Prediction : Trump w/R Congress and RvW

[Dragonfly]

I seriously doubt it. We've had republicans in control of the presidency and both houses of congress and RvW wasn't changed.

True, but did they also have an R controlled congress?

How many SCOTUS seats were open, and/or possibly going to be open during that time frame?

 

[OKgrannie]

No. He needs legal abortion for when his mistresses get knocked up.

He's always been pro choice and pro Planned Parenthood. He just said what his supporters wanted to hear in the campaign.

Trump can afford to send his mistresses out of the country for safe abortions. That has always been the issue with abortion: those with money can afford to get safe abortions elsewhere, but poor women have to risk illegal unsafe abortion or bear the child.

 

[OKgrannie]

No, even Trump has to much respect for women for making such an evil attack on women's nature-given rights.

There's no evidence of that.

 

[Dragonfly]

There's no evidence of that.

What? "nobody respects women more than I do" .... :lamo:yes::2rofll:

 

[OKgrannie]

That is absolutely the wrong answer.

Any form of Personhood status would require an Amendment. That's not going to happen. The government is a lot of things, but even the most stupid know the economic ramifications, which alone, would be damaging - exponentially damaging with each passing generation.

They don't need personhood status. All they need to do is rule that it's a state issue. Most of the states will move immediately to ban legal abortion, perhaps leaving it legal in cases of rape, incest, and threat to the life of the woman. Legality in cases of rape and incest is very much in doubt in those states. These people don't care about economic ramifications, they care about control. Many of them think, contrary to casual observation, that women will be more careful about having sex if abortion isn't available. That's really what anti-abortion is about, keeping women from choosing to have illicit sex.

 

[OKgrannie]

What? "nobody respects women more than I do" .... :lamo:yes::2rofll:

Yeah, grabbing them by the ____ is REAL respectful.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

They claim that that is on the agenda. But the problem they'll encounter is the Constitution itself. Roe v Wade was an admission by government that it had been Constitutionally denying women their right to abort since 1868, when the 14th Amendment was established. And the language contained in the 14th reaches into other Amendments. So women's right to abort are enmeshed with several Amendments - trying to overturn it will violate both equal protection under the law and due process under the law, not to mention unjustly denying liberty that includes the right to privacy.

What I would like is a Supreme Court that understands that the 14th Amendment was not ratified constitutionally and void it and all decisions using it. If you have ever read its false pedigree, the sordid history behind this impostor amendment you would understand... but of course, since this false amendment fills your current needs, you would not agree and actually fail to understand as we have had these conversations before.

Good thing is, Trump has already questioned the 14th specifically. And I think all states who did not feel comfortable with murdering our unborn children could justifiably refuse, stand on the fact that this is not an amendment that passes Constitutional muster.

Read the actual history of its ratification prior to replying please. Ignorance and rank opinion are not suitable to persuade.

With one and potentially more SC justices appointed, seems RvW could also, indeed, be overturned. Hip hip, Hurrah!!!

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Yeah, grabbing them by the ____ is REAL respectful.

Especially, as he stated, if they let you. Come on grannie, if you are a grandma, you have a little experience in this area, so to speak, I am quite sure.

I can tell you, on the other end, I have been grabbed without permission by girls. Especially back in my high school days, and they were just known, most of them, as teases, **** teases. Ever heard of that?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

I seriously doubt it. We've had republicans in control of the presidency and both houses of congress and RvW wasn't changed.

True, but did they also have an R controlled congress?

How many SCOTUS seats were open, and/or possibly going to be open during that time frame?

To the both of you... anybody remember that ****ing heinous atrocity known as partial birth abortion? Remember a president by the name of GWBush? Recall what happened to partial birth abortion by any chance? Maybe check out Gonzales v. Carhart Supreme Court decision...

 

[prometeus]

What I would like is a Supreme Court that understands that the 14th Amendment was not ratified constitutionally and void it and all decisions using it. If you have ever read its false pedigree, the sordid history behind this impostor amendment you would understand... but of course, since this false amendment fills your current needs, you would not agree and actually fail to understand as we have had these conversations before.

