depressed because he missed out on John Oliver's generous offer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you and your fellow forced-birthers really wanted to reduce abortions, you could eliminate 50% of them in less than 12 weeks (and even more in the next 12 weeks) by supporting free and easily accessed long acting reversible birth control and comprehensive sexuality education.

But the reality of your position is that every time people who call themselves “pro-life” are given the chance to reduce abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies, you turn it down and fight against it. You are READY to have more ongoing abortions, for decades, so that you don’t have condone sex outside of procreation.

This. Availability of good sex and and birth control has a huge impact on the abortion rate.

List of countries by abortion rate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sort the chart by the abortion rate, lowest to highest. Now how the sexually liberal countries dominate the top of the list? We are #46 out of 153 data points.

 

[Ford]

Have I mentioned how much I love our local NPR affiliate? KJZZ has a newsroom filled with dedicated journalists who follow local stories and (I looked this up awhile back when I was applying for a job there) the only locally produced midday news magazine show of any NPR affiliate in the country.

AZ Republican Shitfuckery

Simply put, when faced with the prospect of the 1864 law being overridden by a voter initiative due to massive public outrage, the AZ GOP decided to deliberately muddy the waters by putting multiple "competing" proposals up for the sole purpose of diluting the vote and keeping the Civil War era law on the books.

 

[Rhea]

Well, Lion had posted in other threads 20+ times since I issued the challenge to him.
Looks like the question was too difficult.

Just to recall, the question was, essentially:
“Which is more important to you? Fighting against sex or fighting against abortions?”

More specifically, If you could stop abortions by handing out and promoting condoms, would you do it? Or is controlling sex so important that you’d actually rather let abortions happen instead of appearing to give up the fight against sex?


ANd it looks like Lion is not interested in revealing his position on this question with his words, just with his actions. Which also gives an answer, but may be one that he’s not entirely comfortable owning.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is likely to be on the ballot in Nevada now.

 

[ZiprHead]

The Supreme Court Is About To Debate Whether States Can Outlaw Life-Saving Abortions

An Idaho abortion ban is challenging a federal law requiring hospitals to provide an abortion to stabilize the health of a pregnant person during a medical emergency.

www.huffpost.com

The Supreme Court this week will debate whether states have the power to outlaw life-saving abortions in hospital emergency rooms.
The court will hear Idaho v. United States on Wednesday to determine if the narrow exceptions in Idaho’s near-total abortion ban override federally mandated requirements for physicians under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). EMTALA requires hospitals that participate in Medicare — the majority of hospitals in the country — to offer abortion care if it’s necessary to stabilize the health of a pregnant patient while they’re experiencing a medical emergency.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Justice Thomas misses Supreme Court session Monday with no explanation

The 75-year-old also is not participating remotely in arguments, as justices sometimes do when they are ill or otherwise can’t be there in person.

apnews.com

It’d be a shame if something happened to that avaricious fuck.

You're such a racist.
Black man makes good and you want bad things to happen to that uppity...
Tom

Yeah. it’s amazing how self-made he is.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is likely to be on the ballot in Nevada now.

And will probably pass. The last time abortion was on the ballot here it was a solid win for the pro-choice side.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The far-right of SCOTUS are at it again.

An hour and a half into the argument, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked about the term “unborn child” in the EMTALA statute:
“Isn’t that an odd phrase to put in a statute that imposes a mandate to perform abortions?”

This is the line of questioning that many abortion rights advocates were most worried about, because it opens the door for the justices to make arguments about fetal personhood. It’s notable, I think, that this didn’t really come up until now. But Alito is really drilling down, arguing that, per EMTALA, a hospital has a legal responsibility to stabilize both the threat to the woman and to the “unborn child.”
“It seems the plain meaning is that the hospital must try to eliminate any immediate threat to the child,” he said.

No shit sherlock! If the life of the fetus is in danger, the doctors are required to help save the fetus, according to the rules. BUT!!! No one is saying that isn't the case. What they are saying is when the life of the mother is in grave danger due to fetal maldevelopment.

What a fucking asshole!

These fuckwads are even suggesting that the Federal Government is criminalizing medical care. Who in the fuck do these assholes think they are to make these fucking morally and legally bankrupt arguments? They are supposed to be the best Judges in the country.

 

[Lion IRC]

The far-right of SCOTUS are at it again.

