Ding dong Roe is dead

[bandc]

I don't agree with abortion at all but the issue in this country is that both sides don't do anything to help babies outside the womb. If you're gonna ban abortions, things like UBI and Universal Healthcare need to be in place to help folk

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

[NCRAVEN]

Please ignore the troll

[Moe the Crow]

I don't agree with abortion at all but the issue in this country is that both sides don't do anything to help babies outside the womb. If you're gonna ban abortions, things like UBI and Universal Healthcare need to be in place to help folk

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

The people that would have a baby while needing UBI to live and to take care of it are the type of people that will make people that will need UBI to live and take care of their own babies.

Like fertilizing weeds.

[NCRAVEN]

The people that would have a baby while needing UBI to live and to take care of it are the type of people that will make people that will need UBI to live and take care of their own babies.

Like fertilizing weeds.

Nooooooo….

Don’t feed the troll

[blah3]

I don't agree with abortion at all but the issue in this country is that both sides don't do anything to help babies outside the womb. If you're gonna ban abortions, things like UBI and Universal Healthcare need to be in place to help folk

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

Ah the lie pro-lifers dont help out babies or expecting mothers.
Guess its a good ole trope if you are looking for another excuse to hand out freebies to everyone and ruin the quality of health care

[2bynight]

Here is the additional danger with this decision today: Justice Thomas said the court should reconsider rulings involving contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage. If they start taking those rights away too we may as well be ruled by the Taliban. What's next - leeches and bloodletting instead of medication?

[BustOfPallas]

Here is the additional danger with this decision today: Justice Thomas said the court should reconsider rulings involving contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage. If they start taking those rights away too we may as well be ruled by the Taliban. What's next - leeches and bloodletting instead of medication?

You are parroting what I saw on CNN when I picked up my car from the mechanic an hour ago.

I think that's a talking point designed to mobilize and inflame and nothing more.

You Democrats need to be careful. This is the Supreme Court not congress. If you guys ever want that institution to carry weight when you want it to in the future you need to abide by their decision and work within the framework of our government to peacefully address it.

[blah3]

Here is the additional danger with this decision today: Justice Thomas said the court should reconsider rulings involving contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage. If they start taking those rights away too we may as well be ruled by the Taliban. What's next - leeches and bloodletting instead of medication?

I write separately to emphasize a second, more funda- mental reason why there is no abortion guarantee lurking in the Due Process Clause. Considerable historical evi- dence indicates that “due process of law” merely required executive and judicial actors to comply with legislative en- actments and the common law when depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. See, e.g., Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. 591, 623 (2015) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judg- ment). Other sources, by contrast, suggest that “due pro- cess of law” prohibited legislatures “from authorizing the deprivation of a person’s life, liberty, or property without providing him the customary procedures to which freemen were entitled by the old law of England.” United States v. Vaello Madero, 596 U. S. ___, ____ (2022) (THOMAS, J., con- curring) (slip op., at 3) (internal quotation marks omitted). Either way, the Due Process Clause at most guarantees process. It does not, as the Court’s substantive due process cases suppose, “forbi[d] the government to infringe certain ‘fundamental’ liberty interests at all, no matter what pro- cess is provided.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 302 (1993); see also, e.g., Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U. S. 115, 125 (1992).
As I have previously explained, “substantive due process” is an oxymoron that “lack[s] any basis in the Constitution.” Johnson, 576 U. S., at 607–608 (opinion of THOMAS, J.); see also, e.g., Vaello Madero, 596 U. S., at ___ (THOMAS, J., con- curring) (slip op., at 3) (“[T]ext and history provide little support for modern substantive due process doctrine”). “The notion that a constitutional provision that guarantees only ‘process’ before a person is deprived of life, liberty, or property could define the substance of those rights strains credulity for even the most casual user of words.” McDon- ald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 811 (2010) (THOMAS, J., con- curring in part and concurring in judgment); see also United States v. Carlton, 512 U. S. 26, 40 (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). The resolution of this case is thus straightforward. Because the Due Process Clause does not secure any substantive rights, it does not secure a right to abortion.

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.ne...392_6j37-2.pdf


Above is some of what Thomas wrote. Care to argue against his reasoning?

[Drain Bamage]

Here is the additional danger with this decision today: Justice Thomas said the court should reconsider rulings involving contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage. If they start taking those rights away too we may as well be ruled by the Taliban. What's next - leeches and bloodletting instead of medication?

I don't see how that sounds dangerous. Unless we get to leeches, that would be weird.

[bandc]

Ah the lie pro-lifers dont help out babies or expecting mothers.
Guess its a good ole trope if you are looking for another excuse to hand out freebies to everyone and ruin the quality of health care

I never said pro lifers. I'm a pro lifer. I specifically said both sides. Neither side of the aisle has any interest in providing day care, universal Healthcare, or ubi. No one in congress does.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

[bandc]

The people that would have a baby while needing UBI to live and to take care of it are the type of people that will make people that will need UBI to live and take care of their own babies.

Like fertilizing weeds.

The point is to protect the child that came into the world with limited resources, not necessarily the people who made an unideal choice to have the child.

If a child is unfortunately born into reckless and unsafe circumstances, I would want my tax dollars to go towards giving them the best chance at a healthy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

[blah3]

I never said pro lifers. I'm a pro lifer. I specifically said both sides. Neither side of the aisle has any interest in providing day care, universal Healthcare, or ubi. No one in congress does.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

So pro-lifers dont occupy a side of the aisle? They are no one? The mere fact that there are places out there focused on helping the unborn and expecting mothers shows that ‘no one cares about babies outside the womb’ is a lie. Again a lie to get giveaways.