Roe v Wade struck down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who cares about a little thing called the commerce clause? Constitution? The GOP don’t need no stinking Constitution.

(Isn’t this old news? Did they re-ban it or move forward?)

I think Dark Brandon needs to shut off the highway funds to Texas until they decide to start following the Constitution. Texas boys will lose their crap once the potholes get so big they eat their Tahoes.

They are following the Constitution. Banning the use of highways in the commission of a crime is nothing new. If you don't like abortion being a crime, then you should blame Dark Brandon for being so focused on infrastructure that he never bothered to push for Roe v. Wade to be codified when he had the chance

It’s not a federal crime to travel to another state to engage in activity that is legal under federal law or the state where you’re going. Federal funding can and needs to be cut off. If Texas wants to play at independence let them pave their own roads.

It is a state crime. You can try to cut off federal funding, I'm sure speaker Johnson will be really open to that argument. That seems like a precedent that democrats are dumb enough to push for and then wonder why it's used against them when republicans are in power. Democrats had both houses and the presidency and a super politician, but Dark Brandon didn't bother to codify Roe v. Wade and didn't do any at all to address the court the McConnell effectively packed for a generation.

Roe v Wade, the precedent that the lying fascists all said was settled law? Why would he codify a law that was already settled law?

Forced birther clown.

After he was elected when the court was 6-3, the senate and house both blue, and Dobbs on the docket

Again: they all said in their hearings, under oath, it was settled law. Settled law. Do you know what that means, sweetie? It means they’re hacks and it means the court is illegitimate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who cares about a little thing called the commerce clause? Constitution? The GOP don’t need no stinking Constitution.

(Isn’t this old news? Did they re-ban it or move forward?)

I think Dark Brandon needs to shut off the highway funds to Texas until they decide to start following the Constitution. Texas boys will lose their crap once the potholes get so big they eat their Tahoes.

They are following the Constitution. Banning the use of highways in the commission of a crime is nothing new. If you don't like abortion being a crime, then you should blame Dark Brandon for being so focused on infrastructure that he never bothered to push for Roe v. Wade to be codified when he had the chance

It’s not a federal crime to travel to another state to engage in activity that is legal under federal law or the state where you’re going. Federal funding can and needs to be cut off. If Texas wants to play at independence let them pave their own roads.

It is a state crime. You can try to cut off federal funding, I'm sure speaker Johnson will be really open to that argument. That seems like a precedent that democrats are dumb enough to push for and then wonder why it's used against them when republicans are in power. Democrats had both houses and the presidency and a super politician, but Dark Brandon didn't bother to codify Roe v. Wade and didn't do any at all to address the court the McConnell effectively packed for a generation.

Roe v Wade, the precedent that the lying fascists all said was settled law? Why would he codify a law that was already settled law?

Forced birther clown.

After he was elected when the court was 6-3, the senate and house both blue, and Dobbs on the docket

Again: they all said in their hearings, under oath, it was settled law. Settled law. Do you know what that means, sweetie? It means they’re hacks and it means the court is illegitimate.

According to PP, the mistake was believing Republicans were good people and you could trust them at their word. Guess we’ve learned our lesson there, haven’t we.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who cares about a little thing called the commerce clause? Constitution? The GOP don’t need no stinking Constitution.

(Isn’t this old news? Did they re-ban it or move forward?)

I think Dark Brandon needs to shut off the highway funds to Texas until they decide to start following the Constitution. Texas boys will lose their crap once the potholes get so big they eat their Tahoes.

If you don't like abortion being a crime, then you should blame Dark Brandon for being so focused on infrastructure that he never bothered to push for Roe v. Wade to be codified when he had the chance

When did Biden “have the chance” to codify Roe v. Wade? Which nine or ten Republican Senators would have supported that?

The senate makes the rules. McConnell knows that they can be changed for important issues. Schumer and Biden haven't caught on

When has a majority of the Senate supported nuking the filibuster?

When republicans needed to get judicial nominees through

That was several Senates ago. This Senate majority does not support nuking the filibuster. So again, when did Biden “have the chance” to codify Roe v. Wade, which had long been called “settled law” by every sitting member of the Supreme Court? Which nine or ten Republican Senators would have supported that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who cares about a little thing called the commerce clause? Constitution? The GOP don’t need no stinking Constitution.

(Isn’t this old news? Did they re-ban it or move forward?)

I think Dark Brandon needs to shut off the highway funds to Texas until they decide to start following the Constitution. Texas boys will lose their crap once the potholes get so big they eat their Tahoes.

They are following the Constitution. Banning the use of highways in the commission of a crime is nothing new. If you don't like abortion being a crime, then you should blame Dark Brandon for being so focused on infrastructure that he never bothered to push for Roe v. Wade to be codified when he had the chance

It’s not a federal crime to travel to another state to engage in activity that is legal under federal law or the state where you’re going. Federal funding can and needs to be cut off. If Texas wants to play at independence let them pave their own roads.

It is a state crime. You can try to cut off federal funding, I'm sure speaker Johnson will be really open to that argument. That seems like a precedent that democrats are dumb enough to push for and then wonder why it's used against them when republicans are in power. Democrats had both houses and the presidency and a super politician, but Dark Brandon didn't bother to codify Roe v. Wade and didn't do any at all to address the court the McConnell effectively packed for a generation.

