Alabama governor signs restrictive abortion bill into law as ACLU vows to sue
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Republican Gov. Kay Ivey signed the controversial Alabama abortion bill into law on Wednesday.
The law will make nearly all abortions in the state illegal and make performing one a felony, punishable by up to 99 years or life in prison unless the mother’s health is at risk, with no exceptions for women impregnated by rape or incest.
"This legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God," Ivey said in a statement.
Republican state Rep. Terri Collins, who sponsored the bill, aimed to reignite the debate surrounding Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion across the nation, and to push justices to overturn the landmark ruling . Currently, the law will not be enforceable because of the current Supreme Court ruling that makes abortions a constitutional right. Ivey acknowledged this upon signing the bill.
"In all meaningful respects, this bill closely resembles an abortion ban that has been a part of Alabama law for well over 100 years. As today’s bill itself recognizes, that longstanding abortion law has been rendered “unenforceable as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade," she said.
"No matter one’s personal view on abortion, we can all recognize that, at least for the short term, this bill may similarly be unenforceable. As citizens of this great country, we must always respect the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court even when we disagree with their decisions. Many Americans, myself included, disagreed when Roe v. Wade was handed down in 1973. The sponsors of this bill believe that it is time, once again, for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit this important matter, and they believe this act may bring about the best opportunity for this to occur."
A Fox News poll conducted in February tallied voters' familiarity with Roe v. Wade, and 48 percent said they are “extremely” or “very” familiar with the ruling while the exact same number are “somewhat” or “not at all” familiar with the case.
Moreover, 57 percent of voters say the Supreme Court should let the 46-year old ruling stand; that number jumps to 68 percent among those who are familiar with the case.
Fox News' Victoria Balara contributed to this report.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
63 visitors
I say this gets struck down by the lower courts and the SCOTUS leaves it right there.
For Conservatives this is NOT the way to try and change a bad ruling. It could never topple Roe, but changes can happen incrementally with the right cases. The Roe decision has up until now been a blessing for the GOP. The Pro Life movement finding a home and a voice within the party. Let's not do anything to foul it up. This is neither the right time nor the right case to fight this battle.
Anytime unconstitutional laws are passed is always a good time to fight it. Alabama's law will probably be struck down in the federal courts, as it should be.
Agreed, as I said in Post #1.
However, the day is coming when that bastard decision will be changed incrementally and if the rights of the unborn ever get any traction Roe itself will die!
All of this should wait until after the election.
Not likely to happen. Roe has only been reaffirmed and expanded on in subsequent abortion cases. Reversing Roe would only set a very dangerous precedent. And the unborn do not have rights, nor should they!
Obviously Roe is not about to be overturned even if the SCOTUS actually took the Missouri case (they wont touch the Alabama one). But you must realize that restictions are going to creep in?
the unborn do not have rights
Take it from a successful gambler: DON"T BET ON THAT!
Healthcare will be a democratic issue in this election, just as immigration policy will be a Republican issue, but you won't be getting a redo of the culture war. Too bad.
John McCain defeated it!
McCain had one weakness. Vanity! He could never get over when Trump said I like the war hero's that don't get caught! Do you remember that? Well, what people forget is that McCain started all that by calling Trump supporters "crazies". Trump responded the way he did in defense of his supporters.
It's too bad that McCain repeatedly defeated key Republican legislation simply to spite Trump.
McCain was a war hero, but he was seriously flawed.
There are already individual state restrictions on abortion. But states cannot restrict abortion before viability, despite certain states attempts to do so. And there is no way to grant rights to the unborn without infringing on the woman's established rights. Some states even attempted to do so through so called "fetal personhood" laws. Not surprisingly and fortunately, they never passed.
Explain why you believe it is "unconstitutional"
Any laws about abortion should be left to the states and the vote of the people.
You've made Trump the topic. I guess I allowed it, huh?
That's why that poster is instantly put on ignore.
Gordy, It's right there in the first sentence of the Constitution:
"We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Some can interpret our posterity to mean our unborn children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
Some people can't help it if that's all they got.
Isn't it amazing how the TDS sufferers turn a topic about abortion to one about President Trump being a draft dodger?
