Republicans are scum

Remember back when Obama had a super majority in the Senate and chose to do the crappy Obamacare instead of Legalizing abortion? Good times.

#9 | Posted by Bluewaffles

This is an odd argument. Dems (and not republicans) should be criticized for not stopping republicans from committing atrocities?

This is on Texas. Take it up with them.

#3 | Posted by boaz a

Boaz hates Americans.

Maybe the question isn't "how many women have to die" but "does it have to be a woman you love who dies" before men like BR start to take this issue serioulsy.

#15 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

Jeff is wealthy enough to mostly be able to fund an abortion.

Maybe a pregnancy emergency will hit someone he loves, who knows.

I have zero respect for any man who does not fully support women and their rights to reproductive care.

That put "state's rights" -------- ahead of the ability of any woman to get the care she needs.

Women are literally dying.

To quote for former First Lady, from someone who has gone through it:

"You will be the one pleading for somebody, anybody, to do something."

If you are a man with a mother, sister, daughter, niece, aunt, grandmother, do something. Support, PROTECT, the women you love.

Man the ---- up.

It's deplorable how the medical profession has made the decision to withhold medically necessary and completely legal treatment to make political points.

#24 | Posted by visitor_

No, what is deplorable is ignorant --------- like you have any political power in this country.

Amanda Zurawski, from Austin, lead plaintiff in the case, was denied abortion care after she experienced preterm pre-labor rupture of membranes (PPROM) at 18 weeks of pregnancy. She was seen at a Catholic hospital in Austin, where she was denied an abortion because her doctors could still detect fetal cardiac activity. Three days later, she showed signs of infection and was diagnosed with sepsis, a life-threatening condition. Although doctors then performed an emergency induction abortion, she spent the next three days in the ICU fighting for her life. She ultimately survived, but the infection caused one of her fallopian tubes to become permanently closed, compromising her future ability to have children. She has been forced to turn to in vitro fertilization (IVF) in attempt to start a family.

Lauren Miller, from Dallas, was hospitalized at eight weeks of pregnancy for severe nausea, vomiting, and dehydration, and was diagnosed with hyperemesis gravidarum"a condition posing significant risks to the patient and her pregnancy. She also learned at that time she was pregnant with twins. But at 12 weeks, Lauren learned that one of her twins had trisomy 18"a condition that causes multiple structural abnormalities and makes the fetus unlikely to survive to birth. Due to Texas's abortion bans, doctors denied Lauren a fetal reduction abortion procedure, despite it being necessary to give Lauren and the second fetus the best chance of survival. After being again hospitalized for hyperemesis gravidarum at 15 weeks, she traveled out of state to Colorado to obtain the fetal reduction abortion. Lauren has recovered and is expecting to give birth this month.

Lauren Hall, from outside of Dallas, discovered at 18 weeks pregnant that her fetus had anencephaly, a condition which prevents fetuses from developing a skull. Her fetus had no chance of survival and continuing the pregnancy posed severe risks to her, including hemorrhage and pre-term birth. Although Lauren wanted an abortion, her obstetrician refused to provide one or to help in any way. In addition, her medical specialist was afraid to give her a referral for an abortion out of state and refused to even send her medical records. Lauren was forced to travel out of state to obtain an abortion at a clinic outside of Seattle. She is now pregnant again, due in September but scared to be pregnant under the state's laws.

Republicans, the party who firmly believe that fetuses without skulls are more valuable than living breathing women

Anna Zargarian, from Austin, Texas, was 19 weeks pregnant when her water broke and she began cramping. In the emergency room, doctors told Anna there was no chance that her baby would survive and that based on her condition, she was at risk of infection, hemorrhage, and sepsis. Anna was told that she needed an abortion but could not get one in Texas and would need to leave the state. Anna decided to fly to Colorado for an abortion, despite her fear of going into labor on the way. While she still wants to have children, she is afraid to go through pregnancy again in Texas.

Republicans, the party who firmly believe that a fetus, stuck in a womb without fluid, is more valuable than a living breathing woman.

Kylie Beaton lives with her husband and their daughter in Fort Worth, Texas. Kylie was thrilled to learn she was pregnant with their second child, but at her 20-week scan, she discovered the baby had a condition, alobar holoprosencephaly, in which the brain does not develop normally and the head grows abnormally quickly. After learning the baby would barely survive past birth, Kylie considered traveling to New Mexico for abortion care. But the baby's head was already measuring at close to 24 weeks"a size past the gestational cutoff for the New Mexico clinic"and Kylie had no choice but to continue the pregnancy. At Kylie's 28-week ultrasound appointment, she begged to be induced before the baby's head grew too large to deliver vaginally, but her doctors refused due to Texas's abortion bans. After rushing to the hospital with abdominal pain at 35 weeks, Kylie was finally sent for an emergency Cesarean, and her baby died four days after he was born. Kylie said that having to go through the birth and death of her son made losing him much harder, and she fears for her health, safety, and ability to get pregnant again in the future.

