Jump to content

The Supremes


tx 3 putt

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Saint Austin said:

Despite my better judgment I'm dipping my toe into this thread here. But would a lawyer who's better than me explain how Congress could pass a law codifying Roe? Even if it did pass such a law, wouldn't the SCOTUS have the same ability to strike down Roe, as well as that law, kicking it back to the states?

not likely.  congress has a lot of leeway on laws they pass, e.g., through the commerce clause.  all scotus is saying is that the constitution doesn't guarantee that right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Annie's entire professional career is predicated on controlling and denying people's access to healthcare and lifesaving treatment. No shit he takes glee in creating more levers to control personal healthcare decisions and deny care

Have some respect.  My 2 yr old couldn't count to 30, 50x a day.   That takes some talent.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

 I am never going to vote for a party that advocates for suppressing a person’s right to vote. I’m never going to vote for a party that supports violent insurrection in response to an unwanted outcome from a free and fair election. I am never going to vote for a party whose members introduce legislation to put women in jail for using contraception or terminating pregnancies before 17 weeks. If you think that makes me a liberal you need your head examined. 

I have no idea what you are or what you purport to be, that’s not really the point of the discussion. 

 

16 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

There is legislation in Louisiana up for a boat that would be having an abortion in the first weeks of gestation felony murder. We are moving towards a theocracy. 

McCormick’s bill is a joke. You can see his colleagues pulling their collar’s in nervousness when the issue comes up. It will never make it into law and if it somehow does, the federal courts will strike it down. Emotions are high, but let’s not get ridiculous here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

My summary, from December:

Troll: "You're all racist eugenicists!"

Everyone else: "Fuck you, troll"

Troll: "Why can't we find some reasonable common ground? I think you guys should stop being crazy with your opposition to Longhorn victories and come around to my view that it's actually good when the Longhorns win games!" 

image.gif.c3e58af12ea82f897faddc8d8ec45083.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

not likely.  congress has a lot of leeway on laws they pass, e.g., through the commerce clause.  all scotus is saying is that the constitution doesn't guarantee that right. 

I get that the Commerce Clause is often used as a means for the feds to exert authority, but I still don't see a convincing Commerce Clause-based argument here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

not likely.  congress has a lot of leeway on laws they pass, e.g., through the commerce clause.  all scotus is saying is that the constitution doesn't guarantee that right. 

This SCOTUS would absolutely strike down any federal statute that attempted to codify Roe.

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, B00M said:

So the pendulum swing to the left after the most divisive US president in modern history, was electing *checks notes* Joe Biden... and a split Congress? So this undoing of 50 years of freedom that multiple generations of young people have enjoyed was a "predictable correction to the middle"? 1 in 5 people, tops, want what's coming to states like Texas. Middle.

 

This is why the teach the controversy and repeal of the Fairness Doctrine were the lynch pin for making this happen.  The idea is to trick people into thinking this isn't a fringe element of lunatics but a reasoned belief held by half the country.   

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

My summary, from December:

Troll: "You're all racist eugenicists!"

Everyone else: "Fuck you, troll"

Troll: "Why can't we find some reasonable common ground? I think you guys should stop being crazy with your opposition to Longhorn victories and come around to my view that it's actually good when the Longhorns win games!" 

Like a soccer player who commits a hard foul knocking out an opposing player’s tooth and he looks at the referee as if to say “what? Me? I didn’t do anything!!!”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

I have no idea what you are or what you purport to be, that’s not really the point of the discussion. 

 

McCormick’s bill is a joke. You can see his colleagues pulling their collar’s in nervousness when the issue comes up. It will never make it into law and if it somehow does, the federal courts will strike it down. Emotions are high, but let’s not get ridiculous here. 

Once Roe is gone federal courts will have no say. Are you willfully ignorant or just stupid?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

McCormick’s bill is a joke. You can see his colleagues pulling their collar’s in nervousness when the issue comes up. It will never make it into law and if it somehow does, the federal courts will strike it down. Emotions are high, but let’s not get ridiculous here. 

i genuinely used to share this perspective.  truly.  but the ussc's lack of intervention in the appeal of the texas case has relieved me of that delusion.  the supreme court actually refused to intervene on texas's law allowing citizens to privately sue each other over suspected abortions precisely BECAUSE it created the vigilantism and thus, did not present anything to rule on regarding the state.  that made me lose all faith that complete shitcannery will not be pursued and upheld by the worst among us.  i hope i am wrong.

moreover, how are these laws supposed to be challenged in federal court in light of roe being overturned?

