Reply With Quote
would it be moral, in your view, to break the law to help usa kids?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jud...t-abortion-law
Must protect usa kids !
Liberals are mow concerned for kids from 3 world counties
Sad!
would it be moral, in your view, to break the law to help usa kids?
no . heartbeat law tries to override SCOTUS. that was DOA... and it hasn't even gotten to that argument. they said it fails with respect to the iowa cons ution. even if the iowa supreme court reverses, it will go to US supreme court who would also invalidate it
These rulings never actually cite the Cons ution. Hiding behind terms like "state interests" while legislating law from the bench. Disgraceful.
tell it to the activist conservative bloc of SCOTUS.
Actually, "state interests" normally means state interest in life as far as abortion cases is concerned.
Say Tigah and then woaw.
A jury should also listen to heartbeat of asylum seekers before deporting them tbqh
MAGA re s should support this
Nothing about New York allowing babies to be flat out murdered. Scientifically and legally defined life is cool to terminate. God Bless America.
Tell us about it.
dem headlines
they basically codified Roe v Wade/Planned Parenthood v Casey
basically said women are free to terminate pregnancies up until the point of viability. after viability, it must be to preserve the life/health of the mother. that's already cons utionally protected.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...pinion-1959104
so please explain to me how new york's new statute is some radical law that is any different than the supreme court's ruling from nearly 3 decades ago
yousupportbabymurder.gif JK.
they basically codified Roe v Wade/Planned Parenthood v Casey
basically said women are free to terminate pregnancies up until the point of viability. after viability, it must be to preserve the life/health of the mother. that's already cons utionally protected.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...pinion-1959104
so please explain to me how new york's new statute is some radical law that is any different than the supreme court's ruling from nearly 3 decades ago
Thank you for pointing that out, I appreciate the clarification and makes my stomach unknot.
i'm much more interested in arguing the legality of it vs the morality of it, as i dont think people are going to be swayed by argument.
i've read a few different places about how New York just took some radical step... and its just hilarious reading it and seeing that its exactly what SCOTUS already allowed for 30 years ago. i mean, if new york really wanted, they could have just said all abortions are 100% legal even in late stages and regardless of the mother's health. that would certainly be radical, albeit legal. it's up to the state. the supreme court just decided when states CAN regulate/ban abortions, it's still state discretion, ultimately. but at the very least, states must allow them pre-viability, and post-viability under certain cir stances. conservative states have been trying to push the limits on a regular basis, like the heartbeat law in the OP, or by (ironically) increasing regulations on providers so much that they almost all end up having to close. for instance, missouri placed so many regulations that only 1 clinic is open in the entire state.
my views aside, i do think that foundational ruling in roe is pretty shaky legally speaking... but after having been in effect for over 45 years now, and having been upheld again in 1992, it has pretty solid footing just based on precedent/stare decisis
Uncle Thom-as inter alia is damn sure stare decisis is bull
eg, for 100 years, Corporations weren't people, now, the oligarchy's s say they are people.
R v W is going down
Roe was 7-2
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
