Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, July 02, 2022

On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio. Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Did Pence try to stop her at the Indiana border?

#2 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2022-07-01 08:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

I don't suppose she has a 10 year old boyfri....

child abuse doctor? huh didn't see that before.

excuse me.

*vomits*

#4 | Posted by Tor at 2022-07-01 08:45 PM | Reply

Future theocrat SCOTUS - Ten-year old abortion patients should be executed for murder.

Jill Stein 2024!

#5 | Posted by censored at 2022-07-01 10:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

#1 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM AT 2

You people will spend more time persecuting this little girl than finding her rapist.

#6 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-01 10:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

#2

I gave you a funny flag because
rcade has yet to enable an idiot flag.

#7 | Posted by willowby at 2022-07-01 10:36 PM | Reply

#7 "Crossed her Indiana Border" sounds like something you're not allowed to do with a ten year old.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-01 10:39 PM | Reply

Is their a Bounty out on her like there would be in Texas?

Maybe one of these big strong Proud Boy Wannabees can make a buck or three.

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2022-07-01 10:41 PM | Reply

Same with #5

#10 | Posted by willowby at 2022-07-01 10:45 PM | Reply

jill stien?

www.youtube.com

#11 | Posted by Tor at 2022-07-01 11:33 PM | Reply

If it was up to the GOP this girl would have no option other than be forced to give birth. If the GOP wins control of Congress they will do away with the filibuster and pass a national law that would force victims of crimes to give birth.

#12 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2022-07-02 03:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I thought for a while there we might be going back to the Gilded Age. But it's clear the brainpower for these yahoos (on and off the Court) hails from the smoky fires in the dimly lit hovel-temples of the Bronze Age patriarchy.

#13 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2022-07-02 06:31 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Bronze Age patriarchy.

#13 | POSTED BY DOC_SARVIS

As a seminary student advised me, there is a recipe for inducing abortions in the Old Testament.

#14 | Posted by Zed at 2022-07-02 10:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And willowby gets a participation trophy!!

Nothin of substance to add but at least he participated!!

This is just the beginnings of making America great so no worries ... he will get plenty of chances to actually say something intelligent.

Welcome to the divided states of America.

#15 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-07-02 11:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Welcome to the divided states of America.

Just because I dont want to live like you doesnt mean we are "divided".

#16 | Posted by boaz at 2022-07-02 11:16 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

This is what sucks about this being a black and white issue... I'm sure someone will post a story about a woman getting a 35th week abortion for likes on tik tok.

There are the extreme stories on either side, we'll only make progress on this with some sort of compromise. We were in a semi stable condition, but neither side could leave it alone. The extreme left wanted to keep moving the bar one way, the extreme right wanted to move it the other way.

Can't we make abortions legal, but not trivial. Get anywhere near that and I think the vast majority could move on to the next topic.

#17 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2022-07-02 11:20 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

-------- there are no leftist extremists on the abortion issue especially compared to the conservatives efforts to overturn the rights of women

#18 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 11:24 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

www.cdc.gov

Almost 3 million women in the U.S. experienced RRP during their lifetime.

RRP-rape related pregnancy

Liberals concerns over abortion restrictions is not extreme

#19 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 11:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Just because I dont want to live like you doesnt mean we are "divided".

#16 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2022-07-02 11:16 AM | FLAG:

Does the federal government have a responsibility and the authority to prevent states from restricting its citizens rights?

#20 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 11:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Just because I dont want to live like you doesnt mean we are "divided".

#16 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Just because you are an ignorant moron doesn't mean we aren't divided.

We are. Obviously divided. Doesn't matter what you or I think about it now.

And apparently there is a whole lot more division coming.

Apparently.

#21 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-07-02 11:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

There are the extreme stories on either side, we'll only make progress on this with some sort of compromise.
#17 | POSTED BY KWRX25

Roe v Wade was a compromise.
You guys rejected it.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-02 11:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"We were in a semi stable condition, but neither side could leave it alone. The extreme left wanted to keep moving the bar one way, the extreme right wanted to move it the other way."

"Wanted?"

The issue is what are they doing.

The right has acted to restrict abortion for decades, before outright repealing Roe.

The left hasn't done the opposite.

Your "both sides" argument is stupid, which is sad because it means you are stupid too. You certainly don't know the facts about abortion.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-02 11:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"I'm sure someone will post a story about a woman getting a 35th week abortion for likes on tik tok."

^
Sad because it means you are stupid too. You certainly don't know the facts about abortion.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-02 11:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#17 | POSTED BY KWRX25

Wtf are you talking about? What's your example of a "woman getting a 35th week abortion for likes on tik tok", except in your twisted mind. The majority already supported legal abortion. Any abortion that in your view is trivial, is only trivial because it none of your f'n business.

#25 | Posted by memyselfini at 2022-07-02 11:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Why is it that the extreme right wing has to make up extreme actions by the left to offset the reality that they are pushing?