Good thing is, Trump has already questioned the 14th specifically. And I think all states who did not feel comfortable with murdering our unborn children could justifiably refuse, stand on the fact that this is not an amendment that passes Constitutional muster.

Yes, Trump and a whole bunch of other ignorant morons have questioned the 14th, yet it is and will remain part of the Constitution and people like you will not succeed in removing it nor will its role and meaning be perverted or invalidated. You will just have to learn to deal with it.

 

[prometeus]

My condolences - your loss must be bitter and debilitating.

I haven't lost anything, but even if I had word for you and the like of you still remain meaningless and contemptible.

 

[prometeus]

You're 'way wrong.
The guy you're addressing may be opposite me politically but he's polite and even-handed and doesn't beak off unless he has a point to make.
Unlike some others...

:lamo:lamo:lamo right....

 

[OKgrannie]

Especially, as he stated, if they let you. Come on grannie, if you are a grandma, you have a little experience in this area, so to speak, I am quite sure.

I can tell you, on the other end, I have been grabbed without permission by girls. Especially back in my high school days, and they were just known, most of them, as teases, **** teases. Ever heard of that?

I've heard of them, I've just never seen them. I feel so bad for you, those big bad girls overwhelming a little bitty man. They didn't have much respect for you, did they?

 

[OKgrannie]

What I would like is a Supreme Court that understands that the 14th Amendment was not ratified constitutionally and void it and all decisions using it. If you have ever read its false pedigree, the sordid history behind this impostor amendment you would understand... but of course, since this false amendment fills your current needs, you would not agree and actually fail to understand as we have had these conversations before.

Good thing is, Trump has already questioned the 14th specifically. And I think all states who did not feel comfortable with murdering our unborn children could justifiably refuse, stand on the fact that this is not an amendment that passes Constitutional muster.

Read the actual history of its ratification prior to replying please. Ignorance and rank opinion are not suitable to persuade.

With one and potentially more SC justices appointed, seems RvW could also, indeed, be overturned. Hip hip, Hurrah!!!

If RvW is overturned, what do you expect would happen? Describe how the world would change, please.

 

[Fishking]

If you would just grow up and admit your mistake, rather than continually repeating the same mistake ... I would not have to continue to remind you of it

Lololol...you do realize you've done nothing to support your statement aside from stating you're right and I'm wrong. Here, I'll help you out.

Child | Child Definition by Merriam-Webster

Full Definition of child
plural children play \ˈchil-drən, -dərn\

1 a : an unborn or recently born person
b dial : a female infant

2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth
b : a childlike or childish person
c : a person not yet of age

3 usually childe play \ˈchī(-ə)ld\ archaic : a youth of noble birth

 

[Trippy Trekker]

Forbes quote of the day: "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undertake to support it." Thomas Paine

Just for a moment, indulge my wondering mind - has anyone else contemplated the current prison thoughts of former Illinois Gov. Blagojevich and former House Speaker Hastert? Maybe they attend daily 12 step programs and no longer have an interest in politics?

Back to the subject of Team Trump's projected influence on Roe v. Wade - In spite of Trump's obvious pandering and prospect of working with a Republican Congress, he does not seem to have any firm principled view on abortions. Picture Trump in debate accusing Hillary of supporting a woman's right to tear a baby from it's womb with reckless abandon on the last day of the 40th week... yeah- staged professional wrestling bravado comes to mind ... can I even admit it here all the times I performed late term abortions on healthy women using a coat hanger and tools from my garage?
Pence, on the other hand, in a calm reassuring voice, has for decades declared his unwavering love for all things ultra-conservative. Pence, likewise, has years of hands on legislative experience... though, correct me if I'm wrong... none of his Federal initiatives ever passed. He had more success as Governor of Indiana. God Bless the Good People of Indiana! Let's see how their mob holds up to the National Pro-Choice Mob.

One last indulgence - Trump's bravado reminds me of Gen. Patton. Call me a Conspiracy Theorist if you want. I think 1940s era Spy Agencies, the OSS and NKVD took out Gen. Patton when Patton threatened to disrupt the New World Order and The Marshall Plan. I think Trump may not know how to adjust his core personality to the liking of the secret people who really run the world! But what do I... a 60 year old hippie-intellectual from Florida.. really know? I know this... Trump loves Celebrity and the Spotlight... and to expect a World Wide spectacular fireworks show! Yee Haw!