So very compassionate to force a creature to suffer 4 days of excruciating pain before it's inevitable dying.

Republicans, the party that firmly believes that fetuses with heads literally shaped like Stewie Griffin are more valuable than living breathing women.

Jessica Bernardo, from Frisco, Texas, was thrilled to discover she was pregnant after two years of fertility challenges. Upon learning at 14 weeks that their baby likely had Down syndrome, she and her husband began researching how to support children with disabilities. But Jessica soon learned that her daughter had several other severe medical conditions, including fetal anasarca, and would not survive to birth"and continuing the pregnancy put her at risk of developing a potentially fatal condition. Her doctor contacted the hospital ethics committee for an exclusion, but the request was denied. Using what felt to her like coded language, Jessica told her doctor that they had a residence in Colorado and asked if they should go there; her doctor told her yes. After finding that the clinics in Colorado were all booked, Jessica was eventually able to get an appointment for an abortion in Seattle, where she was the third patient from Texas that week alone. Jessica describes this experience as the worst trauma of her life. She is terrified to get pregnant naturally again in Texas and has decided to start IVF.

Republicans, the party that really, really wants to traumatize women.

Samantha Casiano, who lives in East Texas with her partner and their children, learned at her 20-week scan that her baby had anencephaly and would not survive. She asked her doctor what her options were"but since she lacked the time, finances, and resources to travel out of state, she was told she had none but to continue with the pregnancy. As the months wore on, Samantha found it excruciating to have people constantly congratulating her, and she worried relentlessly about how she would afford a funeral for her daughter. Though the baby was born breech (positioned backwards), which usually necessitates a Cesarean section, Samantha was not given the option to have the procedure; she noted the hypocrisy of treating her daughter like a healthy baby only while she was in utero. Her daughter died four hours after birth, and, after a simple funeral, Samantha resolved to tell her story publicly in the hope that others would not have to go through the same experience. She wished she had been able to put her daughter to rest earlier, since she was going to have to rest either way.

Republicans, the party that insists on treating a fetus like a healthy baby (despite all evidence) ONLY while in utero. It's almost like they value an unviable fetus more than a living, breathing woman.

Taylor Edwards, from Austin, learned at 17 weeks pregnant that her daughter had a fatal condition called encephalocele and would die at or before birth. Continuing the pregnancy posed risks to Taylor as well. After a second opinion confirmed the diagnosis, Taylor decided to travel to New Mexico to have an abortion, despite the daunting logistics and expense. Her doctors in Texas told her that if her condition had occurred a year and a half earlier, they could have offered her the care she needed, but not anymore. Three hours before her flight was scheduled to leave, the New Mexico clinic canceled Taylor's appointment due to a shortage of medication needed for the procedure. Taylor searched for other appointments in New Mexico, but none were available. She soon started vomiting daily, struggling both physically and emotionally, and she was terrified that she would be too far along for an abortion by the time she found an appointment. Taylor was eventually able to obtain an abortion at a Colorado clinic, though she returned to Texas feeling she was back at square one with IVF. Taylor and her husband still want a child, but she fears being pregnant again in Texas.

Republicans, the party that loves women being terrified of getting pregnant.

Kiersten Hogan, of the Dallas-Fort Worth area, was surprised but excited to learn she was pregnant. When her boyfriend became violent and insisted she get an abortion, Kiersten left him and moved to Texas. There, several instances of cramping and bleeding sent her to the emergency room, but doctors repeatedly assured her that everything looked normal. Then, just weeks after Texas abortion ban S.B. 8 took effect, her water broke. Hospital staff told Kiersten that if her cervical insufficiency had been diagnosed earlier, she could have had a procedure to prevent this; now, it was too late. She was forced to stay in the hospital against her will, where religious counselors repeatedly came to visit her and staff told her that if she tried to leave, it could be used as evidence that she was trying to kill her baby. Four days later, Kiersten delivered her son stillborn. She says being detained against her will made her feel like a criminal during the biggest medical emergency of her life.

Republicans, the party that kidnaps women and subjects them to religious indoctrination and threats.

Lauren Van Vleet and her husband were delighted to learn she was pregnant. But a severe snow and ice storm delayed Lauren's 20-week scan by two weeks, and at the rescheduled scan, the couple learned that their son had anencephaly and would not survive. Lauren's doctor told her that due to Texas' laws, there was nothing she could do but wait for the baby's heart to stop beating or carry the pregnancy to term. She would have to go out of state if she wanted an abortion. Lauren was 23 weeks pregnant when she began searching for appointments and was concerned she'd be unable to obtain an abortion at this stage. She was terrified of legal liability and avoided texting anyone about her plans. Luckily, family members in Maryland were able to provide logistical and financial support, and Lauren received an abortion there at 24 weeks. She has spent the last several months trying to heal; while she still wants children, she is afraid to be pregnant again in Texas.

Republicans, the party that forces women to spend more time, effort, money and subjects themselves to more danger to obtain necessary medical care.