#26 | Posted by memyselfini at 2022-07-02 11:47 AM | Reply

#25 do you know how to f'n read? I blatantly stated that my example was a made up, extreme case. Saying that railing using 10 year olds as examples on one side will be posted one day.... then someone will post an extreme opposite view the next... The conversation needs to be in the middle where abortions are allowed, but they are also not what would be viewed by the far right as too easy.

If saying the abortions should be legal but not trivial makes me far right, you've lost your g'd mind. Reading is fundamental.

#27 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2022-07-02 11:57 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

What kind of a country has police that are afraid to confront a gunman mowing down a classroom full of ten-year-olds and forces a ten-year-old child to give birth?

Seriously, how in actual ---- have we as a nation gone so far off the rails.

#28 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2022-07-02 11:58 AM | Reply

So, one "extreme" is a real life example and the other is a fictional example? I don't get the logic

#29 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 11:58 AM | Reply

blatantly stated that my example was a made up, extreme case. Saying that railing using 10 year olds as examples on one side will be posted one day.... then someone will post an extreme opposite view the next... The conversation needs to be in the middle where abortions are allowed, but they are also not what would be viewed by the far right as too easy.
If saying the abortions should be legal but not trivial makes me far right, you've lost your g'd mind. Reading is fundamental.

#27 | POSTED BY KWRX25

So you make up some fantasy story and compare it to a real girl who got real raped and got real pregnant and think that there is some equivalence? Who is the one who has lost their mind?

#30 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2022-07-02 12:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

you really are brain damaged... My stance isn't all abortions all the time, so you have to make it out that I'm some crazy extremist.

My point is that while horrible, this is an extreme case. So to hold it up as the poster child of the evils of the SCOTUS ruling, only causes crazies on the right to find some corner case story to the opposite extreme to hold up why this ruling was right.

My only point is that arguing the extremes gets us no where.

Of course you then take that and twist it into some crazy take, proving the point that no on is really interested in finding common ground, they just want to shout down anyone who might not agree 100% with them.

#31 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2022-07-02 12:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

www.cdc.gov

Almost 3 million women in the U.S. experienced RRP during their lifetime.
RRP-rape related pregnancy
Liberals concerns over abortion restrictions is not extreme
#19 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

Again, I am not sure the logic, that holding up a 10 year old rape victim being prevented from getting an abortion is equivalent to a lie that conservatives will tell? Liberals should ignore the "extreme" examples, though I would argue that the example is NOT extreme because conservatives will tell a lie? I don't get it

#32 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 12:15 PM | Reply

If I'm not mistaken giving birth at that age is always a high risk pregnancy.

It can kill the girl.

#33 | Posted by Tor at 2022-07-02 12:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

True story. My son was born in an unwed mother's home in the years just before Roe v Wade era. I kept my son even though there was a hostile cultural climate regarding unwed mothers. I was very young at the time and the home was run by The Salvation Army. I didn't go there because I was hiding I went there because I was destitute.

At the time I was there, there were 145 "residents" all of them minors living in the main facility and about 50 more in the "apartments" who were 18 or older. Of the 145 with whom I lived, there were about 100 young white girls from middle-class and some from upper-class suburbia. Using a bell curve it was mostly girls from 14-16 but at one end of the spectrum, we had a 12 year who was impregnated when she was 11 years old and a 13-year-old. They were white and middle-class. They came from nice neighborhoods and nice families. Most of them were "off visiting their cousins for a while".

I stayed in touch with the staff there for a time after I had my son. What was striking was how a couple of years later after Roe v. Wade the place was all but empty attended by a few "hiders' and mostly young women who were in need like me like I was when I lived there.

I feel like I had a seat on the 50-yard line regarding the magnitude of the decision. No matter the prattle I hear about it

I think while the oinkers ultimately "won" this teeny tiny battle and loooooooose a YUGE historical war.

There are 8 billion people on the planet and we are burning it up.

#34 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2022-07-02 12:16 PM | Reply

"My stance isn't all abortions all the time"

That also isn't Roe's stance. So why wasn't Roe good enough? Roe was exactly what you claim you want. Why don't you know that?

"My only point is that arguing the extremes gets us no where."

There are edge cases. Women whose right to life will be denied; women who will die because they can't get an abortion.

And the only ones being extreme about it are Republicans.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-02 12:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#20,

No one's rights have been "restricted".

#36 | Posted by boaz at 2022-07-02 12:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"My point is that while horrible, this is an extreme case."

So when a 23 year old rape victim has to travel out of state to get an abortion, it's less extreme... or is it perfectly acceptable to KWRX25?

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-02 12:23 PM | Reply

only causes crazies on the right to find some corner case story to the opposite extreme to hold up why this ruling was right

POSTED BY KWRX25

Here's the thing. As you've shone, they don't need to find an extreme case. As you, they are perfectly comfortable making up scenarios or fallacious slippery slope examples to hold up against actual slippery slope situations.

Conservatives representatives you vote for have shown without a doubt they are not willing to compromise.

#38 | Posted by memyselfini at 2022-07-02 12:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#20,
No one's rights have been "restricted".
#36 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Try reading the headline.

