This is just how ridiculous the retarded right have become


Quote:

A US woman who miscarried at 21 weeks pregnant could face a year in prison in Ohio after she was charged with abuse of a corpse. Brittany Watts, 33, began passing thick blood clots during her second trimester in September. A doctor told her that while the foetal heartbeat was still present, her water had broken prematurely and the foetus would not survive. He advised heading to the hospital to have her labour induced, so she could have what amounted to an abortion to deliver the non-viable foetus. Otherwise, she would face "significant risk" of death, according to records of her case. What followed for Ms Watts was a harrowing three days of multiple trips to the hospital; and miscarrying in a toilet at her home. These actions, investigated by police, led to the charge of abuse of a corpse, a felony punishable by up to a year in prison and a $US2,500 ($3,731)  fine. Ohio abortion law Last year, the Supreme Court overturned the historic Roe v Wade legal decision, making it the responsibility of individual states to decide if abortion is legal. Abortion is legal in Ohio but is restricted. A law signed by Republican Governor Mike DeWine in April 2019 prohibits most abortions after the first 21 weeks and six days. The law states that abortion is legal until "viability" which is the stage of pregnancy where the foetus is determined to be able to develop outside of the womb. But, "viability" varies in each pregnancy and Ms Watts's was determined non-viable. When Ms Watts first experienced the blood clots she was 21 weeks and five days pregnant. As she waited eight hours in urgent care she arrived at 21 weeks and six days, the cut-off for a legal abortion.  The delay was because hospital officials were deliberating over the legalities, said Traci Timko, a lawyer for Ms Watts. "It was the fear of, is this going to constitute an abortion and are we able to do that," she said. Ms Watts left without being treated and, after arriving home, she miscarried. She returned to hospital a day later, no longer pregnant. A nurse from the hospital phoned 911, telling the dispatcher that Ms Watts did not want to have a child. Ms Watts insists she does not recall saying the pregnancy was unwanted; it was unintended, but she had always wanted to give her mother a grandchild, he lawyer said. "This 33-year-old girl with no criminal record is demonised for something that goes on every day," Ms Timko told Warren Municipal Court Judge Terry Ivanchak during Ms Watts’s recent preliminary hearing. Warren assistant prosecutor Lewis Guarnieri told Justice Ivanchak that Ms Watts left home for a hair appointment after miscarrying, leaving the toilet clogged. Police would later find the foetus wedged in the pipes. The size and stage of development of Ms Watts’s foetus — precisely the point when abortion crossed from legal to illegal in most cases — became an issue during her preliminary hearing. Testimony and an autopsy confirmed that the foetus died in utero before passing through the birth canal. Ms Watts's case was sent to a grand jury last month. It has touched off a national firestorm over the treatment of pregnant women, especially black women, in the aftermath of the overturning of Roe v Wade. Civil Rights attorney Benjamin Crump elevated Ms Watts's plight in a post to X, formerly Twitter, and supporters have donated more than $US100,000 through GoFundMe for her legal defence, medical bills and trauma counselling. Pregnant women like Ms Watts, who was not even trying to get an abortion, have increasingly found themselves charged with "crimes against their own pregnancies", said Grace Howard, assistant justice studies professor at San José State University. "Roe was a clear legal roadblock to charging felonies for unintentionally harming pregnancies, when women were legally allowed to end their pregnancies through abortion," she said. "Now that Roe is gone, that roadblock is entirely gone." Lawyer says black women are targets in 'wild west' Michele Goodwin, a law professor at the University of California said those efforts have overwhelmingly targetted black women. Even before Roe was overturned, studies show that black women who visited hospitals for prenatal care were 10 times more likely than white women to have child protective services and law enforcement called on them, even when their cases were similar, she said. "Post-Dobbs, what we see is kind of a wild, wild west," Ms Goodwin said. "You see this kind of muscle-flexing by district attorneys and prosecutors wanting to show that they are going to be vigilant, they're going to take down women who violate the ethos coming out of the state's legislature." She called black women "canaries in the coal mine" for the "hyper-vigilant type of policing" women of all races might expect from the nation's network of healthcare providers, law enforcers and courts now that abortion is not federally protected.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-17/ohio-woman-charged-after-miscarriage/103238764

The woman has a miscarriage, probably one of the most traumatic events in a woman's life, and instead of being allowed to grieve and mourn, now she has to deal with being treated like a criminal by the retarded right.

The right has a lot to answer for

An easily avoidable tragedy, and one that will
negatively affect this woman's psyche for the
rest of her life.

This reprehensible follow-on from the disgusting
ant-abortion rulings of the Republican politicians
should be soundly condemned, and the GOP
legislators directly held to account.

It's also as a direct result of the failed former
president loading the US Supreme Court with
Republican sympathisers, which indirectly means
Trump should be held personally responsible for
the US's national abortion fiasco.

Everything Trump touched with his tainted hands
invariably turned to disaster.

    >:(    >:(    >:(

AusGeoff wrote on Dec 17^th, 2023 at 12:05pm:

An easily avoidable tragedy, and one that will negatively affect this woman's psyche for the rest of her life. This reprehensible follow-on from the disgusting ant-abortion rulings of the Republican politicians should be soundly condemned, and the GOP legislators directly held to account. It's also as a direct result of the failed former president loading the US Supreme Court with Republican sympathisers, which indirectly means Trump should be held personally responsible for the US's national abortion fiasco. Everything Trump touched with his tainted hands invariably turned to disaster.     >:(    >:(    >:(

I thought that the Court ruled that it was a matter of States’ rights.
The ball is in the States’ court, literally.
How did the Justices err?
Were they wrong and if so, why?

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 21^st, 2023 at 12:08pm:

Were they wrong and if so, why?

women have a right to seek medical treatment

It was a 50 year step backward for the US.

Why are conservatives so stupid ? She miscarried, the waters had broken. It was all over when that happened.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 21^st, 2023 at 12:08pm:

AusGeoff wrote on Dec 17th, 2023 at 12:05pm: An easily avoidable tragedy, and one that will negatively affect this woman's psyche for the rest of her life. This reprehensible follow-on from the disgusting ant-abortion rulings of the Republican politicians should be soundly condemned, and the GOP legislators directly held to account. It's also as a direct result of the failed former president loading the US Supreme Court with Republican sympathisers, which indirectly means Trump should be held personally responsible for the US's national abortion fiasco. Everything Trump touched with his tainted hands invariably turned to disaster.     >:(    >:(    >:( I thought that the Court ruled that it was a matter of States’ rights. The ball is in the States’ court, literally. How did the Justices err? Were they wrong and if so, why?

Exactly.



This case has nothing to do with Roe v Wade anyway. The ABC article is very dishonest. It tries to create the impression that having a miscarriage is the basis of the 'abuse of corpse' charge. It is not at all.




When a hospital nurse asked Watts where the fetus was, Watts told her, and later the police, that the fetus was outdoors, near the garage; Watts added that she didn’t look inside the toilet to make sure. A hospital note written and signed by the nurse said, “Advised by risk management to contact Warren City Police to investigate the possibility of the infant being in a bucket at the patient’s residence.” The next record shows that the nurse called the police.

“I had a mother who had a delivery at home and came in without the baby and she says the baby’s in her backyard in a bucket,” the nurse said, according to a call recording obtained by The Post. “I need to have someone go find this baby, or direct me on what I need to do.”
WaPo.

John Smith wrote on Dec 21^st, 2023 at 12:56pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 12:08pm: Were they wrong and if so, why? women have a right to seek medical treatment

What on earth has that got to do with Roe versus Wade?

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 21^st, 2023 at 4:42pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 12:56pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 12:08pm: Were they wrong and if so, why? women have a right to seek medical treatment What on earth has that got to do with Roe versus Wade?

If you can't figure that out you should stay out of such topics.

You look at some of these horror stories and wonder if the Rethuglicans want to ever get back into power. Gee they will have to extend some of their jerrymanders.

John Smith wrote on Dec 21^st, 2023 at 7:53pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 4:42pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 12:56pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 12:08pm: Were they wrong and if so, why? women have a right to seek medical treatment What on earth has that got to do with Roe versus Wade? If you can't figure that out you should stay out of such topics.

:D :D
Well, you can't, thick as mince, but you bandy the notion about.

The ONLY thing the SCOTUS said in their recent judgement in the issue is that constitutionally, in a country that is made up of separate but united states, abortion is a matter for each of these states to legislate as THEY are the democratically constituted and elected authority to make such laws, NOT the the unelected SCOTUS to make laws for all of them.


That's all it said. Each state can legislate whatever its people can bear or want. Abortion law is for ELECETED representatives of the people to make, NOT for unelected SCOTUS judges far removed from and unanswerable to the people.

Mainly because American Politics is about Power.
Not population growth - of which the Artists are the most prolific.
Power - which the Democraps are pretty crap at. ;D
Maybe they should stick to Day Care Centres.

Quote:

The ONLY thing the SCOTUS said in their recent judgement in the issue is that constitutionally, in a country that is made up of separate but united states, abortion is a matter for each of these states to legislate as THEY are the democratically constituted and elected authority to make such laws, NOT the the unelected SCOTUS to make laws for all of them.