Edited by sidis
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite my better judgment I'm dipping my toe into this thread here. But would a lawyer who's better than me explain how Congress could pass a law codifying Roe? Even if it did pass such a law, wouldn't the SCOTUS have the same ability to strike down Roe, as well as that law, kicking it back to the states?

Even in this relatively extreme draft opinion, SCOTUS does not go anywhere near outlawing abortion. It just states it’s not inherently protected by the constitution, which would essentially leave it to states. Federal law trumps state law (that’s why Jim Crow is no longer the last of the south), so action from Congress would void various state bans. SCOTUS had to leave the path for federal action open to allow for the federal abortion ban the GOP wants. That’s a two way street.

They could of course strike it down in a completely arbitrary, nakedly partisan fashion, but even this court has shown it wouldn’t go that far.

If Democrats were smart, they’d put together a right to privacy package inclusive of Roe’s abortion protections, but also other, less polarizing decisions put at risk by this opinion.

But they’re not.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sidis said:

i genuinely used to share this perspective.  truly.  but the ussc's lack of intervention in the appeal of the texas case has relieved me of that delusion.  the supreme court actually refused to intervene on texas's law allowing citizens to privately sue each other over suspected abortions precisely BECAUSE it created the vigilantism and thus, did not present anything to rule on regarding the state.  that made me lose all faith that complete shitcannery will not be pursued and upheld by the worst among us.  i hope i am wrong.

moreover, how are these laws supposed to be challenged in federal court in light of roe being overturned?

My guess, post-Roe overturn, is that a litigant would appeal to the courts to find a substantive due process right to get an abortion when the life of the mother is in danger. The Court could always choose to draw a new line there (I suspect this is basically what Roberts wants to do, rather than expressly overturn Roe). But of course that's a really fuzzy determination and any woman whose life is at risk unless she gets an abortion doesn't have time to take a lawsuit to SCOTUS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Saint Austin said:

Despite my better judgment I'm dipping my toe into this thread here. But would a lawyer who's better than me explain how Congress could pass a law codifying Roe? Even if it did pass such a law, wouldn't the SCOTUS have the same ability to strike down Roe, as well as that law, kicking it back to the states?

yeah they'd just claim the law permitting abortion through second trimester is unconstitutional and make up some shit as to why that is. they'd probably gleefully do it while overturning all the other commerce clause cases. 

Edited by elfenix
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gmr548 said:


Even in this relatively extreme draft opinion, SCOTUS does not go anywhere near outlawing abortion. It just states it’s not inherently protected by the constitution, which would essentially leave it to states. Federal law trumps state law (that’s why Jim Crow is no longer the last of the south), so action from Congress would void various state bans. SCOTUS had to leave the path for federal action open to allow for the federal abortion ban the GOP wants. That’s a two way street.

They could of course strike it down in a completely arbitrary, nakedly partisan fashion, but even this court has shown it wouldn’t go that far.

If Democrats were smart, they’d put together a right to privacy package inclusive of Roe’s abortion protections, but also other, less polarizing decisions put at risk by this opinion.

But they’re not.

Yes it has. It absolutely has. See the recent OSHA vaccine mandate case or any of the cases on pandemic restrictions against religious gatherings.

The proposed law that would effectively "codify" Roe is based on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. Now, any sane person who looks at any actual facts related to abortion would recognize that interstate commerce is hugely involved, but a majority of this Court would absolutely say otherwise. No fucking question about it.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

What's your overriding position on this issue Anastasis? 

Human life has intrinsic value.

 

2 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

The state should have the right to determine whether a woman takes the child to term?  

No. I don't think political or legislative actions will produce viable solutions to the issue. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

My guess, post-Roe overturn, is that a litigant would appeal to the courts to find a substantive due process right to get an abortion when the life of the mother is in danger. The Court could always choose to draw a new line there (I suspect this is basically what Roberts wants to do, rather than expressly overturn Roe). But of course that's a really fuzzy determination and any woman whose life is at risk unless she gets an abortion doesn't have time to take a lawsuit to SCOTUS.

I think Roberts place in history will be that of a butcher of rights. His court has consistently issued opinions that rarely completely overturn a precedent or law, and prefer to gut them so there's still the facade of voting rights or privacy. It's a pretty clever trick, and entirely characteristic with the intellectual dishonesty that is the standard for conservative legal theory

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Yes it has. It absolutely has. See the recent OSHA vaccine mandate case or any of the cases on pandemic restrictions against religious gatherings.