Roe v Wade, the precedent that the lying fascists all said was settled law? Why would he codify a law that was already settled law?

Forced birther clown.

After he was elected when the court was 6-3, the senate and house both blue, and Dobbs on the docket

Again: they all said in their hearings, under oath, it was settled law. Settled law. Do you know what that means, sweetie? It means they’re hacks and it means the court is illegitimate.

According to PP, the mistake was believing Republicans were good people and you could trust them at their word. Guess we’ve learned our lesson there, haven’t we.

Oh, I think most women have realized that the GOP - “it’s settled law!” - isn’t to be trusted. How many people in this thread said they never really believed that the GOP would overturn Roe?

[Anonymous]

Here’s what happened to the birth rate in Poland after they banned abortion there. Someone should tell the new Speaker and the other Christofascists who think it’s our civic duty to have more babies to prop up Social Security.

[Anonymous]

Who wants to have a baby in a country ruled by a fascist government?

The Christofascists want to take away birth control next. That will be a win-win for them!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of abortion banners losing elections…

How’s the GOP going to rig this in their favor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of abortion banners losing elections…

How’s the GOP going to rig this in their favor?

I’ve seen the video public polls between Biden and Traitor Trump.

But this kind of aggressive lying shows that the GOP knows they’ve got a losing issue.

Because when you have to lie…

[Anonymous]

“While the more than two dozen abortion bans enacted since the fall of Roe v. Wade all include some kind of exception for the mother’s life, the laws use ambiguous language, with many permitting abortions in a “medical emergency” without offering a concrete definition of that term. Prompted by numerous prominent cases in which women became critically ill after being turned away from hospitals, the issue has spawned debate in state legislatures, several high-profile lawsuits and a standoff with Biden administration officials who say the procedure should be covered by emergency care laws.
But behind that public controversy is a little-known struggle between doctors making life-or-death decisions at great personal risk and hospital administrators navigating untested legal terrain, political pressure from antiabortion lawmakers, and fears of lost funding, a Washington Post investigation found. In staff meetings, phone calls and tense, months-long email exchanges, many doctors have repeatedly sought guidance on how to interpret the medical exceptions in their states’ abortion bans, only to be given directives from hospital officials that are as vague as the laws themselves.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/10/28/abortion-bans-medical-exceptions/

[Anonymous]

What will destroy the US:
- abortion battles
- borders
- income inequality

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What will destroy the US:
- abortion battles
- borders
- income inequality

Abortion battles will not destroy the US. Abortion bans are destructive and very unpopular and they will go down at at the ballot box. and the us will survive without them as it did for the last 50 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What will destroy the US:
- abortion battles
- borders
- income inequality

We have borders. In fact, the rate of interdictions and apprehensions is up since Biden took office. Please stop with the "opEn BoRdERs" nonsense. Yes, there are issues, but the require a legislative solution, one the GOP has been steadfast in opposing for more than a decade.

And the GOP economics exacerbate income inequality. They don't want to address it, they want to make it even more extreme.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What will destroy the US:
- abortion battles
- borders
- income inequality

Abortion battles will not destroy the US. Abortion bans are destructive and very unpopular and they will go down at at the ballot box. and the us will survive without them as it did for the last 50 years.

They pollute the entire women's health care system where they exist and perversely can serve to depress the birth rate. They are a bad idea and policy, championed by people that seem clueless about human reproduction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What will destroy the US:
- abortion battles
- borders
- income inequality

They’re all related. The GOP has been hell-bent on bringing back the Gilded Age for a long time. You start by having a mass of desperate people who will work for pennies in nearly any conditions. As good a game as the GOP talks on the border, they want the bodies. Preferably without papers, as they are easier to exploit and you don’t have to provide them any social services. But desperate native born workers are good too, and nothing like a desperate woman to keep your desperate male base sexually satisfied and feeling like he has some control over his miserable, small life.

If the GOP actually wanted to control immigration, they’d mandate eVerify and apply some of those draconian anti-abortion penalties to people hiring illegal immigrants. But they don’t do that, do they? No, because they want the cheap, desperate labor.

It’s all related.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What will destroy the US:
- abortion battles
- borders
- income inequality

They’re all related. The GOP has been hell-bent on bringing back the Gilded Age for a long time. You start by having a mass of desperate people who will work for pennies in nearly any conditions. As good a game as the GOP talks on the border, they want the bodies. Preferably without papers, as they are easier to exploit and you don’t have to provide them any social services. But desperate native born workers are good too, and nothing like a desperate woman to keep your desperate male base sexually satisfied and feeling like he has some control over his miserable, small life.

If the GOP actually wanted to control immigration, they’d mandate eVerify and apply some of those draconian anti-abortion penalties to people hiring illegal immigrants. But they don’t do that, do they? No, because they want the cheap, desperate labor.

It’s all related.

+1

Again that people seem happy to remain ignorant about what the GOP actually does and why they’re doing it. They want a permanent poor underclass; they did not like the middle class and don’t care if they live or die.