Ohio restricted her rights, so she gas to go to Indiana.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-02 12:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Posted by kwrx25

Face it, clown-boy:

Yer a fuggin moron.

#40 | Posted by Angrydad at 2022-07-02 12:27 PM | Reply

#20,
No one's rights have been "restricted".

#36 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Women do not have a right to bodily autonomy? Women do not have a right to travel across state lines unimpeded? Women do not have an inherent right to life?

Before you answer you should consider the implications given the equal protection clause.

#41 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 12:28 PM | Reply

#39,

But can she still get the abortion?

#42 | Posted by boaz at 2022-07-02 12:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Women do not have a right to bodily autonomy?

No one said that.

Women do not have an inherent right to life?

What a stupid comment. And it's over hyper ventilating like this that make it so no one listens to extreme far left liberals like you.

#43 | Posted by boaz at 2022-07-02 12:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

My point is that while horrible, this is an extreme case. So to hold it up as the poster child of the evils of the SCOTUS ruling, only causes crazies on the right to find some corner case story to the opposite extreme to hold up why this ruling was right.
My only point is that arguing the extremes gets us no where.
Of course you then take that and twist it into some crazy take, proving the point that no on is really interested in finding common ground, they just want to shout down anyone who might not agree 100% with them.

#31 | POSTED BY KWRX25

The fact that she is 10 is sensational but that does not make this an extreme case. Take her age out and the story remains the same if she's 20, 30, 100 for that matter. The fact is that Roe protected the right of countless women who were impregnated against their will over the past 50 years to decide for themselves whether they would go through reliving that trauma throughout their pregnancy only to then be faced with the decision to raise the product of that rape or give up to adoption. The only thing extreme here is the laws that some states have now enacted to strip those victims of their right.

I don't see any common ground to be found between people who think women should be forced to birth rape babies and those believe they should have a choice.

#44 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2022-07-02 12:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#39,
But can she still get the abortion?

#42 | POSTED BY BOAZ

For now.
Of course she had the resources to get one. So people without resources can't-iow violating the equal protection clause.

#45 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 12:32 PM | Reply

Women do not have a right to bodily autonomy?
No one said that.
Women do not have an inherent right to life?
What a stupid comment. And it's over hyper ventilating like this that make it so no one listens to extreme far left liberals like you.

#43 | POSTED BY BOAZ

You will have to explain how a woman prevented from getting an abortion jibes with her having bodily autonomy. You do understand what bodily autonomy means, right? The state preventing a woman from doing something to her body is restricting bodily autonomy. Meaning born women are restricted from having bodily autonomy in states that restrict abortion.

You do realize that the effect of restricting abortion will result in women dying due to prohibitions from easily performed safe procedures. So, the effect of abortion restrictions is that a woman's life cannot be saved due to a law. Thus, the law overrides her right to be alive. You get that don't you?

#46 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 12:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The fact that she is 10 is sensational but that does not make this an extreme case.

Having a friend who was a social worker who dealt with child abuse opened my eyes that this type of thing (pre teen pregnancies) happens more frequently than people imagine.

#47 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 12:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Try reading the headline."

LOL!!!

The moron has no concept.

#48 | Posted by Angrydad at 2022-07-02 12:39 PM | Reply

No one's rights have been "restricted".
#36 | POSTED BY BOAZ

But can she still get the abortion?
#42 | POSTED BY BOAZ

If your state were to ban you from shooting guns in your state but you can go a state or few over and shoot them then "no one's rights have been "restricted", right? What if Congress enacts a national ban on abortion but people can still go to another country to receive one then "no one's rights have been "restricted". Is that how you view things?

#49 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2022-07-02 12:39 PM | Reply

Boaz refuses to acknowledge that abortion is a right, but, can't understand the ramifications.

#50 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 12:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#39,
But can she still get the abortion?
#42 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Not in Ohio, where her rights have been restricted by Ohio.
Hello?

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-02 12:43 PM | Reply

I posted this in the nooner:

And what is up with the arbitrary unit of supreme power being the state? Why not the county or municipality or god forbid the individual which ironically enough is actually what the constitution says for rights not enumerated

#52 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 12:43 PM | Reply

If your state were to ban you from shooting guns in your state but you can go a state or few over and shoot them then "no one's rights have been "restricted", right?

Depends. And your question is not equal.

#53 | Posted by boaz at 2022-07-02 12:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Boaz, is the right to an abortion (i.e. reproductive choice) an inherent right of the individual?

#54 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 12:46 PM | Reply

Abortion isnt in the constitution.

Should it be? Maybe. But that's up to the states. Either put it in their state constitutions or have a constitutional convention and put it in our national constitution.

#55 | Posted by boaz at 2022-07-02 12:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Boaz, is the right to an abortion (i.e. reproductive choice) an inherent right of the individual?

Your questions are meaningless, Truth.

Do #55 and your question is answered.

#56 | Posted by boaz at 2022-07-02 12:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Women do not have an inherent right to life?
What a stupid comment. And it's over hyper ventilating like this that make it so no one listens to extreme far left liberals like you.
#43 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Women don't have a right to life under a wide variety of abortion restrictions.
FACT!

