Wow, what a rotten solution. Forcing a 10-year old to go through the pregnancy and all the mental anguish that brings, then put her through the mental anguish of putting the child for adoption, and then putting the child in the hands of others that are not his real parents, and then last but not lease how does this insure the mental health of all involved?1. Article is garbage. Barely talks about the 10 year old,and gives no context of her circumstances. Also, funny how there is no mention of the rapist. It's almost like it's a made up story!
2. She can carry the child to term, and put it up for adoption. Problem solved.
Wow, what a rotten solution. Forcing a 10-year old to go through the pregnancy and all the mental anguish that brings, then put her through the mental anguish of putting the child for adoption, and then putting the child in the hands of others that are not his real parents, and then last but not lease how does this insure the mental health of all involved?
For what? to not hurt a fetus?
As a side issue. It has been estimated that about 63 million abortions have occurred since Roe vs Wade was passed. How has that affected the U.S. in any way. Why would preventing one more abortion from occurring held anyone?
Not sure why this is so difficult for you to grasp, but Roe was SETTLED LAW, and this was challenged over and over and withstood all challenges which is why Trump's religious nutjobs lied under oath and said they accepted it. Why pass a law for something that's already law? And you're wrong about how the democrats could have done it. They've never had complete control, and Manchin and others are against abortion.You could have had a law passed years ago and you continue denying this fact.
this is how Fox is spinning it.Yeah.....blame the court for not making up a non Constitutional law out of thin air.
Why didn't Democrats codify Roe when they had the chance with FOCA?
This is pathetically trying to give your anti-American, Theocratic party a pass for effectively murdering grown women and forcing children through hell. "Pro-life" my ass. Now that your works are already bearing fruit, you're trying to blame anyone but the people responsible for it. Par for the course for any idiot who has an "I did that" graphic for his moniker.Then again............... your party could have codified Roe and this wouldn't be a issue.
Only yourselves to blame.
OH...... you never met one..........................big whoooop!
Are you denying abortion extremists now?
The Supreme Court should never change a previously established law without new information. There has been no new information..........just a change of OPINION because more right-wingers got into Supreme power.BS
You had Democrats deciding against the bill because the radicals in your own party ruined it for you.
Your party could have had the vote.
“I’m firmly pro-choice for the first three months of pregnancy,” Democratic congressman Paul McHale of Pennsylvania told CQ. “But I have a great deal of difficulty as a matter of conscience accepting elective termination [of pregnancy] at that last stage in the gestational process.”
Matthew Yglesias claimed today on Twitter that without scrapping the Senate filibuster, Democrats would have had no hope of codifying Roe at that time. But a close look shows that there were in fact 60 senators who supported a nationwide right to abortion back then.
From April 2009 to January 2011, Democrats held either 59 or 60 Senate seats. In 2009, every Senate Democrat, with the exceptions of Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, supported a right to abortion. Democrats in other conservative states, including Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, had voted in favor of a resolution expressing support for Roe in 1999.* Harry Reid had voted against that resolution but subsequently made his peace with progressives in order to become majority leader. Democratic senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas said of his position on abortion that he was “somewhere … in the middle of that issue.” Even if Pryor, Nelson, and Casey had defected on an abortion vote, there were three Republican senators who supported Roe: Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Olympia Snowe of Maine. Their votes would have gotten some federal abortion bill the 60 votes it needed to overcome a Senate filibuster. (Another pro-Roe Republican, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, filled the Senate seat formerly held by Democrat Ted Kennedy in January of 2010.)
Because the GOP gets in their way of course.Yeah.....blame the court for not making up a non Constitutional law out of thin air.
Why didn't Democrats codify Roe when they had the chance with FOCA?
Text - H.R.25 - 103rd Congress (1993-1994): Freedom of Choice Act of 1993
Text for H.R.25 - 103rd Congress (1993-1994): Freedom of Choice Act of 1993www.congress.gov
Keep in mind that I support most abortion before you go off on some liberal rant.
The Supreme Court should never change a previously established law without new information. There has been no new information..........just a change of OPINION because more right-wingers got into Supreme power.