It's unconstitutional because the SCOTUS has ruled that abortion is legal and cannot be prohibited nor cause an undue burden on the woman. And laws are not put to public vote. They ate passed by legislators and subject to judicial review.
So because the SCOTUS says so, it's right, the Court never gets it wrong.
Have you ever heard of "Dred Scott v. Sanford?"
Sorry, I'm not getting it. You say he's impotent, yet "sleeping around".
You do believe in the concept of contradiction? You can't be and at the same time not be! Right?
That may be your own interpretation. But the SCOTUS does not interpret it that way. The idea that it also applies to those not yet born or even existing is conjecture athe best. The Constitution applies to those already born.
An idea that is coming. A legal space for the state interest in, and responsibility for, the unborn. It will happen gradually, but I can see it coming.
I never said the SCOTUS gets every ruling right. But abortion cases have been brought before the court before and not once has Roe ever been significantly challenged.
You are right. As a matter of fact it has been strengthened by precedent. That being said, I wonder if you would agree with me that the abortion debate was never settled by the Roe decision and is now hotter than ever?
We are going to see some of these cases from State legislatures taken by the SCOTUS, not the extreme ones like Alabama, but the more moderate cases. There is a national debate going on.
Not likely. The state will have to argue why it has interest and why the woman's rights and interest should be subverted. Such an issue has gone to the Court before.
Blackmun did leave one thing open (in a rare moment of humility), didn't he? He admitted that he didn't know when life began. Something to think about?
As far as cases coming, what if the Missouri case comes before the Court. Suppose the only issue argued is limiting abortion to the first 8 weeks?
I'd say Roe more or less settled the issue. The problem is that some people could not accept it and continue to argue it or attempt to circumvent it.
When life begins is irrelevant. That's more of a subjective, religious, or philosophical discussion and has not been the focus of legal debates surrounding abortion. Limiting abortion 8 weeks (or sooner) is absurd and places an undue burden on the woman, which established precedent has already deemed as a reason for permissible abortions later during gestation.
I couldn't disagree more. Then you are saying a woman's right to make a decision takes precedent over a human life. I'm sorry - that's murder, pure and simple.
Limiting abortion 8 weeks (or sooner) is absurd and places an undue burden on the woman, which established precedent has already deemed as a reason for permissible abortions later during gestation.
Why not? The original first trimester guideline was completely arbitrary, was it not?
Wait WHAT? Trump said "The Republican Party will become “The Party of Healthcare!”
BTW, aren't healthcare and immigration policy part of our culture?
You are free to disagree, but you would be wrong. The woman's rights takes precedent over an embryo/fetus, which is not even born nor considered a person with rights. And abortion is not considered murder.
As I said, limiting abortions places an undue burden on woman. I'd guess the first trimester limit was a way of finding "middle ground" between pro choicers and pro lifers.
Now there's a giant whopper of a lie.
"I thought the turd was going to have the bestest, bigliest health care plan for all - after the election."
What John McCain blocked was a repeal of the ACA. He did not in any way block a Republican health care plan, because there is no Republican health care plan. They are so stupid they don't have a plan, they simply feed their base the ignorant red meat of "Down with Obamacare!" without even bothering to consider what will actually replace it. I guess no one should expect much from a bunch of indoctrinated morons.
1.)Why is it that you are obsessed with Roe v. Wade when you will never get pregnant?
2.)Why do you believe that your religious or social beliefs get to make decisions about the lives of others? Women are not asking for your approval when they choose to have an abortion
3.) Why is it that you believe that your beliefs overrule what is best for her? Why is a fetus that cannot survive outside of her body more important than an adult human female?
4.)Is your opinion an admission that in your beliefs that woman is still second-class citizen that you have the innate right to govern via your own emotions?
I have to wonder if your partner had an abortion against your wishes and this is your chance to make sure that never happens again by repealing Roe v. Wade.
There was nothing to replace it and there never will be.
Because I believe in the Constitution. Only the Congress can make law.
2.)Why do you believe that your religious or social beliefs get to make decisions about the lives of others? Women are not asking for your approval when they choose to have an abortion
I am not making a moral argument. You are. I'm more interested in the Constitution.
