Supreme Court effectively denies 10 year old rape victim an abortion

[Carjosse]

Ive read more on the Ohio legislation and I DO believe it needs to be stayed and corrected. While there are allowances for the health of the mother, there SHOULD be specific allowances made for rape and incest. After reading the theoritcal, a doctor could easily argue that the life of a 10 year old child is at risk being pregnant and carrying the baby to term.

And what doctor/hospital is going to risk that possible liability exactly? Exceptions do not make the law any less dangerous.

 

[VanceMack]

And what doctor/hospital is going to risk that possible liability exactly? Exceptions do not make the law any less dangerous.

Its tough trying to find a balance between covering people legally and preventing the slaughter of 800,000 babies because they are an inconvenience.

 

[RedFishBlueFish]

Its tough trying to find a balance between covering people legally and preventing the slaughter of 800,000 babies because they are an inconvenience.

No. It's actually quite easy. We had that balance for the last 50 years. Of course, for those like you who consider abortion slaughter, there is no balance.

 

[FurriesRock]

Says the male who has no clue what it is like for any woman or child to go through pregnancy and childbirth. A ten-year-old's body has not matured sufficiently to carry, much less deliver a pregnancy without danger to her own health, both physical and mental. And nature has not promised a safe delivery. Animals also die giving birth. That's one reason that we have doctors, midwives and veterinarians

You're full of it!

If birth is so traumatizing then why do most women have multiple children? Seems if it was traumatizing then they would stop at one!

Gotcha!

 

[FreeStorm84]

You're full of it!

If birth is so traumatizing then why do most women have multiple children? Seems if it was traumatizing then they would stop at one!

Gotcha!

This is becoming tiresome. You have a 10 yr old girl that is pregnant from a rape. Are you actully saying it should be illegal for her to abort? On what grounds? Why put her through this? She didn't ask for it.
..
Come to think of it, you were the first person to question the veracity of the story. Are you sticking to your sketicism of the story's truth?

 

[dockside]

You're full of it!

If birth is so traumatizing then why do most women have multiple children? Seems if it was traumatizing then they would stop at one!

Gotcha!

I would never have multiple children after almost dying by bleeding internally after giving birth to my second child. No, you have no idea and never will.

 

[Deuce]

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.

It's my personal opinion that people like you who openly defend child rape should just be instabanned from this forum forever.

 

[Deuce]

Ive read more on the Ohio legislation and I DO believe it needs to be stayed and corrected. While there are allowances for the health of the mother, there SHOULD be specific allowances made for rape and incest. After reading the theoritcal, a doctor could easily argue that the life of a 10 year old child is at risk being pregnant and carrying the baby to term.

This is the problem with laws right wingers pass like this. Doctors start hesitating and lawyering up instead of saving a life. We're gonna have women bleeding out from an ectopic pregnancy because the hospital isn't sure they're allowed to save their lives.

 

[Deuce]

There is absolutely NO reason why a TEN year old RAPE victim should be forced to have a child.

Period.

End of story.

Seriously.

America isn't going to forgive or forget this.

 

[VanceMack]

This is the problem with laws right wingers pass like this. Doctors start hesitating and lawyering up instead of saving a life. We're gonna have women bleeding out from an ectopic pregnancy because the hospital isn't sure they're allowed to save their lives.

Certainly seems to have been short sighted. I reckon oin their haste to prevent the slaughter of 800,000 unborn babies that people like you celebrate they probably didnt think it through enough. Hopefully they will correct that.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

The Republican Senate Intelligence Committee reaffirmed its support for the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election with the goal of putting Donald Trump in the Oval Office.
Senate Intel report confirms Russia aimed to help Trump in 2016

The Russian dictator, Vladimir Putin, wanted Donald Trump to become our President in 2016 and wanted the Republican Party to be in power. Trump appointed three judges to the Supreme Court to continue his legacy.

Putin is being rewarded handsomely. America is in turmoil. The very basis of our democracy, free elections, is under attack. Trump and the Republican Party are, of course, responsible, aided by a very conservative Supreme Court that has become so unpopular it has walled itself off from the American people.

Republicans remain silent.

We have never experienced the silence from a major party that we are experiencing now.

The Times writes, "Pressed by Supreme Court decisions diminishing rights that Americans hold dear and expanding those cherished by the right, the United States appears to be drifting apart into separate nations, with diametrically opposed social, environmental and health policies.

"Call these the Disunited States."

Thank you, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, and Brett M. Kavanaugh. Vladimir Putin is extremely proud of you. Thanks to the President I wanted, you have accomplished in a few months what communist Russia could not accomplish in over a hundred years.

America has become a divided nation!

The responsibility lies with the Republican Party, which accounts for their total silence.

For reasons that confuse many, it is expected that the Republican Party will be rewarded for what they have done. As their leader, Trump, is being investigated for possible sedition, the Republican Party may win control of Congress in November.

How could this happen? The rural voters that dominate the Republican Party are clueless. As this thread shows, they avoid reality. They don't know, and they don't want to know.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

We have never experienced the silence from a major party that we are experiencing now.
The leader of the Republican Party may be in trouble with the law. Trump surely is in trouble with the voters. Yet not one Republican in Washington is coming to the defense of Trump in the media. Republicans are totally silent on the issues involving their leader.
Not one Republican wants to be sworn in to testify for the defense of Trump in Jan. 6 committee hearings. The very opposite is happening. Republicans are avoiding the hearings for fear they may be indicted. Several Trump allies in his weird stolen election scheme have pleaded the Fifth.

ABC reports "On June 24, the Supreme Court's smallest-possible majority struck down the long-standing Roe v. Wade ruling, which had for five decades guaranteed a right to access abortion. It was a rare instance of the court restricting rights it had previously extended via the Constitution.

