Youngkin and his AG come out in favor of overturning Roe v Wade

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly how is this "in favor of overturning Roe v Wade"? Up to 20 weeks sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

A bill filed in the Virginia House of Delegates this week would ban abortions after 20 weeks of gestation except in cases where the pregnant woman is at risk of death or “substantial and irreversible” damage to her health.

The bill bans abortions at the halfway point of pregnancy, unless the procedure is necessary to prevent the woman’s death, or “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/update-miyares-says-roe-v-wade-was-wrongly-decided-and-va-now-views-constitution-as/article_2e86f72a-0bbb-5d2a-9733-70a4e55d9a2f.html

Miyares literally joined the Mississippi Attorney General in the lawsuit designed to overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s literally the topic of this thread. The bill filed in the legislature is different (though also bad.)

No - Miyares stated that the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion (which it is) and that it should be left up to the individual states to decide. I'm pro-choice and I agree with him.

https://www.wric.com/news/politics/capitol-connection/miyares-shifts-virginias-stance-on-mississippis-abortion-ban/

So you don’t actually believe that woman gave a right to bodily autonomy, you just don’t feel compelled to ban abortion outright.

You realize the right to privacy also was used in Griswold v Connecticut? So you're also saying states can ban contraception.

Just horrifying stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly how is this "in favor of overturning Roe v Wade"? Up to 20 weeks sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

A bill filed in the Virginia House of Delegates this week would ban abortions after 20 weeks of gestation except in cases where the pregnant woman is at risk of death or “substantial and irreversible” damage to her health.

The bill bans abortions at the halfway point of pregnancy, unless the procedure is necessary to prevent the woman’s death, or “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/update-miyares-says-roe-v-wade-was-wrongly-decided-and-va-now-views-constitution-as/article_2e86f72a-0bbb-5d2a-9733-70a4e55d9a2f.html

Miyares literally joined the Mississippi Attorney General in the lawsuit designed to overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s literally the topic of this thread. The bill filed in the legislature is different (though also bad.)

No - Miyares stated that the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion (which it is) and that it should be left up to the individual states to decide. I'm pro-choice and I agree with him.

https://www.wric.com/news/politics/capitol-connection/miyares-shifts-virginias-stance-on-mississippis-abortion-ban/

So the right to private medical decisions should only exist when the majority votes for it? That doesn’t sound very pro-choice to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly how is this "in favor of overturning Roe v Wade"? Up to 20 weeks sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

A bill filed in the Virginia House of Delegates this week would ban abortions after 20 weeks of gestation except in cases where the pregnant woman is at risk of death or “substantial and irreversible” damage to her health.

The bill bans abortions at the halfway point of pregnancy, unless the procedure is necessary to prevent the woman’s death, or “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/update-miyares-says-roe-v-wade-was-wrongly-decided-and-va-now-views-constitution-as/article_2e86f72a-0bbb-5d2a-9733-70a4e55d9a2f.html

Miyares literally joined the Mississippi Attorney General in the lawsuit designed to overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s literally the topic of this thread. The bill filed in the legislature is different (though also bad.)

No - Miyares stated that the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion (which it is) and that it should be left up to the individual states to decide. I'm pro-choice and I agree with him.

https://www.wric.com/news/politics/capitol-connection/miyares-shifts-virginias-stance-on-mississippis-abortion-ban/

So you don’t actually believe that woman gave a right to bodily autonomy, you just don’t feel compelled to ban abortion outright.

You realize the right to privacy also was used in Griswold v Connecticut? So you're also saying states can ban contraception.

Just horrifying stuff.

Also to ban criminalizing homosexual activity. If Roe falls then gay rights are on the chopping block too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly how is this "in favor of overturning Roe v Wade"? Up to 20 weeks sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

A bill filed in the Virginia House of Delegates this week would ban abortions after 20 weeks of gestation except in cases where the pregnant woman is at risk of death or “substantial and irreversible” damage to her health.

The bill bans abortions at the halfway point of pregnancy, unless the procedure is necessary to prevent the woman’s death, or “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/update-miyares-says-roe-v-wade-was-wrongly-decided-and-va-now-views-constitution-as/article_2e86f72a-0bbb-5d2a-9733-70a4e55d9a2f.html

Miyares literally joined the Mississippi Attorney General in the lawsuit designed to overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s literally the topic of this thread. The bill filed in the legislature is different (though also bad.)

No - Miyares stated that the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion (which it is) and that it should be left up to the individual states to decide. I'm pro-choice and I agree with him.

https://www.wric.com/news/politics/capitol-connection/miyares-shifts-virginias-stance-on-mississippis-abortion-ban/

So you don’t actually believe that woman gave a right to bodily autonomy, you just don’t feel compelled to ban abortion outright.

Sorry, hon. You can put words in my mouth (and everyone else's) as much as you want. Learn to read. The Constitution is actually silent on the subject of abortion. States should be able to decide for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly how is this "in favor of overturning Roe v Wade"? Up to 20 weeks sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

A bill filed in the Virginia House of Delegates this week would ban abortions after 20 weeks of gestation except in cases where the pregnant woman is at risk of death or “substantial and irreversible” damage to her health.

The bill bans abortions at the halfway point of pregnancy, unless the procedure is necessary to prevent the woman’s death, or “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/update-miyares-says-roe-v-wade-was-wrongly-decided-and-va-now-views-constitution-as/article_2e86f72a-0bbb-5d2a-9733-70a4e55d9a2f.html

Miyares literally joined the Mississippi Attorney General in the lawsuit designed to overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s literally the topic of this thread. The bill filed in the legislature is different (though also bad.)

No - Miyares stated that the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion (which it is) and that it should be left up to the individual states to decide. I'm pro-choice and I agree with him.

https://www.wric.com/news/politics/capitol-connection/miyares-shifts-virginias-stance-on-mississippis-abortion-ban/

So you don’t actually believe that woman gave a right to bodily autonomy, you just don’t feel compelled to ban abortion outright.

Sorry, hon. You can put words in my mouth (and everyone else's) as much as you want. Learn to read. The Constitution is actually silent on the subject of abortion. States should be able to decide for themselves.

In other words, you don’t believe women have a right to bodily autonomy. You believe it is okay for a woman to be forced into childbirth if that’s what her state decides. Saying it should be up to the states necessarily means you don’t believe it is a right because you think it would be acceptable for a state to infringe on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly how is this "in favor of overturning Roe v Wade"? Up to 20 weeks sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

A bill filed in the Virginia House of Delegates this week would ban abortions after 20 weeks of gestation except in cases where the pregnant woman is at risk of death or “substantial and irreversible” damage to her health.

The bill bans abortions at the halfway point of pregnancy, unless the procedure is necessary to prevent the woman’s death, or “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/update-miyares-says-roe-v-wade-was-wrongly-decided-and-va-now-views-constitution-as/article_2e86f72a-0bbb-5d2a-9733-70a4e55d9a2f.html

Miyares literally joined the Mississippi Attorney General in the lawsuit designed to overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s literally the topic of this thread. The bill filed in the legislature is different (though also bad.)

No - Miyares stated that the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion (which it is) and that it should be left up to the individual states to decide. I'm pro-choice and I agree with him.

https://www.wric.com/news/politics/capitol-connection/miyares-shifts-virginias-stance-on-mississippis-abortion-ban/

So you don’t actually believe that woman gave a right to bodily autonomy, you just don’t feel compelled to ban abortion outright.

Sorry, hon. You can put words in my mouth (and everyone else's) as much as you want. Learn to read. The Constitution is actually silent on the subject of abortion. States should be able to decide for themselves.

