"Yes, it's unconstitutional," state House Rep. Terri Collins, the bill's sponsor, said last week at a hearing. "All our pro-life bills are unconstitutional right now. That's the goal."

Wow, so these politicians are not only giving the middle finger to women and their rights, but also to the Constitution. At least now they're admitting it. And yet, people vote them into office. Go figure.

From your seed.   “"But in 1973, there wasn't 3-D or 4-D imaging; there wasn't fetal monitoring; the ultrasound was somewhat archaic." "The bottom line is we believe that life begins at conception, we believe that there is life in the womb, and we have evidence of that from these new technologies," he added.”

Nobody is questioning the existence of life.

We disagree that an embryo has the same rights to bodily autonomy as the woman whose body is being involuntarily used to support it.

Pregnancy is voluntary in almost all cases.

For rape or incest, early abortion should be an option.

"The bottom line is we believe that life begins at conception, we believe that there is life in the womb, and we have evidence of that from these new technologies," he added.”

One's beliefs begins and ends with them. They do not have a right to push their beliefs onto others. In other words, an individual's personal decision to have an abortion is no one else's business!

Almost all.

But considering the number of pregnancies worldwide at any given time, even a small percentage of unplanned pregnancies yields a fairly significant number.

And involuntary pregnancies include those unplanned ones which occur despite the use of contraception.  Those women should also be allowed to abort.  And frankly, since you aren't the one pregnant, their reasons do not have to pass your muster.

For rape or incest, early abortion should be an option.

Those are NOT options in these new bills. 

Pregnancy is voluntary in almost all cases.

And the decision to have an abortion or not should be too.

For rape or incest, early abortion should be an option.

That's hypocritical! Why should abortion be an option for some, but not for others? Besides, the majority of abortions are performed early in pregnancy.

The real bottom line is these are already too many people on this planet

The real bottom line is these are already too many people on this planet

And yet, there are those that think women should be forced to put more people on the planet.

Pregnancy is voluntary in almost all cases. For rape or incest, early abortion should be an option.

That assumes that she wanted to get pregnant, which is not true in 50% of pregnancies. Birth control is far from reliable.

Despite advancements in contraceptive technology and the millions of dollars that is spent each year on contraception research and development, unplanned pregnancy rates in the U.S. have remained essentially unchanged for decades. The cost of these unplanned pregnancies is enormous, both in terms of public health and personal financial and emotional costs, and while they occur in all socioeconomic groups, unplanned pregnancies tend to happen more frequently in the underserved – women who are already financially and socially challenged. Approximately 50 percent of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, and of these, 43 percent will end in abortion.

shriverreport

Pregnancy is voluntary in almost all cases.

Explain that to my neighbor who had an IUD and got pregnant and had her period the whole time.

Pregnancy is voluntary in almost all cases.

I think what you meant to say was "Sex is voluntary in almost all cases" which would still be wrong considering the large number of sexual assaults each year.

" The 2016 Uniform Crime Report (UCR), which measures rapes that are known to police, estimated that there were 90,185 rapes reported to law enforcement in 2015.  The 2016 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which measures sexual assaults and rapes that may not have been reported to the police, found that there were 431,840 incidents of rape or sexual assault in 2015"

en.wikipedia

As for "Pregnancy" being voluntary, even if you're trying to get pregnant, having sex does not equate to "voluntarily" getting pregnant.

According to Yolanda Kirkham, an OB-GYN at Women’s College Hospital and St. Joseph’s Health Centre in Toronto, your chances of conceiving each cycle you try are 25 to 30 percent if you’re under 35, eight to 15 percent if you’re 35 to 39, five percent if you’re 40 to 42 and one to two percent at age 43.

todaysparent

So having sex multiple times during a month in an attempt to get pregnant, the average for a woman under 35 is just 30%. So to imagine that anyone who has sex is "volunteering" to get pregnant is just ridiculous. It's a risk, but with some care and education, a fairly low one for each time someone has sex.

The bottom line is we believe that life begins at conception

Your bible doesn't agree with you.

Perhaps the good people of the USA are fed up with concept of abortion at any stage of the pregnancy, clear up to the date of delivery. That's overkill.

But it shows the inhumane mindset of the pro-abortion crowd.

Indeed it does.  Consider said what we on the pro life side are not allowed to say here about abortion and know that we mean every word of it.  

Perhaps the good people of the USA are fed up with concept of abortion at any stage of the pregnancy, clear up to the date of delivery. That's overkill.

The majority of Americans support abortion rights. Bills like this one only seem to come from the more conservative/religious minded states (no surprise there). And abortions are generally not performed late in pregnancy or "up to the date of delivery" as you say, as that is illegal. So your statement is not only disingenuous, it's erroneous.

But it shows the inhumane mindset of the pro-abortion crowd.

And you show your disingenuousness again, along with a transparent ad hom attack.

Consider said what we on the pro life side are not allowed to say here about abortion

You can say whatever you want, as long as it's within the CoC.

and know that we mean every word of it.

And the rest of us don't really care!

But it shows the inhumane mindset of the pro-abortion crowd.

This is why I know there's no god, or at least no just god.   If there were that comment would have caused an immediate lightning strike on its author. 

But it does show an emotionally disingenuous generalization. The trifecta of weak and illogical arguments. 

Perhaps the good people of the USA are fed up with concept of abortion at any stage of the pregnancy, clear up to the date of delivery. That's overkill. But it shows the inhumane mindset of the pro-abortion crowd.

You should learn what the medical truth is because that is not true. The current limit of elective abortion ends at 22 to 24 weeks when the fetus is viable.

Nobody is pro-abortion because women do not intentionally get pregnant so they can have an abortion.

The majority of Americans support the availability of abortion.

The survey also found that 80% of Americans support abortion being limited to the first three months of pregnancy, an increase of 5 percentage points since last month's Marist poll.

axios

Indeed it does.  Consider said what we on the pro life side are not allowed to say here about abortion and know that we mean every word of it.

What are you being prohibited from saying?

But it shows the inhumane mindset of the pro-abortion crowd.

I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. There is a difference.

Consider said what we on the pro life side are not allowed to say here about abortion and know that we mean every word of it.  

What are you not allowed to say here? 

Not according to some. They equate the 2.

What are you not allowed to say here? 

I assumed that,  as the RA, you knew what he was complaining about.

I have an idea what his complaint is, but I'll keep it to myself.

'And abortions are generally not performed late in pregnancy or "up to the date of delivery" as you say, as that is illegal. So your statement is not only disingenuous, it's erroneous.'

Yet the turd in chief is spreading this lie also.  

And those ignorant of actual facts buy into such nonsense hook, line, and sinker. Well, Trump did say once that he loves the uneducated. I can see why too: they'll buy into anything he says.

'Well, Trump did say once that he loves the uneducated.'

He must have been talking about himself then also.

He sure does love himself.  

[deleted]

Well, Trump did say once that he loves the uneducated.'
He must have been talking about himself then also.
He sure does love himself.

Two groups which are some of the poorest educated are the Democratic Party base.

Do SOME Democrats not love the poorly educated--even when it is their very own base?

[deleted]

Just admit that you view women as nothing more than brood mares and resent the idea that they have a mind of their own and have the ability to make decisions without your consent. Eliminating reproductive choice is step one in getting them back to where you want them. 

You know he knows that. He doesn't care.  

No, that's why they keep trying to improve education.  Republicans like to keep 'em stupid, Trump admitted it.

Republicans like to keep 'em stupid, Trump admitted it.

That's nice. Prove it.

usatoday

Donald Trump speaks what's on his mind, often as soon as it appears there. And after winning his third-straight contest in Nevada Tuesday, Trump credited his "poorly educated" supporters, in part, for the win.

"We won the evangelicals. We won with young. We won with old. We won with highly educated. We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated," he said during his victory speech .

Let's set aside the fact that "poorly educated" is not the same as "less educated" and look at the numbers:

Trump did well across the board in Nevada, garnering 45.9% of the vote , but he did even better among voters with a high school education or less. Fifty-seven percent of those voters supported him, according to entrance polls , courtesy of CNN.

The next closest candidate among high-school-or-less voters was Ted Cruz, who had 20%.

That's a sizable gap of 37 percentage points.

Trump didn't just win with less educated voters, or "poorly educated," as he called them, he crushed it.

And yet, people vote them into office. Go figure.

Yup, that's supposed to be how it works. Legislators make laws, not Judges.

Yup, that's supposed to be how it works. Legislators make laws, not Judges.

The judges determine if the law is constitutionally permissible.  That is the role of the federal judiciary as a check and balance to he power of either the legislative or the executive branch.

Legislators may pass laws, but they shouldn't be blatantly unconstitutional laws, as they even admit to it. That says a lot about the people that put up with that nonsense or vote them into office to begin with, to say nothing about the legislators themselves.  Fortunately, the courts strike down such unconstitutional laws.

How many ways do you want to say the same thing?

Legislators may pass laws, but they shouldn't be blatantly unconstitutional laws, as they even admit to it.

That's a sneaky way of defending activist courts. Gordy, you may be getting a good dose of your own medicine very soon.

No, that is a way of saying if legislators pass unconstitutional laws, the courts can and should strike them down. That's how the system works. The faCT that legislators do pass unconstitutional laws and even admit it as a means of fulfilling some agenda should make voters outraged. And what "medicine" of mine are you referring?

And what "medicine" of mine are you referring?

That legislating the Court did in the early 70's. You see, there are now Conservative activist Judges too...Who Knew!

How many ways do you want to say the same thing?

 It would seem that you do not understand the critical role that the judiciary plays in the federal government as a check and balance to the other two branches.

That legislating the Court did in the early 70's. You see, there are now Conservative activist Judges too...Who Knew!

 

What legislating did the courts do in the early 1970s? 

What legislating? What law/s did the court pass specifically?

The Judiciary is not supposed to legislate, no matter how badly our elected officials refuse to do their duty (either through ideology or fear of casting a vote). You seem to want to say the Court can legislate. If so, say it. 

What law/s did the court pass specifically?

There are a few cases of the Court legislating. In the beginning they were all decisions coming from leftist activists. In 2000, we even got one from the right and liberals finally got their comeuppance. But let me specifically go to the most famous offense, the one that has been so controversial for half a century: Roe v Wade!

That was a case the Court shouldn't have taken, the regulation of abortion not being a matter for the Judiciary. As a matter of Constitutional law the decision was preposterous. Justified on some mysterious "right of privacy", which can't be cited nor did it even constitute a valid argument for why a woman is entitled to terminate her pregnancy. There is also no mention of the rights of an unborn child. Is there any doubt as to why so many have come to regard the decision as the most obvious case of the Court overstepping it's authority?

I asked for what law did the court pass in Roe specifically? I did not ask for details of the case itself. I'm already familiar with the case. And of course the court didn't mention unborn rights, as the unborn do not have rights. So regardless of how one feels about the Roe decision, the ruling was sound, has only been affirmed and expanded on in subsequent abortion cases, and has also affirmed women's individual rights and autonomy. I'd say that's a good thing.

The judiciary didn't legislate anything. It only rules on legislation.

I asked for what law did the court pass in Roe specifically?

And I gave you the obvious answer.

And of course the court didn't mention unborn rights, as the unborn do not have rights.

You are wrong and so were the ultra liberal jurists

So regardless of how one feels about the Roe decision, the ruling was sound

Then why does it continue to be mired in controversy?

 has also affirmed women's individual rights and autonomy.