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-02 12:46 PM | Reply

Boaz, and KWRX25, you really owe it to any women in your life to educate yourselves.

The fetal heartbeat law kills women.

Death of Savita Halappanavar
en.wikipedia.org
On 21 October 2012, Halappanavar, then 17 weeks pregnant, was examined at University Hospital Galway after complaining of back pain, but was soon discharged without a diagnosis. She returned to the hospital later that day, this time complaining of lower pressure, a sensation she described as feeling "something coming down", and a subsequent examination found that the gestational sac was protruding from her body. She was admitted to hospital, as it was determined that miscarriage was unavoidable, and several hours later, just after midnight on 22 October, her water broke but did not expel the fetus.[8]:22"26[8]:29[9] The following day, on 23 October, Halappanavar discussed abortion with her consulting physician but her request was promptly refused, as Irish law at that time forbade abortion if a fetal heartbeat was still present.[8]:33[10] Afterwards, Halappanavar developed sepsis and, despite doctors' efforts to treat her, had a cardiac arrest at 1:09 AM on 28 October, at the age of 31, and died.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-02 12:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Boaz, is the right to an abortion (i.e. reproductive choice) an inherent right of the individual?
Your questions are meaningless, Truth.
Do #55 and your question is answered.

#56 | POSTED BY BOAZ

You avoided the question. 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Note that it says people, not state which is the 10th amendment

Your #55 says abortion isn't in the constitution, so I take it you don't believe that abortion (i.e. reproductive choice) is not an inherent right. Am I correct in reaching that conclusion?

#59 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 12:50 PM | Reply

The Right To Life isn't in the Constitution.

If it were, it wouldn't be legal for states to pass fetal heartbeat laws which deny the mother's Right To Life.

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-02 12:58 PM | Reply

just wait until the Wrong-to-Lifers file suits in all states declaring it a crime to travel out-of-state for an abortion. Don't think it will happen? Less than six months, I'm sayin'.

#61 | Posted by e1g1 at 2022-07-02 01:00 PM | Reply

The Right To Life isn't in the Constitution.
If it were, it wouldn't be legal for states to pass fetal heartbeat laws which deny the mother's Right To Life.

#60 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

wait isnt it self evident????

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

These founding fathers are very confusing

#62 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 01:00 PM | Reply

Am I correct in reaching that conclusion?

No, not in the context you are reaching for.

#63 | Posted by boaz at 2022-07-02 01:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Abortion isnt in the constitution."

So? It isn't in the Bible either. That didn't stop you from claiming it is against gods wishes. Which of course it isn't. God kills innocent people all the time. Apparently. God is not pro-life. Apparently.

A lot of things are not specifically spelled out in the constitution.

Like marriage for example.

Time to throw that "right" out too? Because it's not in the constitution you know.

#64 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-07-02 01:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Am I correct in reaching that conclusion?
No, not in the context you are reaching for.

#63 | POSTED BY BOAZ

So, you DO believe abortion (reproductive choice) IS an inherent right, correct?

Simple yes or no question.

#65 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 01:03 PM | Reply

#65,

I think if a woman wants an abortion, she should be able to get it up to 20 weeks.

#66 | Posted by boaz at 2022-07-02 01:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

And of course, there should be exceptions in extreme cases like the subject of this thread, rape and miscarriage.

#67 | Posted by boaz at 2022-07-02 01:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Boaz, it really is simple, if you believe abortion (reproductive choice) is an inherent right than the matter is NOT a state's issue. It is a federal issue which can be regulated, where the various interests (ie those anti-choice) are balanced to provide protection of abortion throughout the land-what we had.

If you do NOT believe abortion (reproductive choice) is an inherent right (as Dobbs finds), then the matter is a state's issue. BUT that comes with SERIOUS implications-both for bodily autonomy (which in inherent in abortion) and other supposedly non-enumerated rights.

It really is that simple, but to accept state's being the authority REQUIRES you accept the implications.

#68 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 01:07 PM | Reply

#65,
I think if a woman wants an abortion, she should be able to get it up to 20 weeks.

#66 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Not the question, the question is whether this is an inherent right that should be protected by the federal government.

#69 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 01:08 PM | Reply

Wrong question. Unfortunately.

The first question any insurrectionist needs to answer before I would believe anything they say is :

Is Joe Biden the current and legitimate President?

Then we could discuss the other serious questions.

#70 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-07-02 01:09 PM | Reply

take a stand boaz. what do you believe? State's right or bodily autonomy?

#71 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 01:10 PM | Reply

So I learned a while back the one could take out a life insurance plan on any person they choose without any cooperation of the person which the life insurance plan is dependent on. Considering the percentage of pregnancies that miscarry before delivery, and with the new ruling I pondered the idea of purchasing life insurance policies on a few newly impregnated women. In my research I found that I could not get a life insurance policy on a fetus. I wonder why that would be, since of course the SCOTUS has basically said life begins at conception?