Nothing to do with roe v wade ehh buffoon? When was the last time a woman risked jail for a miscarriage before the rethuglicans took the USA back to the stone age? :D

Frank wrote on Dec 21^st, 2023 at 8:10pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 7:53pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 4:42pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 12:56pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 12:08pm: Were they wrong and if so, why? women have a right to seek medical treatment What on earth has that got to do with Roe versus Wade? If you can't figure that out you should stay out of such topics. :D :D Well, you can't, thick as mince, but you bandy the notion about. The ONLY thing the SCOTUS said in their recent judgement in the issue is that constitutionally, in a country that is made up of separate but united states, abortion is a matter for each of these states to legislate as THEY are the democratically constituted and elected authority to make such laws, NOT the the unelected SCOTUS to make laws for all of them. That's all it said. Each state can legislate whatever its people can bear or want. Abortion law is for ELECETED representatives of the people to make, NOT for unelected SCOTUS judges far removed from and unanswerable to the people.

Quote:

Dobbs v. Jackson

Probably the most corrupt supreme court decision ever. The decision that they all committed to not making at their confirmation hearings. They lied. Most of them called it settled law or a super president.

There is currently no point in quoting SCOTUS, they are reliably corrupt.

John Smith wrote on Dec 21^st, 2023 at 9:21pm:

Quote: The ONLY thing the SCOTUS said in their recent judgement in the issue is that constitutionally, in a country that is made up of separate but united states, abortion is a matter for each of these states to legislate as THEY are the democratically constituted and elected authority to make such laws, NOT the the unelected SCOTUS to make laws for all of them. Nothing to do with roe v wade ehh buffoon? When was the last time a woman risked jail for a miscarriage before the rethuglicans took the USA back to the stone age? :D

The case you mention is not about jail for miscarriage, eyewateringly stupid, thick ****.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 21^st, 2023 at 9:26pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 8:10pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 7:53pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 4:42pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 12:56pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 12:08pm: Were they wrong and if so, why? women have a right to seek medical treatment What on earth has that got to do with Roe versus Wade? If you can't figure that out you should stay out of such topics. :D :D Well, you can't, thick as mince, but you bandy the notion about. The ONLY thing the SCOTUS said in their recent judgement in the issue is that constitutionally, in a country that is made up of separate but united states, abortion is a matter for each of these states to legislate as THEY are the democratically constituted and elected authority to make such laws, NOT the the unelected SCOTUS to make laws for all of them. That's all it said. Each state can legislate whatever its people can bear or want. Abortion law is for ELECETED representatives of the people to make, NOT for unelected SCOTUS judges far removed from and unanswerable to the people. Quote: Dobbs v. Jackson Probably the most corrupt supreme court decision ever. The decision that they all committed to not making at their confirmation hearings. They lied. Most of them called it settled law or a super president. There is currently no point in quoting SCOTUS, they are reliably corrupt.

You stupid fowl. When SCOTUS rules your way it's the undisputable final font of all wisdom. When not, it's corrupt.

You lefty mongs are totally unprincipled little girls permanently going through puberty. Hormones running wildly amok.

And you call yourselves men!!!



You wankers are, well, wankers.

the foul fowl lol

darkwing dork motherf_cker

Frank wrote on Dec 21^st, 2023 at 10:06pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 9:21pm: Quote: The ONLY thing the SCOTUS said in their recent judgement in the issue is that constitutionally, in a country that is made up of separate but united states, abortion is a matter for each of these states to legislate as THEY are the democratically constituted and elected authority to make such laws, NOT the the unelected SCOTUS to make laws for all of them. Nothing to do with roe v wade ehh buffoon? When was the last time a woman risked jail for a miscarriage before the rethuglicans took the USA back to the stone age? :D The case you mention is not about jail for miscarriage, eyewateringly stupid, thick ****.

No, it was because doctors couldn't treat her properly for fear of repercussions from right wing nutjobs like you, so she got desperate.

John Smith wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2023 at 7:59am:

Frank wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 10:06pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 9:21pm: Quote: The ONLY thing the SCOTUS said in their recent judgement in the issue is that constitutionally, in a country that is made up of separate but united states, abortion is a matter for each of these states to legislate as THEY are the democratically constituted and elected authority to make such laws, NOT the the unelected SCOTUS to make laws for all of them. Nothing to do with roe v wade ehh buffoon? When was the last time a woman risked jail for a miscarriage before the rethuglicans took the USA back to the stone age? :D The case you mention is not about jail for miscarriage, eyewateringly stupid, thick ****. No, it was because doctors couldn't treat her properly for fear of repercussions from right wing nutjobs like you, so she got desperate.

Now now, JS, the old boy is a free thinker. He takes the issues one by one, on their merit. No groupthink for him, oh no.

Unlike these retarded Americans, he has no problems with disposing of miscarried foetuses.  He'll agree with exactly what you said, you'll see.

Intelligence and integrity, innit.

John Smith wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2023 at 7:59am:

Frank wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 10:06pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 9:21pm: Quote: The ONLY thing the SCOTUS said in their recent judgement in the issue is that constitutionally, in a country that is made up of separate but united states, abortion is a matter for each of these states to legislate as THEY are the democratically constituted and elected authority to make such laws, NOT the the unelected SCOTUS to make laws for all of them. Nothing to do with roe v wade ehh buffoon? When was the last time a woman risked jail for a miscarriage before the rethuglicans took the USA back to the stone age? :D The case you mention is not about jail for miscarriage, eyewateringly stupid, thick ****. No, it was because doctors couldn't treat her properly for fear of repercussions from right wing nutjobs like you, so she got desperate.

From your op, thicko:


Quote:

investigated by police, led to the charge of abuse of a corpse, a felony punishable by up to a year in prison and a $US2,500 ($3,731)  fine.

The hospital staff was not charged for dithering and being unsure. Nobody was charged for unlawful abortion.



Leaving a 22 week old fetus in a bucket in a backyard would have attracted the same charge of abuse ofa corpse even before RvW was overturned by the SCOTUS and abortion law jurisdiction devolved back to the states.

Frank wrote on Dec 24^th, 2023 at 7:45am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 22nd, 2023 at 7:59am: Frank wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 10:06pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 9:21pm: Quote: The ONLY thing the SCOTUS said in their recent judgement in the issue is that constitutionally, in a country that is made up of separate but united states, abortion is a matter for each of these states to legislate as THEY are the democratically constituted and elected authority to make such laws, NOT the the unelected SCOTUS to make laws for all of them. Nothing to do with roe v wade ehh buffoon? When was the last time a woman risked jail for a miscarriage before the rethuglicans took the USA back to the stone age? :D The case you mention is not about jail for miscarriage, eyewateringly stupid, thick ****. No, it was because doctors couldn't treat her properly for fear of repercussions from right wing nutjobs like you, so she got desperate. From your op, thicko: [quote]investigated by police, led to the charge of abuse of a corpse, a felony punishable by up to a year in prison and a $US2,500 ($3,731)  fine.

The hospital staff was not charged for dithering and being unsure. Nobody was charged for unlawful abortion.



Leaving a 22 week old fetus in a bucket in a backyard would have attracted the same charge of abuse ofa corpse even before RvW was overturned by the SCOTUS and abortion law jurisdiction devolved back to the states.
[/quote]

You're as dumb as dogsh it, if she's been able to get proper treatment at hospital she wouldn't have had to resort to trying to flush it down the toilet. Doctors wouldn't remove the dead featus for fear of prosecution from the retarded right. 

John Smith wrote on Dec 24^th, 2023 at 2:49pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 24th, 2023 at 7:45am: John Smith wrote on Dec 22nd, 2023 at 7:59am: Frank wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 10:06pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 9:21pm: Quote: The ONLY thing the SCOTUS said in their recent judgement in the issue is that constitutionally, in a country that is made up of separate but united states, abortion is a matter for each of these states to legislate as THEY are the democratically constituted and elected authority to make such laws, NOT the the unelected SCOTUS to make laws for all of them. Nothing to do with roe v wade ehh buffoon? When was the last time a woman risked jail for a miscarriage before the rethuglicans took the USA back to the stone age? :D The case you mention is not about jail for miscarriage, eyewateringly stupid, thick ****. No, it was because doctors couldn't treat her properly for fear of repercussions from right wing nutjobs like you, so she got desperate. From your op, thicko: [quote]investigated by police, led to the charge of abuse of a corpse, a felony punishable by up to a year in prison and a $US2,500 ($3,731)  fine. The hospital staff was not charged for dithering and being unsure. Nobody was charged for unlawful abortion. Leaving a 22 week old fetus in a bucket in a backyard would have attracted the same charge of abuse ofa corpse even before RvW was overturned by the SCOTUS and abortion law jurisdiction devolved back to the states.

You're as dumb as dogsh it, if she's been able to get proper treatment at hospital she wouldn't have had to resort to trying to flush it down the toilet. Doctors wouldn't remove the dead featus for fear of prosecution from the retarded right. 
[/quote]

She didn't try to flush it down the toilet, malicious thicko. Would have been impossible.
She left the corpse in a bucket in the backyard. That is reason for the charge of abuse of a corpse, a felony punishable by up to a year in prison and a $US2,500 ($3,731)  fine.


This is a baby delivered at 22 weeks.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2017/06/13/TELEMMGLPICT000131704385_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqDYAoRqCxn9rh7bhJY-GZd0XAZNwMxFR5WejpuNqmd6Q.jpeg

Quote:

She didn't try to flush it down the toilet, malicious thicko. Would have been impossible

You can't read English can you? They shouldn't allow dumb cartns who don't understand English into this country.  From the OP



Quote:

Police would later find the foetus wedged in the pipes.