"Roe's reversal was partly possible because of the votes of the court's three most recent justices, all of whom were appointed for life by President Donald Trump -- himself elected by a minority of the population. He lost the popular vote and was confirmed by Senate Republicans representing roughly 43 percent of the country."

The problem is, our Constitution gave too much power to the smaller states, meaning states with small populations. Americans who live in states with large populations have less power and less representation than those Americans who live in states with smaller populations.

What does this mean exactly? It means the farmer in Montana has more political power, more government influence than the doctor in California. The problem becomes more acute with the realization that, generally speaking, the doctor in California is going to have more education and be more informed than the farmer in Montana.

Republican leaders are not dumb, and they are taking full advantage of their less educated, less informed, voters. Because they are largely uninformed and not fully cognizant of events around them, grassroots Republicans are largely unaware of what is being done in their name. All they know is, they are loyal followers of Donald Trump. Most of them know very little about Trump's attempt to overthrow the elected government.

Here is one example of the problem. There are many others.

Technically speaking, our President is not chosen by the American people. He is voted into office by the electors in the Electoral College in accordance with our Constitution. The number of electors each state has is the total of its Senators and representatives.

California has a total population of a little more than 39 million. California has 55 electors. Montana has a population of little more than a million. Montana has three electors.

When you divide the population by the number of electors, each elector in Montana represents 333,333 Americans. Each elector in California represents 709,090 Americans. The farmer in Montana has over twice the representation than the doctor in California. That is how Trump became our President in 2016 even though he lost the popular vote cast by the American people.

This becomes all the more serious when one realizes that the doctor has a college education and, generally speaking, is more informed than the farmer in Montana who has no use for a college education and political awareness unless the latter has something to do with farming.

 

[FurriesRock]

It's my personal opinion that people like you who openly defend child rape should just be instabanned from this forum forever.

I'm not defending child rape.

Stay mad though!

 

[Sandy Shanks]

Why didn't Democrats codify Roe when they had the chance with FOCA?

Are you a Trump Republican offering this as a moronic excuse for the inexcusable Supreme Court decision?

If the Democrats had done that, this Trump Republican based Supreme Court would have declared that law unconstitutional instead of Roe vs. Wade.

 

[Deuce]

I'm not defending child rape.

Stay mad though!

Yes you are. You tried to invent the possibility that a pregnant ten year old is a result of something other than rape.

So, you either think it's ok to have sex with a ten year old, which would make you a defender of child rape, or you think this is an immaculate conception. Please elaborate.

 

[911Sparky]

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.

God, I hope you don't have/nor have ever had a daughter!

 

[The Old Soul]

The answer is that the democrats in congress preferred that Roe V Wade be perceived as under constant threat by conservative nominees to the court. That's why they never codified it and never sought a constitutional amendment to back it up. That enabled them to use Roe V Wade as a litmus test against conservative court nominees and use it as a fundraiser.

Ultra partisan nonsense.

Actually the dirty trick was how the democrats used Roe V Wade to string the librul voting base along for nearly 50 years.

You hit that one right on the head: "Ultra partisan nonsense."
That is what our government has become; little more than a war between D&R parties. Rather than meaningful, well thought out legislation in the populace's best interest, it's a staged 'battle' of the parties.

Best thing for this country would be if the parties went poof and voters elected representative individuals instead of self-serving parties.

 

[Deuce]

The answer is that the democrats in congress preferred that Roe V Wade be perceived as under constant threat by conservative nominees to the court. That's why they never codified it and never sought a constitutional amendment to back it up. That enabled them to use Roe V Wade as a litmus test against conservative court nominees and use it as a fundraiser.

Ultra partisan nonsense.

Actually the dirty trick was how the democrats used Roe V Wade to string the librul voting base along for nearly 50 years.

That's literally what conservatives did

 

[Jack2aTee]

The Constitution is like the Bible--it can only be twisted so far to make a point. It will not say whatever you want it to say.

Perhaps I misstated it. I should have said, "The constitution is like the Bible. It's can be twisted to reflect whatever 5 conservative Supreme Court Justices want it to reflect." That would be more accurate and to the point. How's that?

 

[washunut]

Ohio as per the article.

The Supreme Court made a ruling that allowed states to deny abortions - they knew that's what would happen when they made the ruling and they are okay with it.

Not sure they are OK with it. The people of Ohio will decide if the people who out this law in place deserve their job.

 

[washunut]

Literally Ohio.

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-711042

And yes, the Supreme Court absolutely has, because it made a ruling based entirely on Conservative Christian religious “principles”(if you can even call them that).

I have no idea what they based their ruling on as I totally disagree with it. I can only guess that they felt this was an issue to be resolved by each state not the Federal Government.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

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?

One of them (Manchin) is a DINO in a burgundy state who brags about being "pro-life." Even two Republican Senators (Collins and Murkowski) are less anti-choice than he is. Our best chance of codifying Roe vs. Wade was this year and Manchin ruined it.

Of course, his vote would not have mattered if Collins and Murkowski were real pro-choicers and had voted for the bill.

Keep in mind that I support most abortion before you go off on some liberal rant.

Which abortions do you oppose?

 

[Yes_Minister]

If birth is so traumatic, then why do so many women want multiple children?

We aren't talking about a woman, we are talking about a 10 year old girl who was raped. How is a 10 year old girl carrying this baby to term not traumatic?

 

[Yes_Minister]

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 1993

www.congress.gov

Keep in mind that I support most abortion before you go off on some liberal rant.

You seem more concerned with playing gotcha than the 10 year old girl who is at the heart of this case.

 

[Tigerace117]

It takes two to tango.

HE got HER pregnant so HE has rights too.

.......what the ****.

What “rights” do you fantasize an individual who RAPED a TEN YEAR OLD should have?