Roe v Wade struck down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Now we're conflating (15+ week) abortions with an over the counter pill?

Uh no. We’re watching states ban abortion in real time. Catch up. Roe v Wade. Read all about it.

Which states banned the Plan B pill today?

Texas.

I don’t think that’s right


https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/24/contraceptives-birth-plan-b-abortion/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Childless politicians being the face of pro-choice is really bad optics. AOC is nearly 33 years old, unmarried and childless; she does not comprehend what she is fighting for. If you are pro-choice, that's fine, but you ought to seek leaders with children to fight for it and be the face of it.

Why is this an issue. Is this a another “motherhood is magical” thing? Because she can certainly comprehend that she wants to make her own choices for her life without being married with a child.

What a stupid post.

The fact that 59% of abortion patients already have at least one child means there are plenty of pro-choice mothers to pick from.

And that’s not including the mothers like me who haven’t had abortions but became even more pro-choice once we experienced the full difficulties of pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting. My (unplanned) child is the light of my life, but I wouldn’t wish this on anyone who wasn’t willing going in.

I was always pro-choice but became staunchly so when pregnant with my first. It was hard AF. And by the time I got accidentally pregnant with a third that was most definitely not wanted, I was busy researching my abortion options. Fortunately for me, nature intervened and I miscarried. I had to have a D&C to make sure everything was gone. But some of these sickos believe even that is a crime. Its my most fervent wish that all of these people rot in hell.

+1. First pregnancy with husband ended in a miscarriage. I had to have a D&C which I guess would be illegal now?

A Dand C is not an abortion dip shit.

Yes, actually, it is. If a doctor has to assist your miscarriage, congratulations. You have had an abortion.

I have federal health insurance and they paid for my D & C after a miscarriage; they wouldn't have paid for an abortion to end a live pregnancy. But yeah, the laws in red states are going to call it all "abortion".

No they will not because they are by definition NOT.

It’s right here in my medical record. It gave me a jolt the first time I read it.

Keep living in denial though.

Just because someone wrote it down, doesn’t mean it’s the correct term. Oftentimes, things get written down in a particular way for insurance coding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Now we're conflating (15+ week) abortions with an over the counter pill?

Uh no. We’re watching states ban abortion in real time. Catch up. Roe v Wade. Read all about it.

Which states banned the Plan B pill today?

Texas.

There will be a whole bunch of white evangelical women from Texas preaching one thing publicly, but traveling to New York in the wee hours of the morning to get access to....reproductive care.

Hypocrisy.

It would be nice if abortion providers hired someone to comb through out of state peoples’ social media and if they’re openly forced birth, deny them the procedure. If they want a forced birth future, they should live it.

Also, their bank accounts should be locked, based on what they say on social media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Let’s reflect on the fact that all that happened is power is returned to the people through their states!

Different strokes for different folks.

You can have abortion on demand in California or Massachusetts. We can respectfully restrict it here in the Deep South.

We all win.

Right, because poor women in the south can easily pop over to California. They’ll just take the shifts off work, book the plane ticket for them and their children, and pay for a hotel room. Then they’ll pay for the procedure in cash. Right? All so simple! And what about women who find out that their fetus is incompatible with life at the 20 week anatomy scan? They should put their own health and their sanity on the back burner so you can pretend you’re saving someone? Your feelings do not supersede anyone else’s right to obtain medical care. Period.

Poor women in the south are voting with rich women in the south to choose life!

Take a seat white savior.

Is it all "states rights," all the way?

Do we go back on Loving v. Virginia, too -- the case law based on the same right to privacy as Roe v. Wade and all the other things earmarked by Clarence Thomas -- and invalidate marriages between people of different races? What if a state starts raising the spectre of 3/5 again?

If you think there are federal protections across "states rights," how do you code that to exclude some things but not others? Or is it all okay, if the state decides it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I like how she ignored the fact that the memo also said that abortion rights protests and abortion clinics were expected to be particular targets.

The fear isn't about violence from the left. It's about violence from the right.