Elizabeth Weller, of Kingwood, Texas, had a relatively smooth pregnancy at first. She opted not to do any genetic testing: Elizabeth herself was born with a physical disability, brachial plexus Erb's palsy, and she knew she would want to continue the pregnancy regardless. At 19 weeks, however, Elizabeth's water broke. Though her baby would not be able to survive and continuing the pregnancy meant risking her fertility and her life, hospital staff refused to perform an abortion because Elizabeth had already been prescribed antibiotics, saying she had put herself in a "legal gray area" by attempting to fend off infection. Her options were to stop taking the antibiotics and stay in the hospital, or go home, monitor herself for signs of worsening infection, and wait for her baby to die inside her. After she was diagnosed with chorioamnionitus, an infection of the placenta and the amniotic fluid, a medical board finally approved an abortion for her. Elizabeth said her experience made her feel like she was being punished by the state of Texas for failing to carry a wanted pregnancy to term. While she and her husband still want children, they are traumatized by the experience and afraid of the serious risks associated with being pregnant in Texas.

Republicans-the party that punishes women for failing (because they had to save their own lives) to carry a wanted pregnancy to term.

Kristen Anaya, of the Dallas-Fort Worth area, was 16 weeks pregnant when her water broke. At the hospital, she lost more amniotic fluid, spiked a fever, and began having rigors, or uncontrollable shaking"symptoms that she would later learn were early signs of sepsis. Kristen's doctor told her that her pregnancy could not continue without amniotic fluid, but since her daughter still had a heartbeat, the hospital would not provide abortion care unless her life was in danger. Over the next 22 hours, Kristen's fever climbed higher, and she shook and vomited constantly. After presenting Kristen's case to hospital administration several times, her doctor was finally able to obtain permission for her to receive an abortion. Immediately after the procedure, Kristen's fever subsided and the vomiting stopped. She recovered from the septic infection after five days in the hospital. Kristen and her husband still want to have children but fear for her safety if she gets pregnant again. They've started IVF treatments and believe they've found a surrogate who can carry for them"but the surrogate also lives in Texas. Kristen decided to join this case after realizing that so many other Texans shared her experience.

Republicans, the party that forces women to suffer life threatening situations, to protect an unviable fetus.

Kaitlyn Kash, of Austin, pregnant with her second child, discovered after her 13-week ultrasound that her baby had severe skeletal dysplasia"a condition affecting bone and cartilage growth"and the baby was unlikely to survive until birth or would suffocate soon after being born. When Kaitlyn asked what option would ensure the least amount of suffering for her baby, the MFM recommended she seek "a second opinion, but outside Texas." Kaitlyn was able to obtain abortion care after traveling to a clinic in Kansas, where protestors harassed her and other patients. After becoming pregnant a few months later, Kaitlyn miscarried at seven weeks. Her doctor prescribed medication to help her pass the pregnancy, but because the drug is also used for medication abortion, she struggled to find a pharmacy to fill the prescription. After another miscarriage without medical intervention, Kaitlyn became pregnant and gave birth to a daughter in 2023. After the birth, she needed a dilation and curettage (D&C) procedure to remove remaining placental tissue, but the hospital had difficulty locating the equipment and staff for the procedure. While waiting, Kaitlyn's condition deteriorated, and after vomiting, losing blood, and losing consciousness, she was transferred to the ICU, where she was later told she was lucky she hadn't lost her uterus. Kaitlyn still struggles to understand why the hospital had so much trouble providing her with routine postpartum care.

Republicans, the party that actively keeps necessary medicine from women, has stripped it's medical system of necessary medical equipment and nearly kills women, to save the residue of miscarriages and placental tissue.

D. Aylen, of San Antonio, discovered at about 17 weeks into her pregnancy that her baby had a possible neural tube defect, such as anencephaly or spina bifida. At her 19-week anatomy scan, an MFM specialist confirmed the diagnosis of anencephaly. Hoping to prevent more suffering for herself and her baby, D. called out-of-state abortion clinics"most of which had four- to eight-week wait times"and eventually was able to obtain abortion care in San Diego. Losing her child and being forced to travel to California to obtain health care was one of the worst moments of D.'s life. She is glad to be pregnant again but continues to be plagued by fear and receives sonograms every three weeks. D. decided to join this case to honor her baby's memory and make sure that no other family has to go through what she endured.

Republicans, the party that thinks nothing of putting residents of ----------- states at risk, as women have to flee the -------- state to receive basic medical care.

Kimberly Manzano, of the Dallas-Fort Worth area, discovered she was pregnant again after a miscarriage a few months earlier. But an ultrasound at 10 weeks revealed that some of the baby's organs were growing outside the body. The MFM specialist was concerned that Kimberly's health was at risk and suggested she obtain an abortion out of state. After an MRI scan revealed that the baby's spine, genitalia, kidney, bladder and abdominal wall had not developed properly, the MFM specialist told Kimberly and her husband, "If it was my baby, I would want him to be with God now." Devout Christians, Kimberly and her husband had always considered themselves to be anti-abortion, but it became clear to them that abortion was their only option. Their baby had little or no chance of survival, and if Kimberly continued the pregnancy, she'd be at risk of infection since the baby had no bladder and urine was circulating in her uterus. When Kimberly was 18 weeks pregnant, she was traveled out of state to obtain an abortion in New Mexico. Kimberly and her husband consider losing their baby to be the most challenging thing they have been through. Disgusted that people are made to feel like criminals for making such sacrifices, Kimberly believes it is not her place to judge someone else's decision about their pregnancy. She decided to join this case in hopes that her baby's story can make a change and so that no woman has to flee Texas to obtain necessary medical treatment.

