Bunches…and none. They do not care about people, and regard most as sub-humans and unworthy of even contempt. They’re not pro-life, they’re pro-privilege. They fear losing the power to dictate to others.
4 Likes
Last big chance to screw women’s rights? We know at least four of these old men hate women…
When SCOTUS makes abortions illegal officials will have to build a lot more prisons for those women that have abortions . /s
1 Like
I hope they overturn Roe v Wade in the near future and here’s why:
On the day that Roe v Wade is overturned the Republican Party will cease to exist!
There goes the major reason for their existence, no more fund raising over blobs of blood, no more killing abortion doctors to save the unborn, no more men screeching like drooling & demented banshee’s on the House and Senate floor or across state legislatures about the sanctify of life, which they promptly abandon immediately after birth!
The Republican Party is living on borrowed time anyway, after the census in 2020, the white anti-everything, except making the rich richer republicans are really going to have a problem in getting re-elected and by 2030 they’ll no longer be a major political party!
So in reality, you could say that the Republican Party is a party of dead men and a few kept white women, walking !
How odd that Republicans seem to believe that the Constitution confers upon citizens no rights at all, aside from the right to own a gun.
4 Likes
Wasted ejaculate would be considered murder…if women were able to produce it.
6 Likes
How about Congress legislate the following:
If a clinic, which provides abortion services, doesn’t meet the requirements of a stand alone ambulatory surgery center (like a clinic that performs colonoscopies, for instance) AND/OR the doctor(s) employed there doesn’t and/or can’t get hospital admitting privileges, then the hospital nearest or best suited must provide the procedure.
I’m going to guess the hospitals affected by my suggestion will either petition the court/state legislature to abandon the TRAP laws or they’ll welcome the added source of revenue by implementing these changes.
I bet my idea would soon put an end to the anti-choicer’s picket lines. They’d have no idea why anyone entering the building was there. I’d like to know why no one has ever brought up the HIPPA privacy laws, which are violated by protesters.
1 Like
There you have some vile concern trolls.
Hoping this was sarcasm, but just in case it wasn’t: the Religious Right won’t stop at ending abortion. They already have their sights set on ending contraception of all kinds since the anti-abortion fight is going so well for them. Their tactics range from making it impractical to impossible to obtain contraception to arguing that contraception is equivalent to abortion. They attack contraception from the funding side and from the disinformation side (claiming contraception causes birth defects, cancer, and mental illness).
So, if they win on abortion, there is your next battle. And that, too, won’t be the last. Because the goal is not “saving what we define as a human life”; the goal is complete subjugation of women and control over sexuality. In other words, turning the clock back 100-500 years, the further back the better.
We can not afford to give them an inch on this. Tactically it is immoral (condemning thousands of women to back-alley abortions just like in the “good old days”); strategically it is foolish.
2 Likes
Exactly. If, in fact, the State does have an interest in restricting abortions, they should simply enact legislation making abortion illegal. But they can’t because that would be unconstitutional. In a just society, imposing unneeded regulations on a medical facility, unsupported by statistical evidence showing the necessity of these changes, would never have made it past a vote much less a judge.
But our current SCOTUS accepts specious arguments based on the “sincerely held religious beliefs” of individuals, regardless of their lack of basis in scientific reality, so I wouldn’t put anything past them at this point: “These are abortifacients!!” “Well, they aren’t, but since you think they are, we’ll let you impose your idiocy on the people who work in your store.”
And you’re right, too, Ottnott; there is no veil. Not when the case is put in terms of discussing the state’s “interest” in restricting access to abortion.
If no one can exercise a right, it’s unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to affirm that the right exists anyway.
No, it doesn’t work like that. If they fail to take up the case, the 5th circuit’s decision ALLOWING for the restrictions stands. They also are required to solve conflict between any circuits. As the article noted, different courts have ruled differently.
1 Like
Yeah, good point. It’s why lower appointments also matter.
1 Like
oh I meant specifically in the context of a Supreme Court case, after those boards and legislators have done their regulationin’. If they’re trying to ascertain whether legislation and regulations are constitutional, it should be a matter that’s solely adjudicated by listening to the testimony of medical professionals (doctors, researchers, hospital administrators.) The questioning would be about the risks of having abortions at clinics without admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, and about what other surgeries are done at clinics, and how the risks compare between abortions and other surgeries. In a fair and just world this is how the case would be settled, but a fair and just world does not have Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court bench.
If Congress were to pass such legislation, it would suggest that they supported women’s Constitutional rights to control their reproduction.
They don’t; the only Constitutional right most members of Congress support is the right to own a gun.