John Smith wrote on Dec 24^th, 2023 at 3:40pm:

Quote: She didn't try to flush it down the toilet, malicious thicko. Would have been impossible You can't read English can you? They shouldn't allow dumb cartns who don't understand English into this country.  From the OP [quote]Police would later find the foetus wedged in the pipes.

[/quote]


So it WAS impossible to flush it down the toilet, you miserable, malignant thicko.



Watts was in her bathroom when she delivered a roughly 15-ounce fetus over the toilet. At the time, she said, she “didn’t know that at 5:48 a.m. [her] life would change forever.” The delivery left a mess of blood, stool, tissue and other bodily fluid, clogging the toilet. Watts scooped out what she believed was stopping the toilet and placed it outdoors, near the garage, cleaned the bathroom and showered, records show.

To maintain appearances to her mother, whom she had not told about the pregnancy, Watts drove to a hair appointment, said Traci Timko, Watts’s attorney. The hairdresser noticed Watts’s pale face and immediately called her mother to take her to the hospital. It was Watts’s fourth pregnancy-related trip to the hospital that week.

When a hospital nurse asked Watts where the fetus was, Watts told her, and later the police, that the fetus was outdoors, near the garage; Watts added that she didn’t look inside the toilet to make sure. A hospital note written and signed by the nurse said, “Advised by risk management to contact Warren City Police to investigate the possibility of the infant being in a bucket at the patient’s residence.” The next record shows that the nurse called the police.

“I had a mother who had a delivery at home and came in without the baby and she says the baby’s in her backyard in a bucket,” the nurse said, according to a call recording obtained by The Post. “I need to have someone go find this baby, or direct me on what I need to do.”
...
Warren Assistant Prosecutor Lewis Guarnieri, who did not respond to The Post’s requests for comment, said in court that the case is about what happened after the miscarriage.

“The issue isn’t how the child died, when the child died — it’s the fact that the baby was put into a toilet, large enough to clog up a toilet, left in that toilet, and she went on [with] her day,” he said.





Nothing whatsoever to do with RvW. Women miscarry at home, and it is terrible and life changing.

But they don't try to flush a fully recognisable as human, 22 week old fetus down the toilet and then go to the freaking hairdresser - and the blame the supreme court for it like you or the ABC and all the right-on bozos.

Frank wrote on Dec 24^th, 2023 at 7:45am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 22nd, 2023 at 7:59am: Frank wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 10:06pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 9:21pm: Quote: The ONLY thing the SCOTUS said in their recent judgement in the issue is that constitutionally, in a country that is made up of separate but united states, abortion is a matter for each of these states to legislate as THEY are the democratically constituted and elected authority to make such laws, NOT the the unelected SCOTUS to make laws for all of them. Nothing to do with roe v wade ehh buffoon? When was the last time a woman risked jail for a miscarriage before the rethuglicans took the USA back to the stone age? :D The case you mention is not about jail for miscarriage, eyewateringly stupid, thick ****. No, it was because doctors couldn't treat her properly for fear of repercussions from right wing nutjobs like you, so she got desperate. From your op, thicko: [quote]investigated by police, led to the charge of abuse of a corpse, a felony punishable by up to a year in prison and a $US2,500 ($3,731)  fine.

The hospital staff was not charged for dithering and being unsure. Nobody was charged for unlawful abortion.



Leaving a 22 week old fetus in a bucket in a backyard would have attracted the same charge of abuse ofa corpse even before RvW was overturned by the SCOTUS and abortion law jurisdiction devolved back to the states.
[/quote]

For somebody who actually supports the right to abortion under certain conditions, Fwank's tapdancing his poor old heart away defending this one.

It's a tough job sticking up for Bible Belt laws like this one, but somebody's gotta do it, no?

After all, if you don't have a dream, you've gotta have a dream, then how are you going to make-a your dream come true?

No mindless groupthink here, leftards. Fwank no-speaka.

Happy talkie talkie, innit. 

Karnal wrote on Dec 24^th, 2023 at 4:29pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 24th, 2023 at 7:45am: John Smith wrote on Dec 22nd, 2023 at 7:59am: Frank wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 10:06pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 9:21pm: Quote: The ONLY thing the SCOTUS said in their recent judgement in the issue is that constitutionally, in a country that is made up of separate but united states, abortion is a matter for each of these states to legislate as THEY are the democratically constituted and elected authority to make such laws, NOT the the unelected SCOTUS to make laws for all of them. Nothing to do with roe v wade ehh buffoon? When was the last time a woman risked jail for a miscarriage before the rethuglicans took the USA back to the stone age? :D The case you mention is not about jail for miscarriage, eyewateringly stupid, thick ****. No, it was because doctors couldn't treat her properly for fear of repercussions from right wing nutjobs like you, so she got desperate. From your op, thicko: [quote]investigated by police, led to the charge of abuse of a corpse, a felony punishable by up to a year in prison and a $US2,500 ($3,731)  fine. The hospital staff was not charged for dithering and being unsure. Nobody was charged for unlawful abortion. Leaving a 22 week old fetus in a bucket in a backyard would have attracted the same charge of abuse ofa corpse even before RvW was overturned by the SCOTUS and abortion law jurisdiction devolved back to the states.

For somebody who actually supports the right to abortion under certain conditions, Fwank's tapdancing his poor old heart away defending this one.

It's a tough job sticking up for Bible Belt laws like this one, but somebody's gotta do it, no?

After all, if you don't have a dream, you've gotta have a dream, then how are you going to make-a your dream come true?

No mindless groupthink here, leftards. Fwank no-speaka.

Happy talkie talkie, innit.  [/quote]
Grimacing Paki bollocks, as usual.

You don't put a 22 week old fetus in the toilet or a bucket and go to have your hair done.
Straightening it, no doubt.  At least she wasn't bleach blonding it, what?


That should have been too white.

Colonialism and white supremacy is at play here somewhere.  Must be.

Frank wrote on Dec 24^th, 2023 at 3:02pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2023 at 2:49pm: Frank wrote on Dec 24th, 2023 at 7:45am: John Smith wrote on Dec 22nd, 2023 at 7:59am: Frank wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 10:06pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 9:21pm: Quote: The ONLY thing the SCOTUS said in their recent judgement in the issue is that constitutionally, in a country that is made up of separate but united states, abortion is a matter for each of these states to legislate as THEY are the democratically constituted and elected authority to make such laws, NOT the the unelected SCOTUS to make laws for all of them. Nothing to do with roe v wade ehh buffoon? When was the last time a woman risked jail for a miscarriage before the rethuglicans took the USA back to the stone age? :D The case you mention is not about jail for miscarriage, eyewateringly stupid, thick ****. No, it was because doctors couldn't treat her properly for fear of repercussions from right wing nutjobs like you, so she got desperate. From your op, thicko: [quote]investigated by police, led to the charge of abuse of a corpse, a felony punishable by up to a year in prison and a $US2,500 ($3,731)  fine. The hospital staff was not charged for dithering and being unsure. Nobody was charged for unlawful abortion. Leaving a 22 week old fetus in a bucket in a backyard would have attracted the same charge of abuse ofa corpse even before RvW was overturned by the SCOTUS and abortion law jurisdiction devolved back to the states. You're as dumb as dogsh it, if she's been able to get proper treatment at hospital she wouldn't have had to resort to trying to flush it down the toilet. Doctors wouldn't remove the dead featus for fear of prosecution from the retarded right.

She didn't try to flush it down the toilet, malicious thicko. Would have been impossible.
She left the corpse in a bucket in the backyard. That is reason for the charge of abuse of a corpse, a felony punishable by up to a year in prison and a $US2,500 ($3,731)  fine.[/quote]

Our ABC begs to differ, dear boy.


Quote:

Pregnant women like Ms Watts, who was not even trying to get an abortion, have increasingly found themselves charged with "crimes against their own pregnancies", said Grace Howard, assistant justice studies professor at San José State University. "Roe was a clear legal roadblock to charging felonies for unintentionally harming pregnancies, when women were legally allowed to end their pregnancies through abortion," she said. "Now that Roe is gone, that roadblock is entirely gone." Lawyer says black women are targets in 'wild west' Michele Goodwin, a law professor at the University of California said those efforts have overwhelmingly targetted black women. Even before Roe was overturned, studies show that black women who visited hospitals for prenatal care were 10 times more likely than white women to have child protective services and law enforcement called on them, even when their cases were similar, she said. "Post-Dobbs, what we see is kind of a wild, wild west," Ms Goodwin said. "You see this kind of muscle-flexing by district attorneys and prosecutors wanting to show that they are going to be vigilant, they're going to take down women who violate the ethos coming out of the state's legislature."

You guessed it, she's tinted.