Republicans, the party that forces even devout Christians to be made to feel like criminals for obtaining necessary medical care.

Dr. Danielle Mathisen, formerly of the Fort Worth area, is currently an obstetrician-gynecologist (OB-GYN) resident physician in Hawai'i. While still living in Texas, Dr. Mathisen learned she was pregnant. But at her 18-week anatomy scan, her doctor diagnosed her baby with several lethal fetal conditions"including a hole in the spine, only one kidney, and no formed brain structures"and said the baby was unlikely to survive or would slowly suffocate soon after birth. Dr. Mathisen's doctor"who is also her aunt"told her she couldn't help her and advised her to go on a "vacation" to Colorado. Dr. Mathisen was shocked that her own family member was unable to help her or even openly discuss abortion due to Texas's bans. Dr. Mathisen and her husband decided abortion was the right decision to prevent further suffering for their baby and themselves. With clinics in Colorado overflowing with Texans, Dr. Mathisen was able to obtain an abortion after traveling to New Mexico. Dr. Mathisen is pregnant again and resides in Hawai'i, where abortion is legal, but she does not feel safe when she visits her family in Texas. She decided to join this case to be a voice for people who can't share their abortion stories and to prevent other Texans from going through the same trauma.

Republicans-the party that values a fetus without a brain (perhaps they think the fetus will grow up to be a republican) over a living breathing woman.

Cristina Nuez, of El Paso, has several medical conditions"including diabetes, cardiovascular issues, and end-stage renal disease"and was advised by doctors to never become pregnant. When she discovered she was six weeks pregnant, Cristina consulted her OB-GYN, who reiterated that continuing the pregnancy would put her life, and her baby's life, at risk. Cristina asked for an abortion, and although her doctor promised to present her case to the hospital administration, she never heard back. She reached out to a New Mexico clinic and was told that because of her medical condition, she was not eligible for medication abortion, and she was too early in pregnancy to get a surgical abortion. Over the next few weeks, Cristina's health rapidly deteriorated, requiring an increase in her dialysis treatments. After her arm turned black due to blood clotting issues, and fearful she he was at risk of pulmonary embolism and losing her arm (Cristina is a trained nurse), she went to the emergency room. The hospital staff refused to provide her an abortion. After 11 days of waiting"and only after contacting an organization for legal support and translation services, since Cristina does not speak English"she finally received an abortion. She will never understand why she had to become so sick before receiving the medical care that saved her life.

Republicans-the party that refuses severely sick women from getting necessary healthcare.

These stories are the REALITY of abortion bans.

These women are not "-----" using abortion as birth control (though I, personally, have no problem with that).

These are women who face common problems with pregnancies.

These types of situations are happening every day across America.

And, again, the state's rights issue is complete and utter --------.

Even accepting all the -------- about stripping women of their rights, these laws force women in -------- states to travel to non--------- states for necessary care, thus preventing or interfering with the citizens of the non--------- states from getting the care they need.

Anyone who doesn't know the distinct difference between the legislative and judicial branches shouldn't be voting.

#65 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Anyone that values a fetus without a brain (perhaps they think the fetus will grow up to be a republican) over a living breathing woman shouldnt vote

Do you believe that someone who kills a pregnant woman should be charged with two murders?

#81 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS AT 2024-10-30 12:42 PM | FLAG:

A woman was arrested for murder for a miscarriage

This happened BEFORE the decision that rightly reversed Roe.

#92 | Posted by visitor_ a

SB-8 you ------- ignorant moron

Funny listening leftist men on this site act like they care about women.

Your argument rings hollow as long as men are putting on dresses and taking women's sports spots all because they cant compete with their born gender.

#99 | Posted by boaz

40 trans athletes, both trans male and trans female, of the 522,000 college athletes you misogynistic bore

I'm clarifying my suspicions that if the left were to have things their way all the way around, we'd be ------- living in "The Purge" IRL.

#97 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Your suspicions.

Cause you're a moron.

Boaz has NEVER expressed concern about trans men (people he thinks of as women), entering men's spaced.

Cause he hates trans people.

Because he is an -------

Probably hates himself over being attracted to Ru-Paul

now its chaos and women are dying because the far right is a bunch of busybody control freaks that want to force strangers to follow bronze age myths they dont even follow themselves. its absurd.