An hour and a half into the argument, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked about the term “unborn child” in the EMTALA statute:
“Isn’t that an odd phrase to put in a statute that imposes a mandate to perform abortions?”

This is the line of questioning that many abortion rights advocates were most worried about, because it opens the door for the justices to make arguments about fetal personhood. It’s notable, I think, that this didn’t really come up until now. But Alito is really drilling down, arguing that, per EMTALA, a hospital has a legal responsibility to stabilize both the threat to the woman and to the “unborn child.”
“It seems the plain meaning is that the hospital must try to eliminate any immediate threat to the child,” he said.

No shit sherlock! If the life of the fetus is in danger, the doctors are required to help save the fetus, according to the rules. BUT!!! No one is saying that isn't the case.

Yes, they are.
The case hinges on the "is she sick enough" test applied to justify the elective abortion - irrespective of how healthy the unborn baby is.

What they are saying is when the life of the mother is in grave danger due to fetal maldevelopment.

No, the imminent danger to the mother need not be the direct result of a medical condition caused by the pregnancy or 'maldevelopment' of the fetus..

Rosenbaum...told reporters last week. “It is a sad but true fact that you can have a medical emergency that may have nothing to do with pregnancy..."

...Who in the fuck do these assholes think they are to make these fucking morally and legally bankrupt arguments? They are supposed to be the best Judges in the country.

In what universe do you think highly qualified senior judges are all supposed to unanimously agree on every possible philosophical/legal argument about the interpretation of a statute?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The far-right of SCOTUS are at it again.

An hour and a half into the argument, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked about the term “unborn child” in the EMTALA statute:
“Isn’t that an odd phrase to put in a statute that imposes a mandate to perform abortions?”

This is the line of questioning that many abortion rights advocates were most worried about, because it opens the door for the justices to make arguments about fetal personhood. It’s notable, I think, that this didn’t really come up until now. But Alito is really drilling down, arguing that, per EMTALA, a hospital has a legal responsibility to stabilize both the threat to the woman and to the “unborn child.”
“It seems the plain meaning is that the hospital must try to eliminate any immediate threat to the child,” he said.

No shit sherlock! If the life of the fetus is in danger, the doctors are required to help save the fetus, according to the rules. BUT!!! No one is saying that isn't the case.

Yes, they are.
The case hinges on the "is she sick enough" test applied to justify the elective abortion - irrespective of how healthy the unborn baby is.

Clearly showing that you do not understand. We aren't talking about elective abortions!

What they are saying is when the life of the mother is in grave danger due to fetal maldevelopment.

No, the imminent danger to the mother need not be the direct result of a medical condition caused by the pregnancy or 'maldevelopment' of the fetus..

Rosenbaum...told reporters last week. “It is a sad but true fact that you can have a medical emergency that may have nothing to do with pregnancy..."

Whether it was caused by the pregnancy or not is irrelevant. The question is whether the pregnancy poses a danger, not how that danger came to be.

Let's consider one of my wife's relatives. The pregnancy itself was fine, the problem was elsewhere. Abort/expect major fetal damage/go blind. What should she have done? (And note that her case would be considered an "elective" abortion. The word doesn't mean what you think it means.)

...Who in the fuck do these assholes think they are to make these fucking morally and legally bankrupt arguments? They are supposed to be the best Judges in the country.

In what universe do you think highly qualified senior judges are all supposed to unanimously agree on every possible philosophical/legal argument about the interpretation of a statute?

The only reason this even reached SCOTUS is the Heritage Foundation has severely corrupted our Judiciary. Simply apply the normal self-defense laws, I believe in all 50 states the law now is the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense in order to get a conviction. And others can always step into your shoes in self defense (although some states restrict what others.) Legally that puts them in exactly the same position you were--if it would have been legal for you to take the action then it's legal for them, also.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We don't need posts like the one above here. Even in jest.

 

[Playball40]

Justice Thomas misses Supreme Court session Monday with no explanation

The 75-year-old also is not participating remotely in arguments, as justices sometimes do when they are ill or otherwise can’t be there in person.

apnews.com

It’d be a shame if something happened to that avaricious fuck.

Yeah, him and Ginni don't exactly look like they're big into salads. For life expectancy, he's on borrowed time now.

Actually that's a misnomer. Life longevity is greatest for those slightly overweight.