Frank wrote on Dec 24^th, 2023 at 4:38pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 24th, 2023 at 4:29pm: Frank wrote on Dec 24th, 2023 at 7:45am: John Smith wrote on Dec 22nd, 2023 at 7:59am: Frank wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 10:06pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 9:21pm: Quote: The ONLY thing the SCOTUS said in their recent judgement in the issue is that constitutionally, in a country that is made up of separate but united states, abortion is a matter for each of these states to legislate as THEY are the democratically constituted and elected authority to make such laws, NOT the the unelected SCOTUS to make laws for all of them. Nothing to do with roe v wade ehh buffoon? When was the last time a woman risked jail for a miscarriage before the rethuglicans took the USA back to the stone age? :D The case you mention is not about jail for miscarriage, eyewateringly stupid, thick ****. No, it was because doctors couldn't treat her properly for fear of repercussions from right wing nutjobs like you, so she got desperate. From your op, thicko: [quote]investigated by police, led to the charge of abuse of a corpse, a felony punishable by up to a year in prison and a $US2,500 ($3,731)  fine. The hospital staff was not charged for dithering and being unsure. Nobody was charged for unlawful abortion. Leaving a 22 week old fetus in a bucket in a backyard would have attracted the same charge of abuse ofa corpse even before RvW was overturned by the SCOTUS and abortion law jurisdiction devolved back to the states. For somebody who actually supports the right to abortion under certain conditions, Fwank's tapdancing his poor old heart away defending this one. It's a tough job sticking up for Bible Belt laws like this one, but somebody's gotta do it, no? After all, if you don't have a dream, you've gotta have a dream, then how are you going to make-a your dream come true? No mindless groupthink here, leftards. Fwank no-speaka. Happy talkie talkie, innit.

Grimacing Paki bollocks, as usual.

You don't put a 22 week old fetus in the toilet or a bucket and go to have your hair done.
Straightening it, no doubt.  At least she wasn't bleach blonding it, what?


That should have been too white.

Colonialism and white supremacy is at play here somewhere.  Must be.






[/quote]

Just so. It's why you want a woman who had a miscarriage to cop a year in jail.

After she had her hair straightened, no less 

You're not sure what you find worse, old chap, the tintedness or the hair bleaching.

Still, the Superior Man doesn't notice skin colour, old boy. It means as much to him as eye or hair colour, what.

You never noticed, no?

Karnal wrote on Dec 24^th, 2023 at 4:52pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 24th, 2023 at 4:38pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 24th, 2023 at 4:29pm: Frank wrote on Dec 24th, 2023 at 7:45am: John Smith wrote on Dec 22nd, 2023 at 7:59am: Frank wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 10:06pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 9:21pm: Quote: The ONLY thing the SCOTUS said in their recent judgement in the issue is that constitutionally, in a country that is made up of separate but united states, abortion is a matter for each of these states to legislate as THEY are the democratically constituted and elected authority to make such laws, NOT the the unelected SCOTUS to make laws for all of them. Nothing to do with roe v wade ehh buffoon? When was the last time a woman risked jail for a miscarriage before the rethuglicans took the USA back to the stone age? :D The case you mention is not about jail for miscarriage, eyewateringly stupid, thick ****. No, it was because doctors couldn't treat her properly for fear of repercussions from right wing nutjobs like you, so she got desperate. From your op, thicko: [quote]investigated by police, led to the charge of abuse of a corpse, a felony punishable by up to a year in prison and a $US2,500 ($3,731)  fine. The hospital staff was not charged for dithering and being unsure. Nobody was charged for unlawful abortion. Leaving a 22 week old fetus in a bucket in a backyard would have attracted the same charge of abuse ofa corpse even before RvW was overturned by the SCOTUS and abortion law jurisdiction devolved back to the states. For somebody who actually supports the right to abortion under certain conditions, Fwank's tapdancing his poor old heart away defending this one. It's a tough job sticking up for Bible Belt laws like this one, but somebody's gotta do it, no? After all, if you don't have a dream, you've gotta have a dream, then how are you going to make-a your dream come true? No mindless groupthink here, leftards. Fwank no-speaka. Happy talkie talkie, innit.  Grimacing Paki bollocks, as usual. You don't put a 22 week old fetus in the toilet or a bucket and go to have your hair done. Straightening it, no doubt.  At least she wasn't bleach blonding it, what? That should have been too white. Colonialism and white supremacy is at play here somewhere.  Must be.

Just so. It's why you want a woman who had a miscarriage to cop a year in jail.

After she had her hair straightened, no less 

You're not sure what you find worse, old chap, the tintedness or the hair bleaching.

Still, the Superior Man doesn't notice skin colour, old boy. It means as much to him as eye or hair colour, what.

You never noticed, no? [/quote]

You are very careful to tapdance around the actual issue, grimacing wee paki arse bandit. But then that is your allocated function.

You don't put a 22 week old fetus in the toilet or a bucket and go to have your hair done.


Speak to that, paki.  There's a couple of bananas in it for you.



This is a baby delivered at 22 weeks.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2017/06/13/TELEMMGLPICT000131704385_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqDYAoRqCxn9rh7bhJY-GZd0XAZNwMxFR5WejpuNqmd6Q.jpeg

Quote:

So it WAS impossible to flush it down the toilet, you miserable, malignant thicko.

I didn't said whether it was or wasn't possible you dumbarse.  I merely said she tried. That police found the foetus wedged in the pipes confirms that she tried. It also confirms that you don't understand English and that you're a complete moron.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 21^st, 2023 at 12:08pm:

...How did the Justices err? Were they wrong and if so, why?

If you even have to ask that question, it would
indicate that you have no real understanding of
the overturning of Roe v. Wade.  The ramifications
have already been witnessed in dozens of cases.

Trump's illegitimate loading of the Supreme Court
meant that the Republican-dominated court has
effectively denied the natural, civil rights of millions
of women across the US.

Nearly two dozen states have banned abortions or
severely restrict access on the basis of this Federal
law. Thirteen have "trigger laws" that ban abortion
almost immediately.

Additionally, pregnant women now face the risk of
prosecution for seeking to end pregnancies in states
where abortion is banned, and research has shown
that unwanted pregnancies have many harmful long-
term consequences for mothers, including a higher
chance of financial hardship and a severe toll on
mental health.

The US currently has the highest maternal mortality
rate of any developed country.   In total, more than
600 women die every year of pregnancy-related
complications, with 60% of those deaths being
preventable by early termination.

[url]https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/provisional-maternal-deaths.htm[/url]

Frank wrote on Dec 24^th, 2023 at 5:16pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 24th, 2023 at 4:52pm: Frank wrote on Dec 24th, 2023 at 4:38pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 24th, 2023 at 4:29pm: Frank wrote on Dec 24th, 2023 at 7:45am: John Smith wrote on Dec 22nd, 2023 at 7:59am: Frank wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 10:06pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 9:21pm: Quote: The ONLY thing the SCOTUS said in their recent judgement in the issue is that constitutionally, in a country that is made up of separate but united states, abortion is a matter for each of these states to legislate as THEY are the democratically constituted and elected authority to make such laws, NOT the the unelected SCOTUS to make laws for all of them. Nothing to do with roe v wade ehh buffoon? When was the last time a woman risked jail for a miscarriage before the rethuglicans took the USA back to the stone age? :D The case you mention is not about jail for miscarriage, eyewateringly stupid, thick ****. No, it was because doctors couldn't treat her properly for fear of repercussions from right wing nutjobs like you, so she got desperate. From your op, thicko: [quote]investigated by police, led to the charge of abuse of a corpse, a felony punishable by up to a year in prison and a $US2,500 ($3,731)  fine. The hospital staff was not charged for dithering and being unsure. Nobody was charged for unlawful abortion. Leaving a 22 week old fetus in a bucket in a backyard would have attracted the same charge of abuse ofa corpse even before RvW was overturned by the SCOTUS and abortion law jurisdiction devolved back to the states. For somebody who actually supports the right to abortion under certain conditions, Fwank's tapdancing his poor old heart away defending this one. It's a tough job sticking up for Bible Belt laws like this one, but somebody's gotta do it, no? After all, if you don't have a dream, you've gotta have a dream, then how are you going to make-a your dream come true? No mindless groupthink here, leftards. Fwank no-speaka. Happy talkie talkie, innit.  Grimacing Paki bollocks, as usual. You don't put a 22 week old fetus in the toilet or a bucket and go to have your hair done. Straightening it, no doubt.  At least she wasn't bleach blonding it, what? That should have been too white. Colonialism and white supremacy is at play here somewhere.  Must be. Just so. It's why you want a woman who had a miscarriage to cop a year in jail. After she had her hair straightened, no less  You're not sure what you find worse, old chap, the tintedness or the hair bleaching. Still, the Superior Man doesn't notice skin colour, old boy. It means as much to him as eye or hair colour, what. You never noticed, no?

You are very careful to tapdance around the actual issue, grimacing wee paki arse bandit. But then that is your allocated function.

You don't put a 22 week old fetus in the toilet or a bucket and go to have your hair done.


Speak to that, paki.  There's a couple of bananas in it for you.



This is a baby delivered at 22 weeks.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2017/06/13/TELEMMGLPICT000131704385_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqDYAoRqCxn9rh7bhJY-GZd0XAZNwMxFR5WejpuNqmd6Q.jpeg
[/quote]

Dead babies look a little different to that, old chap. Especially if they're tinted.

The SM has trained himself not to notice the colour of dead foetuses.

You?