#98 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-10-30 01:04 PM | Reply | Flag

---------. Pure --------. At some point a baby can survive outside of the womb without going full term. People with a conscience have every right to speak about issues that go on within the society in which they live. And I'm not apologizing for that. But because I simply can't agree unfettered access to abortion 24/7, 365 in any/all situations, you choose to label me as some bronze age, religious zealot - and nothing is farther from the truth.

Abortion was being used in this culture as birth control and it's disgusting to me.. I'm glad SCOTUS put a stop to it. Now states can figure it out with their local representatives in their state legislatures. And you have a right to vote for those who favor your views on the subject.

#106 | Posted by lfthndthrds a

I posted figures the other day about abortions in MN that are likely representative of abortion nationwide.

Exactly 1 abortion occurred after 23 weeks.

1 abortion

of thousands

1 abortion after viability.

"you choose to label me as some bronze age, religious zealot - and nothing is farther from the truth."

Justify preventing a woman from doing with her body what she chooses without referencing religion.

I'd like to see

Abortion was being used in this culture as birth control and it's disgusting to me.. I'm glad SCOTUS put a stop to it. Now states can figure it out with their local representatives in their state legislatures. And you have a right to vote for those who favor your views on the subject.

#106 | Posted by lfthndthrds a

Republicans, the party that insists on treating a fetus like a healthy baby (despite all evidence) ONLY while in utero. It's almost like they value an unviable fetus more than a living, breathing woman.

"Abortion was being used in this culture as birth control and it's disgusting to me.."

#106 | Posted by lfthndthrds

The government telling a woman what she can do with her body is disgusting to me.

"Seek head before you harm yourself or others."

This is my recommendation to anyone for pretty much everything

" Abortion was being used in this culture as birth control and it's disgusting to me.."

you're disgusting to me and i dont want a law banning you.

#119 | Posted by Alexandrite

Can we put it on the ballot?

not with the unfair advantage a trans has.

Even just the fact you people are trying to justify putting a man in woman's sports is sickening.

#146 | Posted by boaz

40 trans athletes of both genders

of 522,000 athletes

40

of

522,000

you sir are disgusting

Makes me wonder where all the "to save the life of the mother" stipulations come in?

I wonder, were their live in danger?

#158 | Posted by boaz

In America getting pregnant puts one's life in danger.

In -------- states, the problem is compounded.

I strongly suspect that if Boaz or Visiturd or --------------- pregnant daughter had a medical emergency while visiting Texas, they would have a completely different attitude.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, I have ZERO respect for ANY man that does not fully support a woman's right to reproductive freedom.

Again, if Boaz or Visiturd or --------------- pregnant daughter had a medical emergency while visiting Texas, they would have a completely different attitude.

They'd be pacing the hospital begging someone, anyone, to do something about it.

Fair enough

what would you do if a female loved one had a pregnancy related emergency that a. necessitated an abortion and b. was not permitted?

Oh wait no woman in their right mind would love someone like you.

You realize you are incentivizing false accusations of rape, right?

------- stupid magats

I have zero respect for any man who does not fully support women and their rights to reproductive care.

I have zero respect for any man too stupid to realize that it may be them wandering a hospital begging someone, anyone to help their loved one to provide basic care.

On second thought, you need to sit the F down and listen to this. My wife had to have an abortion. Not one of you keyboard warriors want to discuss the psychological damage it does to women. Much less women who didn't have to get an abortion except for the convenience. Yeah, there's a price to be paid for that ---- emotionally.

And before you start your ----, my wife had to have this procedure in Texas. The place you want to burn to the ground. So STFU and go find another random 3 year old article to ignite another ----storm. You clowns are peddling bs pure and simple. And I'm happy you have all 12 of your followers to listen to that ----.

#195 | Posted by lfthndthrds

You're dumb, you're REALLY dumb

HAD to have an abortion.

But it was still her choice, right? Assuming it was pre-SB8

It is simple, now it is NOT her choice.

Taking that choice away could cost her life. Don't you ------- get that?

OF COURSE THERE IS A EMOTIONAL COST YOU ------- IDIOT! THE POINT IS THAT IT IS NONE OF THE ------- GOVERNMENTS BUSINESS.

Every woman who has had an abortion either to save her life, to prevent harm due to a miscarriage, to give mercy to a unviable fetus, to allow her to take medications for her own health, to deal with the results of a rape or ------, because she is too young or just starting her life or already has more kids than she can deal with now goes through a harrowing experience.

FFS that is the very essence of the pro-choice position. That that woman, every ------- woman, should be helped through that process.

I am sincerely happy your wife had that choice to make and I hope she is able to heal from the trauma she experienced.

How on earth having a loved one go through that can justify denying that choice to other women LITERALLY boggles my mind.

BTW, I almost lost the mother of my children to a miscarriage. The details of the miscarriage are eerily similar to the stories coming out of the ---- hole states. That was one of the most traumatic events in MY life let alone what she experienced. A doctor coming to you and telling you your loved one's BP is around 40 or 10 is ------- terrifying. Fortunately, I live in a ----------- state and she was able to receive the care she needed. I could not imagine having to deal with doctors and a hospital uncertain or unable to provide the care she needed.

