Anonymous wrote:This really basically invalidates and makes us no longer need the supreme Court.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Every elected official should have to sway under oath that no woman they've ever impregnated has gotten an abortion.
And they should get mandatory 10 years in prison if they are found to have perjured themselves
1,000% this. And full media notification of their answers. I find it interesting that Alito has two children. Why only 2? It seems statistically impossible that sperm met egg only 2 times in his relationship with his wife. What birth control, that will be outlawed next, was part of this arrangement?
Most Catholics I know that are his age have at least a half dozen kids
Bullsh--. I went through Pre Cana in Arlington Diocese, one of the most conservative in the Country (per their own priests). The Deacon that gave the birth control speech, while having 10 kids of his own, openly admitted the VAST majority of Catholics use BC of some sort.
I went through Pre Cana in DC, which included a training and follow up session on natural family planning (which for several reasons, was quite entertaining actually). While I never tested it out (as I was on BC), it is possible that a conservative catholic could follow it. Ultimately, that is a private matter between Alito and his wife just as abortion should be a private decision of a woman.
.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:States Rights is part of the Constitution, abortion isnt.
Go read the Ninth Amendment. You know, the one right before the Tenth one with the “States Rights” in it.
Correct. It’s just so obvious here. What power does the state have to criminalize abortion? Where does the constitution give the government that power?
Explain it to me because that is the question. And I don’t think there is a legitimate state interest in denying pregnant women access to medical care that, if denied, would increase their chances of harm.
They're argument is that the State has the inherent power to control everything not specifically excluded. It flips the entire principle of our democracy upside down. Under their interpretation of the Constitution power flows down instead of up. Rights are not inherent to individuals but rather courtesies given to the people by the government.
That is insane.
WTAF?
It’s in the Constitution. Per the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Anonymous wrote:They're argument is that the State has the inherent power to control everything not specifically excluded. It flips the entire principle of our democracy upside down. Under their interpretation of the Constitution power flows down instead of up. Rights are not inherent to individuals but rather courtesies given to the people by the government.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:States Rights is part of the Constitution, abortion isnt.
Go read the Ninth Amendment. You know, the one right before the Tenth one with the “States Rights” in it.
Correct. It’s just so obvious here. What power does the state have to criminalize abortion? Where does the constitution give the government that power?
Explain it to me because that is the question. And I don’t think there is a legitimate state interest in denying pregnant women access to medical care that, if denied, would increase their chances of harm.
They're argument is that the State has the inherent power to control everything not specifically excluded. It flips the entire principle of our democracy upside down. Under their interpretation of the Constitution power flows down instead of up. Rights are not inherent to individuals but rather courtesies given to the people by the government.
This is not news. It’s how this nation was founded. The issue is whether privacy is a federally protected right, like speech, religion, assembly, etc. I believe the right to privacy is fundamental and should be protected from whatever a state decides to do to it. I’m disgusted that there are those that would see this case as an opportunity to return the issue of privacy to a potentially uneducated gullible majority instead of protecting it from political whims. The Supreme Court has the opportunity here to fix the holes in Roe’s analysis if they want to. Shameful, outrageous, disgusting.
That is insane.
WTAF?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Every elected official should have to sway under oath that no woman they've ever impregnated has gotten an abortion.
And they should get mandatory 10 years in prison if they are found to have perjured themselves
1,000% this. And full media notification of their answers. I find it interesting that Alito has two children. Why only 2? It seems statistically impossible that sperm met egg only 2 times in his relationship with his wife. What birth control, that will be outlawed next, was part of this arrangement?
Most Catholics I know that are his age have at least a half dozen kids
Bullsh--. I went through Pre Cana in Arlington Diocese, one of the most conservative in the Country (per their own priests). The Deacon that gave the birth control speech, while having 10 kids of his own, openly admitted the VAST majority of Catholics use BC of some sort.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:States Rights is part of the Constitution, abortion isnt.
Go read the Ninth Amendment. You know, the one right before the Tenth one with the “States Rights” in it.
Correct. It’s just so obvious here. What power does the state have to criminalize abortion? Where does the constitution give the government that power?
Explain it to me because that is the question. And I don’t think there is a legitimate state interest in denying pregnant women access to medical care that, if denied, would increase their chances of harm.
They're argument is that the State has the inherent power to control everything not specifically excluded. It flips the entire principle of our democracy upside down. Under their interpretation of the Constitution power flows down instead of up. Rights are not inherent to individuals but rather courtesies given to the people by the government.
That is insane.
WTAF?
Anonymous wrote:This really basically invalidates and makes us no longer need the supreme Court.
Anonymous wrote:This really basically invalidates and makes us no longer need the supreme Court.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:States Rights is part of the Constitution, abortion isnt.
Go read the Ninth Amendment. You know, the one right before the Tenth one with the “States Rights” in it.
Correct. It’s just so obvious here. What power does the state have to criminalize abortion? Where does the constitution give the government that power?
Explain it to me because that is the question. And I don’t think there is a legitimate state interest in denying pregnant women access to medical care that, if denied, would increase their chances of harm.
They're argument is that the State has the inherent power to control everything not specifically excluded. It flips the entire principle of our democracy upside down. Under their interpretation of the Constitution power flows down instead of up. Rights are not inherent to individuals but rather courtesies given to the people by the government.
That is insane.
WTAF?
Anonymous wrote:States Rights is part of the Constitution, abortion isnt.