AusGeoff wrote on Dec 25^th, 2023 at 12:01am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 12:08pm: ...How did the Justices err? Were they wrong and if so, why? If you even have to ask that question, it would indicate that you have no real understanding of the overturning of Roe v. Wade.  The ramifications have already been witnessed in dozens of cases. Trump's illegitimate loading of the Supreme Court meant that the Republican-dominated court has effectively denied the natural, civil rights of millions of women across the US. Nearly two dozen states have banned abortions or severely restrict access on the basis of this Federal law. Thirteen have "trigger laws" that ban abortion almost immediately. Additionally, pregnant women now face the risk of prosecution for seeking to end pregnancies in states where abortion is banned, and research has shown that unwanted pregnancies have many harmful long- term consequences for mothers, including a higher chance of financial hardship and a severe toll on mental health. The US currently has the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed country.   In total, more than 600 women die every year of pregnancy-related complications, with 60% of those deaths being preventable by early termination. [url]https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/provisional-maternal-deaths.htm[/url]

All true, more or less, but it has nothing to do with the legitimacy or otherwise of the Courts decision.
If the Justices were right and abortion is a State issue then there is no argument.
Opponents need to show why it is not a State issue before condemning the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 25^th, 2023 at 9:46am:

AusGeoff wrote on Dec 25th, 2023 at 12:01am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 12:08pm: ...How did the Justices err? Were they wrong and if so, why? If you even have to ask that question, it would indicate that you have no real understanding of the overturning of Roe v. Wade.  The ramifications have already been witnessed in dozens of cases. Trump's illegitimate loading of the Supreme Court meant that the Republican-dominated court has effectively denied the natural, civil rights of millions of women across the US. Nearly two dozen states have banned abortions or severely restrict access on the basis of this Federal law. Thirteen have "trigger laws" that ban abortion almost immediately. Additionally, pregnant women now face the risk of prosecution for seeking to end pregnancies in states where abortion is banned, and research has shown that unwanted pregnancies have many harmful long- term consequences for mothers, including a higher chance of financial hardship and a severe toll on mental health. The US currently has the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed country.   In total, more than 600 women die every year of pregnancy-related complications, with 60% of those deaths being preventable by early termination. [url]https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/provisional-maternal-deaths.htm[/url] All true, more or less, but it has nothing to do with the legitimacy or otherwise of the Courts decision. If the Justices were right and abortion is a State issue then there is no argument. Opponents need to show why it is not a State issue before condemning the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The right to individual privacy without govt interference. 

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 25^th, 2023 at 9:46am:

AusGeoff wrote on Dec 25th, 2023 at 12:01am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 12:08pm: ...How did the Justices err? Were they wrong and if so, why? If you even have to ask that question, it would indicate that you have no real understanding of the overturning of Roe v. Wade.  The ramifications have already been witnessed in dozens of cases. Trump's illegitimate loading of the Supreme Court meant that the Republican-dominated court has effectively denied the natural, civil rights of millions of women across the US. Nearly two dozen states have banned abortions or severely restrict access on the basis of this Federal law. Thirteen have "trigger laws" that ban abortion almost immediately. Additionally, pregnant women now face the risk of prosecution for seeking to end pregnancies in states where abortion is banned, and research has shown that unwanted pregnancies have many harmful long- term consequences for mothers, including a higher chance of financial hardship and a severe toll on mental health. The US currently has the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed country.   In total, more than 600 women die every year of pregnancy-related complications, with 60% of those deaths being preventable by early termination. [url]https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/provisional-maternal-deaths.htm[/url] All true, more or less, but it has nothing to do with the legitimacy or otherwise of the Courts decision. If the Justices were right and abortion is a State issue then there is no argument. Opponents need to show why it is not a State issue before condemning the Supreme Court’s ruling.

No, they don't.

The SCOTUS ruling to overturn Roe: 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
was a demonstrably erroneous one, as has been proved by
current scenarios of the desperation of women who're pregnant
urgently attempting to obtain terminations right across the US,
from states that prohibit it.

Do you really want to see the re-emergence of the
1960's backyard abortionists?  Or despairing pregnant
women trying to self-induce a spontaneous abortion
using all sorts of suspect, life-threatening means?

Unfortunately, your attitude is all too typical of far too many
smug, uninvolved males.

AusGeoff wrote on Dec 26^th, 2023 at 12:26am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 25th, 2023 at 9:46am: AusGeoff wrote on Dec 25th, 2023 at 12:01am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 21st, 2023 at 12:08pm: ...How did the Justices err? Were they wrong and if so, why? If you even have to ask that question, it would indicate that you have no real understanding of the overturning of Roe v. Wade.  The ramifications have already been witnessed in dozens of cases. Trump's illegitimate loading of the Supreme Court meant that the Republican-dominated court has effectively denied the natural, civil rights of millions of women across the US. Nearly two dozen states have banned abortions or severely restrict access on the basis of this Federal law. Thirteen have "trigger laws" that ban abortion almost immediately. Additionally, pregnant women now face the risk of prosecution for seeking to end pregnancies in states where abortion is banned, and research has shown that unwanted pregnancies have many harmful long- term consequences for mothers, including a higher chance of financial hardship and a severe toll on mental health. The US currently has the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed country.   In total, more than 600 women die every year of pregnancy-related complications, with 60% of those deaths being preventable by early termination. [url]https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/provisional-maternal-deaths.htm[/url] All true, more or less, but it has nothing to do with the legitimacy or otherwise of the Courts decision. If the Justices were right and abortion is a State issue then there is no argument. Opponents need to show why it is not a State issue before condemning the Supreme Court’s ruling. No, they don't. The SCOTUS ruling to overturn Roe: 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was a demonstrably erroneous one, as has been proved by current scenarios of the desperation of women who're pregnant urgently attempting to obtain terminations right across the US, from states that prohibit it. Do you really want to see the re-emergence of the 1960's backyard abortionists?  Or despairing pregnant women trying to self-induce a spontaneous abortion using all sorts of suspect, life-threatening means? Unfortunately, your attitude is all too typical of far too many smug, uninvolved males.

Well, demonstrate why it was erroneous; demonstrate by law not emotion.

AusGeoff wrote on Dec 26^th, 2023 at 12:26am:

.................  No, they don't. The SCOTUS ruling to overturn Roe: 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was a demonstrably erroneous one, as has been proved by current scenarios of the desperation of women who're pregnant urgently attempting to obtain terminations right across the US, from states that prohibit it. Do you really want to see the re-emergence of the 1960's backyard abortionists?  Or despairing pregnant women trying to self-induce a spontaneous abortion using all sorts of suspect, life-threatening means? Unfortunately, your attitude is all too typical of far too many smug, uninvolved males.

I agree

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 26^th, 2023 at 5:27pm:

AusGeoff wrote on Dec 26th, 2023 at 12:26am: .................  No, they don't. The SCOTUS ruling to overturn Roe: 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was a demonstrably erroneous one, as has been proved by current scenarios of the desperation of women who're pregnant urgently attempting to obtain terminations right across the US, from states that prohibit it. Do you really want to see the re-emergence of the 1960's backyard abortionists?  Or despairing pregnant women trying to self-induce a spontaneous abortion using all sorts of suspect, life-threatening means? Unfortunately, your attitude is all too typical of far too many smug, uninvolved males. I agree

Then perhaps, you too could explain why the ruling was wrong at law?

It is for the ELECTED representatives of the people to make or change laws, not for the unelected judiciary.

Separation of powers 101.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 26^th, 2023 at 5:36pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 26th, 2023 at 5:27pm: AusGeoff wrote on Dec 26th, 2023 at 12:26am: .................  No, they don't. The SCOTUS ruling to overturn Roe: 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was a demonstrably erroneous one, as has been proved by current scenarios of the desperation of women who're pregnant urgently attempting to obtain terminations right across the US, from states that prohibit it. Do you really want to see the re-emergence of the 1960's backyard abortionists?  Or despairing pregnant women trying to self-induce a spontaneous abortion using all sorts of suspect, life-threatening means? Unfortunately, your attitude is all too typical of far too many smug, uninvolved males. I agree Then perhaps, you too could explain why the ruling was wrong at law?

Of course the ruling by the SCOTUS wasn't wrong in the
sense it complied exactly with US federal law.

But...

There's a lot more to formal laws in a true democracy. 
The laws of the land are intended to meet with the
expectations of the citizenry, and—just as importantly—to
be seen as just and proper by that citizenry.

If the US, or any country, followed your archaic notions
of what constitutes fair laws, then we'd still be hanging
homosexuals, or forcing 10-year-old kids to work in
coal mines, or banning women from voting!

Laws must move with the times (obviously) but it would
seem you want to wind the abortion laws back to the 19th
century when they were drafted, and abortions were illegal
across the entire US.

You also haven't addressed the improper, unethical  loading
of the SCOTUS by the then failed former president which
resulted in three new Republican-leaning justices—as pro-lifers.

AusGeoff wrote on Dec 27^th, 2023 at 12:36am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 26th, 2023 at 5:36pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 26th, 2023 at 5:27pm: AusGeoff wrote on Dec 26th, 2023 at 12:26am: .................  No, they don't. The SCOTUS ruling to overturn Roe: 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was a demonstrably erroneous one, as has been proved by current scenarios of the desperation of women who're pregnant urgently attempting to obtain terminations right across the US, from states that prohibit it. Do you really want to see the re-emergence of the 1960's backyard abortionists?  Or despairing pregnant women trying to self-induce a spontaneous abortion using all sorts of suspect, life-threatening means? Unfortunately, your attitude is all too typical of far too many smug, uninvolved males. I agree Then perhaps, you too could explain why the ruling was wrong at law? Of course the ruling by the SCOTUS wasn't wrong in the sense it complied exactly with US federal law. But... There's a lot more to formal laws in a true democracy.  The laws of the land are intended to meet with the expectations of the citizenry, and—just as importantly—to be seen as just and proper by that citizenry. If the US, or any country, followed your archaic notions of what constitutes fair laws, then we'd still be hanging homosexuals, or forcing 10-year-old kids to work in coal mines, or banning women from voting! Laws must move with the times (obviously) but it would seem you want to wind the abortion laws back to the 19th century when they were drafted, and abortions were illegal across the entire US. You also haven't addressed the improper, unethical  loading of the SCOTUS by the then failed former president which resulted in three new Republican-leaning justices—as pro-lifers.