 

[Removable Mind]

RvW isnt an Amendment. A law is all that is needed.

No, it's not an Amendment, but the inclusion of a fetus to be recognized as person in the same manner as born person will require an Amendment. I didn't say that Roe v Wade can't be overturned. That doesn't require an Amendment. But all that does is significantly diminish rights of women, not add rights to the yet to be born.

 

[Removable Mind]

Step 1: Supreme Court says so.

To overturn Roe v Wade - NO, an Amendment is not needed. To recognize any stage of the yet to be born as a person, yes, an Amendment will be necessary.

Please link me to a SC citation that says that it can, at will, do otherwise.

 

[Removable Mind]

What I would like is a Supreme Court that understands that the 14th Amendment was not ratified constitutionally and void it and all decisions using it. If you have ever read its false pedigree, the sordid history behind this impostor amendment you would understand... but of course, since this false amendment fills your current needs, you would not agree and actually fail to understand as we have had these conversations before.

Good thing is, Trump has already questioned the 14th specifically. And I think all states who did not feel comfortable with murdering our unborn children could justifiably refuse, stand on the fact that this is not an amendment that passes Constitutional muster.

Read the actual history of its ratification prior to replying please. Ignorance and rank opinion are not suitable to persuade.

With one and potentially more SC justices appointed, seems RvW could also, indeed, be overturned. Hip hip, Hurrah!!!

You've been repeatedly make this fairly tale claim for eons. Prove it!

 

[Henrin]

Lololol...you do realize you've done nothing to support your statement aside from stating you're right and I'm wrong. Here, I'll help you out.

Child | Child Definition by Merriam-Webster

Full Definition of child
plural children play \ˈchil-drən, -dərn\

1 a : an unborn or recently born person
b dial : a female infant

2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth
b : a childlike or childish person
c : a person not yet of age

3 usually childe play \ˈchī(-ə)ld\ archaic : a youth of noble birth

I have found over my time here that pro-choice posters have trouble with definitions.

 

[Henrin]

To overturn Roe v Wade - NO, an Amendment is not needed. To recognize any stage of the yet to be born as a person, yes, an Amendment will be necessary.

Please link me to a SC citation that says that it can, at will, do otherwise.

:lol: That last bit doesn't even make sense. The SC can overturn anything it has said in the past. There is no such thing as a citation by them that is stuck in stone and is untouchable to them.

 

[Henrin]

Yeah, grabbing them by the ____ is REAL respectful.

Did you watch the video of that? Trump never said the last bit that people are accusing him of saying.

 

[Bodi]

No, it's not an Amendment, but the inclusion of a fetus to be recognized as person in the same manner as born person will require an Amendment. I didn't say that Roe v Wade can't be overturned. That doesn't require an Amendment. But all that does is significantly diminish rights of women, not add rights to the yet to be born.

You have yet to explain why it requires an Amendment...

 

[Removable Mind]

They don't need personhood status. All they need to do is rule that it's a state issue. Most of the states will move immediately to ban legal abortion, perhaps leaving it legal in cases of rape, incest, and threat to the life of the woman. Legality in cases of rape and incest is very much in doubt in those states. These people don't care about economic ramifications, they care about control. Many of them think, contrary to casual observation, that women will be more careful about having sex if abortion isn't available. That's really what anti-abortion is about, keeping women from choosing to have illicit sex.

OKG, the original claim was that the SC could create a personhood status for the yet to be born at will.

We know that Roe v Wade isn't an Amendment, but the inclusion of a fetus to be recognized as person in the same manner as born person will require an Amendment. I didn't say that Roe v Wade can't be overturned. That doesn't require an Amendment. But all that does is significantly diminish rights of women, not add rights to the yet to be born.

And to those who believe that Roe v Wade is a law. It is not. The Roe v Wade decision was an admission by government that it had been denying women the right to due process under the law (along with other Constitutional provisions) as defined in the 14th Amendment...since 1868.

 

[Removable Mind]

You have yet to explain why it requires an Amendment...

I have too many times. You've personally read why it will require such.

Later, Bodh.