The proposed law that would effectively "codify" Roe is based on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. Now, any sane person who looks at any actual facts related to abortion would recognize that interstate commerce is hugely involved, but a majority of this Court would absolutely say otherwise. No fucking question about it.

Would you break that down for the non-sane among us then? 

Edited by Saint Austin
syntax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

No. I don't think political or legislative actions will produce viable solutions to the issue. 

Hint -- no, not a hint, an open, loud statement: the draft Dobbs opinion is not about abortion.  Abortion is a stalking horse for what the opinion really does, and for what the right has openly declared it wants to do and is already actively working to do: control your private life, now that the right to privacy no longer exists.

So, "the issue" is not abortion.  The "issue" is whether a person has a right to control their own body, and make their own decisions, whether it be to continue a pregnancy, use contraception, engage in gay sex, engage in oral sex, engage in any sexual activity not approved by the Committee of Church Ladies Who Run the Senate, etc.  Dobbs  is about control, because that's what the right wants: total control over the country, and everyone in it.  Remember "every accusation is a confession?"  Read the rhetoric about how they freaked out about any and all public health actions and regulations during COVID.....and then realize the level of control they were screaming about (which largely didn't even exist and wasn't exercised) is exactly what they want for THEM to have.

This is what a terrified former-majority does.  When they feel themselves losing control, they reflexively assert it in the most draconian way possible.  Not because they actually care about the outcome; rather, because that's the most effective way to send us the message that they still have control, and they will use the fuck out of it.  It's human nature.  Abusive spouses do the same thing -- when the battered spouse threatens to leave, thus depriving the abuser of further control, THAT'S when the real beating starts.  "I'll show YOU who's boss!"  We are watching a minority party and minority movement cruelly reminding us all that THEY are boss, and don't you forget it.

And Ana wants to make it about statistics on abortion terms and rates, functionally excusing the real truth -- that the "conservative" movement is the greatest threat to personal and human liberty in American history since slavery was abolished.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I think Roberts place in history will be that of a butcher of rights. His court has consistently issued opinions that rarely completely overturn a precedent or law, and prefer to gut them so there's still the facade of voting rights or privacy. It's a pretty clever trick, and entirely characteristic with the intellectual dishonesty that is the standard for conservative legal theory

corporations have all the rights, people have none.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Saint Austin said:

Would you break that down for those the non-sane among us then? 

Tens of thousands of women cross state lines each year to obtain abortions. Every abortion clinic in America uses drugs and equipment that cross state lines.  Hell, Texas even recently argued in Court that SB8 stimulates interstate commerce. We don't even have to get into an analysis of whether federal regulation of abortion might be acceptable as part of an essential part of a larger regulatory scheme that includes regulation of intrastate commerce (this is the conservative legal justification for federal drug laws). Abortion inarguably involves interstate commerce, but that won't stop five or six justices from saying otherwise.

Edited by wildcat09
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it has. It absolutely has. See the recent OSHA vaccine mandate case or any of the cases on pandemic restrictions against religious gatherings.
The proposed law that would effectively "codify" Roe is based on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. Now, any sane person who looks at any actual facts related to abortion would recognize that interstate commerce is hugely involved, but a majority of this Court would absolutely say otherwise. No fucking question about it.

Even accepting for argument’s sake that they’re not necessarily beyond that and acting in purely partisan interest (and we probably agree more than we don’t here, in general), I don’t think they would because they’d be taking the possibility of a federal abortion ban off the table when there’s a very real possibility that one could be enacted by the GOP in 2025-26.

Knowing that’s the GOP’s goal, if the court is an arm of the party, then you’d expect them to recognize congressional authority here because they’d rather the GOP be able to repeal and reverse it with full control than slam the door on a federal ban.

What a fun hypothetical this is. And it is of course a hypothetical, because the Democrats don’t even have 50 votes on this, let alone the balls to kill the filibuster.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, gmr548 said:


Even accepting for argument’s sake that they’re not necessarily beyond that and acting in purely partisan interest (and we probably agree more than we don’t here, in general), I don’t think they would because they’d be taking the possibility of a federal abortion ban off the table when there’s a very real possibility that one could be enacted by the GOP in 2025-26.

Knowing that’s the GOP’s goal, if the court is an arm of the party, then you’d expect them to recognize congressional authority here because they’d rather the GOP be able to repeal and reverse it with full control than slam the door on a federal ban.

What a fun hypothetical this is. And it is of course a hypothetical, because the Democrats don’t even have 50 votes on this, let alone the balls to kill the filibuster.