I believe "Jane's Revenge" is a false flag group. They are the ones who supposedly broke windows and spray painted an anti abortion fake clinic but did little real damage. They are probably being funded by Project Veritas.

100%

All of the documented and prosecuted violence from the George Floyd protests were caused by right wingers. They have one playbook; they’re not serious people, they’re dopes. So who is more likely to commit violence: the same people who have been committing clinic violence and murders for the past fifty years (plus the violence at the protests two years ago plus that little attempted coup the GOP staged) or Jennifer down the street who has given to Planned Parenthood because they gave her birth control when she was 16 but is otherwise not super political?

Bs what a lie/ tonnes of left wing activists were arrested. You make me sick.

“Good people were there. Lots of good people.”

Only one party attacked the capital and democracy.

Guess that didn’t make you sick?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My aunt told me that in college if a girl got pregnant they would take Quinine tablets which made the uterus contract and abort. She said it worked. Don't let Thomas et al know or they will ban quinine tablets.

They were essentially banned during Covid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Childless politicians being the face of pro-choice is really bad optics. AOC is nearly 33 years old, unmarried and childless; she does not comprehend what she is fighting for. If you are pro-choice, that's fine, but you ought to seek leaders with children to fight for it and be the face of it.

Why is this an issue. Is this a another “motherhood is magical” thing? Because she can certainly comprehend that she wants to make her own choices for her life without being married with a child.

What a stupid post.

The fact that 59% of abortion patients already have at least one child means there are plenty of pro-choice mothers to pick from.

And that’s not including the mothers like me who haven’t had abortions but became even more pro-choice once we experienced the full difficulties of pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting. My (unplanned) child is the light of my life, but I wouldn’t wish this on anyone who wasn’t willing going in.

I was always pro-choice but became staunchly so when pregnant with my first. It was hard AF. And by the time I got accidentally pregnant with a third that was most definitely not wanted, I was busy researching my abortion options. Fortunately for me, nature intervened and I miscarried. I had to have a D&C to make sure everything was gone. But some of these sickos believe even that is a crime. Its my most fervent wish that all of these people rot in hell.

+1. First pregnancy with husband ended in a miscarriage. I had to have a D&C which I guess would be illegal now?

A Dand C is not an abortion dip shit.

Yes, actually, it is. If a doctor has to assist your miscarriage, congratulations. You have had an abortion.

I have federal health insurance and they paid for my D & C after a miscarriage; they wouldn't have paid for an abortion to end a live pregnancy. But yeah, the laws in red states are going to call it all "abortion".

No they will not because they are by definition NOT.

It’s right here in my medical record. It gave me a jolt the first time I read it.

Keep living in denial though.

Just because someone wrote it down, doesn’t mean it’s the correct term. Oftentimes, things get written down in a particular way for insurance coding.

It’s really dawning on you that the abortion that saved your life after your missed miscarriage wouldn’t be available, isn’t it? You literally thought pro choice women were feminazis and you thought your state would offer carve outs for “good” women like you. Have you built your whole life around being a good, docile woman who doesn’t push men, doesn’t do icky things like keep her name when she got married and vote Democratic? At the back of your mind, do you know that your husband needs to approve of you and your appearance?

Come to the side of light, of truth. I have books for you to read when you wake from your subservient dream.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Childless politicians being the face of pro-choice is really bad optics. AOC is nearly 33 years old, unmarried and childless; she does not comprehend what she is fighting for. If you are pro-choice, that's fine, but you ought to seek leaders with children to fight for it and be the face of it.

Why is this an issue. Is this a another “motherhood is magical” thing? Because she can certainly comprehend that she wants to make her own choices for her life without being married with a child.

What a stupid post.

The fact that 59% of abortion patients already have at least one child means there are plenty of pro-choice mothers to pick from.

And that’s not including the mothers like me who haven’t had abortions but became even more pro-choice once we experienced the full difficulties of pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting. My (unplanned) child is the light of my life, but I wouldn’t wish this on anyone who wasn’t willing going in.

I was always pro-choice but became staunchly so when pregnant with my first. It was hard AF. And by the time I got accidentally pregnant with a third that was most definitely not wanted, I was busy researching my abortion options. Fortunately for me, nature intervened and I miscarried. I had to have a D&C to make sure everything was gone. But some of these sickos believe even that is a crime. Its my most fervent wish that all of these people rot in hell.

+1. First pregnancy with husband ended in a miscarriage. I had to have a D&C which I guess would be illegal now?

A Dand C is not an abortion dip shit.

Yes, actually, it is. If a doctor has to assist your miscarriage, congratulations. You have had an abortion.

I have federal health insurance and they paid for my D & C after a miscarriage; they wouldn't have paid for an abortion to end a live pregnancy. But yeah, the laws in red states are going to call it all "abortion".

No they will not because they are by definition NOT.

It’s right here in my medical record. It gave me a jolt the first time I read it.

Keep living in denial though.

Just because someone wrote it down, doesn’t mean it’s the correct term. Oftentimes, things get written down in a particular way for insurance coding.

Gee wizz thanks I’ll just tell the prosecutor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I like how she ignored the fact that the memo also said that abortion rights protests and abortion clinics were expected to be particular targets.

The fear isn't about violence from the left. It's about violence from the right.

I believe "Jane's Revenge" is a false flag group. They are the ones who supposedly broke windows and spray painted an anti abortion fake clinic but did little real damage. They are probably being funded by Project Veritas.

100%

All of the documented and prosecuted violence from the George Floyd protests were caused by right wingers. They have one playbook; they’re not serious people, they’re dopes. So who is more likely to commit violence: the same people who have been committing clinic violence and murders for the past fifty years (plus the violence at the protests two years ago plus that little attempted coup the GOP staged) or Jennifer down the street who has given to Planned Parenthood because they gave her birth control when she was 16 but is otherwise not super political?

Bs what a lie/ tonnes of left wing activists were arrested. You make me sick.

“Good people were there. Lots of good people.”

Only one party attacked the capital and democracy.

Guess that didn’t make you sick?

Pretty sure that person isn’t even posting from the US. “Tonnes”? What American uses the word “tonnes” when they mean “tons”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Let’s reflect on the fact that all that happened is power is returned to the people through their states!

Different strokes for different folks.

You can have abortion on demand in California or Massachusetts. We can respectfully restrict it here in the Deep South.

We all win.

Right, because poor women in the south can easily pop over to California. They’ll just take the shifts off work, book the plane ticket for them and their children, and pay for a hotel room. Then they’ll pay for the procedure in cash. Right? All so simple! And what about women who find out that their fetus is incompatible with life at the 20 week anatomy scan? They should put their own health and their sanity on the back burner so you can pretend you’re saving someone? Your feelings do not supersede anyone else’s right to obtain medical care. Period.

Poor women in the south are voting with rich women in the south to choose life!

Take a seat white savior.

Is it all "states rights," all the way?

Do we go back on Loving v. Virginia, too -- the case law based on the same right to privacy as Roe v. Wade and all the other things earmarked by Clarence Thomas -- and invalidate marriages between people of different races? What if a state starts raising the spectre of 3/5 again?

If you think there are federal protections across "states rights," how do you code that to exclude some things but not others? Or is it all okay, if the state decides it?

Lol. Oh yes, protecting the unborn is just a small step from Jim Crow and worse.

Well we actually have Jim Crow 2.0 already (which is how all those folks voted in GA recently), but yes interracial marriage is in the cross hairs and slavery is the long game.

Just we need to drum up the market price for cotton first because I don’t know what they will do, and it seems like all the hard labor is being done by Mexicans in the south just like up north.

You read our play book !

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's about power. The power to control. It's an attack on individualism. The decision takes power from individual people and gives it to legislatures. It's an attack on the fundamental idea of America. The underlying change is to the meaning of the word people which now exclusively means people's representatives. It's an attack on limited government.

The fundamental idea of America is not individuals with unlimited rights - it's a social contract where individuals balance their rights with those of others through an elected government.

The fundamental idea is that power rests inherently with the people not the government. The people grant government limited powers. Not governments granting people limited rights.

Correct, which is why abortion going back to the states is the right decision. It was never the court’s power. Now people in those red states can determine how important abortion is to them in the context of other issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Let’s reflect on the fact that all that happened is power is returned to the people through their states!

Different strokes for different folks.

You can have abortion on demand in California or Massachusetts. We can respectfully restrict it here in the Deep South.

We all win.

Right, because poor women in the south can easily pop over to California. They’ll just take the shifts off work, book the plane ticket for them and their children, and pay for a hotel room. Then they’ll pay for the procedure in cash. Right? All so simple! And what about women who find out that their fetus is incompatible with life at the 20 week anatomy scan? They should put their own health and their sanity on the back burner so you can pretend you’re saving someone? Your feelings do not supersede anyone else’s right to obtain medical care. Period.

Poor women in the south are voting with rich women in the south to choose life!

Take a seat white savior.

Is it all "states rights," all the way?

Do we go back on Loving v. Virginia, too -- the case law based on the same right to privacy as Roe v. Wade and all the other things earmarked by Clarence Thomas -- and invalidate marriages between people of different races? What if a state starts raising the spectre of 3/5 again?

If you think there are federal protections across "states rights," how do you code that to exclude some things but not others? Or is it all okay, if the state decides it?

Lol. Oh yes, protecting the unborn is just a small step from Jim Crow and worse.

Well we actually have Jim Crow 2.0 already (which is how all those folks voted in GA recently), but yes interracial marriage is in the cross hairs and slavery is the long game.

Just we need to drum up the market price for cotton first because I don’t know what they will do, and it seems like all the hard labor is being done by Mexicans in the south just like up north.

You read our play book !

I notice you sidestepped the question.

[Anonymous]

Loving v. Virginia is based on the same legal foundation of constitutional right to privacy as every other thing Clarence Thomas targeted, but he left that one out. Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Let’s reflect on the fact that all that happened is power is returned to the people through their states!

Different strokes for different folks.

You can have abortion on demand in California or Massachusetts. We can respectfully restrict it here in the Deep South.

We all win.

Right, because poor women in the south can easily pop over to California. They’ll just take the shifts off work, book the plane ticket for them and their children, and pay for a hotel room. Then they’ll pay for the procedure in cash. Right? All so simple! And what about women who find out that their fetus is incompatible with life at the 20 week anatomy scan? They should put their own health and their sanity on the back burner so you can pretend you’re saving someone? Your feelings do not supersede anyone else’s right to obtain medical care. Period.

Poor women in the south are voting with rich women in the south to choose life!

Take a seat white savior.

Is it all "states rights," all the way?

Do we go back on Loving v. Virginia, too -- the case law based on the same right to privacy as Roe v. Wade and all the other things earmarked by Clarence Thomas -- and invalidate marriages between people of different races? What if a state starts raising the spectre of 3/5 again?

If you think there are federal protections across "states rights," how do you code that to exclude some things but not others? Or is it all okay, if the state decides it?

Lol. Oh yes, protecting the unborn is just a small step from Jim Crow and worse.

Well we actually have Jim Crow 2.0 already (which is how all those folks voted in GA recently), but yes interracial marriage is in the cross hairs and slavery is the long game.

Just we need to drum up the market price for cotton first because I don’t know what they will do, and it seems like all the hard labor is being done by Mexicans in the south just like up north.

You read our play book !

No one read your play book. You’ve been announcing your plays on the PA system.
“We hate women! We tolerate them so long as they’re dumb and docile and do our bidding. Everyone else is a feminazi who deserves whatever we do to her.”

“The confederacy will rise again. Lynching is an awesome tool for keeping Black people afraid, and it works best if the cops do it, so they can never feel safe. But for maximum second classery, rights are only granted to White people (soon only White men, just gotta infiltrate a few more institutions). Systemic racism is our friend!”

Etc. You always think you’re such open minded, intelligent people but you hurr durr durr your way through life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Loving v. Virginia is based on the same legal foundation of constitutional right to privacy as every other thing Clarence Thomas targeted, but he left that one out. Why?

Ohhh, good point.