http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_abortion
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.
Also, in the majority Scalia noted that "women should be making me bacon and eggs, not trying to have control over their own lives."
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- SCOTUS upholds abortion ban.
SCOTUS upholds abortion ban.Follow
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
So, no 28th trimester abortion then?
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
Who knows, I didn't actually read about the case law. I'm going to assume it was something about not being able to invite other liberals to dinner parties and then wheeling out a woman in stirrups to serve fetus tartar.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Ohnoyoudi'int!
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
This really is not as important a decision as people fear. You can still get an abortion 1 day before your due date. The effect is that now, the law barring partial birth "abortion" is not unconstitutional and will be enforced barrign that type of procedure; you can use the in vitro dismemberment procedure instead. It is probably for the best for all sides, as it really unnecessarily complicates the issue of whether an unborn child is alive before birth to allow a procedure where the child is partially born and then terminated. The invitro disememberment is not affected since birth is not needed, and it makes no difference to the health of the mother, in fact if her health is in question then the procedure that does not induce labor is less stressful.
Edited, Apr 18th 2007 11:43am by fhrugby
Edited, Apr 18th 2007 11:43am by fhrugby
This really is not as important a decision as people fear.
Of course it is, it overturns 30 years of established case law precedent and opens the door for states to ban every form of abortion procedure they can think of to effect a total ban without legislating one.
You can still get an abortion 1 day before your due date. The effect is that now in the states in question it is not unconstitutional for them to bar using partial birth "abortion," you can use in vitro dismemberment instead. It is probably for the best for all sides, as it really unnecessarily complicates the issue of whether an unborn child is alive before birth to allow an unecessary procedure where the child is partially born and then terminated.
No, it's for the best for people who want to overturn Roe V Wade, or in actuality, leave it intact but useless by providing other venues to restrict abortion at the state level.
Please don't comment on things you don't understand at all.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
smash wrote:
This really is not as important a decision as people fear.
Of course it is, it overturns 30 years of established case law precedent and opens the door for states to ban every form of abortion procedure they can think of to effect a total ban without legislating one.
Of course it is, it overturns 30 years of established case law precedent and opens the door for states to ban every form of abortion procedure they can think of to effect a total ban without legislating one.
It does not overturn Roe vs. Wade, nor open up the floodgates to barring other procedures until none are left. It instead bans one specific type of abortion procedure which could easily be argued is not an abortion at all since the procedure invoves birth and then would not be covered by Roe vs. Wade. The court's decision specifically states that barring the one procedure does not prohibit obtaining abortions by the other available procedures. The law does not differ from many other laws limiting medical procedures that can be performed by doctors for various public policy needs. The majority in the case wrote: "Physicians are not entitled to ignore regulations that direct them to use reasonable alternative procedures. The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice, nor should it elevate their status above other physicians in the medical community."
smash wrote:
You can still get an abortion 1 day before your due date. The effect is that now in the states in question it is not unconstitutional for them to bar using partial birth "abortion," you can use in vitro dismemberment instead. It is probably for the best for all sides, as it really unnecessarily complicates the issue of whether an unborn child is alive before birth to allow an unecessary procedure where the child is partially born and then terminated.
No, it's for the best for people who want to overturn Roe V Wade, or in actuality, leave it intact but useless by providing other venues to restrict abortion at the state level.
Please don't comment on things you don't understand at all.
No, it's for the best for people who want to overturn Roe V Wade, or in actuality, leave it intact but useless by providing other venues to restrict abortion at the state level.
Please don't comment on things you don't understand at all.
As stated in the decision, the fact that the law does not restrict a woman's abilty to get an abortion, but only elimates one procedure for which there are alternatives, was the key element that made the law constitutional. This means that if a state tried to pass laws that that restricted the available procedures to such an extent that a womans right to an abortion was limited, then it would be unconstitutional. Roe vs. Wade is certainly not useless or limited in any way by this decision. The decision merely states that a certain medical procedure can be barred as long as it does not limit Roe vs. Wade, and in this case it did not.
Edited, Apr 18th 2007 12:00pm by fhrugby
As stated in the decision, the fact that the law does not restrict a woman's abilty to get an abortion, but only elimates one procedure for which there are alternatives, was the key element that made the law constitutional. This means that if a state tried to pass laws that that restricted the available procedures to such an extent that a womans right to an abortion was limted, then it would be unconstitutional.
No, it wouldn't. That's the point. See if you can figure out why.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
fhrugby the Sly wrote:
It instead bans one specific type of abortion procedure which could easily be argued is not an abortion at all since the procedure invoves birth and then would not be covered by Roe vs. Wade. The court's decision specifically states that barring the one procedure does not prohibit obtaining abortions by the other available procedures.