#72 | Posted by memyselfini at 2022-07-02 01:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#71,

I already have. I dont know what you want. We dont agree. I dont know on what, but I have said what I said. Your "if this is that then this is that" is just wrong because I dont analyze it like that.

#73 | Posted by boaz at 2022-07-02 01:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

since of course the SCOTUS has basically said life begins at conception?

The court didnt say that.

#74 | Posted by boaz at 2022-07-02 01:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

POSTED BY BOAZ

But what doesn't have life can't be "murdered!"

#75 | Posted by memyselfini at 2022-07-02 01:21 PM | Reply

#71,
I already have. I dont know what you want. We dont agree. I dont know on what, but I have said what I said. Your "if this is that then this is that" is just wrong because I dont analyze it like that.

#73 | POSTED BY BOAZ

I am asking you a very simple question boaz, one you seem reticent to answer. Is abortion (reproductive choice) an inherent right?

A simple yes or no question. I am not asking if you believe women should be able to get abortions. I am asking whether you believe women have that inherent right.

#76 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 01:32 PM | Reply

I am asking you a very simple question boaz, one you seem reticent to answer.

No, I've answered the question, just not to your satisfaction.

I am not asking if you believe women should be able to get abortions.

But that IS the question. And I answered it.

You are just trying to pigeon hole me into an answer that confirms your bias.

#77 | Posted by boaz at 2022-07-02 01:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I am asking you a very simple question boaz, one you seem reticent to answer.
No, I've answered the question, just not to your satisfaction.
I am not asking if you believe women should be able to get abortions.
But that IS the question. And I answered it.
You are just trying to pigeon hole me into an answer that confirms your bias.

#77 | POSTED BY BOAZ

No you haven't I have asked it numerous times and you refuse to answer directly. Saying you believe women should be able to get an abortion is NOT saying it is an inherent right. Saying it is a state's right is a refutation of inherent right.

So, again, do you believe abortion (reproductive choice) is an inherent right.

I am not trying to pigeon hole you. I honestly am trying to understand your position. Because it seems contradictory.

#78 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 01:44 PM | Reply

Well, it's not contradictory.

#79 | Posted by boaz at 2022-07-02 01:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Well, it's not contradictory.
#79 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Well then explain how state's being able to prohibit an inherent right (your stated position) jibes with the 9th Amendment.

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

So, I go back to my original question. Does the federal government have the responsibility and authority to protect an individual's inherent rights?

#80 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 01:53 PM | Reply

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
These founding fathers are very confusing
#62 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

Don't believe their propaganda.
The Declaration of Independence is propaganda.
It has exactly zero legal meaning.

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-02 01:59 PM | Reply

I honestly am trying to understand your position.

No you arent. You have already made up your mind.

#82 | Posted by boaz at 2022-07-02 02:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Let's consider this another way, if abortion is an inherent right, what gives any government entity the right to interfere with a woman's decision?

#83 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 02:02 PM | Reply

I honestly am trying to understand your position.
No you arent. You have already made up your mind.

#82 | POSTED BY BOAZ

About what? I have made up my mind on my beliefs, yes. I don't understand your position. I will admit I am hoping that if I point out the issues with your position it may aid you in making better choices.

#84 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 02:04 PM | Reply

You are only asking the question to try and question my point of view, not alter yours.

#85 | Posted by boaz at 2022-07-02 02:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Things I've not said in this thread... Roe should have been overturned, yet it is claimed above that's what I believe and have voted for.

Number of republicans I've voted for in the past 20+ years, 0. Yet is claimed that it's their beliefs I support and why I vote them in.

This site used to actually have discussions. Now it's an echo chamber, and if you vary from the echo in the slightest bit, you just get extreme positions assigned to you.

If you don't believe that an all caps headline of a 10yr old isn't floating the shock value, and will prompt some crazied righty to find what they consider their "gotcha" headline to sensationalize their side of the story, fine. I think you're wrong and we'll continue to go round and round with all cap gotcha headlines on both sides. This was the only point I was making. It doesn't fit the echo chamber, I got it.

#86 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2022-07-02 02:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Just because I dont want to live like you doesnt mean we are "divided".

#16 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Except people like you are forcing your small minority screwed up world view on the rest of us.

That's why we're divided.

#87 | Posted by jpw at 2022-07-02 02:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#87,

Well, it's the same with you, JPW.

I dont want your ------ up, ------, communist view either. So there we are.

#88 | Posted by boaz at 2022-07-02 02:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

You are only asking the question to try and question my point of view, not alter yours.

#85 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Correct, why are you so afraid to defend your position?

#89 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 02:15 PM | Reply

Correct, why are you so afraid to defend your position?

I already have. I'm not interested in your "gotcha" stuff..

The supreme court was clear. If it's not in the constitution, it's left to the states.

And I'm fine with that.

#90 | Posted by boaz at 2022-07-02 02:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

If you don't believe that an all caps headline of a 10yr old isn't floating the shock value, and will prompt some crazied righty to find what they consider their "gotcha" headline to sensationalize their side of the story, fine. I think you're wrong and we'll continue to go round and round with all cap gotcha headlines on both sides. This was the only point I was making. It doesn't fit the echo chamber, I got it.