So STFU and go find another random 3 year old article to ignite another ---------.

You're too much of a magat scumbag to admit that this death resulted from fears at crossing SB-8.

For the obtuse, Trump illegalized abortion care in much of the US

#197 | POSTED BY HAMBURGLAR AT 2024-10-30 07:42 PM | FLAG:

No such thing happened.

#208 | Posted by lfthndthrds a

Liar

Even dumbass JPW was smart enough to abandon this burning ship.

#212 | Posted by lfthndthrds

-------------- is at the Mission Accomplished banner stage

All of you should feel dumber for participating in this conversation.

Between us girls, I think if the title had been "Texas Abortion Ban Kills Another Woman," the article would have been on the back page with a handful of posts.

#270 | Posted by madbomber

You apparently aren't aware that the SC specifically refused to overturn Texas law SB-8. You understand that, right? -------- Supreme Court could have stopped SB-8-the Texas fetal heartbeat law with bounties. You get that, right? You do understand that that is the law that prevented this woman from getting the basic and necessary healthcare resulting in her death.

This means that this death is attributable to -------.

Does that make sense to you?

Now that you have been informed, I expect you to NEVER speak this nonsense again.

And here, I bring the receipts

So, here in the REAL world, -------- SC caused the death of this woman.

You see, YOUR posts are the one's making people dumber.

I predict you will run away instead of acknowledging your error.

All of you should feel dumber for participating in this conversation.

Between us girls, I think if the title had been "Texas Abortion Ban Kills Another Woman," the article would have been on the back page with a handful of posts.

#270 | Posted by madbomber

I knew you wouldn't be man enough to admit you were wrong.

Why did this woman die?

Because Texas put a fetal heartbeat law into effect.

Texas did this because they knew they now had 6 lying religious fanatics on the SC.

The SC REFUSED to overturn SB-8.

------- PROUDLY, touts that he put on the 3 lying religious fanatics on the SC who allowed for this abortion restriction.

These are facts.

This has been explained to you.

You refuse to acknowledge this reality.

You are not a man.

You're a bitch.

I have zero respect for any man who does not fully support women and their rights to reproductive care.

"You apparently aren't aware that the SC specifically refused to overturn Texas law SB-8. You understand that, right?"

And?

The Supreme Court already ruled that abortion rights are a function of the state. So, it would be more apt and accurate to call this the "Texas" abortion ban. Perhaps you could blame SCOTUS, but objectively there is nothing in the constitution ensuring a federal right to abortion. Not that I'm aware of anyway.

In any case, I'm not sure where Trump fits in to this whole convo...

If abortion is so fundamentally important, why not create an amendment to the constitution? And even if you did, I'm not sure it would matter unless the federal government obligated to provide abortion services nationwide.

#295 | Posted by madbomber a

Christ you're ignorant.

The SC DID NOT already rule that abortion rights are a function of the state.

RvW was in effect since 1972.
In 2021 Texas enacted SB-8 in an attempt to push the issue to the SC
this woman died shortly after the law went into effect (September 2021).
later in 2021 the SC REFUSED to overturn the law.
in June 2022 Dobbs was issued overturning (in one of the few times the SC has actually stripped rights from citizens) sending issue back to states.

Second.

For 49 years it was decided that a right to an abortion WAS in the constitution.
There is a thing called stare decisis, basically courts rely on precedent.
49 years is a LONG time and the right to an abortion was REPEATEDLY upheld, thus ensuring that the right existed.
During each of the 6 lying fanatic justices' nomination hearing, each one lied saying they believed in stare decisis specifically in the area of abortion
They freaking lied, under oath
Stare Decisis should ONLY be ignored if the initial ruling is outrageously wrong-like the Dredd Scott decision.
Stare decisis is important because the law should be stable, not subject to the political whims of lying fanatics.
The legal basis for the Dobbs decision is blatant partisan -------- cherry picked nonsense, creating justification out of wholecloth including using the opinions of a 16th judge who believe in ------- witches.
Alito even writes that RvW was blatantly wrong-which he never said before. So, either he lied during his nomination OR he changed his mind over time. We are entitled to know when Alito had this come to jesus moment on RvW.

Ahhh you're too stupid to understand how stupid you are.

there is no Ban on Abortion. it is up to the States to decide by a Democratic Vote.

BTW, Dems have had the WH and both Congress and the Senate many times since Roe V Wade, why didn't they pass federal laws to allow abortions nationwide? same way with guns

because they want the issue to run on, they don't want to solve it

#287 | Posted by Maverick

Because your basic rights should not be up to political will.

You're too stupid to understand how damaging this decision is.

The Supreme Court of the United States overturned precedent and said YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY. Your body is no longer YOURS. Your body belongs to the state.

It starts with women being forced BY THE STATE, to carry unwanted fetuses, often at risk to their health and life, to term. Even if the woman was ------- impregnated against their will.

That is just the beginning.

This Supreme Court wants to take away
-same sex marriage (no longer have a right marry whom you choose)
-the use of contraception-you will no longer have the right to take medicine that you desire to choose when you get pregnant
---------- will no longer be able to use your body sexually as you choose.
--------------- will no longer be able to obtain, own and view pornographic material of consenting adults

Notably Thomas did not mention interracial marriage (which derives from the same right to privacy)-because the ------- is married to a white woman.

This means the SC can
-force you to take vaccines, even untried vaccines
-force you to participate in medical trials
-force sterilization on "undesirables"
-allow the state to inflict diseases on you without your knowledge.

You think these things are far-fetched? These are all actions that were done by the government and all had to be litigated in court to STOP.

------- IS TALKING ABOUT POISON IN THE NATIONAL BLOOD AND MURDERERS ARE GENETICALLY PREDISPOSED TO VIOLENCE.

You will soon be upset when they come after something you care about.

"For 49 years it was decided that a right to an abortion WAS in the constitution."

Really?

Where?

I guess I missed that.

Are you equally fervent about the actual amendments? Like the 2nd amendment?

#313 | Posted by madbomber

You don't seem to understand what a right is.

Women were allowed to obtain an abortion because RvW found that they had a right to it and states could not legislate against it. RvW enshrined that right.

Similar to the RIGHT for married couples to use contraception
Similar to the RIGHT for a white person to marry a black person
Similar to the RIGHT for a couple to perform sexual acts as they see fit
Similar to the RIGHT for two people of the same sex to marry.

All of those rights were enshrined in laws.

I don't believe I have to explain such basic ----.

Look at it another way.

the 3rd part of the 14th Amendment said an insurrectionist could not hold public office.

That was the law for 150 or so years.

This court interpreted that Amendment illogically to say an insurrectionist CAN hold public office

OR

Where in the Constitution does it say the President is immune from Prosecution?
That is a right that the president now has.

Jesus ------- christ schools fail us.

"I have zero respect for any man who does not fully support women and their rights to reproductive care."

Yeah.

Tell me, at what point has abortion been legal for men?

#312 | Posted by madbomber

I have no idea what you are babbling about.

Hey, speaking of the equal protection clause. how come women no longer have the same rights as men?

Do you understand that in light of Dobbs? I suspect not.

"During each of the 6 lying fanatic justices' nomination hearing, each one lied saying they believed in stare decisis specifically in the area of abortion They freaking lied, under oath"

Fanatical??? Have you listed to yourself? If you do a line tonight, you might not make it.

I am 100% of legal abortion, but that's just my opinion. Just like I think it should be up to the states to determine gun laws. However, my opinion is immaterial. Both of the topics I just addressed could be touched on through constitutional processes. Your issue seems to be that it would be too much trouble. That your beliefs count higher than the constitution. Sorry bro, you're not that important. None of us are.

#320 | Posted by madbomber at

And I argue that you are not very educated, that you fail to understand how our government works.

1. Yes fanatical, they made up "law" based on nothing. They are legislating (radically) from the bench, originalism is whatever they want on a specific case, they are ignoring the constitutional requirements to reach conclusions, the big question doctrine is nonsense. They are reaching unpopular fringe decisions on cases. So yeah fanatics
2. Abortion and gun laws ARE "touched on through constitutional processes"-i.e. the courts. Let me explain something VERY BASIC to you. Your rights are not and should not be subject to legislative (i.e. politics) restraints. PRIVACY was a right up to June 2022. Because the radical court decided otherwise.
3. I am not claiming my beliefs count higher than the constitution, I am trying to educate you in basic civics. And apparently failing.

Let me explain something to you.

If there is no "right to privacy" there is NO LAW that congress can pass that this court is bound to recognize.

And will be thrown out.

You get that, right?

You see, Congress can only pass laws based on the powers they possess, which are essentially, taxation, interstate commerce and, thanks to the 14th Amendment, protecting your rights.

What power does Congress have to pass a law that this SC is bound to respect?

Keep in mind that this court found that the right to an abortion, i.e. the right to privacy-DOES NOT EXIST.

Therefore, Congress does not have the authority to tell states that they must allow abortions.

So, no matter what Congress would have done in the past under democratic leadership, or does in the future, since Congress has no authority, abortion cannot be protected at the federal level.

PLEASE TRY TO LEARN SOMETHING

"1. Yes fanatical, they made up "law" based on nothing. They are legislating (radically) from the bench, originalism is whatever they want on a specific case, they are ignoring the constitutional requirements to reach conclusions, the big question doctrine is nonsense. They are reaching unpopular fringe decisions on cases. So yeah fanatics"

What law did they "make up?"

#331 | Posted by madbomber a

IDK, maybe dictating to Congress on how to spend? As in Congress delegated the authority to forgive student loans to the executive branch, but the SC overturned that action.

You do realize how courts work right. Courts ONLY have the authority to adjudicate disputes between plaintiffs.

Legislative-passes laws, Executive interprets and enforces law and the Courts decide conflicts between impacted parties.

They cannot decide cases that do not have conflicts. Full Stop

There was no plaintiff in the student loan forgiveness case. None. The entity they used as plaintiff=the Missouri agency that ran the program, denied they were part of the suit and in fact LOST money as a result of overturning the student loan forgiveness.

Thus, the SC had NO AUTHORITY to rule on the case-because there was no plaintiff and no conflict.

Thus the SC dictated to the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch how to spend money and interpret the law.

"And I argue that you are not very educated, that you fail to understand how our government works."

Really?

Would you like to compare professional experience and academic pedigree?

#330 | Posted by madbomber

Son, on this topic I am infinitely more informed than you are.

Do you wanna compare that academic pedigree and professional experience or not?

#335 | Posted by madbomber a

You don't even understand the basics of how the courts work or how your rights are derived. PUUUHHHHLLLLEEEAAASSSEEEE

"Therefore, Congress does not have the authority to tell states that they must allow abortions."

They can. They did. SOCTUS determined that they lacked the authority under the constitution to do so.

So...what's the problem?

#336 | Posted by madbomber a

What???

First, please post the specific language in the Constitution and Bill of Rights that would allow Congress to pass a law protecting abortion.

Please, I beg you post that language.

Second. Congress did not.

People sued a state to obtain an abortion. the court case-Roe vs Wade found that a right to obtain an abortion existed (based on the right to privacy between the woman and her physician on the medical practiced on her body).

Third. SCOTUS did not determine that. They found that the right to privacy did not exist vis a vis abortion (Thomas in his concurrence opened the door to overturning most of hte other rights derived from the right to privacy).

To make your life easier, here is Congress' power per the Constitution

Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the -------- of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

That's it, Oh and also the authority to tax

That's it.

Nothing about privacy

Where in there does it say Congress has the power to prevent states from denying specific medical procedures?

Now the 14th gave Congress some more power:

AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

You see there Congress shall have the power to legislate "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That means no state can take basic rights away.

RvW said women have a right to an abortion.

Dobbs took that away

And where do the rights come from that Congress is protecting?

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
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.

You see how it says "enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

that means we have rights that are not enumerated.

As in privacy.

Until Dobbs

So, I ask again.

What authority, specifically, does Congress have that will allow them to require states allow abortion that this court will recognize.

Oh and btw, Congress DOES have the power to regulate AGAINST abortion under the commerce clause, simply by not permitting the interstate commerce of material used to perform abortions, That power they have

Did you learn anything madbummer?

I feel better spleening out stuff like this. It is incredibly frustrating to argue with people so willfully, proudly and stubbornly ignorant.

I try and try to educate people, I ask simple questions, and all I get in return is just ignorance.

No problem on the other topic, though it is off topic :O)

the worst of it though, is that now he will disappear and come back tomorrow with the same ignorance.

I don't think of him like jeff-a soulless lying troll

just proudly stubbornly ignorant

Despite clear 'health of the mother' exceptions, doctors remain indecisive, afraid to diagnose and remedy. It's like they would rather have it as an issue than do their job and save people.

#395 | Posted by beavercleaver

Hey look! Another ignorant --------

Do the world a favor and do not vote.

"IDK, maybe dictating to Congress on how to spend? As in Congress delegated the authority to forgive student loans to the executive branch, but the SC overturned that action."

More like dictating to congress how not to spend, right? In this case, telling the president what he couldn't do with taxpayer dollars. That'd kinda their job.

#412 | Posted by madbomber

Evidence that you don't understand how courts work or what authority they have

Hint. the courts DO NOT have the power to dictate to Congress or the Executive branch how to spend tax dollars.

They have the authority to adjudicate, i.e. interpret the law over conflicts between parties on what the interpretation of the law when at least one of the parties has suffered injury.

No parties=no court authority.
No injury=no court authority

When they decide something without the conflict they are legislating.

Congress passed the student loan law

the student loan law delegated power to the executive branch to forgive loans

The executive branch interpreted that law and forgave loans.

the SC took a lawsuit where there was no party claiming injury by the act of forgiving the loan

The party claimed to be injured denied being party to the lawsuit and suffered no injury infact were to benefit from student loan forgiveness.

This is INCREDIbly BASIC STUFF

"Where in there does it say Congress has the power to prevent states from denying specific medical procedures?"

What medical procedure is congress preventing the states from providing?

#413 | Posted by madbomber

Shakes my head

None

The courts used to deny states from restricting abortions (under specific conditions).

Dobbs removed those restrictions.

"Amendment X: 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."

Most applicable here.

#414 | Posted by madbomber

Yes, and until Dobbs, the power (i.e. right) to privacy (i.e. to get an abortion) was a power that the people had (this is called an unenumerated right).

"Did you learn anything madbummer?"

I did. I learned that you're a under-educated, perhaps emotionally unstable fanatic. At least when it comes to civics.

You have an opinion. So do I. They are probably very similar. You seem to be unable to understand why your opinion is not translated into law.

#415 | Posted by madbomber

you post non sequitors, irrelevance and do not provide any substantive responses.

Then declare victory.

Typical idiot