It has created them. That will change

I'd say that's a good thing.

I call it despicable

And I gave you the obvious answer.

No, you didn't. you simply cited a case. Not the specific law passed.

You are wrong and so were the ultra liberal jurists

Merely your opinion. And do you seriously thing the SCOTUS Justices of 1973 were "ultra liberal?" Your "argument" is getting more laughable with each statement!

Then why does it continue to be mired in controversy?

Because people can't accept it and are emotional about it, especially when it concerns a woman choosing for herself. 

It has created them. That will change

Are you suggesting women should be denied or have limited rights?

I call it despicable

Recognizing individual rights and autonomy is despicable to you? That says a lot about you!

Because people can't accept it and are emotional about it

A minority of people 18-49. Only among conservatives, those over 50, the poorly educated and the lowest income bracket is there a majority that claim to be pro-life versus pro-choice.

news.gallup

Of course Roe didn't pass any laws and wasn't in any way "legislation" as Vic claims. The premise is ridiculous on its face. Roe merely ruled on laws just like it did when it ruled against segregation laws with Brown v Board of education. It didn't pass a law that said you would be punished if you segregate, it simply shot down laws that were unconstitutional due to the fact that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal," and were not as the Topeka Board of Education claimed "separate but equal". In Roe, they ruled that bans on abortion exceeded a States right to intrude on individual privacy. It ruled that laws that gave the States the right to inject itself between a woman, her doctor and her health needs was too intrusive and therefore unconstitutional. If the State has a right to inject itself into the process of procreation then it could be seen to have a right to regulate a woman's ovulation, regulate contraceptives, regulated how a woman's limited number of eggs are used or even claim the right to ban tight fitting jeans on men that may hamper sperm production.

The real question was when does the State have a right to inject itself and the Supreme Court ruled it's when the fetus can live outside the womb without the mother. That's when States can inject themselves and that's when a fetus becomes a baby and has its own rights.

Now sadly, rarely, even after reaching viability, due to complications the mothers life is at risk trying to give birth or the fetus is brain dead, so the doctors and the woman have to make one of the hardest decisions any human ever has to make. And that is exactly the WRONG time a State agency should be injecting itself and it's constituents religious beliefs into the decision.

Thankfully, the vast majority of the next generation are pro-choice so Roe won't be overturned any time soon. The new Alabama law is the one that will soon be overturned and it won't be judicial activism, it will be a conservative court slapping their fellow conservatives with a dose of reality, the reality that the constitution does not give them the right to a woman's body no matter what unconstitutional State laws are passed.

Of course Roe didn't pass any laws and wasn't in any way "legislation" as Vic claims. The premise is ridiculous on its face.

Obviously.

In Roe, they ruled that bans on abortion exceeded a States right to intrude on individual privacy. It ruled that laws that gave the States the right to inject itself between a woman, her doctor and her health needs was too intrusive and therefore unconstitutional.

Indeed. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the case would understand that.

The real question was when does the State have a right to inject itself and the Supreme Court ruled it's when the fetus can live outside the womb without the mother. That's when States can inject themselves and that's when a fetus becomes a baby and has its own rights.

That is what was considered "state's interest." 

And that is exactly the WRONG time a State agency should be injecting itself and it's constituents religious beliefs into the decision.

not just the state, but anyone else who thinks such a decision or situation is somehow their concern or business.

Thankfully, the vast majority of the next generation are pro-choice so Roe won't be overturned any time soon.

Roe has survived, perhaps the worst of its challenges, for the last 46 years. It's not likely going to be overturned. If it were, that would set a very dangerous precedent.

The new Alabama law is the one that will soon be overturned

Again.

the reality that the constitution does not give them the right to a woman's body no matter what unconstitutional State laws are passed.

Some legislators simply do not care and even seem proud to violate the constitution.

The Judiciary is not supposed to legislate, no matter how badly our elected officials refuse to do their duty (either through ideology or fear of casting a vote). You seem to want to say the Court can legislate. If so, say it. 

How can we possibly have civil rights and the US Constitution/Amendments be enforced if the legislative or executive branch can do as they please despite what the Constitution prohibits? Do you think that Congress can pass a law that violates the US Constitution? If we don't have the power of the Federal courts to set laws aside that are unconstitutional then who gets to determine constitutionality? 

The judiciary is only reactive to the actions of the other branches. If the judges do not have the constitutional power to set aside laws and to determine constitutionality then there is no reason for them to exist because they cannot function as a check and balance to the power of either the legislative or the executive. Didn't you learn this  very basic constitional concept in high school hisoty and civics class?  Please read and understand the legal precedent that was set in Marbury v. Madison. 

Of course Roe didn't pass any laws and wasn't in any way "legislation" as Vic claims.

You're absolutely correct.

Can I get you on board to clarify the same fact about Citizens United?  

The real question was when does the State have a right to inject itself and the Supreme Court ruled it's when the fetus can live outside the womb without the mother.

This is a very important point.  It is actually the complete difference between the two sides.... a difference of view on when life begins.

It is actually the complete difference between the two sides.... a difference of view on when life begins.

When "life" begins is irrelevant (and subjective) to the issue, and is just emotional rhetoric and appeals when used. It's about when one's rights become superseded.

You are wrong and so were the ultra liberal jurists

Do you want the government to issue a list of what we can do? That sounds fascist to me and would give the government far too much power to control us. How is the ruling that we have the right to privacy from government interference into our private lives ultra liberal?   That is the basic concept of freedom and is the core idea of the 4th Amendments prohibition of search and seizure without a warrant issued by an independent judge.

You may not like the Roe' decision but the right to privacy means that we can do as we wish until the government can prove that we should not be able to. The power of freedom is held by the citizenry and the government has to prove a very high hurdle to deny us the right to act as we choose.  Do you want to ask the government's permission for your healthcare decisions?  That sounds suspiciously like a death panel to me.

When "life" begins is irrelevant (and subjective)

Subjective, yes.

Irrelevant, no.  That's just silly.

Nobody believes in murdering children.  There is simply disagreement on what constitutes a "child".

Irrelevant, no. 

Irrelevant, yes!

Nobody believes in murdering children.

No one is murdering children in an abortion. Neither is abortion considered murder. 

There is simply disagreement on what constitutes a "child".

It's a child after birth.  A clump of cells is not a child. One can disagree on that, but they would be wrong!

Can I get you on board to clarify the same fact about Citizens United?

Spending unlimited money by corporations in elections is not free speech because a corporation is not a person so it has no rights. the fact that the decision is a debacle and has taken away power from the majority and put it in the hands of the wealthy is causing political instability. The amount of money most people can afford to donate is insignificant and so their voice is lost when a few people can donate hundreds of millions to drown out the opinions of others. 

The rational decisions to make all campaign spending public money to level the playing field. 

Nobody believes in murdering children.  There is simply disagreement on what constitutes a "child".

Drop the emotional hyperbole if you want others to take you seriously. Nobody is murdering children.  What happened to your previous idea that men are inherently more logical than women, or is this another instance of you redefining what a fact is? 

A fetus cannot be a child when it isn't independent of the mother's body that it needs to survive.  You cannot take rights away from her and give it to a parasite of her body that cannot speak, think or act independently.  You want to attack the inherent autonomy of a woman because of your own religious beliefs. The rights of women do not come only with the permission of your interpretation of the bible.  

Do you want to ignore this idea that your god says that a fetus are not a person until it can breathe air?

Genesis 2:7

⁷ Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

This is a very important point.  It is actually the complete difference between the two sides.... a difference of view on when life begins.

That's not actually what I said. I said the court ruled on "when a fetus becomes a baby and has its own rights", not the very subjective interpretation of when 'life' begins.

I do believe that what the law defines as the point between a fetus without rights that can't survive outside the womb and when it becomes viable is an important distinction, but one that isn't a debate about whether the fetus is 'alive' or not. Sperm are 'alive' as are a woman's eggs, that doesn't give them rights not should it. The bacteria in my colon is 'alive'. So being 'alive' is a distinction without meaning in this debate.

So if conservatives insist on debating when 'life' begins they will forever be barking up the wrong tree. If they want to debate when "viability" begins, well that's a possible battle they could make some headway with. If the Alabama law simply banned abortion past 20 weeks unless there was evidence from doctors showing the fetus wasn't viable, and didn't ban termination after viability if it's to save the life of the mother, then the law might just stand up under scrutiny.

If the Alabama law simply banned abortion past 20 weeks unless there was evidence from doctors showing the fetus wasn't viable, and didn't ban termination after viability if it's to save the life of the mother, then the law might just stand up under scrutiny.

Possible, but not likely, assuming a legal challenge is made. States have tried to pass laws banning abortion after 20 weeks, but failed. The SCOTUS has ruled elective abortions are permissible until the point of viability, which is around 23 weeks. One would think that is an acceptable "middle ground" compromise between the two abortion sides.

Possible, but not likely, assuming a legal challenge is made.

I agree, I was just trying to give an example of a law that might have a slight chance of standing up under SCOTUS scrutiny to show how far from that the new Alabama law is and why it doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of success.

"One would think that is an acceptable "middle ground" compromise between the two abortion sides."

Only if that "One" doing the thinking is educated, reasonable, logical and not irreversibly indoctrinated in religious dogma that blinds them to reality. Then yes, "One would think" it an acceptable middle ground. Sadly, that's not who most reasonable persons find themselves facing when meeting the anti-choice crowd.

Only if that "One" doing the thinking is educated, reasonable, logical and not irreversibly indoctrinated in religious dogma that blinds them to reality.

You forgot to add not overly emotional or irrational.

How can we possibly have civil rights and the US Constitution/Amendments be enforced if the legislative or executive branch can do as they please despite what the Constitution prohibits?

That was all about Congress. The 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act

 Do you think that Congress can pass a law that violates the US Constitution?

Congress dosen't violate, but it can modify. They use amendments

If we don't have the power of the Federal courts to set laws aside that are unconstitutional then who gets to determine constitutionality? 

The Court dosen't set aside laws. The SCOTUS clarifies when there is ambiguity in the law. Claiming that their is a "right of privacy" when there CLEARLY IS NONE is a violation of the Courts jurisdiction!

Didn't you learn this  very basic constitional concept in high school hisoty and civics class? 

Did You? Who was your teacher? Angela Davis?

Please read and understand the legal precedent that was set in Marbury v. Madison. 

Which you have misrepresented, but I appreciate the effort.

The SCOTUS clarifies when there is ambiguity in the law. Claiming that their is a "right of privacy" when there CLEARLY IS NONE is a violation of the Courts jurisdiction!

The SCOTUS also interprets the Constitution. They deemed people have a right top privacy. That would seem like a good right to have too.

The SCOTUS also interprets the Constitution.

What do you mean "also" clarify = interpret

They deemed people have a right top privacy.

They were lying! They were forcing an ideology on America. America can vote for it through their representatives. Progressives poisoned the well!

'They were lying!'  

Forcing an ideology on America?

Poisoned the well?'

What nonsense.  

That was all about Congress. The 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act 

The role of the judicial branch to rule on issues of constitutionality was established by the Marbury v. Madison decision in 1803.