What are you having trouble with? In spite of ridiculous claims to the contrary by the woke mob, men don't carry the unborn in their bodies. You don't get to decide what a woman does with hers.I though having sex was a decision too?
What about the sperm donor?
Makes no sense.
The Supreme Court should never change a previously established law without new information. There has been no new information..........just a change of OPINION because more right-wingers got into Supreme power.
The dangers are both mental and physical for girls that young; the results are horrific, considering what probably took place to cause the pregnancy - developing girls may be in labor for days; many do die. Their babies often don't survive labor either. Girls who do survive often develop fistulas, from the baby's head pushing down and getting stuck, cutting portions of the mother's soft tissue between its skull and her pelvic bones. As a result, the tissue dies, and a hole forms. Feces and urine then leak through the hole and out of the vagina. The younger the girl, the higher risk.2. She can carry the child to term, and put it up for adoption. Problem solved.
1. Article is garbage. Barely talks about the 10 year old,and gives no context of her circumstances. Also, funny how there is no mention of the rapist. It's almost like it's a made up story!
2. She can carry the child to term, and put it up for adoption. Problem solved.
While I am pro-choice I tire of using lies (IMHO) and deceit as a form of debate. The Supreme court has not denied an abortion to anyone. It left it to each state to decide how to handle the issue.
Start from there, point to states that would deny the child an abortion and we can have an honest debate.
I was reminded in another forum how just 50 years ago, women were denied financial equality. And even though they individually qualified for loans or accounts on paper, they often needed a father or spouse to cosign the agreement.And their reign of tyranny is only beginning. Next on the chopping block is marriage equality and gay rights.
Because ... "God" or something.
Kristi Noem was on CNN this morning. Dana Bash questioned her about this situation.This is the kind of disgrace this horrific SCOTUS has left us with. I defy even the most fervent right to life advocates to justify this.
You should be kissing their butts. At least so far, they have saved the Democrat party from itself.Some Democrats are cro-magnons too.
Just look at Manchin and Sinema.
It's Karma coming back on the democrats. They had all the time in the world to codify it and didn't. Their intention all along was for Roe V Wade to remain at some level of perceived jeopardy, so they could use it as a litmus test for conservatives nominated to the SCOTUS and they could fund raise off of it. It Roe V Wade was permanently on solid ground, their only other issues would be LBGTQ and tax the rich.Then again............... your party could have codified Roe and this wouldn't be a issue.
Only yourselves to blame.
RvW stood for 50 years - why dredge up battles and tack laws (codify) on something that is working fine?It's Karma coming back on the democrats. They had all the time in the world to codify it and didn't. Their intention all along was for Roe V Wade to remain at some level of perceived jeopardy, so they could use it as a litmus test for conservatives nominated to the SCOTUS and they could fund raise off of it. It Roe V Wade was permanently on solid ground, their only other issues would be LBGTQ and tax the rich.
That's a nice opinion, but it's morally bankrupt and false.There is absolutely NO reason why a TEN year old RAPE victim should be forced to have a child.
Period.
End of story.
There is no such thing as settled law.RvW stood for 50 years - why dredge up battles and tack laws (codify) on something that is working fine?
Americans were sucker punched by the politicization of the SC and the 3 recent Justices; they all new how they would vote on RvW, but led (misled) everyone they would let (precedent settled law) stand.
It was a dirty trick.
How does a 10 YO child carry a g*ddamed baby to term?????? Just giving birth would split her in two.1. Article is garbage. Barely talks about the 10 year old,and gives no context of her circumstances. Also, funny how there is no mention of the rapist. It's almost like it's a made up story!
2. She can carry the child to term, and put it up for adoption. Problem solved.
And they really should be impeached and thrown off the bench for that deception. Why the Dems aren't taking steps I have no idea.RvW stood for 50 years - why dredge up battles and tack laws (codify) on something that is working fine?
Americans were sucker punched by the politicization of the SC and the 3 recent Justices; they all new how they would vote on RvW, but led (misled) everyone they would let (precedent settled law) stand.
It was a dirty trick.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?