Here's how Kobe protects the children
- Thread starter SFGbob
- Start date
SFGbob
New Fish
Team de-population at work right thur.
Where we stand is the Supreme Court says legal in the first trimester
Oklahoma with the over reach. Colorado same. Guess which is the BIG issue in the coming months
http://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1511429448658141184?t=aTQGWX5H_yb75dj1Foz5aA&s=19
Both Big 8 teams are wrong
Oklahoma with the over reach. Colorado same. Guess which is the BIG issue in the coming months
http://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1511429448658141184?t=aTQGWX5H_yb75dj1Foz5aA&s=19
Both Big 8 teams are wrong
Look at this centrist hot take
You need the Supreme Court to ban abortion
States can regulate it 3 months plus one day
That's a legal hot take
Whether the mythical and tightly crafted "right to privacy" used by the Court actually exists is another story
After covid and vaccines especially
Democrats care
http://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1511382601642262536?t=okGcheB0aBmVYSpxH8ApAQ&s=19
I'm not calling Durbin a pedophile though.
http://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1511382601642262536?t=okGcheB0aBmVYSpxH8ApAQ&s=19
I'm not calling Durbin a pedophile though.
If a photo is on the internet the child isn't exploited
New case law
New case law
creepycoug
Well-known poster
We are in agreement here. Although philosophically there is never a morally logical or "right" place at which to draw the line - I've thought, read and talked about this for a long time - I've concluded that, although there's no reconciling it, first 3 mos makes sense and is a necessary albeit unpleasant reality for our society.
creepycoug
Well-known poster
Race channeling Billy Rehnquist and Byron the Wizard [/i]Buff in the great dissent, say that right to privacy is made up (which, going beyond abortion, is an interesting concept itself):
In his dissenting opinion, Justice William H. Rehnquist argued that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right of privacy, a right which they did not recognize[/i][/b] and that they definitely did not intend for it to protect a woman’s decision to have an abortion. Justice Rehnquist further argued that the only right to privacy is that which is protected by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. [/b]The Ninth Amendment does not apply here, he wrote.
Finally, he concluded that because this issue required a careful balance of the interests of the woman against the interests of the state, it was not an appropriate decision for the Court to make, but instead was a question that should have been left up to state legislatures to resolve.
[/i]
