We Should Have Contest of Who is the Most Outraged by Trump's Win

[Jon]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the Supreme Court decides what happens with abortions, not Trump?

 

[NauticalGent]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the Supreme Court decides what happens with abortions, not Trump?

Not entirely accurate, but still closer to the facts then thinking the damn President does. The citizens of the US are intentionally clueless. Sad state of affairs.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the Supreme Court decides what happens with abortions, not Trump?

The Supreme Court has kicked it back to the states, individual states can address abortions as they see fit, basically.

 

[pbaldy]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the Supreme Court decides what happens with abortions, not Trump?

With the overturning of Roe v Wade, it is determined at the state level. The president has no say, other than signing or vetoing any federal legislation that may come down the pipeline. It was sad hearing about "Trump abortion bans" during the election. Fake news.

 

[NauticalGent]

The Supreme Court has kicked it back to the states, individual states can address abortions as they see fit, basically.

As it should have been from the start.

 

[NauticalGent]

When I made this argument to a woman I know, she reply was that Trump intentionally "stacked" the SC Justices to ensure Roe v Wade would get repealed.

Some folks just want to find a reason to hate this guy. I wasn't even going to vote for him but every lie and allegations they tossed at him only made me want him to win, just to foil their stupid plan. Had they just left him alone, he might have fallen on his own sword...

 

[Isaac]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the Supreme Court decides what happens with abortions, not Trump?

The supreme court has basically put the question back to the states to decide in their individual state, to generalize the matter admittedly.
It was always a weak thing for Kamala to campaign on because the only thing a President could have anything to do with it would be to try to PASS a NEW law either banning or allowing it -a federal law which she would never have had the votes to do anyway.
And even that law may have been found unconstitutional as States are typically seen to have the both police and 'welfare' powers over their people.

I just really want to know who are these people who go around having abortions? Setting aside the miniscule percentage (a solution in search of a problem) of ra** cases, but referring to the rest of them. Have these people never heard of marriage? Condoms? Birth control? Vasectomies? Not having sex if you don't want a baby? the morning after pill? There are a half dozen ways to plan when and if you have a baby, abortion is the crudest and most thoughtless approach - and I would venture to say the least pleasant for the woman, too.

To hear liberals talk, you'd think going around having sex and then aborting the child over and over was the only way women controlled things, as if it were ancient BC times with no other options.
Not so - they're quite in control when you think about it.

Having said that, I think states need to be very liberal in applying the "health/life of the mother" exception. They need to be very understanding so Doctors don't hesitate in those cases. That, I agree with.

 

[Isaac]

I wasn't even going to vote for him but every lie and allegations they tossed at him only made me want him to win, just to foil their stupid plan. Had they just left him alone, he might have fallen on his own sword

True, and true. I experienced a bit of the same feelings. I was never realistically going to vote for a modern-day Democrat anyway, but the trumped-up charges where they twisted the law in a millions ways to make it fit 'something' - REALLY upset me and made me hope he win. Even my wife became more passionate about wanting him to win upon seeing those ridiculous things.

A totally legal NDA signed by a female accuser being somehow election subversion? C'mon, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and the only time they'd heard it too

 

[Isaac]

Absolutely hilarious! This guy really picks out some of the best and dumbest videos. I do worry that some of the brain damage of what these people have been fed is irreversible. They imagine all these bad things that could happen to them when all that's going to happen is they might be forced to get a job and be responsible for their own lives and be successful, oh dear

 

[Isaac]

 

[AngelSpeaks]

Roe v. Wade was a liberal Supreme Court making law which is not their job. They got away with it because Congress didn't challenge them and the "law" was aligned with the thinking of the public so everyone was more or less willing to let it go. Over the past 50 years Roe v. Wade has repeatedly been weakened, plus technology has improved moving the point of viability earlier on in the gestation period. This court recognized the flaw in the logic of the original decision and elected to send it back to the states where it constitutionally belongs.

I'm sure having individual states decide whether to allow abortions or not will certainly inconvenience some people. But, it isn't the crisis the left would have you think it is. Unless you're in the middle of Alaska or Texas or Florida, a neighboring state is a fairly short drive away. It will however interfere with the progressive plan to have black women terminate as many pregnancies as possible.

Those of us remember before this law that women were dying from illegal abortions. If the freaking liberals didn't demand free and late term abortions, this decision probably would have been left alone.

 

[Steve R.]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1861566270572814628

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Why it was so important to be able to kill babies in the delivery room is beyond me.

First, let's be clear about this. Late-term complications are very rare. So we may be talking fractional percentages of all births. Very SMALL fractions of all births. BUT the importance is not that a doctor can perform a late-term abortion. To end the sentence there is to obfuscate the situation. It is drastically important that, in the VERY RARE case that it is necessary, a doctor doesn't have to look over his shoulder watching for a judge or a distant legislator when making a decision to save the life of a woman with a rare but dire abnormal pregnancy. It is the "no exceptions" abortion laws that are a problem.

 

[Isaac]

First, let's be clear about this. Late-term complications are very rare. So we may be talking fractional percentages of all births. Very SMALL fractions of all births. BUT the importance is not that a doctor can perform a late-term abortion. To end the sentence there is to obfuscate the situation. It is drastically important that, in the VERY RARE case that it is necessary, a doctor doesn't have to look over his shoulder watching for a judge or a distant legislator when making a decision to save the life of a woman with a rare but dire abnormal pregnancy. It is the "no exceptions" abortion laws that are a problem.

I agree, abortion bans that don't CLEARLY and LIBERALLY provide an exception for the life or serious health of the mother, are unforgivable.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The difference is that I don't wish to impose my personal beliefs on others until it matters.

Pat, we actually agree on everything, perhaps except "when it matters."

It is simple science.

Ah, there we have the problem. There are SO many definitions that picking the right one is anything but "simple." One can argue that life for ANY of us is an unbroken line, no matter how circuitous, from that first living single-celled animal to ... us. One can ALSO argue that life is based on some defined functionally and a fetus doesn't always meet the requirements. Is an anencephalic baby really a person? The law would say "yes" in those states that have no exceptions, even though anencephaly means "no (higher) brain."

There are a thousand opinions ... including mine, I suppose... that state that life begins at some particular event, from conception to quickening, to presumed viability to first breath. As long as we have these opinions and a basis for each of them to be right by some standard, we cannot answer the question and a judge cannot decide when a crime has been committed. Which is why my own viewpoint is that from a judge or legislator's viewpoint, the only definitive event is birth - FROM A LEGAL VIEWPOINT. We can argue philosophical or scientific or religious viewpoints forever, but in the final analysis, a judges needs something he can rap his gavel on. Because in the absence of laws, all abortions are legal. Then we get into the complex world of rights and find that this is a case that should not be left to individual states because it means that geography defines your options on something that should be uniform across the country.

 

[Isaac]

Then we get into the complex world of rights and find that this is a case that should not be left to individual states because it means that geography defines your options on something that should be uniform across the country.

This is an interesting question to me, whether that statement is true or not. I'm going to have to do a little thinking and pondering on it. It does make me think of other options in areas of the law, such as I'll bet if we looked into it we would find that parental spankings are more outlawed in some states than they are in others. And there are probably other topics like this as well.