Alito has already said in his draft opinion that when it comes to abortion the Court can just wave an "it's different" magic wand. I see no reason Alito +4 wouldn't be happy to say that the federal government can't protect abortion rights and then turn right around and say it can prohibit them.

Edited by wildcat09
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Tens of thousands of women cross state lines each year to obtain abortions. Every abortion clinic in America uses drugs and equipment that cross state lines.  Hell, Texas even recently argued in Court that SB8 stimulates interstate commerce. We don't even have to get into an analysis of whether federal regulation of abortion might be acceptable as part of an essential part of a larger regulatory scheme that includes regulation of intrastate commerce (this is the conservative legal justification for federal drug laws). Abortion inarguably involves interstate commerce, but that won't stop five or six justices from saying otherwise.

But abortion still isn't economic in nature, which is why I still don't find the argument convincing, but fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Once Roe is gone federal courts will have no say. Are you willfully ignorant or just stupid?

Have you read the bill? It’s poorly written and, hell, even the committee that passed it thinks it will be struck down. The bill is losing support by the day because it allows in vitro and birth control to possibly be criminalized. This is all moot because the governor will strike it down first anyway. 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Poe It Up said:

Have you read the bill? It’s poorly written and, hell, even the committee that passed it thinks it will be struck down. The bill is losing support by the day because it allows in vitro and birth control to possibly be criminalized. This is all moot because the governor will strike it down first anyway. 

I'd like to hear from pro-lifers why IVF should not be outlawed along with abortion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This is what a terrified former-majority does.  When they feel themselves losing control, they reflexively assert it in the most draconian way possible.  Not because they actually care about the outcome; rather, because that's the most effective way to send us the message that they still have control, and they will use the fuck out of it.  It's human nature.  Abusive spouses do the same thing -- when the battered spouse threatens to leave, thus depriving the abuser of further control, THAT'S when the real beating starts.  "I'll show YOU who's boss!"  We are watching a minority party and minority movement cruelly reminding us all that THEY are boss, and don't you forget it.

I think it could be argued that it is shitty humans' nature.   Non-shitty humans have a different set of values.  

Edited by Nivek
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Don't worry about the laws my party is trying to pass because they're so deplorable reasonable minds will prevail isn't the defense you think it is.

"Don't worry about my party doing unpopular things, obviously they're unpopular so they won't happen. Just ignore this incredibly unpopular thing we're doing right now and the fact that we're trying to destroy democracy in every state we can gain the tiniest sliver of power in!"

You're not convinced?

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Alito has already said in his draft opinion that when it comes to abortion the Court can just wave an "it's different" magic wand. I see no reason Alito +4 wouldn't be happy to say that the federal government can't protect abortion rights and then turn right around and say it can prohibit them.

Two problems with that.  1) He's lying.  He and the majority intend to use the reasoning of Dobbs to crush the right of privacy as to any and all personal decisions.  2) Even if he wasn't lying, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.  Once the right to privacy isn't a thing, then it isn't a thing.  Griswold is dead, it's just a matter of time.  Lawrence is dead, it's just a matter of time.  Etc.

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'd like to hear from pro-lifers why IVF should not be outlawed along with abortion.

It will be.  There is already legislation being proposed to do just that.  The right of Americans to control their reproductive decisions just got erased, completely and totally -- well, except for the right to avoid reproduction by abstaining from all sexual activity.  That's about it.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Don't worry about the laws my party is trying to pass because they're so deplorable reasonable minds will prevail isn't the defense you think it is.

Im not defending them, I’m explaining why all this panicking is unnecessary.

  • Fuck You 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nivek said:

I think it could be argued that it is shitty humans' nature.  Not all of us are shitty.

Enough of us are.  And the "humans motivated by shitty impulses" motivation to assert power is a lot stronger than the "humans' motivated by basic decency and respect for others" motivation.  So, they've got enough numbers, and they sure as shit have the motivation.  

TLDR; we're fucked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Y'all said the same shit about Roe for decades. We don't believe you.

Look, if you want to believe women are going to be imprisoned for abortions, that’s fine. I just don’t think it’s very healthy. 

  • Fuck You 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

Im not defending them, I’m explaining why all this panicking is unnecessary.

 

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Y'all said the same shit about Roe for decades. We don't believe you.

THAT'S.  BECAUSE.  THEY.  ARE.  LYING.

Lying isn't just all they do -- it's all they are.  It is the essence of their existence.  If you took it away, all that would remain would be an empty cloak, like Obi-Wan's after he let Vader slice him.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

Look, if you want to believe women are going to be imprisoned for abortions, that’s fine. I just don’t think it’s very healthy. 