What it bans is a procedure that is exclusively used by doctors who have deemed it necessary to save the life of a mother, to keep her from unnecessary injury, or to protect her fertility. It's something that is RARELY used and only used when a DOCTOR decides that it SHOULD be. God forbid we trust doctors to make that choice, and instead leave it up to a bunch of right wing lunatics who would rather make a statement than concern themselves with women's health or safety.
As far as your assertion that it doesn't effect the validity or the safety of Roe Vs. Wade, I think I'll go with Ginsburg's opinion on that matter...
Quote:
In a bitter dissent read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the high court, said the majority's opinion "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court, and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."
She called the ruling "alarming" and noted the conservative majority "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases" by doctor's groups, including gyncecologists.
She called the ruling "alarming" and noted the conservative majority "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases" by doctor's groups, including gyncecologists.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
I never understood how it was alright to kill babies but when you kill 30 some people at a collage people get all upset.
Double standards FTW!
Double standards FTW!
Aegis wrote:
I never understood how it was alright to kill babies but when you kill 30 some people at a collage people get all upset.
Double standards FTW!
Double standards FTW!
Apparently the college students weren't hooked up to an unwilling person and dependant upon them for survival.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
We perform that actual procedure often, and it's always heartbreaking since it usually comes at the end of an unsuccessful pregnancy, or one that would be harmful to continue. It never fails to amaze me how little thought most men think women, and their caregivers put into this type of a decision.
Atomicflea wrote:
We perform that actual procedure often, and it's always heartbreaking since it usually comes at the end of an unsuccessful pregnancy, or one that would be harmful to continue. It never fails to amaze me how little thought most men think women, and their caregivers put into this type of a decision.
Well, you know I have a very busy schedule. It's all shoe shopping, getting my nails done, ******* a random stranger, having an abortion, then watching American idol.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Nexa wrote:
Well, you know I have a very busy schedule. It's all shoe shopping, getting my nails done, @#%^ing a random stranger, having an abortion, then watching American idol.
Atomicflea wrote:
My friend LaQuita has even less free time than I do, because her hair takes longer and she's got to make all those trips to the check cashing joint to cash her welfare checks.
You may want to have her look into direct deposit.
You may want to have her look into direct deposit.
In Massachusetts there's a psuedo credit card thing that gets updated instead of having paper checks. It's pretty neat.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
You may want to have her look into direct deposit.
In Massachusetts there's a psuedo credit card thing that gets updated instead of having paper checks. It's pretty neat.
They do that here for food stamps. I'm not sure about welfare money though.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Nexa wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
You may want to have her look into direct deposit.
In Massachusetts there's a psuedo credit card thing that gets updated instead of having paper checks. It's pretty neat.
They do that here for food stamps. I'm not sure about welfare money though.
Nexa
I know you can't with food stamps but can you buy lotto tickets with welfare moneys?
Aegis wrote:
I know you can't with food stamps but can you buy lotto tickets with welfare moneys?
No idea. I'm not *actually* on welfare you know. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Oh, and I'd imagine that you could. Money is money, it's not like they can track it. You can probably buy a gun with welfare money. I'd wager that most people spend it on bills.
Nexa
Edited, Apr 18th 2007 12:28pm by Nexa
Nexa
Edited, Apr 18th 2007 12:28pm by Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Nexa wrote:
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Nexa
Nexa
Of course not.
Atomicflea wrote:
Nexa wrote:
Well, you know I have a very busy schedule. It's all shoe shopping, getting my nails done, @#%^ing a random stranger, having an abortion, then watching American idol.
Hell, ladies, I'm just tired of saying over and over again "Five dollars? Me luv you looonnngggg time!"
Thumbelyna Quick Hands wrote:
Hell, ladies, I'm just tired of saying over and over again "Five dollars? Me luv you looonnngggg time!"
Atomicflea wrote:
Thumbelyna Quick Hands wrote:
Hell, ladies, I'm just tired of saying over and over again "Five dollars? Me luv you looonnngggg time!"
Speaking of which, I need to file my coke nail and I can't find an emery board.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
What a sham. I was looking forward to that fetus tartar May 1st during the County Democratic Party meeting. :\
One can almost think the Republican like to ***** about stuff.
They hate single mothers.
So they erode safe sex education and funding for planned parenthood and family planning. Then they carefully chip away at the foundation of Roe vs Wade until abortion is illegal.
Then they are happy that they can complain about all the knocked up teenage sluts!
Edited, Apr 18th 2007 12:50pm by bodhisattva
They hate single mothers.
So they erode safe sex education and funding for planned parenthood and family planning. Then they carefully chip away at the foundation of Roe vs Wade until abortion is illegal.
Then they are happy that they can complain about all the knocked up teenage sluts!
Edited, Apr 18th 2007 12:50pm by bodhisattva
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Recent Visitors: 302
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (302)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- SCOTUS upholds abortion ban.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC