here’s the difference:  guns can’t be regulated by states but women’s bodies can

2 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

I’m a U.S. citizen, sure.  
But I can tell you that if I lived in a European country I wouldn’t be complaining about inflation in the United States in the political subforum of a mediocre professional football team’s unaffiliated message board.

WTF?

2 hours ago, Ipiggles said:

 Proof you are an incredibly stupid idiot. 

The post you replied to was mine, and it clearly stated

More female Supreme Court justices voted to overturn Roe v. Wade then voted for it.

If you read that slowly, you will understand.  Pay attention where it stated VOTED FOR IT!  There were no Women Court Justices when they VOTED FOR ROE.   They were not Voting FOR ROE this time, they were voting to overturn it, so they either Voted to overturn it, or they voted against overturning it this year.  No one was VOTING FOR ROE THIS YEAR!

If you cant grasp this, I dont know what to tell you!

 

2 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Ummmm no.   That was what Mississippi's law while Roe was still the law of the land.  With Roe over-ruled, their trigger law will now take effect which bans all abortions except for medical emergencies and in case of rape/incest.  

There will now be 22 states in the country where abortions are banned, and ten of those states make no exception for rape or incest.

THAT'S what people are freaking out about.  You should follow more reliable people on twitter...

Between the lack of exceptions for rape or incest, and the impact to IVF clinics, I feel really bad for people that live in these backwater hell holes where the government will now force young victims of incest to carry to term and unduly punish couples struggling to conceive. It's embarrassing to think this sort of thing can happen to Americans in 2022, but here we are.

1 hour ago, Procus said:

Biden came out today and pretty much said the same thing.  I imagine we'll see abortion legislation introduced well before the elections.  With the blue bloodbath on the horizon, this certainly is a sensitive issue the D's can hang their hats on.  I would think the legislation would have a decent chance to get passed too.  Surprised something to this effect wasn't codified into the US Code long before Roe was overturned.

Nothing is passing the Senate with the filibuster.

59 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

I'm not surprised at all. It's a very sensitive subject, that has a very vocal side, and a not so vocal side. It really is hard to tell where the majority sits. 

Uh, no it's not.

A strong majority (~2/3rds) believe the choice should be between a woman and her doctor.

There's more polling on this issue than most.

Enough to know that one of the strongest pro-choice demographics is 20-40 year old men.

 

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

Don't push me or I'll sign up for one of your classes and berate you in person

The airplane ticket would cost more than the class

5 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Uh, no it's not.

A strong majority (~2/3rds) believe the choice should be between a woman and her doctor.

There's more polling on this issue than most.

Enough to know that one of the strongest pro-choice demographics is 20-40 year old men.

Bc they are still trying to get laid

1 minute ago, ToastJenkins said:

Bc they are still trying to get laid

I don't doubt the concern over knocking a girl up factors in. But the fact remains that the support is there.

21 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

here’s the difference:  guns can’t be regulated by states but women’s bodies can

One is an enumerated right

the other is abortion

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I don't doubt the concern over knocking a girl up factors in. But the fact remains that the support is there.

Cant assume the motive

2 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Cant assume the motive

Motive doesn't matter. Support does.

Just now, JohnSnowsHair said:

Motive doesn't matter. Support does.

Nope. The court exists for the rule of law not popular opinion

3 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

One is an enumerated right

the other is abortion

Women had little to no rights in colonial America.

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

Women had little to no rights in colonial America.

Hey it had support

1 minute ago, ToastJenkins said:

Nope. The court exists for the rule of law not popular opinion

Not talking "rule of law". I'm talking politics.

53 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

This might meant Kz would have to now boycott Dicks, but then he wouldn't be able to attend those 27-man garage "poker parties" anymore.

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

Women had little to no rights in colonial America.

Where did they have rights 250 years ago?

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Not talking "rule of law". I'm talking politics.

Then take it up with congress to do their damn jobs

Twitter is off the hook at the moment.  I've never seen so many people that biblically angry and lashing out at people.  Makes England football fans last summer look like a bunch of docile kittens in comparison.

Is it a little entertaining? Most definitely.

Just now, ToastJenkins said:

Then take it up with congress to do their damn jobs

Sure. I don't think they thought they had to.

According to .. 3? .. of the sitting justices, Roe was settled law.

I don't disagree they ought to have codified it into law. But we also have sitting justices that apparently straight lied during confirmation hearings. 

The original statement I challenged was "we don't know where the majority sits" [on abortion]. Considering how well known views on abortion are, that is a preposterous position.

 

16 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Women had little to no rights in colonial America.

Or most of the rest of the world for that matter. 

14 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Nope. The court exists for the rule of law not popular opinion

Sorry but this is BS, what Thomas said about going after other decisions makes it absolutely clear that the rule of law has nothing to do with it, this decision makes the law a mockery, a shifting sands where the political make up of the supreme court can lead it to relitigate standing precedent on an unchanged legislative basis 5 decades later, that isn't the rule of law.

Having said that the Democrats had 50 years and 3 presidents to codify Roe v Wade as law and they didn't, because the democrats like the UK Labour party have been more concerned with keeping the political left out of power than preventing the right getting dangerously close to straight up fascism, America is sliding towards being a Christian fundamentalist theocracy and it's horseshit.

 

6 minutes ago, Procus said:

Or most of the rest of the world for that matter. 

What does it say about women in the Constitution???