The States have their own democratically elected parliaments and governments which make laws that reflect the will of the people in each state.

The SCOTUS in 1973 took that power away from the people and their elected representatives in each state and appropr iuated it to itself, to unelected judges. This SCOTUS, by overturning RvW,  gave the legislative power back to the people in each state. So now the people in each State can exercise their democratic rights and have a say in how they are governed and what values prevail in their State.

Being pro-life is not a Republican-Democrat issue and it is certainly not unethical or evil. Trying to colour it so, trying to make it part of the Trump derangement is mad or stupid, probably both.

Frank wrote on Dec 27^th, 2023 at 10:10am:

The States have their own democratically elected parliaments and governments which make laws that reflect the will of the people in each state.

The states are still bound by the constitution

AusGeoff wrote on Dec 27^th, 2023 at 12:36am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 26th, 2023 at 5:36pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 26th, 2023 at 5:27pm: AusGeoff wrote on Dec 26th, 2023 at 12:26am: .................  No, they don't. The SCOTUS ruling to overturn Roe: 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was a demonstrably erroneous one, as has been proved by current scenarios of the desperation of women who're pregnant urgently attempting to obtain terminations right across the US, from states that prohibit it. Do you really want to see the re-emergence of the 1960's backyard abortionists?  Or despairing pregnant women trying to self-induce a spontaneous abortion using all sorts of suspect, life-threatening means? Unfortunately, your attitude is all too typical of far too many smug, uninvolved males. I agree Then perhaps, you too could explain why the ruling was wrong at law? Of course the ruling by the SCOTUS wasn't wrong in the sense it complied exactly with US federal law. But... There's a lot more to formal laws in a true democracy.  The laws of the land are intended to meet with the expectations of the citizenry, and—just as importantly—to be seen as just and proper by that citizenry. I’m If the US, or any country, followed your archaic notions of what constitutes fair laws, then we'd still be hanging homosexuals, or forcing 10-year-old kids to work in coal mines, or banning women from voting! Laws must move with the times (obviously) but it would seem you want to wind the abortion laws back to the 19th century when they were drafted, and abortions were illegal across the entire US. You also haven't addressed the improper, unethical  loading of the SCOTUS by the then failed former president which resulted in three new Republican-leaning justices—as pro-lifers.

As it complied with the law then the rest of your objections is immaterial.
You have just said that the decision in Roe-v-Wade was and is lawful.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 27^th, 2023 at 11:15am:

You have just said that the decision in Roe-v-Wade was and is lawful.

He was wrong

John Smith wrote on Dec 27^th, 2023 at 10:59am:

Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:10am: The States have their own democratically elected parliaments and governments which make laws that reflect the will of the people in each state. The states are still bound by the constitution

So they are. And?

What is sloshing around in you empty, addled head,  Salvatore?   

Frank wrote on Dec 27^th, 2023 at 12:39pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:59am: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:10am: The States have their own democratically elected parliaments and governments which make laws that reflect the will of the people in each state. The states are still bound by the constitution So they are. And?

The constitution says that AMERICANS have a right to privacy, free from interference from govt . What a woman does to her body has nothing to do with govco.

John Smith wrote on Dec 27^th, 2023 at 5:27pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 12:39pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:59am: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:10am: The States have their own democratically elected parliaments and governments which make laws that reflect the will of the people in each state. The states are still bound by the constitution So they are. And? The constitution says that AMERICANS have a right to privacy, free from interference from govt . What a woman does to her body has nothing to do with govco.

Depends on the circumstances.

John Smith wrote on Dec 27^th, 2023 at 5:27pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 12:39pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:59am: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:10am: The States have their own democratically elected parliaments and governments which make laws that reflect the will of the people in each state. The states are still bound by the constitution So they are. And? The constitution says that AMERICANS have a right to privacy, free from interference from govt . What a woman does to her body has nothing to do with govco.

Roe v Wade or its overturning was not about what a woman does to her own body.
It is about what the state does or does not, or facilitates or not, to be done to her body BY OTHERS.

John Smith wrote on Dec 27^th, 2023 at 5:27pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 12:39pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:59am: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:10am: The States have their own democratically elected parliaments and governments which make laws that reflect the will of the people in each state. The states are still bound by the constitution So they are. And? The constitution says that AMERICANS have a right to privacy, free from interference from govt . What a woman does to her body has nothing to do with govco.

So, what you must then assume is that if someone murders another, the constitution protects their right to privacy because it was between them and their victim, and the government has no business interfering with them keeping their murder private?

Frank wrote on Dec 27^th, 2023 at 7:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 5:27pm: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 12:39pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:59am: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:10am: The States have their own democratically elected parliaments and governments which make laws that reflect the will of the people in each state. The states are still bound by the constitution So they are. And? The constitution says that AMERICANS have a right to privacy, free from interference from govt . What a woman does to her body has nothing to do with govco. Roe v Wade or its overturning was not about what a woman does to her own body. It is about what the state does or does not, or facilitates or not, to be done to her body BY OTHERS.

Sure it was. They ignored the woman's constitutional right to privacy free from govt. Interference and pretended it was about the states. Roe v wade wasn't ever the right to abort, it was  the right of women to do what they wanted to with their bodies without govt interference.  That's why the whole argument about how old a foetus has to be before it becomes a living entity became important. Once it becomes a living entity govt then has a right to interfere becauseits thenno longerjustaboutthewoman.

The supreme Court had it right the first time.

Tap wrote on Dec 27^th, 2023 at 7:20pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 5:27pm: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 12:39pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:59am: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:10am: The States have their own democratically elected parliaments and governments which make laws that reflect the will of the people in each state. The states are still bound by the constitution So they are. And? The constitution says that AMERICANS have a right to privacy, free from interference from govt . What a woman does to her body has nothing to do with govco. So, what you must then assume is that if someone murders another, the constitution protects their right to privacy because it was between them and their victim, and the government has no business interfering with them keeping their murder private?

No, your right to privacy disappears once your actions affect someone else.

John Smith wrote on Dec 27^th, 2023 at 8:06pm:

Tap wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 7:20pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 5:27pm: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 12:39pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:59am: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:10am: The States have their own democratically elected parliaments and governments which make laws that reflect the will of the people in each state. The states are still bound by the constitution So they are. And? The constitution says that AMERICANS have a right to privacy, free from interference from govt . What a woman does to her body has nothing to do with govco. So, what you must then assume is that if someone murders another, the constitution protects their right to privacy because it was between them and their victim, and the government has no business interfering with them keeping their murder private? No, your right to privacy disappears once your actions affect someone else.

So now that the right to an abortion is no longer protected by the constitution in America and the states can decide what restrictions they wish, what do you think can be done to change the constitution back to create a new right to abortion like in 1973 when there was no right to abortion like today? 

Tap wrote on Dec 27^th, 2023 at 8:59pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 8:06pm: Tap wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 7:20pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 5:27pm: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 12:39pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:59am: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:10am: The States have their own democratically elected parliaments and governments which make laws that reflect the will of the people in each state. The states are still bound by the constitution So they are. And? The constitution says that AMERICANS have a right to privacy, free from interference from govt . What a woman does to her body has nothing to do with govco. So, what you must then assume is that if someone murders another, the constitution protects their right to privacy because it was between them and their victim, and the government has no business interfering with them keeping their murder private? No, your right to privacy disappears once your actions affect someone else. So now that the right to an abortion is no longer protected by the constitution in America and the states can decide what restrictions they wish, what do you think can be done to change the constitution back to create a new right to abortion like in 1973 when there was no right to abortion like today?

The states are breeching the constitution by denying women their right to privacy.  Roe v wade was never about a right to 'abortion '  that was a consequence of what happened after the supreme Court ruled women's privacy was protected under the constitution

John Smith wrote on Dec 27^th, 2023 at 9:41pm:

Tap wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 8:59pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 8:06pm: Tap wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 7:20pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 5:27pm: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 12:39pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:59am: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:10am: The States have their own democratically elected parliaments and governments which make laws that reflect the will of the people in each state. The states are still bound by the constitution So they are. And? The constitution says that AMERICANS have a right to privacy, free from interference from govt . What a woman does to her body has nothing to do with govco. So, what you must then assume is that if someone murders another, the constitution protects their right to privacy because it was between them and their victim, and the government has no business interfering with them keeping their murder private? No, your right to privacy disappears once your actions affect someone else. So now that the right to an abortion is no longer protected by the constitution in America and the states can decide what restrictions they wish, what do you think can be done to change the constitution back to create a new right to abortion like in 1973 when there was no right to abortion like today?  The states are breeching the constitution by denying women their right to privacy.  Roe v wade was never about a right to 'abortion '  that was a consequence of what happened after the supreme Court ruled women's privacy was protected under the constitution

So what do you suggest? The federal government, and congress cant wave a magic wand to give abortions back to women. Whats your remedy?

Tap wrote on Dec 27^th, 2023 at 9:49pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 9:41pm: Tap wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 8:59pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 8:06pm: Tap wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 7:20pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 5:27pm: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 12:39pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:59am: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:10am: The States have their own democratically elected parliaments and governments which make laws that reflect the will of the people in each state. The states are still bound by the constitution So they are. And? The constitution says that AMERICANS have a right to privacy, free from interference from govt . What a woman does to her body has nothing to do with govco. So, what you must then assume is that if someone murders another, the constitution protects their right to privacy because it was between them and their victim, and the government has no business interfering with them keeping their murder private? No, your right to privacy disappears once your actions affect someone else. So now that the right to an abortion is no longer protected by the constitution in America and the states can decide what restrictions they wish, what do you think can be done to change the constitution back to create a new right to abortion like in 1973 when there was no right to abortion like today?  The states are breeching the constitution by denying women their right to privacy.  Roe v wade was never about a right to 'abortion '  that was a consequence of what happened after the supreme Court ruled women's privacy was protected under the constitution So what do you suggest? The federal government, and congress cant wave a magic wand to give abortions back to women. Whats your remedy?

Get rid of the stooges Trump put in the supreme Court

John Smith wrote on Dec 27^th, 2023 at 8:05pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 7:01pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 5:27pm: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 12:39pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:59am: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:10am: The States have their own democratically elected parliaments and governments which make laws that reflect the will of the people in each state. The states are still bound by the constitution So they are. And? The constitution says that AMERICANS have a right to privacy, free from interference from govt . What a woman does to her body has nothing to do with govco. Roe v Wade or its overturning was not about what a woman does to her own body. It is about what the state does or does not, or facilitates or not, to be done to her body BY OTHERS. Sure it was. They ignored the woman's constitutional right to privacy free from govt. Interference and pretended it was about the states. Roe v wade wasn't ever the right to abort, it was  the right of women to do what they wanted to with their bodies without govt interference.  That's why the whole argument about how old a foetus has to be before it becomes a living entity became important. Once it becomes a living entity govt then has a right to interfere becauseits thenno longerjustaboutthewoman. The supreme Court had it right the first time.

A woman can do whatever she wants.
The law is about what the state can and cannot do in response.

You have the right to privacy and chop off your own arm or perform a DIY abortion on yourself.
But you do not have the right to request that somebody else perform an abortion for you or chop off your arm without the law having a look-in.

The whole brouhaha is about who makes such a law - elected representatives or unelected judges.  You can jump off a cliff but the law will be involved if someone else pushes you off that cliff. The law is involved. The point is - who can make the law.


It's not complicated. Well, maybe it is for you, militantly thick buggers.

Frank wrote on Dec 27^th, 2023 at 9:51pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 8:05pm: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 7:01pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 5:27pm: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 12:39pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:59am: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:10am: The States have their own democratically elected parliaments and governments which make laws that reflect the will of the people in each state. The states are still bound by the constitution So they are. And? The constitution says that AMERICANS have a right to privacy, free from interference from govt . What a woman does to her body has nothing to do with govco. Roe v Wade or its overturning was not about what a woman does to her own body. It is about what the state does or does not, or facilitates or not, to be done to her body BY OTHERS. Sure it was. They ignored the woman's constitutional right to privacy free from govt. Interference and pretended it was about the states. Roe v wade wasn't ever the right to abort, it was  the right of women to do what they wanted to with their bodies without govt interference.  That's why the whole argument about how old a foetus has to be before it becomes a living entity became important. Once it becomes a living entity govt then has a right to interfere becauseits thenno longerjustaboutthewoman. The supreme Court had it right the first time. A woman can do whatever she wants. The law is about what the state can and cannot do in response. You have the right to privacy and chop off your own arm or perform a DIY abortion on yourself. But you do not have the right to request that somebody else perform an abortion for you or chop off your arm without the law having a look-in. The whole brouhaha is about who makes such a law - elected representatives or unelected judges.  You can jump off a cliff but the law will be involved if someone else pushes you off that cliff. The law is involved. The point is - who can make the law. It's not complicated. Well, maybe it is for you, militantly thick buggers.

Crap.

John Smith wrote on Dec 27^th, 2023 at 10:02pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 9:51pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 8:05pm: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 7:01pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 5:27pm: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 12:39pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:59am: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:10am: The States have their own democratically elected parliaments and governments which make laws that reflect the will of the people in each state. The states are still bound by the constitution So they are. And? The constitution says that AMERICANS have a right to privacy, free from interference from govt . What a woman does to her body has nothing to do with govco. Roe v Wade or its overturning was not about what a woman does to her own body. It is about what the state does or does not, or facilitates or not, to be done to her body BY OTHERS. Sure it was. They ignored the woman's constitutional right to privacy free from govt. Interference and pretended it was about the states. Roe v wade wasn't ever the right to abort, it was  the right of women to do what they wanted to with their bodies without govt interference.  That's why the whole argument about how old a foetus has to be before it becomes a living entity became important. Once it becomes a living entity govt then has a right to interfere becauseits thenno longerjustaboutthewoman. The supreme Court had it right the first time. A woman can do whatever she wants. The law is about what the state can and cannot do in response. You have the right to privacy and chop off your own arm or perform a DIY abortion on yourself. But you do not have the right to request that somebody else perform an abortion for you or chop off your arm without the law having a look-in. The whole brouhaha is about who makes such a law - elected representatives or unelected judges.  You can jump off a cliff but the law will be involved if someone else pushes you off that cliff. The law is involved. The point is - who can make the law. It's not complicated. Well, maybe it is for you, militantly thick buggers. Crap.

:D ;D

You are scaling the usual lows of your erudition, thick ****.

John Smith wrote on Dec 27^th, 2023 at 9:51pm:

Tap wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 9:49pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 9:41pm: Tap wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 8:59pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 8:06pm: Tap wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 7:20pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 5:27pm: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 12:39pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:59am: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:10am: The States have their own democratically elected parliaments and governments which make laws that reflect the will of the people in each state. The states are still bound by the constitution So they are. And? The constitution says that AMERICANS have a right to privacy, free from interference from govt . What a woman does to her body has nothing to do with govco. So, what you must then assume is that if someone murders another, the constitution protects their right to privacy because it was between them and their victim, and the government has no business interfering with them keeping their murder private? No, your right to privacy disappears once your actions affect someone else. So now that the right to an abortion is no longer protected by the constitution in America and the states can decide what restrictions they wish, what do you think can be done to change the constitution back to create a new right to abortion like in 1973 when there was no right to abortion like today?  The states are breeching the constitution by denying women their right to privacy.  Roe v wade was never about a right to 'abortion '  that was a consequence of what happened after the supreme Court ruled women's privacy was protected under the constitution So what do you suggest? The federal government, and congress cant wave a magic wand to give abortions back to women. Whats your remedy? Get rid of the stooges Trump put in the supreme Court

Thats never going to happen. They will be justices to the supreme court for life. The next few decades at least, so realistically what do you propose the remedy should be?

Flood the court with Democrat judges.

Monk should stick to worming dogs.

Tap wrote on Dec 27^th, 2023 at 10:25pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 9:51pm: Tap wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 9:49pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 9:41pm: Tap wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 8:59pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 8:06pm: Tap wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 7:20pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 5:27pm: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 12:39pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:59am: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:10am: The States have their own democratically elected parliaments and governments which make laws that reflect the will of the people in each state. The states are still bound by the constitution So they are. And? The constitution says that AMERICANS have a right to privacy, free from interference from govt . What a woman does to her body has nothing to do with govco. So, what you must then assume is that if someone murders another, the constitution protects their right to privacy because it was between them and their victim, and the government has no business interfering with them keeping their murder private? No, your right to privacy disappears once your actions affect someone else. So now that the right to an abortion is no longer protected by the constitution in America and the states can decide what restrictions they wish, what do you think can be done to change the constitution back to create a new right to abortion like in 1973 when there was no right to abortion like today?  The states are breeching the constitution by denying women their right to privacy.  Roe v wade was never about a right to 'abortion '  that was a consequence of what happened after the supreme Court ruled women's privacy was protected under the constitution So what do you suggest? The federal government, and congress cant wave a magic wand to give abortions back to women. Whats your remedy? Get rid of the stooges Trump put in the supreme Court Thats never going to happen. They will be justices to the supreme court for life. The next few decades at least, so realistically what do you propose the remedy should be?

That's for the yanks to work out. Personally I think the US is stuffed. 

Frank wrote on Dec 27^th, 2023 at 9:51pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 8:05pm: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 7:01pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 5:27pm: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 12:39pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:59am: Frank wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 10:10am: The States have their own democratically elected parliaments and governments which make laws that reflect the will of the people in each state. The states are still bound by the constitution So they are. And? The constitution says that AMERICANS have a right to privacy, free from interference from govt . What a woman does to her body has nothing to do with govco. Roe v Wade or its overturning was not about what a woman does to her own body. It is about what the state does or does not, or facilitates or not, to be done to her body BY OTHERS. Sure it was. They ignored the woman's constitutional right to privacy free from govt. Interference and pretended it was about the states. Roe v wade wasn't ever the right to abort, it was  the right of women to do what they wanted to with their bodies without govt interference.  That's why the whole argument about how old a foetus has to be before it becomes a living entity became important. Once it becomes a living entity govt then has a right to interfere becauseits thenno longerjustaboutthewoman. The supreme Court had it right the first time. A woman can do whatever she wants. The law is about what the state can and cannot do in response. You have the right to privacy and chop off your own arm or perform a DIY abortion on yourself. But you do not have the right to request that somebody else perform an abortion for you or chop off your arm without the law having a look-in. The whole brouhaha is about who makes such a law - elected representatives or unelected judges.  You can jump off a cliff but the law will be involved if someone else pushes you off that cliff. The law is involved. The point is - who can make the law. It's not complicated. Well, maybe it is for you, militantly thick buggers.

We're just having a chuckle over the whole idea of you trying ever so hard to back a stance you don't give a hoot about, old chap. The point is who can make the law, eh?

I say, dear boy, that's deep. You must have been burning the midnight oil weighing this deeply held ethical conviction up, no?

Did you find it in a Christmas cracker?

americans must be retarded if they havent realised they can just take a bus to another state to get an abortion if they live in the relatively few number of states that have restricted the practice partially or in total

what a trivial thing to care about lol

JC Denton wrote on Dec 28^th, 2023 at 12:43pm:

americans must be retarded if they havent realised they can just take a bus to another state to get an abortion if they live in the relatively few number of states that have restricted the practice partially or in total what a trivial thing to care about lol

But it isnt Americans in this forum. This forum consists of mostly all Australians. They are the ignorant whingers here not Americans. 

Thanks for being the first one smart enough to figure out the very best remedy to overcome local state legislated abortion restrictions.

most of the states havent even restricted it that much

this decision largely just resulted in some state legislatures making their abortion rules more like those of other western countries

JC Denton wrote on Dec 28^th, 2023 at 12:43pm:

americans must be retarded if they havent realised they can just take a bus to another state to get an abortion if they live in the relatively few number of states that have restricted the practice partially or in total what a trivial thing to care about lol

If they live in the...

You don't care either, JC. Abortion bores you ever so.

You don't mind fighting for the right to ban it too. You have your orders, no?

Yawn.

Tap wrote on Dec 28^th, 2023 at 3:54pm:

JC Denton wrote on Dec 28th, 2023 at 12:43pm: americans must be retarded if they havent realised they can just take a bus to another state to get an abortion if they live in the relatively few number of states that have restricted the practice partially or in total what a trivial thing to care about lol But it isnt Americans in this forum. This forum consists of mostly all Australians. They are the ignorant whingers here not Americans.  Thanks for being the first one smart enough to figure out the very best remedy to overcome local state legislated abortion restrictions.

He doesn't, Tap. There's no logic, dear. One either agrees with the state's right to ban abortion, or one doesn't. There is no in between.

If you'll excuse me, this yeah-but-no-but krap is most slippery and mendacious, but do you know?

I'd say ah if they either supported or opposed abortion. I'd say right to life? Right to choice?

Good show. That's a position. It shows you have a backbone.

These knuckleheads support the abortion laws we have in Australia. Here they are saying yeah-but about the Septics.

Oh, but the states should legalize it. That's honourable, ya?

The states should legalise something that was perfectly legal until the Supreme Court went and shot Dear Leader in the foot?

Next they'll be arguing we need to build a big white wall through the centre of Australia. Why?

Oh, I don't know, why not?

It's not politics, dear, it's fashion. It's wearing what you're told.

Welcome to America.

JC Denton wrote on Dec 28^th, 2023 at 12:43pm:

americans must be retarded if they havent realised they can just take a bus to another state to get an abortion if they live in the relatively few number of states that have restricted the practice partially or in total what a trivial thing to care about lol

You a simpleton?

Karnal wrote on Dec 28^th, 2023 at 5:36pm:

JC Denton wrote on Dec 28th, 2023 at 12:43pm: americans must be retarded if they havent realised they can just take a bus to another state to get an abortion if they live in the relatively few number of states that have restricted the practice partially or in total what a trivial thing to care about lol If they live in the... You don't care either, JC. Abortion bores you ever so. You don't mind fighting for the right to ban it too. You have your orders, no? Yawn.

no i would rather it be as liberal as possible, why would you want more speds and n1ggers around?

that being said i'm not pro-choice either; i'm pro-abortion

the court's decision in the matter didn't seem that unreasonable though? i thought even that now deceased old bag justice even said so

I’m pro Retrospective Abortion.

As a male. I stay out of the Abortion debate altogether.
It a Woman's Issue.
...now where did that Women's Issue Board go to? :-/

JC Denton wrote on Dec 28^th, 2023 at 8:07pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 28th, 2023 at 5:36pm: JC Denton wrote on Dec 28th, 2023 at 12:43pm: americans must be retarded if they havent realised they can just take a bus to another state to get an abortion if they live in the relatively few number of states that have restricted the practice partially or in total what a trivial thing to care about lol If they live in the... You don't care either, JC. Abortion bores you ever so. You don't mind fighting for the right to ban it too. You have your orders, no? Yawn. no i would rather it be as liberal as possible, why would you want more speds and n1ggers around? that being said i'm not pro-choice either; i'm pro-abortion

Ah.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 28^th, 2023 at 9:25pm:

I’m pro Retrospective Abortion.

Oh, you're one too, are you? You want abortion fleshed out all yeah-but-no-but, you can't remember what.

Ask the old boy. He's just as pro-abortion as you are, dear.

And every time he fires that culture wars water pistol of his, it hits him in the face too.

John Smith wrote on Dec 27^th, 2023 at 12:30pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 11:15am: You have just said that the decision in Roe-v-Wade was and is lawful. He was wrong

Nope.  I wasn't wrong on this point.

Are you claiming that a ruling—any ruling?—ratified by
the SCOTUS can be unlawful?    Please clarify.

JC Denton wrote on Dec 28^th, 2023 at 3:58pm:

most of the states haven't even restricted it that much...

          https://i.postimg.cc/B6wJ1YMk/25-States-infographic-1-9-23-revision-1.png

     [First published online: 10 January 2023]

AusGeoff wrote on Dec 29^th, 2023 at 4:02am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 12:30pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 27th, 2023 at 11:15am: You have just said that the decision in Roe-v-Wade was and is lawful. He was wrong Nope.  I wasn't wrong on this point. Are you claiming that a ruling—any ruling?—ratified by the SCOTUS can be unlawful?    Please clarify.

I've already explained why it was wrong.  Roe v wade was never specifically about abortion,  it was about a woman's constitutional right to privacy,  free from interference from government .

John Smith wrote on Dec 29^th, 2023 at 5:17am:

...I've already explained why it was wrong.  Roe v wade was never specifically about abortion,  it was about a woman's constitutional right to privacy,  free from interference from government.

Not so.  It was all about abortion.

The primary holding was that a person may choose to
have an abortion until a foetus becomes viable, based
on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process
Clause of the 14th Amendment.   Viability means the
ability to live outside the womb.

Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973), was a landmark decision
of the US Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that
the Constitution of the United States generally protected
a right to have an abortion.

If it wasn't for Norma McCorvey's unwanted pregnancy,
there would never have been a Roe v. Wade scenario.
Her denial of an abortion in Texas (where else!) was what,
specifically, triggered the whole thing.

AusGeoff wrote on Dec 29^th, 2023 at 5:44am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 29th, 2023 at 5:17am: ...I've already explained why it was wrong.  Roe v wade was never specifically about abortion,  it was about a woman's constitutional right to privacy,  free from interference from government. Not so.  It was all about abortion. The primary holding was that a person may choose to have an abortion until a foetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.   Viability means the ability to live outside the womb. Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States generally protected a right to have an abortion. If it wasn't for Norma McCorvey's unwanted pregnancy, there would never have been a Roe v. Wade scenario. Her denial of an abortion in Texas (where else!) was what, specifically, triggered the whole thing.

Of course it all centered around abortion, that was the whole purpose of the court case. But the law they were judging on was a persons constitutional right to privacy. They never said abortions were legal under the constitution or that the federal govts could rule on abortion.

The latest ruling was that the states and not the feds, could make laws over abortion. That is a red herring and was never in question. What the supreme court has done now is remove a woman's right to privacy. Under the US constitution, that is both wrong and illegal.

AusGeoff wrote on Dec 29^th, 2023 at 4:13am:

JC Denton wrote on Dec 28th, 2023 at 3:58pm: most of the states haven't even restricted it that much...           https://i.postimg.cc/B6wJ1YMk/25-States-infographic-1-9-23-revision-1.png      [First published online: 10 January 2023]

actual legal situation is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law_in_the_United_States_by_state#/media/File:Gestational_limits_for_elective_abortion_in_the_United_States.svg

still though it's more states that have restricted it partially than i initially thought, pretty retarded of americans to do this

i guess they're just desperate to have more spastics and ghetto coons around the joint

John Smith wrote on Dec 29^th, 2023 at 6:03am:

Of course it all centered around abortion, that was the whole purpose of the court case. But the law they were judging on was a persons constitutional right to privacy. They never said abortions were legal under the constitution or that the federal govts could rule on abortion. The latest ruling was that the states and not the feds, could make laws over abortion. That is a red herring and was never in question. What the supreme court has done now is remove a woman's right to privacy. Under the US constitution, that is both wrong and illegal.

Not at all. They ruled that the 14th amendment of the constitution cannot be interpreted to have the power to override State law on abortion. “[Roe] held that the abortion right, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is part of a right to privacy, which is also not mentioned.”

Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.