Anonymous wrote:Oh, FFS, OP.

Not one of the candidates said anything about "overturning" the decision. They did agree it was wrongly decided because of STATES RIGHTS. That is what this is all about.
The same as Roe v Wade. STATES RIGHTS.

This this this. Some of you should not post about legal issues because you lack all understanding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nice highly edited video. It would have been more helpful to hear *everything* they said - not just the selections that support a ridiculous narrative.

So go watch the entire Michigan Attorney General Republican Primary debate.

Meanwhile, here’s one of them saying the same thing. States’ rights to do what?

Misogynist PP knows full well, but he’s not going to say anything until the talking points come out. They literally cannot discuss any of their party’s horrible politics until they know how they’re supposed to think and talk. Like puppets, waiting to be animated.

They don’t believe the right to privacy from government intrusion doesn’t exist in the Constitution. Why is anyone surprise?

Anonymous wrote:Nice highly edited video. It would have been more helpful to hear *everything* they said - not just the selections that support a ridiculous narrative.

So go watch the entire Michigan Attorney General Republican Primary debate.

Meanwhile, here’s one of them saying the same thing. States’ rights to do what?

Anonymous wrote:Oh, FFS, OP.

Not one of the candidates said anything about "overturning" the decision. They did agree it was wrongly decided because of STATES RIGHTS. That is what this is all about.
The same as Roe v Wade. STATES RIGHTS.

Slavery was about states rights too. What is your point?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nice highly edited video. It would have been more helpful to hear *everything* they said - not just the selections that support a ridiculous narrative.

Post it then.

+1

If it’s so non-offensive, post it. Repos tried to claim that Trump’s “very fine people” comment was better with context. It wasn’t.

This is where the misogyny leads: to religious men having control over women’s bodies. It’s y’all qaeda. Any woman who votes Repo is a fool.

Anonymous wrote:Nice highly edited video. It would have been more helpful to hear *everything* they said - not just the selections that support a ridiculous narrative.

Post it then.

I think that once again, some people are missing the forest for the trees. Arguing about "states' rights" is just a lure. Some people really want an end to contraception, and will use any legal mechanism to get it.

I can well believe it. When they are willing to severely traumatize girls and women by forcing them to give birth before they even get a chance to mull their options (and yes, an unwanted birth can be an extremely traumatic event, worse than rape), of course they'd be willing to ban contraception.

Nice highly edited video. It would have been more helpful to hear *everything* they said - not just the selections that support a ridiculous narrative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to imagine any state or government of any kind rolling back contraceptive use. This in inalienable personal bodily autonomy.

Lol oh it’s coming to a state near you! Think Virginia.

Really. So interesting. Can you provide a link saying as much? No? Oh, right - because you're simply spewing BS.

Anonymous wrote:Oh, FFS, OP.

Not one of the candidates said anything about "overturning" the decision. They did agree it was wrongly decided because of STATES RIGHTS. That is what this is all about.
The same as Roe v Wade. STATES RIGHTS.

It's a distinction without a difference. None of them have the power to overturn that decision. However, notably, none of them caveated their remarks by SUPPORTING the right to contraception.

And the effort against contraception is hardly fear-mongering. It's out there. And it likely won't be outright bans - it's going to be in the form of classifying normal contraception as abortifacient. If that succeeds, then they will go farther and push whatever narrative they need to - women are sluts for wanting contraception, birth rate is falling, whatever, to build a pretense for an outright ban.

https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2014/12/contraception-not-abortion-strategic-campaign-antiabortion-groups-persuade-public

https://www.vogue.com/article/anti-birth-control-movement

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, FFS, OP.

Not one of the candidates said anything about "overturning" the decision. They did agree it was wrongly decided because of STATES RIGHTS. That is what this is all about.
The same as Roe v Wade. STATES RIGHTS.

You would support the reinstatement of slavery under STATES RIGHTS. That doesn’t make your argument correct, it makes you a terrible person willing to put people under the control of freaks.

Don't worry, pp. You can have all the contraceptions you want. You are getting your panties in a bunch over nothing.

You think no one out there on the right would like to ban contraceptives? You poor naive thing. And clearly someone who never went to Catholic school / church.

No. They wouldn't. Ever.
Hell..... the way the government has been operating lately, they may start forcing women to take them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, FFS, OP.

Not one of the candidates said anything about "overturning" the decision. They did agree it was wrongly decided because of STATES RIGHTS. That is what this is all about.
The same as Roe v Wade. STATES RIGHTS.

You would support the reinstatement of slavery under STATES RIGHTS. That doesn’t make your argument correct, it makes you a terrible person willing to put people under the control of freaks.

Don't worry, pp. You can have all the contraceptions you want. You are getting your panties in a bunch over nothing.

You think no one out there on the right would like to ban contraceptives? You poor naive thing. And clearly someone who never went to Catholic school / church.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, FFS, OP.

Not one of the candidates said anything about "overturning" the decision. They did agree it was wrongly decided because of STATES RIGHTS. That is what this is all about.
The same as Roe v Wade. STATES RIGHTS.

You would support the reinstatement of slavery under STATES RIGHTS. That doesn’t make your argument correct, it makes you a terrible person willing to put people under the control of freaks.

Don't worry, pp. You can have all the contraceptions you want. You are getting your panties in a bunch over nothing.

Anonymous wrote:Oh, FFS, OP.

Not one of the candidates said anything about "overturning" the decision. They did agree it was wrongly decided because of STATES RIGHTS. That is what this is all about.
The same as Roe v Wade. STATES RIGHTS.

You would support the reinstatement of slavery under STATES RIGHTS. That doesn’t make your argument correct, it makes you a terrible person willing to put people under the control of freaks.