Congress dosen't violate, but it can modify. They use amendments

Are you sincerely suggesting that Congress cannot and does not pass laws that violate the US Constitution?  Do you think that they are constitutional just because they are passed by Congress?  Was the ACA automatically constitutional because it was also passed by Congress, or is that an exception because of Obama?

The Court dosen't set aside laws. The SCOTUS clarifies when there is ambiguity in the law. Claiming that their is a "right of privacy" when there CLEARLY IS NONE is a violation of the Courts jurisdiction!

The right to privacy is so obvious to be understood. We cannot have any freedom and autonomy from government interference into our lives if we do not have the inherent right to privacy. The 4th Amendment would not be needed if we did not have the right to privacy because it decides how and when that right of privacy can be invaded.

How did you graduate from high school with such uninformed ideas about basic concepts of civics/political science?  Why is it that supposed "small government, pro-freedom conservatives instantly become rigid authoritarians when the equal rights of others are mentioned?

Did You? Who was your teacher? Angela Davis?

My HS civics teacher also taught US history and current events. My college history teacher was a city councilman-at-large. My poli-sci teacher as a former member of Congress.  He also taught law.

They were lying! They were forcing an ideology on America.

So you're saying that people don't have a right to Due Processes under the 14th Amendment?

Your'e always so articulate

What do you mean "also" clarify = interpret

As I said, The SCOTUS also interprets the Constitution. That is one of their responsibilities. I can't make it any clearer than that.

They were lying! They were forcing an ideology on America.

What do you have to support that accusation? Your opinion?

America can vote for it through their representatives.

People cannot vote to deny others their rights. Any legislation passed is subject to judicial review.

Progressives poisoned the well!

There goes the last vestiges of any credibility you may have had.

Your'e always so articulate

Tess is also correct!

They were lying!

You have not established that they lied to anyone.

They were forcing an ideology on America.

What ideology did they force on anyone, even those who disagree with Roe v. Wade? 

America can vote for it through their representatives.

We do not vote on the rights of other citizens. That would be the tyranny of the majority and would result in only the majority having rights. This idea is why we have the Bill of Rights to guarantee that all of us have equal rights, even if it is only one person who feels that way.

Progressives poisoned the well!

This is an unsupported emotional claim.

So you're saying that people don't have a right to Due Processes under the 14th Amendment?

Wow, No, I'm saying that the Court would have been a bit wiser and less brazen if they had ground Roe in a woman's right to equal protection rather than the silly notion of a non existent right

That would be the tyranny of the majority

Having judges usurp the authority of elected representatives is a tyranny of the minority - a liberal one

Wow, No, I'm saying that the Court would have been a bit wiser and less brazen if they had ground Roe in a woman's right to equal protection rather than the silly notion of a non existent right

If the right to privacy isn't guaranteed then you would not have locks on your doors that the government could not open at will?  They would not need search warrants because you could be searched by the government anywhere, at any time, and for any reason at all.

Passwords on electronic devices would also be illegal.

Iv'e got my copy of the Constitution right here. Show me this right of privacy.

Please be specific

right to equal protection

Exactly, the door was left open to ban abortions.  The justices in Roe v Wade left it up to the states.  Roe v Wade did not strike down regulating abortions through the entire pregnancy because of privacy rights.  It did just the opposite.

Having judges usurp the authority of elected representatives is a tyranny of the minority - a liberal one

Those judges form a critical check and balance on the power of the legislative and the executive branches. If the judges didn't exist to protect our rights and the US Constitution, then the legislative and executive could act in a way to ignore the rights guaranteed in the US Constitution.   They could pass any law that they had the majority or even rewrite laws so that they didn't need a majority. The POTUS, as the head of the executive branch, could disband Congress and declare himself king. 

Do you want to live in that kind of country?

Ginsburg was right! They actually fueled the Pro-Life Movement. And now we even have Conservative activists - Al Gore learned that the hard way.

So, here we are!

You have it backward. The SCOTUS struck down the Texas state ban on abortion in Roe v. Wade

Iv'e got my copy of the Constitution right here. Show me this right of privacy.Please be specific

It is inherent in the very concept of personal freedom. The core idea of freedom is that we do not have to ask permission before we act until it reaches the point that the rights of others are infringed. This bar is set very high for the government to prove so as to protect this very basic concept of freedom. We do not have to prove that we have the right to act, but instead the government has to prove that we do not have this right to do as we please.  That idea is also not spelled out verbatim in the US Constitution but do you want to argue that it also does not exist?

The SCOTUS struck down the Texas state ban on abortion in Roe v. Wade

That was a State law, not a law made by the US Congress. A state law could be in conflict with federal law, but in the case of the Texas Statute the Court indulged in the hypocrisy of resurrecting Lochner's substantive due process without admitting it.

You didn't read my entire comment....

1.3.43 Sunshine replied to Vic Eldred @ 1.3.39 5 minutes ago

through the entire pregnancy because of privacy rights.

en.wikipedia

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision issued in 1973 by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of the constitutionality of laws that criminalized or restricted access to abortions. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.
Later, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Court rejected Roe's trimester framework while affirming its central holding that a woman has a right to abortion until fetal viability. The Roe decision defined "viable" as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." Justices in Casey acknowledged that viability may occur at 23 or 24 weeks, or sometimes even earlier, in light of medical advances.

So you can't show me. Ok, I rest my case.

You may want to take a look at post # 1.3.49, above

So you can't show me. Ok, I rest my case.You may want to take a look at post # 1.3.49, above

Not everything is written out verbatim. Privacy is so obvious that it did not need to be written. It was assumed to be understood by intelligent people who wrote the Constitution. Maybe they should have written it out for some people to understand.  The Constitution also doesn't say that we have the right to eat, breathe or to have sex, but does that mean that we do not by its absence?

If we don't have the right to privacy then you need to give cops copies of all of your keys and your passwords.   The HIPAA law would also be illegal if we don't have the inherent right to privacy of our medical decisions. 

Why do you want to surrender your freedom and autonomy to the government?

That's a poor argument for the Court to take, yet that's the one they chose.

The regulation of abortion is at the point of medical viability without heroic medical measures. That point is now understood to be 22-24 weeks of gestation, unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or the mother's life is in legitimate danger if the pregnancy continues to term.

The SCOTUS has revisited Roe' numerous times.

In Casey, the court said this,

The Court's plurality opinion upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion while altering the standard for analyzing restrictions on that right, crafting the "undue burden" standard for abortion restrictions.

There have also been Webster, Stenberg, Gonzolas and Hellerstedt decisions. How many times do you want to revisit the same question before you stop asking? 

That's a poor argument for the Court to take, yet that's the one they chose.

It is also very obvious when you understand what freedom is? It was a stupid question to ask because abortion was well known and understood in the 1780s and there was no ban against it. 

That was a State law, not a law made by the US Congress.

The state law which went before the SCOTUS. SCOTUS rulings and precedents generally applies to all states!

Iv'e got my copy of the Constitution right here. Show me this right of privacy.

Are you suggesting that if something is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, then it doesn't exist? 

Having judges usurp the authority of elected representatives is a tyranny of the minority - a liberal one

How did they do that exactly? The SCOTUS ruled on the constitutionality of a law. That is their job. Perhaps you should skip the emotional platitudes and try to actually make a logical or rational argument!

No, I'm saying that the Court would have been a bit wiser and less brazen if they had ground Roe in a woman's right to equal protection rather than the silly notion of a non existent right

Their decision was ground on a constitutional basis. What makes you more qualified to interpret the law and the Constitution than a SCOTUS Justice?

There have also been Webster, Stenberg, Gonzolas and Hellerstedt decisions. How many times do you want to revisit the same question before you stop asking?

wtf are you talking about?  I didn't ask anything.

The regulation of abortion is at the point of medical viability without heroic medical measures. That point is now understood to be 22-24 weeks of gestation, unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or the mother's life is in legitimate danger if the pregnancy continues to term.

Yes I know, I gave you that information because you obviously didn't know.

Exactly, the door was left open to ban abortions.  The justices in Roe v Wade left it up to the states.  Roe v Wade did not strike down regulating abortions through the entire pregnancy because of privacy rights.  It did just the opposite.

Not quite. The SCOTUS ruled that elective abortions were permissible in the first trimester (later expanded to the point of viability). After that point, it was deferred to individual states under the guise of "state's interest." So the states still had some authority in the matter. But they couldn't ban or unduly prohibit abortions outright, as we've seen some states repeatedly try to do.

The Court's plurality opinion upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion while altering the standard for analyzing restrictions on that right, crafting the "undue burden" standard for abortion restrictions.

State law cannot be in conflict with federal law and still stand. Federal laws/rulings aways take precedence or the US constitution would not have any power and could not be enforced if the states can write laws that ignore it. This idea is known as constitutional supremacy. Article VI paragraph 2.

Lochner might be the worst decision of the Supremes.

Yes I know, I gave you that information because you obviously didn't know.

I did know that and I have for 30 years.  I've explained it many times on NT, Newsvine, and a few previous forums. 

My college minor was political philosophy.  These are very basic ideas.

Not quite. The SCOTUS ruled that elective abortions were permissible in the first trimester (later expanded to the point of viability). After that point, it was deferred to individual states under the guise of "state's interest." So the states still had some authority in the matter.

Gee....am I typing in invisible font?

Read the post 1.3.49 providing this information.

But they couldn't ban or unduly prohibit abortions outright, as we've seen some states repeatedly try to do.

Never said different.

The SCOTUS left the door open for the states to determine when a woman can or can not have an abortion (at what stage of pregnancy)...the privacy right is useless.

Iv'e got my copy of the Constitution right here. Show me this right of privacy.

"In the United States, the Supreme Court first recognized the right to privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut  (1965). Before  Griswold , however, Louis Brandeis (prior to becoming a Supreme Court Justice) co-authored a Harvard Law Review article called "The Right to Privacy," in which he advocated for the "right to be let alone."

Griswold and the Prenumbras

​In  Griswold , the Supreme Court found a right to privacy, derived from penumbras of other explicitly stated constitutional protections. The Court used the personal protections expressly stated in the  First , Third , Fourth , Fifth , and Ninth Amendments to find that there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution. The Court found that when one takes the penumbras together, the Constitution creates a "zone of privacy."   While the holding in  Griswold  found for a right to privacy, it was narrowly used to find a right to privacy for married couples, and only with regard to the right to purchase contraceptives. 

Justice Harlan's Concurrence in Griswold

Also important to note is Justice Harlan's concurring opinion in Griswold , which found a right to privacy derived from the Fourteenth Amendment. In his concurrence, he relies upon the rationale in his dissenting opinion in  Poe v. Ullman  (1961). In that opinion, he wrote, "I consider that this Connecticut legislation, as construed to apply to these appellants, violates the Fourteenth Amendment. I believe that a statute making it a criminal offense for married couples to use contraceptives is an intolerable and unjustifiable invasion of privacy in the conduct of the most intimate concerns of an individual's personal life." 

In privacy cases post- Griswold , the Supreme Court typically has chosen to rely upon Justice Harlan's concurrence rather than Justice Douglas's majority opinion. Eisenstadt v Baird    (1971), Roe v. Wade  (1972), and  Lawrence v. Texas   (2003) are three of the most prolific cases in which the Court extended the right to privacy. In each of these cases, the Court relied upon the Fourteenth Amendment, not penumbras. 

Extending the Right to Privacy

In Eisenstadt , the Supreme Court decided to extend the right to purchase contraceptives to unmarried couples. More importantly, however, the Court found that "the constitutionally protected right of privacy inheres in the individual, not the marital couple." 

In  Roe , the Supreme Court used the right to privacy, as derived from the Fourteenth Amendment, to extend the right of privacy to encompass a woman's right to have an abortion : "This right of privacy . . . founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

In Lawrence , the Supreme Court used the Fourteenth Amendment to extend the right to privacy to "persons of the same sex [who choose to] engage in  . . . sexual conduct." Relying upon the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process, the Court held: "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

law.cornell

Thank you. I should have remembered Griswold'. 

Never said different. The SCOTUS left the door open for the states to determine when a woman can or can not have an abortion (at what stage of pregnancy)...the privacy right is useless.

The age of viability (22-24 weeks) is to be the limit. You cannot deny a woman the right to have an abortion by setting the limit so low that we don't know that we are pregnant when the limit passes. To say that we have the right to abortion is intellectually dishonest when that is the situation.

Why is it that you cannot leave others also to make the choice that best fits her? Nobody is asking you to approve that she terminates a pregnancy because nobody cares what you think when it isn't your body. Have you ever been forced to have an abortion because of the opinions of others?

Can I make your intimate medical decisions that best fit me or does that only give you the right to stick your nose into the intimate lives of others?

Read the post 1.3.49 providing this information

My statement only affirms the idea surrounding state's interest (whatever that is).

Never said different.

Good.

The SCOTUS left the door open for the states to determine when a woman can or can not have an abortion (at what stage of pregnancy)...the privacy right is useless.

States can only "ban" abortion as long as it doesn't conflict with SCOTUS rulings. It's unconstitutional for a state to ban abortion early in a pregnancy, as we see Alabama try to do.

 to terminate her pregnancy."

Not at any stage.  Justices ruled in Roe v Wade that the life of the unborn can overrule  the privacy law.

Although many believe otherwise.

I said the court ruled on "when a fetus becomes a baby and has its own rights", not the very subjective interpretation of when 'life' begins.

Ok.  Sure.  Whatever.  

At some point in time it becomes something that is immoral to kill.  When that actually happens is the entirety of the disagreement.

Why is it that you cannot leave others also to make the choice that best fits her? Nobody is asking you to approve that she terminates a pregnancy because nobody cares what you think when it isn't your body. Have you ever been forced to have an abortion because of the opinions of others? Can I make your intimate medical decisions that best fit me or does that only give you the right to stick your nose into the intimate lives of others?

I never said any of this diatribe.

[deleted]

Can I get you on board to clarify the same fact about Citizens United?  

I agree, Citizens United wasn't a case of the court legislating either. It struck down the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, aka "the McCain–Feingold Act" that banned "electioneering communication" within 60 days of a general election or within 30 days of a primary.

I believe they made the wrong decision and I concur with the dissent by Justice Stevens that the ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution." "A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold."

I never said any of this diatribe. Why can't you read and understand facts instead of lying?

Do you support the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy?

Do you support the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy?

I support the law....so that would be yes.

After that bullshit attack, never comment to me again and believe me I will most certainly avoid your comments.

Morality is subjective. Legally speaking, that time is determined to be the point of viability, with specified exceptions.

Drop the emotional hyperbole

What part of "nobody believes in murdering children" do you dispute?  In my experience, pro choice people do not believe in murdering children any more than pro life people do. 

Are you claiming otherwise??  WTF??  

What happened to your previous idea that men are inherently more logical than women,

It's in that spot deep in your imagination with all the other things you imagine I think after you misread my posts.  It's worth pointing out that you're not doing women any favors when you claim the idea that pro life people don't want to murder children is "emotional hyperbole".

A fetus cannot be a child when it isn't independent of the mother's body that it needs to survive.

I realize you believe that.  What exactly do we need to do to help you understand that pro-life people see it differently? What part of that is stumping you?

You cannot take rights away 

You are off on yet another bizarre tangent over things I never actually said.  This is becoming more frequent.

Please cite where I have attempted to do so, or supported the attempt to do so.  You'll be a while, so I'm going to go make a cup of coffee while you're working on that.

You want to attack

Citation?  Or is this some sort of quasi-unhinged attempt at irony?

The rights of women do not come only with the permission of your interpretation of the bible.  

Cite me making any such claim.  I mean actually making the claim...not you presuming what I must have meant in your imagination.  Is there any point at which you intend to address things I've actually said, or do you just intend to keep pretending we're all in your alternative universe?

Out of curiosity, what is it about the idea that someone else may have a differing opinion than yours that seems to incite you to these nonsensical accusations?

as we see Alabama try to do.

The SCOTUS ruling on Roe v Wade did not leave legal abortion as settled law, they left an opening for the states to contest the ruling which is what Alabama is trying to do.  They are trying to get their arguments before SCOTUS.  

That was Vic's original point, I think, he can surely correct me if I am wrong.

Wow, No, I'm saying that the Court would have been a bit wiser and less brazen if they had ground Roe in a woman's right to equal protection rather than the silly notion of a non existent right

Here it is....as you can see it says "no state"...life, liberty, or property.

en.wikipedia

The Equal Protection Clause is located at the end of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:
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. [emphasis added]

In Roe v Wade the SCOTUS kicked it back to the states enough to leave an opening for states like Alabama to contest the ruling.

I'm done explaining it.

Roe v Wade has always been considered a fragile ruling.

Here are Ginsburg's opinions on it that Vic was also referring to:

en.wikipedia

Those more acquainted with Ginsburg and her thoughtful, nuanced approach to difficult legal questions were not surprised, however, to hear her say just the opposite, that Roe was a faulty decision. For Ginsburg, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion was too far-reaching and too sweeping, and it gave anti-abortion rights activists a very tangible target to rally against in the four decades since.
Ginsburg and Professor Geoffrey Stone, a longtime scholar of reproductive rights and constitutional law, spoke for 90 minutes before a capacity crowd in the Law School auditorium on May 11 on “Roe v. Wade at 40.”
“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.
“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

Spending unlimited money by corporations in elections is not free speech because a corporation is not a person so it has no rights.

DP's point was that Roe v Wade is not a law, and not the result of the SCOTUS making legislation.

My point was that..just like RvW, Citizens United is not a law and does not represent the SCOTUS making legislation.

I never said any of this diatribe.
Why can't you read and understand facts instead of lying?

Because it is far easier to debate the words put in your mouth than the ones you actually typed.

it is a tactic seemingly growing in popularity here.

State law cannot be in conflict with federal law and still stand.

Thanks for verifying what I said. at least you got that right.

Lochner might be the worst decision of the Supremes.

Yup, too bad such reasoning was used in Roe.


BTW, the Governor of Alabama just signed the anti abortion bill. So here we go!

You see, there are now Conservative activist Judges too...Who Knew!

There always have been. 

Out of curiosity, what is it about the idea that someone else may have a differing opinion than yours that seems to incite you to these nonsensical accusations?

I can't answer for epistte, but my problem is it's not just an 'opinion', the fact is,  that opinion is being legislated and forced upon women, taking their rights.  Being taken against their will.  Your particular 'opinion' is the rally cry to usurp women's rights so your 'opinion' replaces their own belief system.  For all your ranting about murdering children,  most people do not believe that.  I definitely do not believe that.  Don't know why you are having such a disconnect here.  The only reason your anti-woman opinion matters to us is that it is reality, and when someone's most personal decisions are taken away by a bunch of stupid patronizing misogynist men, it makes one testy.  Expect it to continue.

It's worth pointing out that you're not doing women any favors when you claim the idea that pro life people don't want to murder children is "emotional hyperbole".

Seriously? How absurd Jack. Abortion is not equivalent to "murder children".  I know you know that. Equating abortion with murdering children is the thing that doesn't do any favors for women.

Because it is far easier to debate the words put in your mouth than the ones you actually typed.

Yep, becoming more evident that many can't discuss anything in a civil manner and make shit up.

I can't answer for epistte, but my problem is it's not just an 'opinion', the fact is,  that opinion is being legislated and forced upon women, taking their rights.  Being taken against their will. 

I understand that you see it that way, and I can respect that.

Your particular 'opinion' is the rally cry to usurp women's rights so your 'opinion' replaces their own belief system. 

It's not actually my opinion.

For all your ranting about murdering children,  most people do not believe that.  I definitely do not believe that.  Don't know why you are having such a disconnect here.

Largely because people don't seem to be able to put their emotions aside and read a post at face value.

The point is that neither side is nearly as evil as the other side likes to scream.  

  The only reason your anti-woman opinion matters to us is that it is reality, and when someone's most personal decisions are taken away by a bunch of stupid patronizing misogynist men, it makes one testy.  Expect it to continue.

Again, I understand the emotion.  I simply don't accept that the best responses women can muster are whiny bullshit buzzwords or screaming "misogyny" at every turn.

Seriously? How absurd Jack. Abortion is not equivalent to "murder children".  I know you know that. Equating abortion with murdering children is the thing that doesn't do any favors for women.

Read. It. Again.

Or...just fly off the handle at what you thought it might have said.  At this point I don't care.

t is a tactic seemingly growing in popularity here.

It's not a tactic.

Tactics require effort and planning.  Misreading posts (repeatedly) is just laziness.

I call it despicable

You call women having legal rights and autonomy despicable?

Color me surprised.

'You call women having legal rights and autonomy despicable?'

Of course he does!  

There's none so blind .......

So profound! 

Wow, No,

That was the basis of the right to privacy in the ruling in Roe v Wade. 

I'm saying that the Court would have been a bit wiser and less brazen if they had ground Roe in a woman's right to equal protection rather than the silly notion of a non existent right

Okay, then explain to me the legal basis of a woman's equal protection without using the 14th Amendment's Due process clause.

You can't. If you reverse Roe v Wade under the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause then you'd make HIPPA laws invalid as well as various FTC laws and open the door for a huge government intrusion into the lives of US citizens. Perhaps that's what you anti-choicers want. You must want Big Government in people's homes telling them what they can can and can't do. I guarantee that you anti-choicers won't like the inevitable repercussions that will happen if Roe v Wade is completely overturned. 

Roe is unlikely to be overturned....unless the unborn achieve RIGHTS. Most likely Roe will become more and more restricted with time.

Blackmun didn't really explain how the right burst forth from the 14th Amendment did he? He simply mentioned it's "concept of personal liberty" and that was that!

So where in the Constitution does it say people can own handguns, rifles, semi-automatic weapons, cannons, tanks?  It says right to bear arms - no specific - pretty much like your "privacy" is not mentioned,

So where in the Constitution does it say people can own handguns, rifles, semi-automatic weapons, cannons, tanks? 

Only a right to bear arms

It says right to bear arms - no specific - pretty much like your "privacy" is not mentioned,

Actually, It is far more specific than any right to "privacy". We can debate about what the "arms" should be limited to, but even the Justices from Roe can't show us this "right to privacy"

In your mind it is more specific.  But have at it.  

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.

You say arms includes guns - I say forced birth infringes on my life, liberty & property.

Only a right to bear arms

A well regulated Militia

Were those your words, or not?  Bear in mind before answering that they're all there in black and white, for all of us to read.

.unless the unborn achieve RIGHTS.

In order for the "unborn" to have RIGHTS, then we need to legislate ALL of those RIGHTS.

 Does the unborn have the RIGHT to be conceived by men and women who are mentally and physically healthy and financially stable and educated on child rearing?  If not, shouldn't it be?   The unborn should have the RIGHT to be born in only optimum environments instead of living as a latch key kid in poverty.

If we are going to legislate RIGHTS for the unborn, then to be fair to the unborn, those rights should be in place before conception.  Anyone who wants to be a parent should have to be thoroughly evaluated to make sure that they are 100% willing and capable of nurturing and raising a child before being issued a permit to conceive one.  Therefore, we need to work on temporarily sterilizing our breeding age population to ensure that they do not accidentally breed and deprive the "unborn" of their RIGHTS.

You say arms includes guns - I say forced birth infringes on my life, liberty & property.

and I agree with both

What exactly do we need to do to help you understand that pro-life people see it differently?

And Muslims see it differently than Christians...even then there are 30,000 sects of Christians because on some points they see it differently and so on and so forth.  And throughout history, people who have seen it "differently" have tried to force their religious dogma on others - even torturing and murdering to "shock and awe" the survivors into submission.

I believe that most of us are intelligent enough to understand the mentally of our would be oppressors who want to force us to submit our entire lives to their religious dogma.

and I agree with both

I do not have an argument with owning guns.  My husband has quite a few.  I just want my uterus to be mine, not some strangers on the street.  

"right to privacy"

It is inside her, that is as private as possible

You say arms includes guns - I say forced birth infringes on my life, liberty & property.

The SCOTUS disagrees, the ruling is no abortion at viability.

Does the unborn have the RIGHT to be conceived by men and women who are mentally and physically healthy and financially stable and educated on child rearing?

I don't think anyone is seeking special rights for the unborn.

If a parent is not capable of caring for a child, then it becomes the states interest.

I don't think anyone is seeking special rights for the unborn. If a parent is not capable of caring for a child, then it becomes the states interest.

She cannot be forced to carry that fetus to term and give birth against her will because of a state that puts the life of the fetus above that of the mother.  Since when do we become second class citizens in our own body when we are pregnant?

Yup, too bad such reasoning was used in Roe.

What legal concept was fabricated in the Roe v. Wade decision? 

BTW, the Governor of Alabama just signed the anti abortion bill. So here we go!

It will never survive judicial review.

If a parent is not capable of caring for a child, then it becomes the states interest.

You mean the child becomes a taxpayer liability and an income source for some n'eer do wells who take taxpayer checks and brags about what a "good" person they are for helping the "needy".  The main person being helped is the one helping themselves to taxpayer money.

Foster care is BIG BUSINESS.  There is no humane reason to add more children to this system.

democracychronicles

Foster care is a national scandal not just an Iowa problem. Billions of taxpayer dollars go to breaking up families and sustaining a system that produces abused, traumatized, trafficked and murdered children.

About 95% of the time when state agencies take children away from families, the accusations turn out to be false or unsubstantiated. Or social workers remove children for reasons confusing “neglect” and poverty, a combination brutally impacting families of color. Or state rules prevent grandparents trying to help in a family crisis gain custody of their own grandchildren.

Even worse,   outcomes   for children who spend any time at all in foster care are mostly terrible. Children placed in foster care are far too often abused, assaulted, over-medicated and sexually trafficked. More likely to be depressed, they often attempt suicide, become pregnant or land in jail at an early age.

Certainly, some children must be taken out of abusive homes. In 2014, about 1,580 children died from abuse and neglect. With an expanding opioid crisis in America, the number of at-risk children will only grow as will the need for quality foster care in loving homes.

Instead, foster care in America is an abusive, multi-billion dollar, for-profit failure. About 671,000 children are taken each year from biological families and placed in a stranger’s foster care with   428,000 children   in state-ordered care on an average day. Taxpayer dollars to the states quickly add up:

The federal government pays states about   $6,000   per child per month in foster care. Many thousands of dollars more per month go from federal accounts to states for family assessments and home studies that then require federally funded parenting classes, anger management or drug and alcohol treatment. More dollars flow to the states for “special needs” fostered children such as any child who requires any medication, bringing on a whole other set of abuses. A $4,000 or bonus goes to states for the termination of parental rights and “adopting out” of foster children.

The federal government sends between $4 and $12 billion to states for taking children and breaking up families; add to that multiple funding streams in state funds convinces some reform activists that foster care is a $50 billion industry. In turn, states hire large corporations and non-profit organizations to manage a state’s lucrative foster care system.

With billions of dollars driving local agency decisions, children are taken by the state often for   lifestyle choices . A young married couple traveling America delivered their baby in Alabama. Without a warrant or court order, the Alabama Department of Human Services   took   their healthy son literally as the mom nursed her newborn. Alabama DHS justified what some call “medical-kidnapping” because the parents did not want to name their baby that day or assign their newborn a social security number. The baby was born on October 10, 2016. As of September 2017, Alabama still had the baby in foster care.

Activity that is legal in one state may mean termination of parental rights in another state. A Colorado couple, Raymond and Amelia Schwab, are fighting the Kansas Department of Children and Families who took five of their six happy and healthy children in April 2015. Kansas took the children in part based on allegations that Raymond used marijuana.

People, who actually love children, would do everything in their power to ensure that they are born to people who wanted them instead of forcing women to have children they do not want.

Alabama seizing a baby is mentioned in this article.   On what level is any of this acceptable? 

None of this is about love for children.  It is about control of women, and in many cases, making a profit doing it.

democracychronicles

Foster Care’s 95% Failure Rate

Outcomes for children who spend any time in foster care are consistently terrible. Foster care in America is considered by many broken families   child kidnapping funded by taxpayers . Except in cases of significant abuse and neglect, the mounting evidence says child services budgets should be spent   keeping families together . The largest studies from   2006 ,   2007   and   2008   found that except for the most severe cases of abuse, even maltreated children who remained at home did better than maltreated children placed in foster care.

The National Coalition for Child Protection Reform (NCCPR) reported that   of every 100 children investigated   as possible victims of abuse, three are ‘substantiated’ victims of physical abuse from the most minor to the most severe, and about two more are specifically victims of sexual abuse. Most of the rest are false allegations or cases in which poverty is confused with neglect.

Family advocate Jennifer Winn and prior spokesperson for the Kansas Department of Families and Children, Theresa Freed, agree:   “Only   4%   of the children they [Kansas state agencies] remove from homes are removed on grounds that are substantiated .”

True damage is inflicted on children seized by the state:

• A   Casey Family   study showed adults who had been in foster care were twice as likely to be depressed, 22 times more likely to experience homelessness, and three times more likely to live at or under the poverty level than the general population.

• The Casey study also found fostered adults had Post Traumatic Stress twice the rate of Iraqi war veterans. One out of three reported maltreatment in the foster home. By age 25, 81% of male foster care alumni had been arrested at least once and 35% incarcerated.

• Children in foster care and those who age out are four times more likely to attempt   suicide   (even as young as 7 years old) and   12 times more likely   to receive psychotropic medication.

• A Colorado study   found the resting heart rate is higher for children in foster care: they are always alert for danger and in “flight or fight” mode.

Most children used for   sexual trafficking   are foster children. In a 2013 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)   nationwide raid   to rescue child sex trafficking victims in 70 cities, 60% were children in foster care or group homes. The year before in   Connecticut , 86 of 88 victims were from child welfare agencies. One in three foster care children later report sexual abuse in the foster home.

Whistle blowers face punishment or worse. Social workers in   Kentucky   were fired for refusing to place children in foster homes suspected of abuse or refusing to terminate parental rights despite pressure from supervisors who had already picked out influential adoptive families. The late Georgia state congresswoman Nancy Schaefer, who died under mysterious circumstances, spoke for every state in the union when she said: “ I am convinced there is no responsibility and no accountability in Child Protective Services .”

The stress and emotional damage heaped on families with children seized by the state cannot be underestimated:

“ Once they have you in the system you cannot get out .   There are evaluations and required classes and searches of homes without notice .   There are demands to show up for meetings that mean lost pay and lost jobs .   And if you lose your pay and can’t cover your car insurance they say you do not have a safe home and your child stays in foster care .”

The married parents of the newborn taken by Alabama Human Services wrote a powerful 25-page   letter   to Alabama officials listed thirteen federal laws and nine Constitutional amendments broken when their baby was seized:

“So stop trying to make up laws in your bureaucratic mind any longer and try to coerce us, oppress us, or place us under any more duress or any more threats of harm, like you have already done to us, or to our live, healthy baby, and just give him back to us now… You, one and all, have therefore violated our rights by constructing laws in your mind that do not even exist and have kidnapped our live, healthy child for not obeying these two imaginary laws that apparently exist only in your individual and collective brains.”

more on unwanted children and state abuse of parents....

Is this what  "Christian love" is?  If not, then quit supporting it!

democracychronicles

Foster Care, Poverty and Communities of Color

The traumas of foster care and the unethical and unconstitutional decisions of family courts fall disproportionately on poor families, families of color and especially African-American and Native American children. About 75% of the children taken by states are so-called “neglect” cases, a charge often difficult to distinguish from poverty. Children in families earning less than $15,000 are   22 times more likely   to be removed than children in families making over $30,000.

This is what institutional racism looks like:  One out of three children in foster care are African-American, a statistically significant larger proportion than children of other races and ethnic backgrounds. The percentage of Native American children in foster care is nearly twice their proportion in the general population. This   study   concluded that “bias, cultural misunderstandings and distrust” contributes to decisions to take minority children from families and kinship groups.

California’s 9 ^th   Circuit Court: Social Workers Lose “Right to Lie”

  Historically, state caseworkers are immune from prosecution. In thirty-two states, government social workers hold absolute immunity from lawsuits related to child protective duties. Even if lying or misrepresenting family conditions, state workers cannot be sued. Family court judges need only listen to the state social worker. Parents, grandparents and the children taken by the state generally have no or very limited opportunity to give testimony in family court.

As a 2017   Harvard Law Journal   article points out:

Today, an individual whose federal rights have been violated by a state has relatively limited options. Thus, it is fair to say that state sovereign immunity has never been more impenetrable.

  While families damaged by child welfare decisions rarely win lawsuits in state court, federal rulings can charge state and national policies. Foster care   class action lawsuits   cite the 14 ^th   Amendment that declares American citizens are guaranteed due process and equal protection under the law. States cannot restrict these rights.

A major 2017 lawsuit challenging state social worker immunity, generally called the California 9 ^th Circuit’s “Right to Lie” case, represents the foster child’s point of view. The state of California took sisters Kendall and Preslie, then 6 and 9 years old, from their mother in 2000 and held them in foster care for 6½ years. The original reason for taking the sisters was “impending harm and abuse” with no evidence of current abuse or neglect. The state prevented contact between mother and daughters. The sisters were upset every time a caseworker visited them and in counseling sessions always asked to go home.

When she aged out of foster care and reunited with her biological mother, Preslie Hardwick sued Orange County, California and individual state caseworkers for maliciously lying in court to remove her from her mother’s home. Her lawyers argued that such state abuse of power violated Preslie’s constitutional rights to her mother’s care and family relationship. The social workers who took the sisters committed perjury in court by saying the girls were happy in their foster home and by withholding evidence that would have cleared the mother of all charges. The social workers claimed state immunity laws meant they were immune from prosecution for anything they said or did.

In December 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court   ruled   in the daughter’s favor with Judge Stephen Trott confronting caseworkers:

”You mean due process is somehow consistent with a government worker presenting perjured testimony and false evidence? I can’t even believe for a microsecond that a caseworker wouldn’t understand you can’t lie and put in false evidence.”                                                                          

This case surfaces issues voiced by parents and grandparents of taken children all around America:

• State agencies and individual social workers lie about family conditions to maintain an income stream based on removing children from families.
• Child agencies take children from biological families based on unclear guidelines especially the widely used “suspected future neglect.”
• Social workers and caseworkers drive wedges between taken children and biological families with mean-spirited threats.
• Parents and grandparents never give up trying to bring their children home and battle exhausting, traumatizing and expensive legal manipulations.

On its way to the Supreme Court, the California 9 ^th   Circuit ruling prompted some immediate changes. The Director of Iowa Human Services retired. Retirements and resignations in early 2017 included the South Carolina Director of Human Services, Oregon Director of Child Welfare, Illinois Director of Human Services and county Directors of Human Services in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Transforming Foster Care and Family Court

The purpose of the Million Parent March on September 18, 2017 is to raise awareness about all the different ways family courts and foster care damage and destroy children and families. The event brings together parents and grandparents of taken children, father’s rights groups battling biases in divorce court, parents and lawyers seeking shared custody after divorces, mothers and fathers of children kidnapped by custodial or non-custodial parents, children who have aged out of foster care, children of divorce, and advocates pushing for America to dramatically and deeply re-think foster care and family court.

Millions of families and children remain torn apart and psychologically devastated by the profit-driven abuses of foster care and the win-lose culture of family court. Whether the Million Parent March succeeds in raising awareness and achieving legislative and agency changes at all levels of government remains to be seen. Without a doubt, social media once again powerfully links millions of voices demanding we restore the civil and constitutional rights of parents and children.

You mean the child becomes a taxpayer liability

Why yes the child becomes the state's responsibility and the state is supported by taxpayer funds.  

Would it be different for some reason?

That is a higher cost to the taxpayer.  Do you want to pay more?

Very clear

United States v. Cruikshank , 92 U.S. 542 1876

The Justices stated "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government"

supreme.justia

James Madison

"T]he advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.   Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James Madison, Federalist No. 46"

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers." -- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution

Our Supreme Court has ruled that it is consistent with the Founders view of an armed citizenry that we have weapons consistent with those of a uniformed foot soldier.

From District of Columbia v Heller, re-affirming US v Miller and Printz v US United States v Miller concluded that citizens had a 2nd amendment right to "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense.

"We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

supreme.justia

Do you want to pay more?

For that I wouldn't mind.  I can think of far worst and stupid things people want to pay for...like a Green New Deal. 

Children are abused regardless of their situation.  Finding a perfect world for children is not possible.  I wish it was. I have my own personal experiences that where horrendous, but now I also have two beautiful daughters and two beautiful grandchildren, and a great life.  But it isn't my decision, it isn't my body, and it isn't my business to tell others what to do.

We have laws for that.

Why yes the child becomes the state's responsibility and the state is supported by taxpayer funds.  

So the government forces girls and women to have babies that they can't care for so the children can be forced into the foster care business?  How is this even humane on any level?

But it isn't my decision, it isn't my body, and it isn't my business to tell others what to do. We have laws for that.

History is filled with laws that were made according to whoever was in power.

In the US, women have had to fight for personhood rights since the nation's inception only because there have been enough men in power who view us as less than their equal....or view us as their slaves.

The male mentality of being lord and master over women is not and never will be acceptable.  So women in the US will have to continue to fight for our freedom in the land of the "free" against those who continue to fight to oppress us.

There is none so blind?  

Most people have heard of that. Here's what Iv'e found:

There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See:

• According to the ‘Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings’ this proverb has been traced back to 1546 (John Heywood), and resembles the Biblical verse Jeremiah 5:21

actualfreedom.au




Why?

Wow!

History is filled with laws that were made according to whoever was in power.

What I am saying by laws is it isn't my place to make the decision for others.  Not that the law is right or wrong.

I often wonder why the same amount of compassion is not ever given to the unborn.  

So the government forces girls and women to have babies that they can't care for

They already do. They already have that power.  Abortion laws are not absolute.

These words, Vic:

I call it despicable

In reply to Gordy's words:

has also affirmed women's individual rights and autonomy. I'd say that's a good thing.

we are overpopulated already and have too many kids state has to pay for now

None of this is about love for children.  It is about control of women, and in many cases, making a profit doing it.

Exactly ! Pro lifers claim they want to protect the sanctity of life. Most will allow exceptions in cases of rape or incest. There's one problem with that.

If the victim of rape or incest is allowed to abort but a woman who is careless and/or too poor to raise a/another child is forced to carry the pregnancy to term. So these restrictions are more about power and control of women than they are about the sanctity of life. 

And Muslims see it differently than Christians...even then there are 30,000 sects of Christians because on some points they see it differently and so on and so forth.

Absolutely.  Differing opinions abound.

The sooner we recognize that and stop screaming about how evil other people are, the better.

  And throughout history, people who have seen it "differently" have tried to force their religious dogma on others - even torturing and murdering to "shock and awe" the survivors into submission.

Absolutely.  Everyone from the Romans who persecuted early Christians to the Crusades to the Spanish Inquisition to Adolf Hitler to Joseph Stalin and beyond.

I believe that most of us are intelligent enough to understand the mentally of our would be oppressors who want to force us to submit our entire lives to their religious dogma.

Apparently not.  

They were lying! They were forcing an ideology on America. America can vote for it through their representatives. Progressives poisoned the well!

I have to wonder if this is one of those examples of rational men bringing logic to the conversation where emotional women are involved.  Because this seems a bit...overwrought.

I also have to wonder if Vic would like somebody sticking their noses into his medical records and making medical decisions for him with no thought to his interests.

I also have to wonder if Vic would like somebody sticking their noses into his medical records and making medical decisions for him with no thought to his interests.

Perhaps he has a spare kidney, lung or testicle someone else needs

If so, he should be forced to give it up if the need arises.  He has no right to privacy nor bodily autonomy, by his own admission.  I know people who need that kidney.  Their lives are precious.

Oh, and he should have to pay for the donation, same as a pregnant woman gets to pay for medical care during and after her pregnancy.  No special rights for him.

I don't care if you care. I read the words you typed and I typed a response.

I didn't "fly off the handle".

You've become even more tiresome. How is that possible? 

I often wonder why the same amount of compassion is not ever given to the unborn.  

You believe the woman who makes a decision makes it without compassion to the fetus?  

Wow! 

I have to wonder if this is one of those examples of rational men bringing logic to the conversation where emotional women are involved.  Because this seems a bit...overwrought.

I've noticed that a lot of anti choice men are highly emotional about it. 

They even accuse people of being emotional in the process.  It's hilarious!

I read the words you typed

You are literally objecting to the statement "pro choice people don't believe in murdering children".

No, I'm literally not objecting to that statement.

I'm objecting to your other statement.  

It's worth pointing out that you're not doing women any favors when you claim the idea that pro life people don't want to murder children is "emotional hyperbole".

It is emotional hyperbole and pro-life people do that consistently.  Their whole argument is based on "abortion=murder".  

Emotional hyperbole.

You are literally objecting to the statement "pro choice people don't believe in murdering children".

I believe if you look back the argument was that epistte claimed your use of the phrase "murdering children" in this context was "emotional hyperbole".

Hyperbole: noun - exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Jack "Nobody believes in murdering children." 1.3.22

epistte "Drop the emotional hyperbole if you want others to take you seriously. Nobody is murdering children." 1.3.25

Jack "What part of "nobody believes in murdering children" do you dispute?" 1.3.72 (obtuse reply)

Fireryone "Seriously? How absurd Jack. Abortion is not equivalent to "murder children"." 1.3.79

Jack "Read. It. Again." 1.3.82 (deflection)

Fireryone "I read the words you typed and I typed a response." 1.3.123

Jack "You are literally objecting to the statement "pro choice people don't believe in murdering children" 1.3.126 (obtuse reply)

All epistte or anyone else seemed to be concerned with was your use of the phrase "murdering children" in this context which is, as epistte pointed out "emotional hyperbole". They were not refuting your claim that "nobody believes in murdering children". They were simply pointing out that there is no need for using loaded phrases like that when the ones you're replying to aren't making such a claim. It would be like saying to a friend who came to you asking what they should do about their porn addiction and you say "Well, I'm not saying you love murdering millions of perspective children every time you shamefully spill your seed, but masturbation is a heavily debated subject with a lot of ins and outs you have to consider...". Why bring it up at all unless you're intentionally injecting that idea into the conversation?

Thank you.  I wish I could say it was surprising.  

"Nobody believes in murdering children."

Correct.   I'm holding to that statement.  I confess I have been frustrated at having to defend it and explain it.  I just thought it was obvious.  But I thank you for your considerate response.

They were simply pointing out that there is no need for using loaded phrases like that when the ones you're replying to aren't making such a claim

I chose the phrase "murdering children" specifically to illustrate the ridiculous and vitriolic nature of the accusations people level at each other over this issue.

A few examples of that vitriol have followed.

Again, thank you for your reasoned response.

I have to wonder if this is one of those examples of rational men bringing logic to the conversation where emotional women are involved.  Because this seems a bit...overwrought. I also have to wonder if Vic would like somebody sticking their noses into his medical records and making medical decisions for him with no thought to his interests.

I demand that all anti-choice men are forced to have vasectomies at 16 and can only have that procedure reversed under the written and notarized approval of their spouse. They must also set up a $75,000 child care fund before the child is born so its medical, educational and nutritional needs will be taken care of.

Cool.

If you breed them, then feed them yourself!

The SCOTUS ruling on Roe v Wade did not leave legal abortion as settled law,

The ruling struck down unconstitutional laws. 

they left an opening for the states to contest the ruling which is what Alabama is trying to do. 

They're not the first state to do so and they probably won't be the last state to try and fail. States have tried to fight the ruling through different sets of laws. Subsequent abortion rulings by the SCOTUS only affirmed abortion rights.

They are trying to get their arguments before SCOTUS.  

These kind of arguments have already gone before the courts, and failed spectacularly. I doubt this time will be any different.

In Roe v Wade the SCOTUS kicked it back to the states enough to leave an opening for states like Alabama to contest the ruling.

Abortions after the first trimester was kicked back to the states. Before then, the SCOTUS made 1st trimester abortions permissible, which states could not violate.

I'm done explaining it.

Good, because your explanations have been lacking and weak!

The SCOTUS disagrees, the ruling is no abortion at viability.

The SCOTUS affirmed that abortions were permissible up to the point of viability, in their landmark case: Planned Parenthood v. Casey  (1992).

I don't think anyone is seeking special rights for the unborn.

I'm not so sure. Some people have maintained the unborn have, or should have rights. 

If a parent is not capable of caring for a child, then it becomes the states interest.

After the child is born. I see no compelling state interest before then.

But it isn't my decision, it isn't my body, and it isn't my business to tell others what to do.

Exactly. Unfortunately, there are those, especially in government, who think it is their place.

I often wonder why the same amount of compassion is not ever given to the unborn.

Emotional hyperbole. But as you said, it's not your business.

They already do. They already have that power. Abortion laws are not absolute.

And that's a problem.

Did you notice that my idea would apply to all anti-choice men, which would include you.

Cool. If you breed them, then feed them yourself!

If the teen/women wanted to have an abortion but was forced by the government to give birth then is the state going to pay to raise that child and keep the baby and the mother out of poverty for 18+ years?

Did you notice that my idea would apply to all anti-choice men, which would include you.

[deleted]

I am NOIT anti-abortion--as I have told you and others here multiple times. I will do so yet once AGAIN.

I am not opposed to abortion. Personally, I find it a poor choice of birth control when so many other, safer options are available. Personally, I think that people unwilling or incapable of caring for the children they bring into the world SHOULD get abortions. No need for society to continually pay for dumbasses' mistakes.

[deleted]

[Thank you.]

Did you notice that my idea would apply to all anti-choice men, which would include you.

STOP MISREPRESENTING MY POSITION IN YOUR POSTS BECAUSE THAT COMMENT IS UNTRUTHFUL.

STOP DOING THAT PLEASE.

DEBATE WHAT I SAY--NOT WHAT YOU THINK  I SAY.

YOUR COMMENT IS INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.

Emotional hyperbole. But as you said, it's not your business.

Then why do you discuss it?  It isn't any of your business either.  Why do you discuss the hardships for the mother and never ever the hardships for the unborn.  You must think the unborn are not worthy of any compassion.

I am able to have an opinion and comments just as you, so please take your shit someone where else.  

After all it isn't any of your business. 

STOP MISREPRESENTING MY POSITION IN YOUR POSTS BECAUSE THAT COMMENT IS UNTRUTHFUL

We're on our fourth day of multiple people objecting to that very same practice from the very same woman.

At some point, that level of shithousery needs to be a COC violation.

[deleted]

You believe the woman who makes a decision makes it without compassion to the fetus?  

No. Do you?  Explain why you don't.

Just ignore it, her comments are ignorant anyways.

It is poor form to put words or thought into others' post and then attempt to argue them, but it seems to be the in vogue thing.

Then why do you discuss it?

Because I seeded the article! 

It isn't any of your business either. 

I never said it was. Neither am I going around trying to make it my business or tell anyone whether they can have an abortion or not. But I'm pointing out that some states clearly don't respect a woman's personal rights or business! Some people clearly think someone's choices regarding abortion is their business for some reason.

Why do you discuss the hardships for the mother and never ever the hardships for the unborn.  You must think the unborn are not worthy of any compassion.

More emotional rhetoric. What "hardships" do the unborn have? It's the woman who has to deal with being pregnant. That involves hardships for her. 

I am able to have an opinion and comments just as you,

I never said you couldn't.

so please take your shit someone where else.  

This is my seed. If you don't like it, you can leave!

After all it isn't any of your business. 

See second statement!

She is only capable of lying,

Accusing another member of lying is a CoC violation I think.

No.

Are you suggesting women who have abortions lack compassion?

Accusing another member of lying is a CoC violation I think.

The truth should be a defense against CoC violations, IMO.

The statement under discussion was UNTRUTHFUL, INCORRECT, DISINFORMATION, DECEITFUL, FABRICATED, FALSE,  FICTION, AND A DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION OF THE FACTS.

Take that as you will.

If you breed them, then feed them yourself!

If you deny legal access to abortions, then YOU can feed them. You want to force women to have kids? Then you can feed them, give them healthcare, clothing, housing and education. Many women get an abortion because they cannot financially support a child, you knew that, right? 

At some point, that level of shithousery needs to be a COC violation.

Here! Here!

I have been accused in this seed of wanting to keep women down and also of endorsing slavery and my only contribution to the seed was to comment on the legal aspects, not the underlying issues. Incredibly (to me) those accusations remain in place.

f you deny legal access to abortions, then YOU can feed them. You want to force women to have kids? Then you can feed them, give them healthcare, clothing, housing and education. Many women get an abortion because they cannot financially support a child, you knew that, right?

Deliberately misstating my position is intellectually dishonest.

Since it appears you have NOT been following along, I will refer you to this:

I am NOT anti-abortion--as I have told you and others here multiple times. I will do so yet once AGAIN.
I am not opposed to abortion. Personally, I find it a poor choice of birth control when so many other, safer options are available. Personally, I think that people unwilling or incapable of caring for the children they bring into the world SHOULD get abortions. No need for society to continually pay for dumbasses' mistakes.

So, hell YES, if you can't feed them, DON'T breed them!

I have been accused in this seed of wanting to keep women down and also of endorsing slavery and my only contribution to the seed was to comment on the legal aspects, not the underlying issues. Incredibly (to me) those accusations remain in place.

It has been explained to me that lying isn't a CoC violation, but calling people liars is.

You want to force women to have kids?

Some people do and it is disgusting.  Most people are against forcing dogs to breed in puppy mills, but are A-OK to do it to members of their own species.  Why?  What are these people gaining in forcing girls & women to have unwanted children? 

Are the unwanted children the forced birther source of income in some way?  Are they running orphanages?  Providing foster care?

What is the motivation to add to the unwanted and abused 400,000 children in foster care? 

wehavekids

and 

taxpayer costs per unwanted abused foster child in Missouri...

dss.mo

Incredibly (to me) those accusations remain in place.

Please show me where that is going on.

Just ignore it, her comments are ignorant anyways.

The same can be said of yours as well. 

I didn't "fly off the handle".

A deflection used to detract from what they don't like to hear. 

Because I seeded the article! 

So only you can discuss topics on your seeds....lol...ok

I never said it was. 

Then why are you sticking your nose into it?

What "hardships" do the unborn have? 

You really think killing an unborn has no hardship for them...wow, sad and pathetic.  I see that being cold and heartless towards the unborn is acceptable.

Are you suggesting women who have abortion lack compassion?

No. Are you? I am suggestioning that you lack it.  Which you have already expressed that the unborn suffer no hardships.

They already do. They already have that power. Abortion laws are not absolute. And that's a problem.

That is a problem for you?  You agree with the Democrats that late term abortions are acceptable?

Good, because your explanations have been lacking and weak!

[ Removed ]

[Trolling]

Will do, but privately. I'm not interested in derailing the seed with public arguments about other people.

So only you can discuss topics on your seeds....lol...ok

You asked why I was discussing it. I told you. At no point did I say you or anyone else couldn't discuss it.

Then why are you sticking your nose into it?

Specify precisely where I'm doing that! I specifically said I wasn't. Discussing something is not sticking my nose in it.

You really think killing an unborn has no hardship for them...

Considering the unborn do not have full neurological function, self-awareness, perceptions, ect in early pregnancy when most abortions are performed, no, there is no hardship.

wow, sad and pathetic. I see that being cold and heartless towards the unborn is acceptable.

Spare me the emotional platitudes.

No. Are you?

Did I even hint that women lacked compassion? 

I am suggestioning that you lack it. Which you have already expressed that the unborn suffer no hardships.

Your suggestion is noted, and ignored!

That is a problem for you?

Attempts to legislate away women's established constitutional rights is a problem.

You agree with the Democrats that late term abortions are acceptable?

It makes no difference. Late term abortions are not permitted unless there is health threats to the woman or if there is fetal demise. 

You agree with the Democrats that late term abortions are acceptable? It makes no difference. Late term abortions are not permitted unless there is health threats to the woman or if there is fetal demise.

I see you agree.

I see you agree.

I see you're making assumptions.

I see you have non answers.

I see you have non answers.

I see you haven't been paying attention.

Oh, but I have, close attention.

[Removed, discuss topic not members of the forum.]

No, I don't think so

'Then your comprehension is lacking.'

Among other things . . . 

You can think whatever you like.

Yes, but I can think, unlike the aborted.  

That only shows the unborn are unable to think and have the neurological capacity of someone in a vegetative state.

No. Do you?  Explain why you don't.

Of course women make the decision with consideration to the fetus, the family they have, their obligations and their health.

To assume otherwise or to assume that you're needed to be compassionate to a fetus about to be aborted...that's absurd.  It isn't any of your concern and your views of it, like mine are not required by the woman making the decision. It's her who knows what's best for her family. 

You agree with the Democrats that late term abortions are acceptable? It makes no difference. Late term abortions are not permitted unless there is health threats to the woman or if there is fetal demise.

I see you agree.

This is the biggest source of the problem with the debate.  The anti choicers have convinced you that the majority of abortion are done after viability or that they are elective.  They aren't elective abortions.  They are done at the recommendation of the physician treating the woman primarily to save her life or allow her to recover from a failed pregnancy.

There is no such thing as elective late term abortions and it has never been accepted, condoned or practiced.  

Yes, but I can think, unlike the aborted.  

They aren't capable of thinking at the stage they are aborted. 

They haven't convinced me. Maybe those ignorant or gullible enough buy into their nonsense. But anyone with a rational mind can see through their disingenuous or misleading BS.

Are you sure or are you just mouthing propaganda

"All our pro-life bills are unconstitutional right now.

Intent is everything.  Should have just said that all of our forced birth bills are unconstitutional right now.  If the forced birthers can ban legal abortion, then the next step is to bring back the Comstock laws and ban knowledge of and access to birth control.  The forced birthers view women as nothing more than broodmares.  We are being denied access to permanent birth control and treated like herd animals by men in government and the medical profession.

Gordy, I just watched the following video.  I believe it would make a good stand alone seed.  Currently, I don't have the time or the inclination to moderate seeds.    Please seed it or reference it if you want to.

Gordy,

Below is another video that I just found about forced marriage in the US.  I had no idea that this was happening in the US.  

Female children being segregated, semi-educated as a domestic servant, sold off to the highest male bidder, hymen checked and used as owner desires for life  .......is this the end goal of the forced birthers?

“They also use the language of equal rights.

The Alabama bill, for example, frames the rights of unborn children as an issue of human equality - a natural step from the principle that "All men are created equal" and a continuation of movements against slavery and even for women's suffrage.

"Abortion advocates speak to women's rights," the bill states, "but they ignore the unborn child, while medical science has increasingly recognized the humanity of the unborn child."”       A great point from your article.  

“They also use the language of equal rights.

And yet, they don't seem to know what they're talking about. More like they try to use the language of appeals to emotion, which the gullible and/or ignorant eat up like candy.

The Alabama bill, for example, frames the rights of unborn children as an issue of human equality - a natural step from the principle that "All men are created equal" and a continuation of movements against slavery and even for women's suffrage.

Except the unborn is not considered a person with rights and doing so would infringe on a woman's already established rights.

the unborn child

Oxymoron.

while medical science has increasingly recognized the humanity of the unborn child."”

How does medical science do that exactly? Sounds like another appeal to emotion. Medical science has advanced the understanding of gestation and identifying and addressing medical issues that can arise during and after pregnancy. "Humanity" is a subjective term.

You cannot protect a fetus without protecting the rights of women. They are intertwined.  

"humanity of the unborn child."

does an unborn child count to use HOV lanes?

Do pregnant women pay for two tickets to the movies?

we have proved our point

or two airline tickets?

or two airline tickets?

Don't give the airlines any new ideas for profit. 

Our apologies, what were we thinking, lol?