#86 | POSTED BY KWRX25

Fact is that a law passed by republicans denied a rape victim of a right she had just a few days before and forced her to travel to another state in order to exercise that right.
I really don't understand where you are coming from with your view on this. Do you think this story should not be reported on because some "crazied righty" might respond with an easily disprovable lie as if lying isn't already the default response to pretty much everything for a "crazied righty".

#91 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2022-07-02 02:31 PM | Reply

The Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves. Not to mention the Founding Mothers.

Abortion was legal for them up until the "quickening" which was when there was kicking... which is around 18-20 weeks. And there were abortion recipes in newspapers back then.

Today 93 percent of abortions are within 13 weeks, as states are mostly looking at 15 weeks.

Because women are for the most part very responsible. They are trusted to raise children, but they need the State to tell them whether they can end their own pregnancy.

#92 | Posted by Corky at 2022-07-02 02:32 PM | Reply

The supreme court was clear. If it's not in the constitution, it's left to the states.
And I'm fine with that.
#90 | POSTED BY BOAZ

That's not even close to being what the Supreme Court said. Read the decision.

#93 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2022-07-02 02:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Jesus wept.

Boaz is appallingly stupid.

Why do you boneheads give this moron the time of day???????

#94 | Posted by Angrydad at 2022-07-02 02:48 PM | Reply

I dont want your ------ up, ------, communist view either. So there we are.

#88 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Duuuhhh CoMmUnISm!!!

You have no clue what you're talking about. Ever. You think you think your own thoughts but it's all whole sale garbage spoon fed to you.

#95 | Posted by jpw at 2022-07-02 03:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#93,

That's EXACTLY what it said.

#96 | Posted by boaz at 2022-07-02 06:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Seriously, boaz, what policy have you heard me support that's "communist"?

#97 | Posted by jpw at 2022-07-02 06:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

How do you think those other rights are retained by the people? To me, it's obvious this is talking about rights enumerated somewhere outside the U.S. Constitution, whether it is statutes enacted by the people's representatives at the federal/state/local levels, state constitutions or private/local charters.

#98 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-07-02 07:37 PM | Reply

Jesus wept.

Boaz is appallingly stupid.

Why do you boneheads give this moron the time of day???????

#94 | Posted by Angrydad

Because it's hilarious :)

Also, so we know exactly what we're up against.

BOAZO is deadly serious in what he says - he wants to kill "libruls".

Plenty of his friends do as well.

Forewarned is forearmed.

#99 | Posted by billy_boy at 2022-07-02 07:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Does the federal government have the responsibility and authority to protect an individual's inherent rights?"

If they're legally recognized at the federal level, then yes. The federal government does not have the authority to enforce state or local laws.

#100 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-07-02 07:40 PM | Reply

"is the right to an abortion (i.e. reproductive choice) an inherent right of the individual?"
"I take it you don't believe that abortion (i.e. reproductive choice) is not an inherent right."
"So, again, do you believe abortion (reproductive choice) is an inherent right."

Do you believe reproductive choice is a an inherent right?

#101 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-07-02 07:48 PM | Reply

Yes, I believe that abortion (reproductive choice) is an inherent right, as is bodily autonomy.

#102 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 07:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Dobbs completely and utterly abdicates the federal responsibilty to protect that inherent right.

#103 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 07:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
How do you think those other rights are retained by the people? To me, it's obvious this is talking about rights enumerated somewhere outside the U.S. Constitution, whether it is statutes enacted by the people's representatives at the federal/state/local levels, state constitutions or private/local charters.

#98 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

You ever hear of a thing called the Declaration of Independence?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So, no, inherent rights are retained by the people as they need not be enumerated (per the 9th).

And you are incorrect that rights are limited to statute enacted by people's representatives. The powers enacted at the federal level are specifically listed and refer to the government's authority.

The 10th states: "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."

So, the 10th states that there are powers (known as rights) that belong to the people-i.e. inherent rights that the states nor the federal government have power OVER.

The 14th Amendment states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

So, no state may make a law abridging the inherent rights of the individual. See how that works? the Federal government enforces the civil rights of all citizens.

As a comparison, state's may not restrict a citizen's right to vote (though voting is not in the constitution) and the federal government ENFORCES that right in the state.

#104 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 08:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Our country really needs to invest in teaching civics in school

#105 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-02 08:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

As a comparison, state's may not restrict a citizen's right to vote (though voting is not in the constitution) and the federal government ENFORCES that right in the state.

What is a dead letter is the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution, which states that:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

The reason for the clause is straightforward. "The more intimate the nature of such a Union may be," Madison wrote in Federalist No. 43, "the greater interest have the members in the political institutions of each other; and the greater right to insist that the forms of government under which the compact was entered into, should be substantially maintained."

A Congress that wanted to could, in theory, use the Guarantee Clause to defend the basic rights of citizens against overbearing and tyrannical state governments. It's been done before. After the Civil War, Radical Republicans in Congress found their constitutional power to reconstruct the South chiefly in the Guarantee Clause, which they used to protect the rights of Black Americans from revanchist state governments.

Since Reconstruction, however, no Congress has wanted to use the Guarantee Clause to protect the rights and liberties of Americans. It's a vestigial part of our constitutional history, atrophied from disuse.

www.nytimes.com

#106 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-07-02 09:49 PM | Reply

This is a private family matter and should have stayed that way.

Wish her luck growing up without having mental problems.

#107 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-07-02 11:20 PM | Reply

This is a private family matter and should have stayed that way.

SCOTUS decided it was not.

#108 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-07-02 11:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is a private family matter and should have stayed that way.
#107 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

You have told us repeatedly you voted for Trump, so that the Supreme Court would make it the government's business.

Own it.

#109 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-03 03:12 AM | Reply

"So, no state may make a law abridging the inherent rights of the individual. See how that works? the Federal government enforces the civil rights of all citizens."

Again, an Institution has to define/recognize the rights and privileges of its members before it can enforce them. What the 14th Amendment does is establish that federally recognized rights of citizens take precedence over state/local ones when there is a conflict or clash between the two, which was obviously the case at the time when it was enacted.

#110 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-07-03 04:03 AM | Reply

"Yes, I believe that abortion (reproductive choice) is an inherent right, as is bodily autonomy."

I think you only believe reproductive choice is an inherent right for people who are genetically similar to yourself.

#111 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-07-03 04:12 AM | Reply

Somebody gonna tell me what "genetically similar to yourself" is code for?

#112 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-03 04:23 AM | Reply

"Again, an Institution has to define/recognize the rights and privileges of its members before it can enforce them."

That's not how the Constitution works.

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

#113 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-03 04:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The thing many people willfully overlook is that Roe v Wade effectively established unborn children are persons with rights from the point of "viability" onwards. The extremists on one end of the spectrum refuse to even acknowledge that.

#114 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-07-03 04:34 AM | Reply

"The thing many people willfully overlook is that Roe v Wade effectively established unborn children are persons with rights from the point of "viability" onwards."

When you put it that way,
Dobbs lets the State decide what is a person.

You think the Constitution says the definition of "person" is supposed to change from state to state?

#115 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-03 05:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" You think the Constitution says the definition of "person" is supposed to change from state to state?

#115 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2022-07-03 05:28 AM | FLAG: "

It's an issue to be decided by the legislature, not the court. Absent a federal law the 10th kicks it to the states.

#116 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-03 05:53 AM | Reply

"It's an issue to be decided by the legislature, not the court"

The word "person" appears in the Constitution 49 times.

Are you saying the meaning of "person" when used in the Constitution is at each State's discretion to define. Thus, what is a person in some State might not be a person in another State.

You think The Founders intent is that what the Constitution means by "Person" is open to interpretation.

#117 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-03 06:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Redial,

"SCOTUS decided it was not."

I meant the family should have handled it without humiliating the girl in public.

She'll be reliving this the rest of her life when her family could made the same decisions without getting the public involved.

Whatever happened to doctor patient confidentiality?

#118 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-07-03 10:09 AM | Reply

Redial,

I'd bet someone paid them $ for the story.

#119 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-07-03 10:10 AM | Reply

Redial,

People ain't got no class no more.

#120 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-07-03 10:11 AM | Reply

Jfc bill the kid is anonymous
You're sick
Odds are it was a family member that impregnated her

#121 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-03 10:30 AM | Reply

I'm pretty sure angrydad considering me a "fuggin moron" is actually a compliment.

#122 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2022-07-03 10:31 AM | Reply

Again, an Institution has to define/recognize the rights and privileges of its members before it can enforce them.

Actually the constitution and doi say the exact opposite

#123 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-03 10:32 AM | Reply

Truth,

"You're sick
Odds are it was a family member that impregnated her"

I don't think along those lines.
And I'm the one who's sick?

#124 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-07-03 11:47 AM | Reply

"I meant the family should have handled it without humiliating the girl in public."

What girl got humiliated in public?

#125 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-03 11:48 AM | Reply

"I'd bet someone paid them $ for the story."

Now you don't believe in Capitalism? You'll say anything to avoid the issues in this case. You voted for this, and you know it, and now you're faced with the fact that your vote means you don't care what happens to ten year old girls after they get raped.

#126 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-03 11:50 AM | Reply

"I meant the family should have handled it without humiliating the girl in public."

What should Emmett Till's parents have done?
Was it wrong to share the pictures of his dead body?

#127 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-03 11:54 AM | Reply

Truth,
"You're sick
Odds are it was a family member that impregnated her"
I don't think along those lines.
And I'm the one who's sick?
#124 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

It's quite obvious you don't think about the ramifications of your actions like voting for ------- and then being surprised when a 10-year old is raped and forced to keep the rape fetus to term

#128 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-07-03 11:57 AM | Reply

"I don't think along those lines."

You don't think at all.

