States Rights and Abortion Drugs

[rahl]

Your inability to understand any of those things well enough to provide *relevant* sources to the topic arent my problem and has no effect on reality.

I have repeatedly shown you why TX can't charge anyone. It's very, very basic constitutional law. Jurisdiction and standing preclude them from doing so.

I see you didnt address the text re: crimes/accessories where you finally...it took how many posts and red text?...saw you error. That's ok, didnt expect it.

I have made no errors in this thread. I have repeatedly shown you why TX can not charge or prosecute anyone with accessory.

 

[Lursa]

I have repeatedly shown you why TX can't charge anyone. It's very, very basic constitutional law. Jurisdiction and standing preclude them from doing so.

I have made no errors in this thread. I have repeatedly shown you why TX can not charge or prosecute anyone with accessory.

It's all there in black and white and red...and so it will remain. And per the red text, you still are. Posts 161 and 167 for reference (not yours, lol that's a waste of time now.)

Your inability to understand any of those things well enough to provide *relevant* sources to the topic arent my problem and has no effect on reality.​

​

I see you didnt address the text re: crimes/accessories where you finally...it took how many posts and red text?...saw you error. That's ok, didnt expect it.

 

[rahl]

It's all there in black and white and red...and so it will remain. And per the red text, you still are. Posts 161 and 167 for reference (not yours, lol that's a waste of time now.)

Ive shown you why TX can not charge or convict anyone of accessory. Standing and jurisdiction preclude them.

Your inability to understand any of those things well enough to provide *relevant* sources to the topic arent my problem and has no effect on reality.​

​

I see you didnt address the text re: crimes/accessories where you finally...it took how many posts and red text?...saw you error. That's ok, didnt expect it.

I've addressed and shown you why they can't do it. It's very basic constitutional law. That is not going to change, no matter how hard you troll this thread.

 

[Lursa]

Ive shown you why TX can not charge or convict anyone of accessory. Standing and jurisdiction preclude them.

I've addressed and shown you why they can't do it. It's very basic constitutional law. That is not going to change, no matter how hard you troll this thread.

It's all there in black and white and red...and so it will remain. And per the red text, you still are. Posts 161 and 167 for reference (not yours, lol that's a waste of time now.)​

​

Your inability to understand any of those things well enough to provide *relevant* sources to the topic arent my problem and has no effect on reality.​

​

I see you didnt address the text re: crimes/accessories where you finally...it took how many posts and red text?...saw you error. That's ok, didnt expect it.​

 

[rahl]

It's all there in black and white and red...and so it will remain. And per the red text, you still are. Posts 161 and 167 for reference (not yours, lol that's a waste of time now.)​

​

Your inability to understand any of those things well enough to provide *relevant* sources to the topic arent my problem and has no effect on reality.​

​

I see you didnt address the text re: crimes/accessories where you finally...it took how many posts and red text?...saw you error. That's ok, didnt expect it.​

I've shown you how and why TX can' charge anyone. This will not stop being true, not matter how many times you spam this same debunked and proven lie.

 

[Lursa]

I've shown you how and why TX can' charge anyone. This will not stop being true, not matter how many times you spam this same debunked and proven lie.

Why do you keep replying? You neeeeeed to be right? If you're right then posts 161 and 167 will prove it, you should be happy I posted them and everyone else can see you're right

Of course you never answered my question nor provided relevant sources for that but but that's also clear in the posts.

It's all there in black and white and red...and so it will remain. And per the red text, you still are. Posts 161 and 167 for reference (not yours, lol that's a waste of time now.)

Your inability to understand any of those things well enough to provide *relevant* sources to the topic arent my problem and has no effect on reality.

I see you didnt address the text re: crimes/accessories where you finally...it took how many posts and red text?...saw you error. That's ok, didnt expect it.​

 

[rahl]

Why do you keep replying?

To correct you.

You neeeeeed to be right?

I've been right since my first post. It's a debate forum.

If you're right then posts 161 and 167 will prove it, you should be happy I posted them and everyone else can see you're right

Of course you never answered my question nor provided relevant sources for that but but that's also clear in the posts.

It's all there in black and white and red...and so it will remain. And per the red text, you still are. Posts 161 and 167 for reference (not yours, lol that's a waste of time now.)​

​

Your inability to understand any of those things well enough to provide *relevant* sources to the topic arent my problem and has no effect on reality.​

​

I see you didnt address the text re: crimes/accessories where you finally...it took how many posts and red text?...saw you error. That's ok, didnt expect it.​

I've shown you how and why TX can' charge anyone. This will not stop being true, not matter how many times you spam this same debunked and proven lie.