“While 6 in 10 Americans say abortion "should generally be legal" during the first three months, according to a 2018 Gallup poll, support for abortion dwindles to 28% for the second trimester and 13% for the third trimester.”   Again from your seeded article.  And in the states passing these laws the support for 1st trimester abortion is lower than the national average.  While it may be hard to get the court to overturn roe vs wade entirely, it may be possible to get them to see the science of human life and development at a certain point and limit legal abortion to only the 1st trimester  and give the human baby the right to life at that point and apply that to all 50 states, the district, and all the territories.  It would be progress and a good first step and have majority public support.  

Constitutional rights are not subject to majority opinions.  It would be unconstitutional to re-establish slavery even if 100% of the country's opinion was for it. 

Constitutional rights are not subject to majority opinions.

Depends on the circumstances. Ultimately, they are.

It would be unconstitutional to re-establish slavery even if 100% of the country's opinion was for it.

Not true. If 100% of the country was for it, we could pass a constitutional amendment repealing the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments and yes, reestablish slavery. In fact, you don't even need 100%. You only 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states.

If 100% of the country was for it, we could pass a constitutional amendment repealing the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments and yes, reestablish slavery.

Well, yes.  That could happen.  [deleted]

Are you talking aspirationally now?  Come to think of it, that does seem to be the direction the Republican party is aiming itself.  Thanks for the insider information.

Are you proud of comments like this? Why is anybody here endorsing this garbage?

Are you proud of comments like this?

Why yes, yes I am.  Are you proud of what Republicans are doing to women?  

Why yes, yes I am.

You're proud of suggesting that I want slavery to return? Sorry, but I think that's pretty stupid and childish. You have no reason to think that and it's rude.

Are you proud of what Republicans are doing to women? 

I take no pride in anything any political party does. I don't belong to a party and I don't advocate for either one. I think the obsession with abortion legislation is, at best, a distraction and often politically motivated. To the extent that they want to end abortion, though, it is a sentiment I can understand. 

“While 6 in 10 Americans say abortion "should generally be legal" during the first three months, according to a 2018 Gallup poll, support for abortion dwindles to 28% for the second trimester and 13% for the third trimester.”   Again from your seeded article.

The difference is, most abortions are performed in the first trimester and elective abortions are generally not allowed after viability unless medical and health issues arise. Noone is advocating for later term abortions. 

And in the states passing these laws the support for 1st trimester abortion is lower than the national average.

Some states are trying to prohibit abortion after a heartbeat is detected. That's not supporting abortion or women's rights. That's a draconian prohibition of those rights, as well as being unconstitutional.

While it may be hard to get the court to overturn roe vs wade entirely, it may be possible to get them to see the science of human life and development at a certain point and limit legal abortion to only the 1st trimester

That was already done. But the SCOTUS only affirmed and expanded on abortion rights.

and give the human baby the right to life at that point and apply that to all 50 states, the district, and all the territories.

More emotional rhetoric to appeal to the ignorant.

 While it may be hard to get the court to overturn roe vs wade entirely, it may be possible to get them to see the science of human life and development at a certain point and limit legal abortion to only the 1st trimester  and give the human baby the right to life at that point and apply that to all 50 states, the district, and all the territories.  It would be progress and a good first step and have majority public support.  

Are you aware that late term abortions are already illegal? Post viability abortions account for 1% and they are done when the life of the mother is threatened or the fetus isn't viable. Denying women that procedure at that point is unconscionable. 

hile it may be hard to get the court to overturn roe vs wade entirely, it may be possible to get them to see the science of human life and development at a certain point and limit legal abortion to only the 1st trimester  and give the human baby the right to life at that point and apply that to all 50 states, the district, and all the territories.  It would be progress and a good first step and have majority public support.  

That has been the limit since Roe.  Even before Roe, most abortions are performed in the first trimester. 

Why hasn't that been good enough for you?

Stricter Abortion Bans Are Conservative-Led States' Gambit To Overturn Roe Vs. Wade

Well, yeah! That's how we do things in this country. I know the headline wants to make this tactic sound underhanded, but we have this conflict between existing legal standards and new laws every day on all sorts of issues. The struggle gets decided in the courts at first, but can migrate to more new legislation or constitutional amendments. We see the same struggle with gun control laws. It's how we got gay marriage. It's how we may ultimately get Congress to decriminalize marijuana. 

This is how it works in a country where the citizenry is empowered to take part in government.

Except such bans are clearly unconstitutional from the get go, and legislators even admit this. That's why the courts have repeatedly struck down such laws. What's even more mind boggling are people who elect or reelect such legislators in the first place.

This is how it works in a country where the citizenry is empowered to take part in government.

[ deleted ]

[ huffpost ]

[deleted]

I find the content of your comment to be completely disconnected to the content of my comment. I commented only on the process of challenging laws and how it is a process that occurs with a variety of issues.

You chose to respond to that analysis by accusing me of wanting to control women, that I don't care about their problems, and I want to force my abhorrent values (whatever they might be) on them. 

I find your comments to be repugnant and offensive. I do not feel the ways you described and there is nothing here in my comments that justifies such offensive commentary by you. 

Apparently, me saying so is some kind of violation, but you accusing me of the offensive garbage that you have stated here is perfectly ok. I have flagged it, but it has been ignored. In my opinion, you, the people who supported your comment and the mods who let it go should be ashamed. The entire thing is disgraceful.

That is my opinion, which I guess I shouldn't expect to endure, but that repugnant garbage in @4.2 will apparently remain. That is the state of things.

There is nothing in my statement that is untrue.   Republicans are attempting to control women through fertility.  That is a fact that can't be disputed.   Its also a fact we have the highest maternal death rate in the industrialized world, due to lack of healthcare.  Which the gop keeps lying about and trying to sabotage, and certainly isn't doing anything to improve it.  Slut shaming (making it about having irresponsible sex),  and making contraception into something only related to wanton sex is always brought into the equation.   You suppost those politicians, preachers, ceos,  etc having a say in women's healthcare.  ONLY WOMEN'S HEALTHCARE.  Everything I said is true and I must have hit a nerve if you are so upset.  The problem is that you are supporting a position that is part of everything I said.  I don't want to force you to do or not do anything, but you want to force your beliefs on everybody.  Instead of whining, take each point and make a counter point.

There is nothing in my statement that is untrue.

Every bit of it is untrue and based on nothing whatsoever that I have ever said. You lied about me.

Republicans are attempting

I don't care what Republicans are doing. I am not a Republican and nothing I wrote had anything to do with a Republican.

Which the gop keeps

Again, I am not the GOP nor have I attempted to speak for them.

Slut shaming

Is something I have not engaged in. There is zero reason for you to bring it up with me.

I must have hit a nerve if you are so upset

No, I am upset because you lied about me. You misrepresented and disparaged my character and values and you did it straight out of left field and based on absolutely nothing that I said. 

The problem is that you are supporting a position

I did not support any position. All I did was observe how people challenge existing law.

you want to force your beliefs on everybody

Again, you are lying about me. I have not tried to force my belief about anything on anyone.

Instead of whining

Whining? You're lying about me. And I'm going to go on saying it until you stop and retract your lies. Why wouldn't I?

take each point and make a counter point

You didn't make any points. You just accused me of a bunch of bullshit that isn't true. There is no counter to that except to call you a liar.

Well that didn't work out well.   

Let's just take the personal you out of it.  The position that allows outside interference in a women's life and health is FORCING RELIGIOUS BELIEF ON WOMEN.  There is no way around it because same people also show their lack of concern for children outside the uterus.   Same with every other point I made.   Now if one doesn't want to force their belief system on everybody else, it doesn't pertain to them.  If they do, it does.  When advocating laws that allow that interference in women's lives for beliefs they personally do not hold and don't want, they are trying to control and hold back women.  I can list plenty of articles about women's how fertility impacts women in negative ways.   (You aren't just observing challenging abortion, by the way, you advocate openly for it, so why are you denying it?)

Sometimes emotions run a JUST a bit high!

It is far easier to accuse you of all sorts of things than to actually debate what you stated.

Or, it is far easier to debate what words they put in your post that you didn't write.

You are still lying about me and talking about something I never touched on.

The position that allows outside interference in a women's life

I. Don't. Care! I didn't say one thing about interfering in women's lives. Not one thing. 

You keep accusing me of having positions I have not stated but you can't quote me anywhere saying any of those things. You are literally making shit up and accusing me of saying it so you can attack me for saying things I didn't say. You are intentionally saying things about be me that you know are not true. That. Is. Lying.

FORCING RELIGIOUS BELIEF ON WOMEN

I also never said anything about religious belief. Again, you are making up things and attributing to me. Stop lying about me.

Same with every other point I made

Every point you have directed at me so far is a lie. Every one.

I can list plenty of articles about women's how fertility impacts women in negative ways

Why would I care? I never said anything about that. List your articles for someone who cares. Maybe you can make the list for someone you aren't lying about.

You aren't just observing challenging abortion, by the way, you advocate openly for it

I didn't advocate for anything, and I certainly didn't advocate for anything related to abortion.

why are you denying it?

Because it's a lie. You are lying.

Well if you are pro choice, I apologize.  I guess you didn't make that clear.

Well if you are pro choice, I apologize

It truly does not matter if I am pro-choice or not. You attacked me for things I haven't even said.

I guess you didn't make that clear.

Why should I? I wasn't talking about that.

Stricter abortion bans are conservative-led states' gambit to overturn Roe vs. Wade

It's not an attack,  it was laying out the reasons why people who try to limit women's right (the subject of this seed) are wrong to force their personal values on others, and I guess the point of your comment was not clear.  I should not have used the personal 'you' in my original comment to avoid the problem.   But if there is a snowflake problem around this issue, one should find a gentler seed to comment on perhaps.  Especially when one has no skin in the game in the first place.

But if there is a snowflake problem around this issue

Now you want to call me names. Amazing.

I find it odd that someone who is not impacted by by these attempts to undermine women gets  so worked up when I bring up the problems being forced on them by conservatives.  At the same time obfuscating about whether you are for the restrictions on women or not, saying it doesn't matter what your position is.  I can see how much I pissed you off, which was not my intent with my reply.   But if you thought I was wrong on my points,  you could have just counterpointed instead of taking it personally.  

[delete]

[deleted]

Now you want to call me names.

That brings to mind the old "what goes around comes around" saying. 

It does, eh? You want to tell me when I have lied about someone? When I have called people names? You want to tell me when I did any of that to lib?

I didn't lie either.  I wasn't going to post here to let it die down, but I have to speak one last time.   I did not mean anything in my comment to be a personal attack.  If I didn't read your position correctly it was because it wasn't and still isn't clear if you are defending this war on women or not.  As a woman, this is a BFD (as it is for most of us), and if it looks like a war on women, talks like a war on women and mostly male politicians and supporters legislate a war on women,  its a WAR ON WOMEN and women will be acting accordingly, and defend themselves.   I've been called all kinds of things here, and the same time of my post I'd read a bunch of comments on another seed from the right calling liberals snowflakes, so I was just speaking the language.  I've never flagged a comment and guess have thicker skin than most.  Would it have been better if I said 'over sensitive'?  I doubt it.   Imagine how women feel when the very foundation of their lives (their most basic right to control their own body) is not only taken away by men, its defended and mansplained by men constantly.  And I'm NOT accusing you personally of anything in that sentence.  But I do wonder why people who don't care or don't want their real opinions out would comment on a seed with this kind of stakes and then complain about getting caught in the crossfire.  I'm sorry you took it all as a personal insults, it was not intended that way.   But I don't apologize for the passion  I will be bringing to fight the war on women.