See you disagree with 50 years of stare decisis? And you’re still trying to call yourself pro-choice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly how is this "in favor of overturning Roe v Wade"? Up to 20 weeks sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

A bill filed in the Virginia House of Delegates this week would ban abortions after 20 weeks of gestation except in cases where the pregnant woman is at risk of death or “substantial and irreversible” damage to her health.

The bill bans abortions at the halfway point of pregnancy, unless the procedure is necessary to prevent the woman’s death, or “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/update-miyares-says-roe-v-wade-was-wrongly-decided-and-va-now-views-constitution-as/article_2e86f72a-0bbb-5d2a-9733-70a4e55d9a2f.html

Miyares literally joined the Mississippi Attorney General in the lawsuit designed to overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s literally the topic of this thread. The bill filed in the legislature is different (though also bad.)

No - Miyares stated that the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion (which it is) and that it should be left up to the individual states to decide. I'm pro-choice and I agree with him.

https://www.wric.com/news/politics/capitol-connection/miyares-shifts-virginias-stance-on-mississippis-abortion-ban/

So you don’t actually believe that woman gave a right to bodily autonomy, you just don’t feel compelled to ban abortion outright.

Sorry, hon. You can put words in my mouth (and everyone else's) as much as you want. Learn to read. The Constitution is actually silent on the subject of abortion. States should be able to decide for themselves.

In other words, you don’t believe women have a right to bodily autonomy. You believe it is okay for a woman to be forced into childbirth if that’s what her state decides. Saying it should be up to the states necessarily means you don’t believe it is a right because you think it would be acceptable for a state to infringe on it.

Wow. Even when called out, you double-down and again put words in my mouth. You're not worth conversing with because you have your own agenda. Not interested. Enjoy being that crazy person normal people run from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly how is this "in favor of overturning Roe v Wade"? Up to 20 weeks sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

A bill filed in the Virginia House of Delegates this week would ban abortions after 20 weeks of gestation except in cases where the pregnant woman is at risk of death or “substantial and irreversible” damage to her health.

The bill bans abortions at the halfway point of pregnancy, unless the procedure is necessary to prevent the woman’s death, or “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/update-miyares-says-roe-v-wade-was-wrongly-decided-and-va-now-views-constitution-as/article_2e86f72a-0bbb-5d2a-9733-70a4e55d9a2f.html

Miyares literally joined the Mississippi Attorney General in the lawsuit designed to overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s literally the topic of this thread. The bill filed in the legislature is different (though also bad.)

No - Miyares stated that the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion (which it is) and that it should be left up to the individual states to decide. I'm pro-choice and I agree with him.

https://www.wric.com/news/politics/capitol-connection/miyares-shifts-virginias-stance-on-mississippis-abortion-ban/

So you don’t actually believe that woman gave a right to bodily autonomy, you just don’t feel compelled to ban abortion outright.

Sorry, hon. You can put words in my mouth (and everyone else's) as much as you want. Learn to read. The Constitution is actually silent on the subject of abortion. States should be able to decide for themselves.

In other words, you don’t believe women have a right to bodily autonomy. You believe it is okay for a woman to be forced into childbirth if that’s what her state decides. Saying it should be up to the states necessarily means you don’t believe it is a right because you think it would be acceptable for a state to infringe on it.

Wow. Even when called out, you double-down and again put words in my mouth. You're not worth conversing with because you have your own agenda. Not interested. Enjoy being that crazy person normal people run from.

No, it is exactly what you are saying. If something is a right, it can never be left up to the states to pick and choose whether to afford people those rights. The states are not allowed to violate people’s right. So if you believe that states should get to decide whether to ban abortion, you are necessarily saying that women do not have a right to bodily autonomy when it comes to the decision of whether to give birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly how is this "in favor of overturning Roe v Wade"? Up to 20 weeks sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

A bill filed in the Virginia House of Delegates this week would ban abortions after 20 weeks of gestation except in cases where the pregnant woman is at risk of death or “substantial and irreversible” damage to her health.

The bill bans abortions at the halfway point of pregnancy, unless the procedure is necessary to prevent the woman’s death, or “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/update-miyares-says-roe-v-wade-was-wrongly-decided-and-va-now-views-constitution-as/article_2e86f72a-0bbb-5d2a-9733-70a4e55d9a2f.html

Miyares literally joined the Mississippi Attorney General in the lawsuit designed to overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s literally the topic of this thread. The bill filed in the legislature is different (though also bad.)

No - Miyares stated that the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion (which it is) and that it should be left up to the individual states to decide. I'm pro-choice and I agree with him.

https://www.wric.com/news/politics/capitol-connection/miyares-shifts-virginias-stance-on-mississippis-abortion-ban/

So you don’t actually believe that woman gave a right to bodily autonomy, you just don’t feel compelled to ban abortion outright.

Sorry, hon. You can put words in my mouth (and everyone else's) as much as you want. Learn to read. The Constitution is actually silent on the subject of abortion. States should be able to decide for themselves.

In other words, you don’t believe women have a right to bodily autonomy. You believe it is okay for a woman to be forced into childbirth if that’s what her state decides. Saying it should be up to the states necessarily means you don’t believe it is a right because you think it would be acceptable for a state to infringe on it.

Wow. Even when called out, you double-down and again put words in my mouth. You're not worth conversing with because you have your own agenda. Not interested. Enjoy being that crazy person normal people run from.

No, it is exactly what you are saying. If something is a right, it can never be left up to the states to pick and choose whether to afford people those rights. The states are not allowed to violate people’s right. So if you believe that states should get to decide whether to ban abortion, you are necessarily saying that women do not have a right to bodily autonomy when it comes to the decision of whether to give birth.

Exactly. Either it’s a right or it’s not.

[Anonymous]

This is just another example of the two Americas that exist within the United States. When Roe is overturned, about 20 states will ban abortion. The rest won’t. People are so divided on this topic that any sort of reconciliation or compromise (like Roe itself) is impossible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly how is this "in favor of overturning Roe v Wade"? Up to 20 weeks sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

A bill filed in the Virginia House of Delegates this week would ban abortions after 20 weeks of gestation except in cases where the pregnant woman is at risk of death or “substantial and irreversible” damage to her health.

The bill bans abortions at the halfway point of pregnancy, unless the procedure is necessary to prevent the woman’s death, or “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/update-miyares-says-roe-v-wade-was-wrongly-decided-and-va-now-views-constitution-as/article_2e86f72a-0bbb-5d2a-9733-70a4e55d9a2f.html

Miyares literally joined the Mississippi Attorney General in the lawsuit designed to overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s literally the topic of this thread. The bill filed in the legislature is different (though also bad.)

No - Miyares stated that the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion (which it is) and that it should be left up to the individual states to decide. I'm pro-choice and I agree with him.

https://www.wric.com/news/politics/capitol-connection/miyares-shifts-virginias-stance-on-mississippis-abortion-ban/

So you don’t actually believe that woman gave a right to bodily autonomy, you just don’t feel compelled to ban abortion outright.

Sorry, hon. You can put words in my mouth (and everyone else's) as much as you want. Learn to read. The Constitution is actually silent on the subject of abortion. States should be able to decide for themselves.

In other words, you don’t believe women have a right to bodily autonomy. You believe it is okay for a woman to be forced into childbirth if that’s what her state decides. Saying it should be up to the states necessarily means you don’t believe it is a right because you think it would be acceptable for a state to infringe on it.

Wow. Even when called out, you double-down and again put words in my mouth. You're not worth conversing with because you have your own agenda. Not interested. Enjoy being that crazy person normal people run from.

No, it is exactly what you are saying. If something is a right, it can never be left up to the states to pick and choose whether to afford people those rights. The states are not allowed to violate people’s right. So if you believe that states should get to decide whether to ban abortion, you are necessarily saying that women do not have a right to bodily autonomy when it comes to the decision of whether to give birth.

Exactly. Either it’s a right or it’s not.

Explain the Second Amendment and California. Something is either a right or it isn't. In other words, there are no unlimited rights granted by the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is just another example of the two Americas that exist within the United States. When Roe is overturned, about 20 states will ban abortion. The rest won’t. People are so divided on this topic that any sort of reconciliation or compromise (like Roe itself) is impossible.

If roe is overturned, we go back to illegal procedures and forcing women to travel to other states to terminate pregnancies. No woman is changing her desicion because of some out of touch conservative old guy sitting on the supreme court or that imposter, Amy Coney Barret.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly how is this "in favor of overturning Roe v Wade"? Up to 20 weeks sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

A bill filed in the Virginia House of Delegates this week would ban abortions after 20 weeks of gestation except in cases where the pregnant woman is at risk of death or “substantial and irreversible” damage to her health.

The bill bans abortions at the halfway point of pregnancy, unless the procedure is necessary to prevent the woman’s death, or “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/update-miyares-says-roe-v-wade-was-wrongly-decided-and-va-now-views-constitution-as/article_2e86f72a-0bbb-5d2a-9733-70a4e55d9a2f.html

Miyares literally joined the Mississippi Attorney General in the lawsuit designed to overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s literally the topic of this thread. The bill filed in the legislature is different (though also bad.)

No - Miyares stated that the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion (which it is) and that it should be left up to the individual states to decide. I'm pro-choice and I agree with him.

https://www.wric.com/news/politics/capitol-connection/miyares-shifts-virginias-stance-on-mississippis-abortion-ban/

So you don’t actually believe that woman gave a right to bodily autonomy, you just don’t feel compelled to ban abortion outright.

Sorry, hon. You can put words in my mouth (and everyone else's) as much as you want. Learn to read. The Constitution is actually silent on the subject of abortion. States should be able to decide for themselves.

In other words, you don’t believe women have a right to bodily autonomy. You believe it is okay for a woman to be forced into childbirth if that’s what her state decides. Saying it should be up to the states necessarily means you don’t believe it is a right because you think it would be acceptable for a state to infringe on it.

Wow. Even when called out, you double-down and again put words in my mouth. You're not worth conversing with because you have your own agenda. Not interested. Enjoy being that crazy person normal people run from.

No, it is exactly what you are saying. If something is a right, it can never be left up to the states to pick and choose whether to afford people those rights. The states are not allowed to violate people’s right. So if you believe that states should get to decide whether to ban abortion, you are necessarily saying that women do not have a right to bodily autonomy when it comes to the decision of whether to give birth.

Exactly. Either it’s a right or it’s not.

Explain the Second Amendment and California. Something is either a right or it isn't. In other words, there are no unlimited rights granted by the Constitution.

When you ban something completely, you are saying it is not a right. Twelve states have trigger laws that would automatically ban all abortions immediately after Roe is overturned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just another example of the two Americas that exist within the United States. When Roe is overturned, about 20 states will ban abortion. The rest won’t. People are so divided on this topic that any sort of reconciliation or compromise (like Roe itself) is impossible.

If roe is overturned, we go back to illegal procedures and forcing women to travel to other states to terminate pregnancies. No woman is changing her desicion because of some out of touch conservative old guy sitting on the supreme court or that imposter, Amy Coney Barret.

Well with the new law people will turn others in. So if you are a wealthy woman in an anti choice state you will not be able to travel to another state to have a procedure. Hell you can go to another country and still be sued. All it takes is one person turning you in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone on this blog site from VA is from Nova which went 100% for Terry M. So when you talk about idiots you’re not talking to anyone that’s listening.

But, yes the rest of VA is still “the south” and are highly religious and against the big bad federal govt.

Then we Northern VA should strongly consider seceding from the rest of Va