 

[Lursa]

To correct you.

I've been right since my first post. It's a debate forum.

I've shown you how and why TX can' charge anyone. This will not stop being true, not matter how many times you spam this same debunked and proven lie.

Ooooooooo I know, I know....but why arent you satisfied that I posted your answers and that everyone can see them?

Again you'll never get me to accept that you answered my question in red or provided accurate sources for it...but why do you care what I think?

But hey! EVERYONE ELSE can see how right you are! I'm helping! Posts 161 and 167.

 

[rahl]

Ooooooooo I know, I know....but why arent you satisfied that I posted your answers and that everyone can see them?

Because you keep lying and saying I didn't provide you a source for why TX can't charge or prosecute someone.

Again you'll never get me to accept that you answered my question in red or provided accurate sources for it...but why do you care what I think?

But hey! EVERYONE ELSE can see how right you are! I'm helping! Posts 161 and 167.

Everyone reading knows I've shown you why TX has no standing or jurisdiction, and therefor is unable to charge anyone.

 

[Lursa]

Because you keep lying and saying I didn't provide you a source for why TX can't charge or prosecute someone.

I didnt ask that. We discussed that stuff MONTHS ago when it passed.

Everyone reading knows I've shown you why TX has no standing or jurisdiction, and therefor is unable to charge anyone.

Why arent you satisfied that I posted your answers and that everyone can see them?

Again you'll never get me to accept that you answered my question in red or provided accurate sources for it...but why do you care what I think?

But hey! EVERYONE ELSE can see how right you are! I'm helping! Posts 161 and 167.

 

[rahl]

I didnt ask that. We discussed that stuff MONTHS ago when it passed.

So you agree that TX has no ability to charge anyone with accessory. Good.

Why arent you satisfied that I posted your answers and that everyone can see them?

Because you seem to contest basic legal principles for some reason.

Again you'll never get me to accept that you answered my question in red or provided accurate sources for it...but why do you care what I think?

But hey! EVERYONE ELSE can see how right you are! I'm helping! Posts 161 and 167.

I've shown you how and why TX can' charge anyone. This will not stop being true, not matter how many times you spam this same debunked and proven lie.

 

[Lursa]

So you agree that TX has no ability to charge anyone with accessory. Good.

Because you seem to contest basic legal principles for some reason.

I've shown you how and why TX can' charge anyone.

Nah, I'm not discussing anything with you. I gave you mulltiple chances. You comported yourself exceptionally poorly. I had a solid reason for my key (red) question and that's the only thing I needed to forumulate further discussion on the TX law. It's still unanswered.

I'm not interested in discussing the overall TX law, it was discussed months ago, I told you that.

This will not stop being true, not matter how many times you spam this same debunked and proven lie.

Without my key question answered? Nope, ya didnt.

Now why not accept that if you're so right (about stuff I dont care about), everyone can see it in posts 161 and 167 or the entire rest of the conversation?

 

[rahl]

Nah, I'm not discussing anything with you.......................

There's nothing left to actually discuss. You have been shown how and why TX can not charge anyone.

 

[Lursa]

There's nothing left to actually discuss. You have been shown how and why TX can not charge anyone.

Nope, you still failed. TX can charge millions of people...but we (I) still dont know if they can charge someone as an accessory if they assisted with something that wasnt a crime. Too bad you refused to acknowledge the red in my posts 161 and 167. *sigh* and the red text was supposed to help you.

But clearly, you cant discuss it and I'm not interested in further discussion with you after your record of bad faith.

 

[rahl]

Nope, you still failed.

I have shown you otherwise.

TX can charge millions of people...but we (I) still dont know if they can charge someone as an accessory if they assisted with something that wasnt a crime.

You've been shown how and why they can't. They have no jurisdiction to do so.

Too bad you refused to acknowledge the red in my posts 161 and 167. *sigh* and the red text was supposed to help you.

But clearly, you cant discuss it and I'm not interested in further discussion with you after your record of bad faith.

I've shown you how and why TX can' charge anyone. This will not stop being true, not matter how many times you spam this same debunked and proven lie.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

This is spam

So is every other post he ever wrote. There is no reason to reply to him. He only joined this forum to be a troll.

 

[vegas giants]

So is every other post he ever wrote. There is no reason to reply to him. All he wants is the kind of replies you are giving him.

You are 100% right

 

[Lursa]

I have shown you otherwise.

You've been shown how and why they can't. They have no jurisdiction to do so.

I've shown you how and why TX can' charge anyone. This will not stop being true, not matter how many times you spam this same debunked and proven lie.

Nope, you still failed. TX can charge millions of people...but we (I) still dont know if they can charge someone as an accessory if they assisted with something that wasnt a crime. Too bad you refused to acknowledge the red in my posts 161 and 167. *sigh* and the red text was supposed to help you.

But clearly, you cant discuss it and I'm not interested in further discussion with you after your record of bad faith.

Edit: My question had nothing to do with jurisdiction/other state. Your humiliation must be pretty painful by now...yet you continue You clearly dont understand, sad....but I no longer require a response from you, so your posts now are just masochistic.

 

[Doug64]

@Lursa, in your quote of Federal law you bolded too much, the important section is this: " ... any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States ..." You notice who isn't included in that list? Any state laws, regulations, and agencies. The mere fact that the Federal government uses a particular definition for all Federal laws and regulations doesn't require that all states adopt the same definition for their laws and regulations.

Do pets or livestock have 'limited rights' not to be killed except by their owner's decisions? Wny or why not?

Killing someone else's pets or livestock is indeed unlawful. What it isn't, in any state I know of, is homicide. The only ones you can commit homicide against are people.

 

[Lursa]

@Lursa, in your quote of Federal law you bolded too much, the important section is this: " ... any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States ..." You notice who isn't included in that list? Any state laws, regulations, and agencies. The mere fact that the Federal government uses a particular definition for all Federal laws and regulations doesn't require that all states adopt the same definition for their laws and regulations.

The states 'dont have to' but they cannot make any laws where the state laws, when tracked or enforced,violate the person's Constitutional or federal civil rights. Well they can make such laws but if a case is challenged in federal court, the federal definition rules.

This is why no states so far, after RvW was overturned, have made having an abortion a crime. They've only made providing an abortion a crime. Alabama might be the only one, I'm not sure but if so, I cant wait...it will be an excellent case to be challenged in federal court.

If you disagree, please support your answer.

Killing someone else's pets or livestock is indeed unlawful. What it isn't, in any state I know of, is homicide. The only ones you can commit homicide against are people.

That doesnt change what I wrote. It doesnt even imply there are any rights for the unborn or that they have their own legal status. If you disagree, again, I ask you to show in any one of those state laws where they are. Again, AL is the only state trying that now, since RvW was overturned.

 

[Doug64]

The states 'dont have to' but they cannot make any laws where the state laws, when tracked or enforced,violate the person's Constitutional or federal civil rights.

There's no such thing as a Federal civil right, only Federal laws enforcing Constitutional civil rights--and the Supreme Court has already ruled that states have the right to place restrictions on abortions.

That doesnt change what I wrote. It doesnt even imply there are any rights for the unborn or that they have their own legal status. If you disagree, again, I ask you to show in any one of those state laws where they are. Again, AL is the only state trying that now, since RvW was overturned.

Since you ask, here's thirty states that provide limited recognition of the unborn as people through the entire pregnancy and another eight that do so for part of the pregnancy:

State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims - National Right to Life

National Right to Life Committee January 5, 2024 What appears below is a summary of the laws of the 39 states that recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in at least some circumstances. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, enacted April 1, 2004, covers unborn...

www.nrlc.org

 

[Lursa]

There's no such thing as a Federal civil right, only Federal laws enforcing Constitutional civil rights--

Fine, sometimes I write to the lowest denominator and use repetition to reinforce when I'm not sure if others will understand.

and the Supreme Court has already ruled that states have the right to place restrictions on abortions.

Where did I say they couldnt? What does that change in my response? Please respond to that directly.

Since you ask, here's thirty states that provide limited recognition of the unborn as people through the entire pregnancy and another eight that do so for part of the pregnancy:

State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims - National Right to Life

National Right to Life Committee January 5, 2024 What appears below is a summary of the laws of the 39 states that recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in at least some circumstances. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, enacted April 1, 2004, covers unborn...

www.nrlc.org

I've seen that list a million times, I asked you to show which of them recognized rights for the unborn? (AL the exception since Dobbs...and as yet untested)