I've noticed something has changed about the abortion debate on DP

[The Baron]

And that is your belief ….Not ours.

At least you concede that murdering innocent children in your religious belief.

Sad.

 

[Gordy327]

The very world around you.

Oh! How so?

We don't have to be in a theocracy to consider "God's view". After all, this is a country based on Chrisitianity.

While others like drugs and prostitution still exist.

How does an individual's drug use harm society? It doesn't. It harms the individual.

And how does prostitution harm society? It doesn't. It harms no one.

And no imaginary "harms" can be used by the government to justify making them illegal. They are only legal because of a moral basis.


Agreed.

Are you trying to suggest that someone can be a person without being human?

This is nonsense and I think you know that.

If you are human--which fetuses are--then you are also a person.

How is the world proof of god exactly?

 

[The Baron]

How is the world proof of god exactly?

It is evidence of His creative power.

I know. You don't believe me and I'm never going to change your mind but my point is still valid.

 

[Gordy327]

It is evidence of His creative power.

I know. You don't believe me and I'm never going to change your mind but my point is still valid.

What point? All you have is an empty claim based on mere assumption.

 

[minnie616]

At least you concede that murdering innocent children in your religious belief.

Sad.

False I said it was not our belief.
We do not not believe an unborn is a child in fact many of us sincerely believe that the Bible plainly says that life begins when a newborn takes its it first breath.

The Bible referees to it as the breath of life.

Does your faith think differently?

Judge me …
It matters not.

In fact Back in the 1960s Evangelicals used to be believe that life came with live birth also.

1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception and abortion, among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:

“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: 'If a man kills any human life he will be put to death' (Lev. 24:17).
But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense…

Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”

 

[The Baron]

What point? All you have is an empty claim based on mere assumption.

That blade cuts both ways.

 

[Gordy327]

That blade cuts both ways.

You're the one making the grandiose claims, not me.

 

[Lursa]

A moral authority.

Which one? That's why we have a COnst and laws...so people with personal or corrupted morality cant force it on others. Or at least, that's the hope.

The immorality of the pro-life perspective, *if* those people believe their opinion, morality, or beliefs should be imposed by law on others...is not an authority the rest of us have to follow.

I'm glad to see you concede that the fetus is a life.

I have never ever claimed or written it's not. I have a science degree.

And the Constitution is quite clear on the matter. Life cannot be taken without due process of law.

And where in the Const does it say that? Quote the amendment please. (We've been thru this so either you are lying or sadly and conveniently forgetful).

 

[Lursa]

From :

Mercian- Webster

​

Definition of precedent




precedent
noun
prec·e·dent | \ ˈpre-sə-dənt \
1: an earlier occurrence of something similar

2a: something done or said that may serve as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kinda verdict that had no precedent
b: the convention established by such a precedent or by long practice
3: a person or thing that serves as a model


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/precedent

Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee: I think the case that most people are thinking about right now and the case that every nominee gets asked about, Roe v. Wade, can you tell me whether Roe was decided correctly?

Gorsuch: Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.

Grassley: What about Griswold, which was decided a few years before Roe, the case where the Court found constitutional right to privacy? Can you tell me your views on Griswold?

Gorsuch: Senator, it is a precedent that is now 50 years old. Griswold involved the right of married couples to use contraceptive devices in the privacy of their own home. And it is 50 years old. The reliance interests are obvious. It has been repeatedly reaffirmed. All very important factors again in analyzing precedent.

Thanks Minnie. OTOH, it's the word "implied" that I think he needs the dictionary for.

But the quotes are much appreciated and clear.

 

[Lursa]

Well where does a born person's right to life come from? Do born people even have a right to life? What authority do you follow which says so?

If you dont know the answer to that, why do you believe that the unborn have a right to life?

Rights are a man-made concept. They are recognized, codified, enforced, and protected by an authority. In the US, that authority is the Const.

I'm sorry you didnt know this. FYI, the Const does not recognize rights for the unborn. So in the US, the unborn dont have rights. (I feel like I have to be really really specific for you)

 

[NatMorton]

From :

Mercian- Webster

​

Definition of precedent




precedent
noun
prec·e·dent | \ ˈpre-sə-dənt \
1: an earlier occurrence of something similar

2a: something done or said that may serve as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kinda verdict that had no precedent
b: the convention established by such a precedent or by long practice
3: a person or thing that serves as a model


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/precedent

Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee: I think the case that most people are thinking about right now and the case that every nominee gets asked about, Roe v. Wade, can you tell me whether Roe was decided correctly?

Gorsuch: Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.

Grassley: What about Griswold, which was decided a few years before Roe, the case where the Court found constitutional right to privacy? Can you tell me your views on Griswold?

Gorsuch: Senator, it is a precedent that is now 50 years old. Griswold involved the right of married couples to use contraceptive devices in the privacy of their own home. And it is 50 years old. The reliance interests are obvious. It has been repeatedly reaffirmed. All very important factors again in analyzing precedent.

You should read more carefully. The lines you quoted prove my point and refute Lursa’s (and yours):

• “So a good judge will consider it as precedent”
• “All very important factors again in analyzing precedent.”

These are statements that assert precedent matters, not that precedent is immutable. Any claim to the contrary is either misreading those worse or, as other have done, lying about them.

 

[minnie616]

You should read more carefully. The lines you quoted prove my point and refute Lursa’s (and yours):

• “So a good judge will consider it as precedent”
• “All very important factors again in analyzing precedent.”

These are statements that assert precedent matters, not that precedent is immutable. Any claim to the contrary is either misreading those worse or, as other have done, lying about them.

Yes , the Justices did indeed misled the public when they used the word precedent.

Saying that the precent had been reviewed several times. ….( actually Roe had been Reveiwed over 10 in the first 40 years by several different Supreme Courts and all of those Courts agreed that the right to privacy extended to a doctor and his parents including pregnant patients.

We have HIPAA laws in the US protecting a patients rights.

Your Rights Under HIPAA​

This guidance remains in effect only to the extent that it is consistent with the court’s order in Ciox Health, LLC v. Azar, No. 18-cv-0040 (D.D.C. January 23, 2020), which may be found at https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2018cv0040-51. More information about the order is available at https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/court-order-right-of-access/index.html

 

[Bear5131]

False I said it was not our belief.
We do not not believe an unborn is a child in fact many of us sincerely believe that the Bible plainly says that life begins when a newborn takes its it first breath.

The Bible referees to it as the breath of life.

Does your faith think differently?

Judge me …
It matters not.

In fact Back in the 1960s Evangelicals used to be believe that life came with live birth also.

1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception and abortion, among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:

“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: 'If a man kills any human life he will be put to death' (Lev. 24:17).
But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense…

Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”

Never read the book of Deuteronomy ?


However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:16You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country.17Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed.18The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks.19You will be cursed when you come in and cursed when you go out.20The LORD will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him. [1]21The LORD will plague you with diseases until he has destroyed you from the land you are entering to possess.22The LORD will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish.23The sky over your head will be bronze, the ground beneath you iron.24The LORD will turn the rain of your country into dust and powder; it will come down from the skies until you are destroyed.25The LORD will cause you to be defeated before your enemies. You will come at them from one direction but flee from them in seven, and you will become a thing of horror to all the kingdoms on earth.26Your carcasses will be food for all the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and there will be no one to frighten them away.27The LORD will afflict you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors, festering sores and the itch, from which you cannot be cured.28The LORD will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind.29At midday you will grope about like a blind man in the dark. You will be unsuccessful in everything you do; day after day you will be oppressed and robbed, with no one to rescue you.30You will be pledged to be married to a woman, but another will take her and ravish her. You will build a house, but you will not live in it. You will plant a vineyard, but you will not even begin to enjoy its fruit.31Your ox will be slaughtered before your eyes, but you will eat none of it. Your donkey will be forcibly taken from you and will not be returned. Your sheep will be given to your enemies, and no one will rescue them.32Your sons and daughters will be given to another nation, and you will wear out your eyes watching for them day after day, powerless to lift a hand.33A people that you do not know will eat what your land and labor produce, and you will have nothing but cruel oppression all your days.34The sights you see will drive you mad.35The LORD will afflict your knees and legs with painful boils that cannot be cured, spreading from the soles of your feet to the top of your head.36The LORD will drive you and the king you set over you to a nation unknown to you or your fathers. There you will worship other gods, gods of wood and stone.37You will become a thing of horror and an object of scorn and ridicule to all the nations where the LORD will drive you.38You will sow much seed in the field but you will harvest little, because locusts will devour it.39You will plant vineyards and cultivate them but you will not drink the wine or gather the grapes, because worms will eat them.40You will have olive trees throughout your country but you will not use the oil, because the olives will drop off.41You will have sons and daughters but you will not keep them, because they will go into..

 

[minnie616]

Never read the book of Deuteronomy ?


However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:16You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country.17Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed.18The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks.19You will be cursed when you come in and cursed when you go out.20The LORD will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him. [1]21The LORD will plague you with diseases until he has destroyed you from the land you are entering to possess.22The LORD will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish.23The sky over your head will be bronze, the ground beneath you iron.24The LORD will turn the rain of your country into dust and powder; it will come down from the skies until you are destroyed.25The LORD will cause you to be defeated before your enemies. You will come at them from one direction but flee from them in seven, and you will become a thing of horror to all the kingdoms on earth.26Your carcasses will be food for all the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and there will be no one to frighten them away.27The LORD will afflict you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors, festering sores and the itch, from which you cannot be cured.28The LORD will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind.29At midday you will grope about like a blind man in the dark. ..

Thank you for your post.
I had to shorten it in order to post my reply.

The breath of life is mentioned over 40 times in the King James Version of the BIBle.

I want to explain more about “ breath of LIFE “

Let’s go back to the Jewish word Nephish for breath .

The word Nephish is used to describe breath but a “ living soul” is is different then just being alive.

Yes , an unborn is scientifically alive but according to our believe it is not yet a “ living soul “ and will not become a “ living soul” until it takes its first breath.

I have posted the wiki link explaining Nephish and the “ living soul “ many times before but I will repost again :%;


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephesh#:~:text=Nephesh (נֶ֫פֶשׁ‎ nép̄eš) is,the Bible as having nephesh.



Nephesh (נֶ֫פֶשׁ‎ nép̄eš) is a Biblical Hebrew word which occurs in the Hebrew Bible. The word refers to the aspects of sentience, and human beings and other animals are both described as having nephesh.[1][2] Plants, as an example of live organisms, are not referred in the Bible as having nephesh. The term נפש‎ is literally "soul", although it is commonly rendered as "life" in English translations.[3] One view is that nephesh relates to sentient being without the idea of life and that, rather than having a nephesh, a sentient creation of God is a nephesh.

In Genesis 2:7 the text is not that Adam was given a nephesh but that Adam "became a living nephesh." Nephesh when put with another word can detail aspects related to the concept of nephesh; with רוּחַ‎ rûach ("spirit") it describes a part of mankind that is immaterial, like one's mind, emotions, will, intellect, personality, and conscience, as in Job 7:11.[4][5]

Read more at the link:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephesh#:~:text=Nephesh (נֶ֫פֶשׁ‎ nép̄eš) is,the Bible as having nephesh

 

[Bear5131]

Thank you for your post.
I had to shorten it in order to post my reply.

The breath of life is mentioned over 40 times in the King James Version of the BIBle.

I want to explain more about “ breath of LIFE “

Let’s go back to the Jewish word Nephish for breath .

The word Nephish is used to describe breath but a “ living soul” is is different then just being alive.

Yes , an unborn is scientifically alive but according to our believe it is not yet a “ living soul “ and will not become a “ living soul” until it takes its first breath.

I have posted the wiki link explaining Nephish and the “ living soul “ many times before but I will repost again :%;


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephesh#:~:text=Nephesh (נֶ֫פֶשׁ‎ nép̄eš) is,the Bible as having nephesh.



Nephesh (נֶ֫פֶשׁ‎ nép̄eš) is a Biblical Hebrew word which occurs in the Hebrew Bible. The word refers to the aspects of sentience, and human beings and other animals are both described as having nephesh.[1][2] Plants, as an example of live organisms, are not referred in the Bible as having nephesh. The term נפש‎ is literally "soul", although it is commonly rendered as "life" in English translations.[3] One view is that nephesh relates to sentient being without the idea of life and that, rather than having a nephesh, a sentient creation of God is a nephesh.

In Genesis 2:7 the text is not that Adam was given a nephesh but that Adam "became a living nephesh." Nephesh when put with another word can detail aspects related to the concept of nephesh; with רוּחַ‎ rûach ("spirit") it describes a part of mankind that is immaterial, like one's mind, emotions, will, intellect, personality, and conscience, as in Job 7:11.[4][5]

Read more at the link:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephesh#:~:text=Nephesh (נֶ֫פֶשׁ‎ nép̄eš) is,the Bible as having nephesh

Thanks for clarification, I really want to learn Hebrew I am sick of all these English translations of the old testament

 

[NatMorton]

Yes , the Justices did indeed misled the public when they used the word precedent.

Saying that the precent had been reviewed several times. ….( actually Roe had been Reveiwed over 10 in the first 40 years by several different Supreme Courts and all of those Courts agreed that the right to privacy extended to a doctor and his parents including pregnant patients.

We have HIPAA laws in the US protecting a patients rights.

Your Rights Under HIPAA​

This guidance remains in effect only to the extent that it is consistent with the court’s order in Ciox Health, LLC v. Azar, No. 18-cv-0040 (D.D.C. January 23, 2020), which may be found at https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2018cv0040-51. More information about the order is available at https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/court-order-right-of-access/index.html

No, they didn’t mislead the public. You’re twisting their words so you can claim the lied. They didn’t. You’re simply making a dishonest attempt to impugn their motives (the hallmark of a weak argument).

 

[minnie616]

No, they didn’t mislead the public. You’re twisting their words so you can claim the lied. They didn’t. You’re simply making a dishonest attempt to impugn their motives (the hallmark of a weak argument.

I disagree.

Let us take the following quote :

Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee: I think the case that most people are thinking about right now and the case that every nominee gets asked about, Roe v. Wade, can you tell me whether Roe was decided correctly?

Gorsuch: Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.Casey reaffirmed the right of a woman to have an abortion before viability.

When CaseyV Planned Parenthood was decided in 1992 ( 19 years after Roe was decided)
That case reaffirmed that a woman had a right to have an abortion under certain circumstances. Let’s review when Casey V Planned Parenthood was decided and many conservatives were hopeful that Roe would be overturned , it was not overturned.

From Landmark cases:

Because the make-up of the Court had changed and become more conservative since Roe was first decided, many people believed that the Court might use this case to overturn Roe altogether.

In a 5-4 decision the Court reaffirmed its commitment to Roe and to the basic right of a woman to have an abortion under certain circumstances.

Justice O’Connor, who authored the majority opinion, argued that stare decisis required the Court to not overturn Roe. Stare decisis is the general principal that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from.

(However, the doctrine of stare decisis is not always relied upon. From time to time, the Court overrules earlier precedent that the Justices believe had been wrongly decided.) O’Connor argued that a generation of women had come to depend on the right to an abortion. Nonetheless, certain restrictions were upheld.

As a result of the case, a woman continues to have a right to an abortion before the fetus is viable (before the fetus could live independently outside of the mother’s womb). The Court held that states cannot prohibit abortion prior to viability. However, the states can regulate abortions before viability as long as the regulation does not place an “undue burden” on the access to abortion. After fetal viability, however, states have increased power to restrict the availability of abortions.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases | The Casey Case: Roe Revisited?

…………….

In fact the best the Conservative justices could give their conservative base was to add the undue burden clause.

Which actually came back to ( much to the dismay of ) Texas conservatives who tried to pass laws requiring all abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.


Look at : (2016)Whole woman’s Health v Hellerstedt
Here is the link for the landmark case Casey revisited

https://www.landmarkcases.org/asset...her/word/activity_casey_case_roe_teacher.docx

 

[NatMorton]

Gorsuch: Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.Casey reaffirmed the right of a woman to have an abortion before viability.

You’re not going to win this argument with volume. Let’s take just what you’ve put in bold here.

At the time of this questioning, was Roe a precedent? Yes. Has Roe been reaffirmed (i.e. applied and not overturned) in earlier cases to that point? Yes. Neither of these two statements equates to anything like “And I agree Roe should not be overturned, ever.”

You’re just not thinking clearly or you’re willfully misinterpreting these words. Only you know for sure.

 

[minnie616]

You’re not going to win this argument with volume. Let’s take just what you’ve put in bold here.

At the time of this questioning, was Roe a precedent? Yes. Has Roe been reaffirmed (i.e. applied and not overturned) in earlier cases to that point? Yes. Neither of these two statements equates to anything like “And I agree Roe should not be overturned, ever.”

You’re just not thinking clearly or you’re willfully misinterpreting these words. Only you know for sure.

I have bad eyesight. ( I also have dyslexia) so I use bolding to help me make sure I made the points I want to make.
I don’t consider it as shouting or volume but I understand you of others may think that.

Actually, I had a strong feeling that the new Justices would side more with pro life and I was interested in what their reasoning would be.

I could understood if they had tried to say the states compelling interest came before viability but
I am very disappointed they took the coward way out and just arbitrarily said , right to privacy does not count for women.

And I really think the following phrase about the domestic supply of infants totally within the draft opinion penned by Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett was totally unreasoned.

The draft refers to adoption as a reason for abortion to be overturned, a common argument from pro-forced birth groups. The draft references nearly 1 million women who were seeking to adopt in 2002, “whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted has become virtually nonexistent.”

Less than 1 percent of Women in the U. S. gives a newborn up for adoption.

Even if a poor woman cold not travel for an abortion and continued her pregnancy to birth.
That would mean another baby reliant on welfare.


Let me repeat :
“whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted has become virtually nonexistent.”

I just cannot fathom that as a main reason why the Justices think that is a common argument for overturning Roe.

I knew the majority of Justices on the Court are conservative, but I hoped they would be more reasonable and perhaps just push the time for choice back a bit ( allowing for exceptions in catastrophic fetal defects that will not normally show up until the 18 to 20 week ultrasound ).

 

[Atreus21]

If you dont know the answer to that, why do you believe that the unborn have a right to life?

Rights are a man-made concept. They are recognized, codified, enforced, and protected by an authority. In the US, that authority is the Const.

Okay then. So if the constitution were amended to say the unborn had a right to life, you'd thus oppose abortion?

 

[NatMorton]

I have bad eyesight. ( I also have dyslexia) so I use bolding to help me make sure I made the points I want to make.
I don’t consider it as volume but I understand other may think that.

Actually, I had a strong feeling that the new Justices would side more with pro life and I was interested in what their reasoning would be.

I could understood if they had tried to say the states compelling interest came before viability but
I am very disappointed they took the coward way out and just arbitrarily said , right to privacy does not count for women.

They didn’t side with “pro life.” The sided with the rule of law, and there is no federal law that justifies overturning the act of a duly elected state legislature when it comes to abortion bans.

Had they been “pro life” in the way you imply they would have themselves engaged in judicial activism and found a fetal right to life in the Constitution, They did not; they left the decision to the people and their state governments, as they should have.

 

[weaver2]

At the time of this questioning, was Roe a precedent? Yes. Has Roe been reaffirmed (i.e. applied and not overturned) in earlier cases to that point? Yes. Neither of these two statements equates to anything like “And I agree Roe should not be overturned, ever.”

Technically you are right. Gorsuch, Barrett or Kavanaugh never said Roe was settled law that could not be overturned. What they did was explain meanings and terms without linking their statements to Roe directly. Their words were not lies but their performances were dishonest. Anybody, like Susan Collins that believed them was a fool. They were selected by the Federalist Society and the religious right to do exactly what they are doing now; overturning Roe. We have 5 people on the SC that do not respect women.

 

[NatMorton]

Technically you are right. Gorsuch, Barrett or Kavanaugh never said Roe was settled law that could not be overturned. What they did was explain meanings and terms without linking their statements to Roe directly. Their words were not lies but their performances were dishonest. Anybody, like Susan Collins that believed them was a fool. They were selected by the Federalist Society and the religious right to do exactly what they are doing now; overturning Roe. We have 5 people on the SC that do not respect women.

Nonsense. What they said was factually true. What Collins is doing is an exercise in CYA; it is she who is being less than honest.

 

[minnie616]

Technically you are right. Gorsuch, Barrett or Kavanaugh never said Roe was settled law that could not be overturned. What they did was explain meanings and terms without linking their statements to Roe directly. Their words were not lies but their performances were dishonest. Anybody, like Susan Collins that believed them was a fool. They were selected by the Federalist Society and the religious right to do exactly what they are doing now; overturning Roe. We have 5 people on the SC that do not respect women.

I agree.

The Bill of Rights includes Separation of Church and State and Freedom of Religion.

There are many different Christian Religions and there are many different tenets among the Christian religions.

I find it really interesting that there were letters written between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson because the Baptists were concerned about the separation of church and state. Those letters led to the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights led to the Right to privacy.

The right to privacy between a woman and her doctor is the basis upon which Roe vs Wade was decided.


Fast forward to 2022 .
We have 5 Justices now that side with the Religious Right and 3 Justices that side with the State.

I really do not think that when the Bill of Rights and the Separation of Church and State was written that the Danbury Baptists or Thomas Jefferson quite envisioned that type of separation/scenario.

 

[weaver2]

Nonsense. What they said was factually true.

Yes, that's what I said. Their performance at their appointment hearings was dishonest in light of what they are doing now on the court. However, in light of their past decisions and statements they are anti-abortion and true to their belief. That's why I said look at past statements and decisions not at what they say in SC appointment hearings.

What Collins is doing is an exercise in CYA; it is she who is being less than honest.

I lived in Maine for a very long time. I am familiar with Collins. She is terminally naive about other politicians. Kavanaugh was a political hack before he was a SC justice, she should never have believed him. She isn't playing CYA. She is whining because she believed a slime ball.