3.) Why is it that you believe that your beliefs overrule what is best for her? Why is a fetus that cannot survive outside of her body more important than an adult human female?
Do you know when life begins? Justice Blackmun admitted that he did not (in his notes). The moral argument lies there. The legal argument lies with the wrongly made decision. If the US congress had decided to make a law providing for what that Court did, I would feel a lot better about it.
4.)Is your opinion an admission that in your beliefs that woman is still second-class citizen that you have the innate right to govern via your own emotions?
Whether I was pro-choice or pro-abortion, I would still be against the Court taking on what they have no place taking on. How did you feel about the Court deciding Bush v Gore?
Please give me an honest opinion
I have to wonder if your partner had an abortion against your wishes and this is your chance to make sure that never happens again by repealing Roe v. Wade.
If my partner had an abortion against my wishes, it would truly be an unexpected jolt. First I would never be with such a woman and to answer your hypothetical, if it did actually happen, I'd probably be in jail today.
You still have a problem with understanding the US Constitution because all three branches have the power to make law in their own manner. They would not be able to function as an effective check and balance to the other two if they did not. This is a basic concept of US history and civics. How does the judicial branch function if it cannot strike down unconstitutional laws?
You need to read and understand the legal precedent established in Marbury v. Madison. How can you possibly claim to understand the US Constitution if you do not understand very basic concepts of it?
No they don't.
Here is today's lesson:
Article 1
SECTION 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
There is another law just passed by Missouri banning abortions after 8 weeks, more worthy. I'm still not ready to give the dems a valid culture war argument during an important election cycle. So far all the democrats have had is a radical fantasy agenda and their hate for Trump. Why give them a real argument?
Too late, Vic. They couldn't help themselves. Armor up. The GOP War On Women continues. And we intend to fight it.
Doesn't matter Democrats still can't beat Trump...even the Pussy Pink Hat brigade will not defeat him.
Democrats don't have a winning candidate. If the Clinton machine can't beat him....who can?
They have been waiting for this moment. It has been their plan all along. To get a conservative majority in the courts. My state admitted it and said they had a bill waiting and ready to go when the time is right.
Now some are back peddling and saying this AL bill will not be the one to go before the SC.
Pat Robertson said this one is too restrictive and he is afraid it would fail in the courts. He laid out their plans and said the main plan was to just chip away at R v W until it was mute.
The thing about all of this is the faux outrage, I bet with most of these people it has not had a single impact on their lives. These same people have no problem executing people or sending people off to war.
I don't understand the backward thinking of some. They claim to be pro life yet yesterday was Peace officers Memorial Day and when I checked in for a quick look, not one peep about this.
Another March coming up?
I guess now I can sit back and say "It's the law of the land!"
I recently renewed my membership to the ACLU. I urge others to join me.
Please join the ACLU because freedom cannot defend itself.
Join NARAL.
If law can be overturned, buckle up. The new law can be overturned, then that can be overturned and just continue back and forth.
If we are going to overturn law, get rid of citizens united. First on my list.
This is how the issue should be decided, democratically.
Instead, unelected justices discovered as if by magic a right to abortion in the 14th Amendment that suddenly appeared 100 years after it was passed and decided to impose their morals on the country at large. If people want to live in a state that protects the right of the unborn, it's their right to.
The Constitution is silent on the issue. Anyone who claims otherwise is pushing their moral agenda upon you under the guise of law.
Laws are passed throught representative legislature, not through popular vote. And individual rights are not and should never be put to popular vote either. While the Constitution does not mention abortion, it's the job of the courts to interpret the constitution when dealing with the constitutionality of laws. And laws prohibiting abortions were deemed unconstitutional. Therefore, that made abortion legal by default.
In the case of Roe the Court provided abortion advocates what the legislature had denied!
No, the defense successfully argued the existing law banning abortion to be too restrictive under the Constitution's implied right to privacy.
Blackmun never explained how that right emerged from the 14th Amendment. He simply mentioned a "concept of personal liberty" and that was that!
The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:
As has already been been explained to you it expanded on the Griswold v. Connecticut ruling and the Stanley v. Georgia ruling. It was again used in the 2003 ruling for Lawrence v. Texas.
That's "due process" protections. Can you show us the right to privacy that Justice Blackmun couldn't?
As has already been been explained to you it expanded on the Griswold v. Connecticut ruling and the Stanley v. Georgia ruling. It was again used in the 2003 ruling for Lawrence v. Texas.
Ya, those are some of the cases the Roe justices used to back their 7-2 ruling. I really don't need to regurgitate their explanation. I want to see the right of privacy. It's really very simple.
They can't, it isn't there.
The ruling on RvW makes no sense. They basically did a word salad to fabricate a right.
And waived a magic wand!
When you can show me where the 2nd amendment says handguns, rifles & semi-automatic weapons.
The 2nd Amendment explicitly provides for a right to bear arms!
A right of privacy isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution!
Here is what the "Right to Privacy" is per the Constitution.
The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment . The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd , the 4th 's search and seizure limits, and the 5th 's self-incrimination limit.
You'll notice that the 14th and its Due Process is not covered here.
Well, that's a different explanation, yet still predicated with "The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy"
Do you think the SCOTUS should have taken on either of the two abortion cases in 1973?
Only by proxy. The Court struck down laws prohibiting abortion. Therefore, abortion automatically became legal as a result.
Agree
It also makes clear the Court can't even claim a consistent textual basis for it. It jumps around.
Legislators denied interracial marriage too Vic. Do you advocate for incremental rulings to undermine the Loving opinion?
Though is says NOTHING about the right to BUY or OWN arms.
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches.....
The word privacy is not used, but that sure does mean privacy. That also works for gun rights as well
Justice Blackmun does spell it out. You just don't agree -
Are you going to try and link the two things as some try?
Or types of arms
That's right, I don't agree that he did lay it out well, nor did Ginsburg and many others on both the right and left!
I already did Vic. Both opinions overruled unconstitutional state legislative restrictions.
Now that you've posted your deflection, how about answering my question.
Actually, you haven't. You don't see the difference in the Court's authority, the principles or even the after effect. Unlike the Loving case, which involved Civil Rights issues, the nation, even the deep south accepted the Loving case ruling. After Roe which had to link to the Constitution, the nation was bitterly divided and remains so to this very day!
So how about admitting they were not alike?
Yet you haven't refuted this FACT:
Which was in direct reply to your comment.
There is NO difference in the Court's authority to overturn unconstitutional state legislative restrictions.
What principles are those Vic? Please be specific.
Oh BTW, Loving was cited in Roe.
Unconstitutional is unconstitutional.
So is it your posit that personal autonomy is NOT a Civil Rights issue?
BTFW, many states on the south, especially Alabama, didn't accept the Loving ruling. Isn't it ironic? Don't you think?
There is still a percentage that oppose interracial marriage Vic. In fact, the percentage is not that different than the percentage that think that abortion should be illegal.
How about making a cogent argument that they aren't.
I agree 100%. I am Pro choice, if you want to kill your unborn child that should be up to the mother.
Now I also believe it is a states right to ban abortion if that is what the people want. but I'm one of them less fed kinda guys, probably why I would never vote for the socialist Democrat.
Makes me doubt you are pro-choice. Just my take on it.
Let me guess you must be one of them that like to sugar coat it and call it a zygot or whatever the fuck makes you feel good.
Do you ask your pregnant friend if they know the sex of their fetus?
There is no such thing as an "unborn child". No sugar coating about it.
Do couples say their first child is big brother or sister or do they say they are GOING to be a big brother or sister? Do they say that they have a baby while the woman is pregnant or do they say they are EXPECTING a baby? Goes both ways - & by the way I do not ask pregnant women the sex of their fetuses.
Yeah right. [Removed, discuss the seeded topic!]
You think all women are baby gaga & go nuts over pregnant women - sorry to inform you there are those of us out here that went through our pregnancies without trying to be center of attention - didn't continually rub our bellies as if we were special - and some of us do not care to fawn all over other pregnant women.
Don't care if you believe it or if you like it. There are plenty of us out there.
May I enter in on this?
I happen to like the idea of those expectant mothers who paste an ultrasound picture on the refrigerator for the prospective older child to see. We need to instill that image in the minds of young children. Thus some day we win the war!
The war against a decision the SCOTUS had no right to make
Sorry I try not to converse with people who always use "you's". In my expierence they are just trolls and not worth the time.
Have a good day.
Busted. Don't like that you were found out - kind of hard to have a discussion with someone without using YOU. But it's ok - I understand - now you can hide behind your "pro-choice" stance - which any true pro-choice person will not believe.
That is your prerogative. Put it on your fridge - BUT stop trying to make EVERY woman do that. NOT A BABY.
Bahahahaha What a freaking joke. Seeing YOU know nothing about me YOU shouldn't be telling me what I think or what I believe. I understand that for some that concept would be lost to them.
Have a good day.
Right back at you. Bahahahaha What a freaking joke. Seeing YOU know nothing about me YOU shouldn't be telling me what I think or what I believe. I understand that for some that concept would be lost to them.
Lol, how did I do that?
With the new avatar I forgot it was you. Thanks for reminding me.
Now there is something to contemplate!
No sugar coating. It's a zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus. Those are the correct scientific terms.
The SCOTUS ruled on the constitutionality of a law. That is their function. So yes, their decision was well within their purview.
Only if you cast aside deference to other branches of government and respect for legislatures, which is what the Court did in 1973 when it recognized a new right
And it will be a very interesting discussion with their four or five year old if the mother miscarries.
I find it very telling that some view their desire to force their faith and personal opinions on others as a 'war' they must win. No one is forcing any of them to get an abortion, and contraceptive use and sex education has been reducing abortion rates for decades. The only places they don't seem to be dropping are the bible belt States where they attempt to teach abstinence only, make sex a taboo subject and believe if they ever break their celibacy vows before marriage it was "the devil" that made them do it. And they are told they just need to pray harder instead of getting educated and using contraceptives to avoid STD's an unwanted pregnancies.
The image we need to instill in our children's minds is that sex is healthy and normal, there is no evidence they will go to hell for having sex before marriage, and using contraceptives properly can protect them from 98.9% of the actual risks. If you want to have the other "sex is a sin" conversation, that's your choice, but not educating them on contraceptives is like handing them a loaded weapon, telling them not to pull the trigger but never showing them where the trigger or safety are.
They are not the highest states to begin with either.
The top five per capita are in the northeast....imagine that. And Tennessee, Texas are at the bottom.
I apologize for not being more clear. While rates of abortion are higher in other States, they have been steadily dropping, but the rate of teen pregnancy in the bible belt and their rate of abortion has remained fairly constant and in some cases have increased.
"teen births are at their lowest level in more than 60 years (10 percent lower than 2009, 43 percent below their peak in 1970). But the geographic variation is substantial."
"Teenage births remain high in more religious states. The correlation between teenage birthrates and the percentage of adults who say they are “very religious” is considerable (.69). The 2009 study posited that attitudes toward contraception play a significant role, noting that "religious communities in the U.S. are more successful in discouraging the use of contraception among their teenagers than they are in discouraging sexual intercourse itself."
"A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that the national abortion rate declined 26 percent between 2006 and 2015, hitting the lowest level that the government has on record."
"With data aggregated at the state level, conservative religious beliefs strongly predict U.S. teen birth rates, in a relationship that does not appear to be the result of confounding by income or abortion rates. One possible explanation for this relationship is that teens in more religious communities may be less likely to use contraception."
1/3 of pregnancies, almost double the national rate, are aborted in New York. Who knew that was the bible belt?
I guess the State of New York must teach abstinence only and blame the devil. New Jersey too.
New York is the abortion capital of the US, to be so proud.
The court recognized the right to autonomy already existed. The ruling only affirmed that. Recognizing and/or expanding individual rights is a good thing.
Other government branches were irrelevant to the case. State legislature already passed the antiabortion bill, the governor (executive) signed it, and it became law. Now the judicial reviewed the law when it was challenged, up to and including the SCOTUS through die process. The other branches already played their parts.
That attitude is why the Court has become the focus of cynical debate ever since
Our rights are not up for a vote by the majority in an act of tyranny of the majority. This idea is why we have the Bill of Rights to guarantee that all have equal rights and not just the majority who would have rights if they were decided democratically.
Those federal judges are unelected for life for a critical reason. That is so that they do not have to base their decision on their ability to be popularly elected and can instead make the legally correct decision instead of what is popular with the electorate. Didn't anyone pay attention in your high history or school civics requirement because this concept is why the 3rd leg of the constitutional check and balances exists?
The right to privacy from government intervention is inherent in personal freedom. We could not have freedom if we didn't have the right to privacy.
If people want abortions, they should go to states that allow them.
Make no mistake, these laws collectively over time will place common sense restrictions upon abortion, which is as it should be.
Abortion up to and even after delivery is evil and wrong.
People should be able to take their guns if they move to another state and a women should not have to leave her right of choice behind
s are passed throught representative legislature, not through popular vote.
Yes, that is how our process typically works.
And individual rights are not and should never be put to popular vote either
Indivual rights, whatever that means, are constantly restricted by the law.
it's the job of the courts to interpret the constitution when dealing with the constitutionality of law
It's not the job of the Court to rewrite the Constitution to impose their moral beliefs, which is what the Roe court did. If the right to abortion can be discovered after 100 years "hiding" in the Constitution, than the Constitution itself is a meaningless document.
And laws prohibiting abortions were deemed unconstitutional.
Until they aren't. When the Court corrects its error, the issue will be decided on a state by state basis, in conformity with the actual text of the Consititon.
So women's rights are subject to states laws, they don't hold the full federal rights of men? Women get controlled by a bunch of old MEN if they control the shithole states that pass these laws against women. Usually the dumbest and poorest states that have the worst maternal death rates and no health coverage before, during or after pregnancy. Somehow female bodies have this separate part (uterus) that doesn't involve the rest of them, that men feel they have the right to control. Every policy put out by same men makes contraception harder and more expensive (close your legs is so much cheaper, and then they bitch about Alyssa Milano advocating for a sex strike - seems at odds with their slut shaming). And aren't these the same men who are petrified of sharia law? Christian sharia is no problem though.
Remember a year or so ago when some of the same folk here on NT laughed at women for calling out the gop 'war on women'? Yeah, well I do. If republicans want to go into the election with the GOP WAR ON WOMEN front and center, Bring. It. On.
State laws cannot conflict with federal law. Do you know why states are passing these laws?
Women get controlled by a bunch of old MEN if they control the shithole states that pass these laws against women.
"shithole states" - that sounds sooooo familiar?
Usually the dumbest and poorest states that have the worst maternal death rates and no health coverage before, during or after pregnancy.
dumbest and poorest states? I think I'll pass on living there.
Somehow female bodies have this separate part (uterus) that doesn't involve the rest of them
Oh but it does. And what if that separate part holds human life? We let a woman decide it's fate?
Every policy put out by same men makes contraception harder and more expensive (close your legs is so much cheaper, and then they bitch about Alyssa Milano advocating for a sex strike - seems at odds with their slut shaming).
I think we can all survive Milano's strike
Remember a year or so ago when some of the same folk here on NT laughed at women for calling out the gop 'war on women'?
That was a great slogan. Orwell would have said "there it is!"
If republicans want to go into the election with the GOP WAR ON WOMEN front and center, Bring. It. On.
We'll see you in 2020!
Strap 'em on then, Vic.
I used shithole for a reason, wasn't an accident. And I'm sure you know all about slogans. Perfected by the gop, and if that's what it takes to get through to Americans, so be it. See how it feels being on the other side of it. The last election brought out a lot of pissed off women that pushed the pendulum left. Enjoy more of the same. Not enough mansplaining in the world to dupe women on this issue. War on Women it is.
I'm packin' right now, LOL
I used shithole for a reason, wasn't an accident.
I see.
And I'm sure you know all about slogans.
Yup, Iv'e watched the left since the late 60's
See how it feels being on the other side of it.
It's where I want to be. I've always been against the same people!
The last election brought out a lot of pissed off women that pushed the pendulum left.
The same assholes that voted for Obama
Enjoy more of the same.
Another Win? I'm not tired of winning, bring it on!
eventually continued overpopulation will force the issue, opposing abortion moves that date closer