You are lying.  You are literally lying right now, in real-time.  Perfectly on-brand.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/10/21/oklahoma-woman-convicted-of-manslaughter-miscarriage/6104281001/

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'd like to hear from pro-lifers why IVF should not be outlawed along with abortion.

The only argument I’ve heard that even carried some water was that they are trying to create life vs extinguish it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

I've compared them to the Washington Generals frequently in the past, but I'm starting to think that that's unfair to the Washington Generals. There's something deeply, psychologically wrong with Democratic leadership.

I have an old friend that helped start and runs a progressive "media" outlet. Think "NowThis" but different company. Most of their content is video. A few years ago, they started up a side business - a production company to develop political videos, ads, and related content for political campaigns. They produced a few slick campaign videos for some of the more progressive house candidates. Some likely got posted here during the runup to 2020. When Pelosi got wind that the candidates were using this outside company, and not the ones with the official party approval, a message went out that if any other candidates used this shop, they would be cut off from support from the national party. And that was that.

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You are lying.  You are literally lying right now, in real-time.  Perfectly on-brand.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/10/21/oklahoma-woman-convicted-of-manslaughter-miscarriage/6104281001/

Um, that wasn’t an abortion. She was sentenced because of her meth use during her pregnancy that played a role in the miscarriage. 

  • Fuck You 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Poe It Up said:

The only argument I’ve heard that even carried some water was that they are trying to create life vs extinguish it. 

Until we can grow a fertilized egg into a viable human being in the laboratory, then the act of placing that egg in a woman's body does not represent some threshold event.  Should that woman die in a car accident on the trip home after implantation, then that fertilized egg will die.

The judiciary routinely deals with the balance of individual's rights and the balance of individual rights with the common good.  The law and individual rights have never been black and white.  This simplistic concept that Day One in the uterus is the only possible dividing line completely ignores the fact that, at that point in time, the fertilized egg is not viable, and won't be for months.  The rights of that pre-human must be balanced with those of the woman, which is why viability is the most reasonable line in the sand.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Poe It Up said:

Um, that wasn’t an abortion. She was sentenced because of her meth use during her pregnancy that played a role in the miscarriage. 

Correct.  And the legal difference between "causing the death of a fetus by X vs. Y" is functionally zero.  And Texas currently has candidates for the legislature CAMPAIGNING on the basis of supporting murder charges for abortion.

Stop telling us "X is too extreme, and won't happen," when the GQP has spent years doing X after X after X after "voices of reason" told us "that's too extreme, it won't happen."  YOU.  ARE.  LYING.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It will be.  There is already legislation being proposed to do just that.  The right of Americans to control their reproductive decisions just got erased, completely and totally -- well, except for the right to avoid reproduction by abstaining from all sexual activity.  That's about it.

You think women will get to keep their right to say no to their husbands?

Planet Of The Apes Laughing GIF

 

  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Correct.  And the legal difference between "causing the death of a fetus by X vs. Y" is functionally zero.  And Texas currently has candidates for the legislature CAMPAIGNING on the basis of supporting murder charges for abortion.

Stop telling us "X is too extreme, and won't happen," when the GQP has spent years doing X after X after X after "voices of reason" told us "that's too extreme, it won't happen."  YOU.  ARE.  LYING.

So, I’m not lying. At least you backed off the “they’re imprisoning women for abortion as we speak!!!” Nonsense. 

  • Fuck You 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Poe It Up said:

So, I’m not lying. At least you backed off the “they’re imprisoning women for abortion as we speak!!!” Nonsense. 

No, I didn't back off of it at all.  Oklahoma literally imprisoned a woman for ending her pregnancy.  That was the charge, and she is in prison because of it.  Whether she ended the pregnancy by illegal drug use or legal drug use (drug-induced abortion) was a distinction that only mattered so long as Roe  is law.  Roe is no longer law (or it won't be, once Dobbs goes final).  The distinction will disappear.  Legally, in Oklahoma, there will be no difference between a woman ending her pregnancy via illegal drugs (which guess what....all abortion drugs will be illegal now) or via a formerly legal medical procedure.  All of those actions are the same.  That's the entire fucking point, you fucking disingenuous piece of dick.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

So, I’m not lying. At least you backed off the “they’re imprisoning women for abortion as we speak!!!” Nonsense. 

No, you are just gaslighting.  You are just as bad as Ana, Ag with Kids, and Johnny Sack.  Please do lecture us more on why we shouldn't be angry and terrified?  

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...