If you've never thought about how a ten year old gets pregnant, what makes your thoughts on should a ten year old be able to get an abortion are worth anything?

You're one of the worst navel gazers here. Maybe even worse than Eberly.

#129 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-03 12:06 PM | Reply

I meant the family should have handled it without humiliating the girl in public.
She'll be reliving this the rest of her life when her family could made the same decisions without getting the public involved.
Whatever happened to doctor patient confidentiality?
#118 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Redial,
I'd bet someone paid them $ for the story.
#119 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Paid for story? Doctor-patient confidentiality? Could you possibly be more ignorant?
Abortions are a matter of public record in Indiana. The individual patient is not identified but the State requires healthcare providers to report all kinds of information for any abortion or prescription of abortion drug. Those reporting requirements includes things like age, race/ethnicity, marital status, education level and whole laundry list of other data on the patient. They also require the name of the medical facility, the type of procedure, the name of the doctors involved and if the patient was seeking the abortion as a result of sexual abuse. Everything reported in the story with regard to the girl came right out of the public record.

You seem far more concerned that this 10 year old rape victim might be traumatized for life by a report that does not identify her than the fact that the legislature in Indiana is set to to ban the medical treatment she received in the coming weeks. Had they done so already then this girl would have to travel even further (likely to Illinois) for healthcare or would force her to give birth to a rape baby. Assuming she would even survive giving birth, what do you think would be more traumatic and life altering? Possibly seeing this story somewhere down the line or living the rest of her life after being forced to give birth at 10 years old?

#130 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2022-07-03 12:28 PM | Reply

John,

The laws require it be reported in the media?

#131 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-07-03 12:42 PM | Reply

"The laws require it be reported in the media?"

The laws require it to be reported in a way where the media has access to the general information.

#132 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-07-03 12:52 PM | Reply

This report doesn't expose any information that wasn't already exposed by the Indiana Government. If you are so bothered by that and it's potential effect on abortion recepients then take your complaint to the GOP led state legislature and Eric Holcomb, the GOP Governor of the Indiana and let them know that you feel they should expand privacy protections for abortion patients.

#133 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2022-07-03 12:57 PM | Reply

"Actually the constitution and doi say the exact opposite"

It does not. The amendment you're referring to is basically stating the obvious that you cannot use a logical fallacy to infer that the bill of rights said or implied something that they do not. It must have been a common problem back then, as it still is today with people like yourself.

I'm speaking in terms of practicality. How can any institution enforce rules pertaining to rights and responsibilities within its domain or jurisdiction without them being explicitly defined somewhere?

#134 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-07-03 02:29 PM | Reply

I'm not sure what your question is trying to ask with respect to this topic.

But we are not a human rights society. That should be quite clear from recent rulings.

#135 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-03 02:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I'm speaking in terms of practicality."

In terms of practicality, something as serious as a ten year old getting an abortion after what by law can only be an illegal sexual encounter shouldn't be illegal in any state in the Union.

#136 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-03 02:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Did the 10 year old get knocked up at one of dotard's kiddie beauty pageants?

#137 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2022-07-03 04:15 PM | Reply

"I'm not sure what your question is trying to ask with respect to this topic."

The question is straightforward. Numerous people have indicated they believe rights can be formally protected or enforced without being formally defined, at least somewhere. I'm trying to find out how those people think that can be done, in a practical manner.

"But we are not a human rights society. That should be quite clear from recent rulings."

Nonsense. The idea of what human rights are or include has evolved and varied from time to time and culture to culture, as have opinions about how to reconcile protecting one human being's rights when doing so creates a conflict with another's. Most of those who want to restrict abortion are doing so because they honestly believe it's a human rights issue. The example of the 10-year-old is obviously one stupidly extreme example of placing precedence on one human's rights over another's, without any attempt to balance or reconcile the two.

#138 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-07-03 08:58 PM | Reply

>#137 | POSTED BY REINHEITSGEBOT

I'm starting suspect his alias is actually RealDonaldTrump. It seems like the kind of sick and twisted thing he would do just to keep his image etched in people's minds. Trump doesn't care if people love or hate him, as long as they aren't indifferent to him.

#139 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-07-03 09:02 PM | Reply

John,

Just follow the money.

Someone will always publish for $.

Greed isn't partisan.

#140 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-07-03 09:23 PM | Reply

#140 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

I followed the money and it led back to the anti-choice groups that fund right wing politicians in exchange for passing laws that place burdensome reporting requirements on healthcare providers.

#141 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2022-07-04 02:23 AM | Reply

#138... This is why this is one of the ultimate wedge issue.

I think most people agree that a vast majority of people believe women have autonomy over their bodies. It would take a pretty backwards thinking person to not agree.

Also

I think most people agree that terminating a developing life is infringing on that life's right to exist.

The issue is that these two things cannot coexist in the case of human reproduction. It becomes the ultimate wedge issue is that you then have to favor one over the other, and neither side can comprehend that the other side doesn't favor the same one they do. To the point that they are evil for doing so, and no compromise can be made with the evil other side.

#142 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2022-07-05 05:01 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort