[Newsbot]

Title: Alabama passes bill banning abortion
Category: Uncle Sam
Posted By: BeaverFever
Date: 2019-05-14 19:33:31

[BeaverFever]

Not to be outdone by Georgia, in Alabama, abortion to be banned from conception, even in cases of rape and incest.

$1:

Before the debate began, Democrat Rodger Smitherman said: "We're telling a 12-year-old girl who, through incest and rape is pregnant, we are telling her that she doesn't have a choice.”

....The bill's architects expect it will be defeated in the lower courts, but hope it will end up before the Supreme Court.

Their aim ultimately is to overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling that recognised a woman's constitutional right to end a pregnancy.

Emboldened by the addition of two Trump-nominated conservative justices, anti-abortion activists are eager to take one of the most divisive issues in America back to the highest court in the land.

[raydan]

How much money is wasted in courts and making laws that will be defeated?



Handmaid's Tale Bart... remember, I told you.

[BeaverFever]

raydan raydan:

How much money is wasted in courts and making laws that will be defeated?.

The Republican Taliban has stacked the Supreme Court they’re expecting a win.

[rickc]

raydan raydan:

How much money is wasted in courts and making laws that will be defeated?



Handmaid's Tale Bart... remember, I told you.

You hit the nail on the head here. The SCOTUS decision on Roe vs. Wade is very clear in its decision. It states in black and white the a woman's right to privacy overrides any government interest in the first trimester. There is no grey area in what they said. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the final word. We have to waste so much time and money constantly reinventing the wheel on a continual non stop basis. There should be repercussions for passing laws that violate Supreme Court decisions. Financial repercussions. The majority of people working in legislative bodies are lawyers. There are other occupations represented to be sure, but most are practicing bar members. Their job is making laws. They should be held accountable for knowing what the SCOTUS has had to say about the law before they vote on such laws. Just like a newspaper has a lawyer on staff to proofread articles for libel before they go to print. If a newspaper can have a lawyer hanging around to keep their fat out of the fire, than why can't a body of hundreds of lawyers not do the same for themselves? Why should we taxpayers have to keep footing the bill for these people's brazen disregard for Supreme Court decisions? These people know the law and make a deliberate decision to disregard these decisions. I say let them pay for their own screwups.

Let there be a fine of $50,000 for the first day, and $50,000 for every day that a law that goes against Supreme Court decisions is still on the books for every member that voted for, or signed off on said law. You want to waste the courts time passing laws that have already been decided by the Supreme Court, than you can put your money where your mouth is. You want to be a martyr and fall on your own sword, knock yourself out.

The Supreme Court has already spoke on these matters. If someone is to lazy to do their due diligence on something that they are voting on, then let them pay for their laziness and/or stupidity. As a taxpayer I am tired of this bullshit. I am tired of my money being wasted overturning laws that the lawmakers knew went against Supreme Court decisions when they voted on the law. What other profession gets to continually fuck up like this with no financial repercussions?

[xerxes]

Very well said Rick!

But this isn't for a lack of due diligence. They know the law; they just don't care. They want abortion to not be a thing and by hook or by crook they will do whatever they can to make it so. If it wastes time and money, who cares?

[Freakinoldguy]

rickc rickc:

raydan raydan:

How much money is wasted in courts and making laws that will be defeated?



Handmaid's Tale Bart... remember, I told you.

You hit the nail on the head here. The SCOTUS decision on Roe vs. Wade is very clear in its decision. It states in black and white the a woman's right to privacy overrides any government interest in the first trimester. There is no grey area in what they said. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the final word. We have to waste so much time and money constantly reinventing the wheel on a continual non stop basis. There should be repercussions for passing laws that violate Supreme Court decisions. Financial repercussions. The majority of people working in legislative bodies are lawyers. There are other occupations represented to be sure, but most are practicing bar members. Their job is making laws. They should be held accountable for knowing what the SCOTUS has had to say about the law before they vote on such laws. Just like a newspaper has a lawyer on staff to proofread articles for libel before they go to print. If a newspaper can have a lawyer hanging around to keep their fat out of the fire, than why can't a body of hundreds of lawyers not do the same for themselves? Why should we taxpayers have to keep footing the bill for these people's brazen disregard for Supreme Court decisions? These people know the law and make a deliberate decision to disregard these decisions. I say let them pay for their own screwups.

Let there be a fine of $50,000 for the first day, and $50,000 for every day that a law that goes against Supreme Court decisions is still on the books for every member that voted for, or signed off on said law. You want to waste the courts time passing laws that have already been decided by the Supreme Court, than you can put your money where your mouth is. You want to be a martyr and fall on your own sword, knock yourself out.

The Supreme Court has already spoke on these matters. If someone is to lazy to do their due diligence on something that they are voting on, then let them pay for their laziness and/or stupidity. As a taxpayer I am tired of this bullshit. I am tired of my money being wasted overturning laws that the lawmakers knew went against Supreme Court decisions when they voted on the law. What other profession gets to continually fuck up like this with no financial repercussions?

Unless of course this is just a smoke screen and the real reason for these state sponsored laws is about States Rights and not abortion at all?

[rickc]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

rickc rickc:

raydan raydan:

How much money is wasted in courts and making laws that will be defeated?



Handmaid's Tale Bart... remember, I told you.

You hit the nail on the head here. The SCOTUS decision on Roe vs. Wade is very clear in its decision. It states in black and white the a woman's right to privacy overrides any government interest in the first trimester. There is no grey area in what they said. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the final word. We have to waste so much time and money constantly reinventing the wheel on a continual non stop basis. There should be repercussions for passing laws that violate Supreme Court decisions. Financial repercussions. The majority of people working in legislative bodies are lawyers. There are other occupations represented to be sure, but most are practicing bar members. Their job is making laws. They should be held accountable for knowing what the SCOTUS has had to say about the law before they vote on such laws. Just like a newspaper has a lawyer on staff to proofread articles for libel before they go to print. If a newspaper can have a lawyer hanging around to keep their fat out of the fire, than why can't a body of hundreds of lawyers not do the same for themselves? Why should we taxpayers have to keep footing the bill for these people's brazen disregard for Supreme Court decisions? These people know the law and make a deliberate decision to disregard these decisions. I say let them pay for their own screwups.

Let there be a fine of $50,000 for the first day, and $50,000 for every day that a law that goes against Supreme Court decisions is still on the books for every member that voted for, or signed off on said law. You want to waste the courts time passing laws that have already been decided by the Supreme Court, than you can put your money where your mouth is. You want to be a martyr and fall on your own sword, knock yourself out.

The Supreme Court has already spoke on these matters. If someone is to lazy to do their due diligence on something that they are voting on, then let them pay for their laziness and/or stupidity. As a taxpayer I am tired of this bullshit. I am tired of my money being wasted overturning laws that the lawmakers knew went against Supreme Court decisions when they voted on the law. What other profession gets to continually fuck up like this with no financial repercussions?

Unless of course this is just a smoke screen and the real reason for these state sponsored laws is about States Rights and not abortion at all?

Well I would have to strongly argue against that. We tried that whole articles of confederation thing. It did not work. We chose to go with a stronger federal government when we ratified the Constitution of the U.S.A. A decision that I strongly agree with. If I am a free man in one state of my country, than I should be a free man in every state of my country. I should not gain or lose rights as I travel around in my own country. That is one point where Canada is ahead of the U.S. Canada made marijuana legal in the whole country (as it should be) We Americans will be fighting this bullshit state by state for years to come. Meanwhile my 77 year old mother can not get pain killers ( even though she is dying from cancer) without passing a drug test. A drug test that she cannot pass. She would be facing felony charges for manufacturing for growing for her own use in her state. Its totally legal in my state.

Does anyone really care that a 77 year old woman who is dying from cancer likes to lite up to ease her pain? Who is she hurting? She lived her life, she paid her taxes and her way in life. She never took a cent from the state. Me and my sister never had a free lunch at school (even though we were eligible). She never took welfare when my old man left us (even though she could have). She worked two jobs to support me and my sister. She always told us to pay our own way through the world, to never take anything from anybody. She pays for her own weed. What business does the state have harassing an old woman who is not bothering anyone? Is anyone really safer if my old dying mother is sitting in prison because she smokes weed? If any American (like me) can legally smoke weed, than all Americans should be able to legally smoke weed. If any American can get an abortion, than all Americans should be able to get an abortion. If any American can vote at 18, than all Americans should be able to vote at 18.

States rights got us into a civil war. Some states felt that people were property to be owned. Apparently some states still do. I served in the U.S armed forces, not the confederate armed forces, and certainly not in any state militia. All states should have to abide by the U.S. Constitution that they signed off on. Respect the bill of rights. Quit trying to enslave the masses.

[Freakinoldguy]

rickc rickc:

Well I would have to strongly argue against that. We tried that whole articles of confederation thing. It did not work. We chose to go with a stronger federal government when we ratified the Constitution of the U.S.A. A decision that I strongly agree with. If I am a free man in one state of my country, than I should be a free man in every state of my country. I should not gain or lose rights as I travel around in my own country. That is one point where Canada is ahead of the U.S. Canada made marijuana legal in the whole country (as it should be) We Americans will be fighting this bullshit state by state for years to come. Meanwhile my 77 year old mother can not get pain killers ( even though she is dying from cancer) without passing a drug test. A drug test that she cannot pass. She would be facing felony charges for manufacturing for growing for her own use in her state. Its totally legal in my state.

Does anyone really care that a 77 year old woman who is dying from cancer likes to lite up to ease her pain? Who is she hurting? She lived her life, she paid her taxes and her way in life. She never took a cent from the state. Me and my sister never had a free lunch at school (even though we were eligible). She never took welfare when my old man left us (even though she could have). She worked two jobs to support me and my sister. She always told us to pay our own way through the world, to never take anything from anybody. She pays for her own weed. What business does the state have harassing an old woman who is not bothering anyone? Is anyone really safer if my old dying mother is sitting in prison because she smokes weed? If any American (like me) can legally smoke weed, than all Americans should be able to legally smoke weed. If any American can get an abortion, than all Americans should be able to get an abortion. If any American can vote at 18, than all Americans should be able to vote at 18.

States rights got us into a civil war. Some states felt that people were property to be owned. Apparently some states still do. I served in the U.S armed forces, not the confederate armed forces, and certainly not in any state militia. All states should have to abide by the U.S. Constitution that they signed off on. Respect the bill of rights. Quit trying to enslave the masses.

I didn't moralize the decision of these bills I just pointed out what I thought the real reason might be. So, people can take it with a grain of salt or stop and think about what the real reason would be to cause 15 states to go head to head with the Federal Gov't over laws that were passed decades ago and ratified through the courts numerous times since.

It just doesn't make sense that they'd all be willing to put this much time and effort into a losing cause if there wasn't some return in the end for them. Which, is why I thought about the states rights angle. But, if you or anyone else has another reason (other than the usual "all people on the right are all Nazi's racist, homophobic, misogynists" ones that get trotted out everytime a topic like this comes up) this many states would collectively lose their minds feel free to put it out there because I'd be interested to hear it.

[BeaverFever]

I say it again: the explicitly stated objective of the red state anti-abortionists is to spark a constitutional challenge and overturn Roe v Wade now that there is a Republican majority in SCOTUS. This is not conspiracy theory they’ve all publicly said it outright.

[stratos]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I say it again: the explicitly stated objective of the red state anti-abortionists is to spark a constitutional challenge and overturn Roe v Wade now that there is a Republican majority in SCOTUS. This is not conspiracy theory they’ve all publicly said it outright.

Considering Roe vs Wade was based on a lie. Why shouldn't it be over turned? Seriously I don't agree with no abortion. Alabama IMO went to far and without reading Georgia's I think they went a bit to far also. 3 months is more than enough time. I could throw out stats and what not showing how few of the abortions in the US is from rape. Thing is if you don't allow for those few instances that do justify abortions you have set up a law to fail.

I'm not against wiping the laws off the books and redoing them with the intent to save lives yet not force rape and incest victims along with some other circumstances to carry a baby to full term.

[Tricks]

stratos stratos:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I say it again: the explicitly stated objective of the red state anti-abortionists is to spark a constitutional challenge and overturn Roe v Wade now that there is a Republican majority in SCOTUS. This is not conspiracy theory they’ve all publicly said it outright.

Considering Roe vs Wade was based on a lie.

Can you elaborate?

[stratos]

Tricks Tricks:

stratos stratos:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I say it again: the explicitly stated objective of the red state anti-abortionists is to spark a constitutional challenge and overturn Roe v Wade now that there is a Republican majority in SCOTUS. This is not conspiracy theory they’ve all publicly said it outright.

Considering Roe vs Wade was based on a lie.

Can you elaborate?

By now this may have been debunked but a few years ago I read a report or what ever about how "roe" recanted her statement about being raped. Then Claimed she was now anti abortion, then went back saying she was pro abortion. And some more stuff. Was kind of confusing. The basic gist of it was that she had lied so much about so many things dealing with the case and the after effects of it that nothing she had said could be taken as truth.

When I just tried to find it I couldn't but seen some new things (probably old by now but new to me) debunking some of the things I had read. Thus my comment about it being a lie might not hold weight in light of recent fact checking stuff.

Hope that makes sense.

[llama66]

I believe you reference this:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ary-216184
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/15/opin ... s-she.html

[stratos]

llama66 llama66:

I believe you reference this:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ary-216184
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/15/opin ... s-she.html

Not the same thing I read but yes it covers many of the same things that I had read a long time ago. Thanks