Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Supreme Court, and abortion.


Larry

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, spjunkies said:

You should’ve read other articles regarding her being paid to switch sides.
 

She was an 22-year-old woman that had three children that she gave up for adoption by the time the ruling was handed down. The third child was baby Roe.
 

Afterwards, she became a professed lesbian, and was paid to speak for the pro-choice movement.

 

She changed her belief after becoming a Christian. The pro-life movement paid her to speak for them.

 

Before she died, she regretted supporting either side.

Edited by ClaytoAli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

 


🤔

I know man, it sounds crazy. She regretted supporting either side of the argument of roe versus wade. She felt like both sides used her even though they paid her.
 

She had issues, being a 22-year-old woman at the start of the case, and having abandon three children because she couldn’t get an abortion in Texas.

 

Her a daughter that she abandoned, didn’t want anything to do with her.

Edited by ClaytoAli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

..irony being evangelicals largely hate catholics. 

 

Actually, further irony.  

 

Somebody a while back pointed me at an article that said that the state laws that forbid education money being sent to any religious institution?  They were passed because the Christians were scared of immigrants like the Irish and Italians, who were Catholic.  And they were passed because they didn't want the foreign immigrants to be setting up Catholic schools with tax dollars.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

In Mosaic law, while taking a life calls for the death of the offender, kicking a pregnant woman so that she miscarries requires only a fine.  The strict anti-abortion stance is actually a Catholic doctrine tjat evangelicals have embraced, despite claiming only biblical texts as authoritative. This is why Christian conservatives have packed the court with 6 Catholics.

 

Yep, there's a versus about a woman having a miscarriage because she was in the middle of a fight (or simply wrong place wrong time) between two men, one man screwing up and causing it.

 

But instead of eye for an eye for murder of bat, the husband was allowed to demand a fair compensation for the loss, aka not murder.

 

I'm still trying to understand the meaning of "mischief" in Exodus 21:22, because verses 23-25 seem to be what a lot of pro-lifers are seizing on like 22 matters less or doesn't need clarification.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.biblegateway.com/passage/%3fsearch=Exodus%2b21:22-25&version=KJV&interface=amp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

..irony being evangelicals largely hate catholics. 

While I think that was largely the case for a long time common cause has been established between the two groups for some time now. Now obviously both groups think the other is on the HOV Express to hell, with evangelicals seeing Catholics as effeminate rosary rattling  college types while Catholics view the Southern Baptist Convention as a pack of in-bread hicks with scarcely a tooth between them, but when that clock needs to be turned back several decades they work together. 

 

Edit: Catholic background here.

Edited by youngestson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, youngestson said:

with evangelicals seeing Catholics as effeminate rosary rattling  college types while Catholics view the Southern Baptist Convention as a pack of in-bread hicks with scarcely a tooth between them


Theres a scene I liked, in one of the comedy/satire "Trinity" movies. 
 

Trinity is in a bar, facing a group of hired thugs. And he's trying to get his brother (a big Hoss Cartwright type) to start a brawl with the thugs. 
 

Trinity:  Did you hear what they Said about our mother?  They called her an old (leans over and whispers in brother's ear). 
 

Brother glares at thugs:  They did, did they?  
 

Trinity nods enthusiastically. 
 

Brother continues glaring at the thugs:  Well, it's true. 
 

Trinity:  She's not old!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Actually, further irony.  

 

Somebody a while back pointed me at an article that said that the state laws that forbid education money being sent to any religious institution?  They were passed because the Christians were scared of immigrants like the Irish and Italians, who were Catholic.  And they were passed because they didn't want the foreign immigrants to be setting up Catholic schools with tax dollars.  

Back in the day when "vocations" as they call them had plenty of bodies, the RCC had basically an entire army of cheap labor who were fairly educated, and did not have families of their own to take care of, and were often directed to elementary (particularly nuns) and secondary (more priests/monks) education.  In like places like New Orleans, they became so dominant that the city would often indirectly fund parochial schools through things like providing textbooks and busing, partly because it was cheaper to do that than taking on the burden of additional students.  They desegregated in 1962, only after the public schools had done so (Ruby Bridges in 1960), although the archbishop, Rummel, wanted to desegrate well before that, even before Brown vs. Board, the laity was opposed. 

Edited by DCSaints_fan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad that one dude didn't have to balls to go thru with "paying a visit" to Brett's house. I mean, (along with the other maga justices), he's only a perjury inducing, corrupt, seditionist who is willing to sellout your rights for his own benefit...for pennies on the dollar. Haha! But "turn the other cheek", "kumbaya" and all that.

 

It would be one thing if the dems had the balls to fight...anything, but they won't even turn these rulings around to use on the GOP for their own benefit or for the benefit for their constituents. The best they can do is ask for donations and tell you to vote more harder, vote the hardest you've ever voted in your life! This clip has been making the rounds, I think it explains how a lot of people are feeling at the moment.

 

 

  • Thumb down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

Oh great, “the rational national”.  I wonder how many Tara Reade vids he made back in the day.

Did you even watch the video? It has nothing to do with the rational national and everything to do with what those two young women were talking about. I guess it's just easier to stick with the status quo and blame progressives than do any actual change. "Moderate" Dems need to move aside already, they're just a weight around America's neck. The rest of us are clearly ready for some real change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

‘No way’: Missouri attorney general threatens to sue cities that help cover out-of-state abortion travel

 

Members of the Kansas City, Mo., city council approved an ordinance last week that may help city employees cover travel costs for out-of-state abortions, now that the procedure is largely illegal in Missouri.

 

But the state’s Republican attorney general soon made clear that was unacceptable to him.

 

“Working families are struggling to pay for gas & food,” Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who is also currently running for a U.S. Senate seat, said in a tweet July 1, a day after the Kansas City Council approved the legislation. “They fork over their hard earned money in taxes & now St Louis & KC ‘leaders’ want to spend those hard earned tax dollars on abortions. No way. Any attempt to do so by cities or counties in Missouri will be met with a lawsuit.”

 

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Petition calling for Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas impeachment has more than 1 million signatures

 

More than a million signatures have been registered to a petition calling for the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

 

Mr Thomas has come under fire for his support of the the court's decision to overturn Roe v Wade, paving the way for women to lose their right to end a pregnancy in nearly half the country.

 

He has further infuriated Americans in his concurring opinion by saying the court “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell." Those cases deal with Americans' fundamental right to privacy, due process, and equal protections rights, like same-sex marriage.

 

The petition was posted to MoveOn, and currently has more than one million signatures.

 

"Thomas—who sided with the majority on overturning Roe—made it clear what's next: to overturn high court rulings that establish gay rights and contraception rights," the petition says. "And if that's not enough: Recently, Justice Clarence Thomas voted against a Supreme Court decision to compel the release of Donald Trump's records regarding the January 6 insurrection and attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election."

 

It remains highly unlikely that Mr Thomas would be removed from the Supreme Court, but the petition reflects the growing angst towards the justice.

 

Critics of Mr Thomas have also pointed to his wife, Ginni Thomas, and her role in the attempts by Republicans following the 2020 election to fraudulently overturn Joe Biden's victory.

Mr Thomas did not recuse himself from cases involving the 2020 election despite his wife's communications with White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Arizona election officials supporting Republican efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biden Blasts ‘Wrongheaded’ Overturning of Roe as Supreme Court Exercising ‘Raw Political Power,’ Says Dobbs was ‘Not Driven by the Constitution’

 

In a speech announcing an executive order he signed protecting access to abortion services, President Joe Biden blasted the recent Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, calling it a decision that was politically, not constitutionally, based.

 

Speaking from the Roosevelt Room Friday morning, Biden called Dobbs a “terrible, extreme, and, I think, totally wrongheaded decision.”

 

“This is not a decision driven by the Constitution,” he said, and then repeated for emphasis, and “in spite of what those justices in the majority said, this was not a decision driven by history.”

 

The majority opinion “rattles off laws from the 19th century to support the idea that Roe was a historic anomaly because states outlawed abortion in the 1880s,” the president continued, “but that is just wrong.”

 

That view, said Biden, was “playing fast and loose with the facts,” arguing that “even 150 years ago,” the common law in many states “did not criminalize abortion early in pregnancy, which is very similar to the viability line drawn by Roe.”

 

The Dobbs majority opinion “ignores that fact,” and that the goal of these laws was “to protect women when they were dying from unsafe abortions — this is the horrific reality that Roe sought to end.”

 

“The practice of medicine should not, I will emphasize, should not be frozen in the 19th century.” He declared the decision “was not about the Constitution, or the law — it was about a deep, long seated antipathy toward Roe and the broader right to privacy.”

 

Click on the link for the full article and video

  • Thumb up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...