Re-instituting the six week abortion ban will be a Walker/Republican disaster.
I am not commenting on abortion itself, which I am personally dedicated against; just the politicsof this decision.
The question is still open as to whether any of the courts are now applying true constitutional beliefs, and interpretations, or just personal/political convictions to their decisions. It seems to me as though the courts (State-Fed, it doesn't matter) have gone as politically partisan as the two major parties.
Thoughts?
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
Re-instituting the six week abortion ban will be a Walker/Republican disaster.
I am not commenting on abortion itself, which I am personally dedicated against; just the politicsof this decision.
The question is still open as to whether any of the courts are now applying true constitutional beliefs, and interpretations, or just personal/political convictions to their decisions. It seems to me as though the courts (State-Fed, it doesn't matter) have gone as politically partisan as the two major parties.
I am PRO CHOICE & disgusted with the judicial system. Judges who use their judicial power to promote beliefs or those of their financial backers should be replaced. Recusal of judges where they have a vested interest in the outcome seems to have gone the way of the horse drawn carriage. They are far & few between.
0
I am PRO CHOICE & disgusted with the judicial system. Judges who use their judicial power to promote beliefs or those of their financial backers should be replaced. Recusal of judges where they have a vested interest in the outcome seems to have gone the way of the horse drawn carriage. They are far & few between.
Contrary to Fox news denial, abortion access is a concern among voters. Allowing states to reduce abortion access is a huge loss for civil rights. Pro choice side won in every state that held a referendum on abortion. But Georgia's 6 weeks ban is too extreme. In early stage, many women wouldn't know if they are pregnant. Heart beat law is based on misinformation. Actually, embryo has no heart and ultra sound machine detects imaginary heart beat due to electrical activity. States with the most restrictive abortion laws tend to have higher maternal mortality. Often, bans don't prevent abortions but make them more dangerous for women. Abortion is vital healthcare that is a private matter best decided by patient and doctor instead of government.
1
Contrary to Fox news denial, abortion access is a concern among voters. Allowing states to reduce abortion access is a huge loss for civil rights. Pro choice side won in every state that held a referendum on abortion. But Georgia's 6 weeks ban is too extreme. In early stage, many women wouldn't know if they are pregnant. Heart beat law is based on misinformation. Actually, embryo has no heart and ultra sound machine detects imaginary heart beat due to electrical activity. States with the most restrictive abortion laws tend to have higher maternal mortality. Often, bans don't prevent abortions but make them more dangerous for women. Abortion is vital healthcare that is a private matter best decided by patient and doctor instead of government.
@Midnight1 Can't argue with that. I have often said if JFK were still alive and attempted to write a sequel to Profiles in Courage he couldn't find eight worthy politicians (or judges) in the last 60 years.
If JFK were alive today , he would be ostracized by the DEMs. Think about it. ,How many DEMs want people to do for themselves, instead of relying on the govt. ( i.e. other taxpayers]
JFK: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country !
2
Quote Originally Posted by KeyElement:
@Midnight1 Can't argue with that. I have often said if JFK were still alive and attempted to write a sequel to Profiles in Courage he couldn't find eight worthy politicians (or judges) in the last 60 years.
If JFK were alive today , he would be ostracized by the DEMs. Think about it. ,How many DEMs want people to do for themselves, instead of relying on the govt. ( i.e. other taxpayers]
JFK: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country !
Please stick to the point of the subject (post). The subject was JFK's probability of finding eight politicians (or judges) with enough honor and integrity to write a book about (since his demise). It was not about JFK's probable relationship with his political party of today, which bares little resemblance to the party of 1960. Getting off topic is one of the greatest thread killers in this forum.
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
1
@Rush51
Please stick to the point of the subject (post). The subject was JFK's probability of finding eight politicians (or judges) with enough honor and integrity to write a book about (since his demise). It was not about JFK's probable relationship with his political party of today, which bares little resemblance to the party of 1960. Getting off topic is one of the greatest thread killers in this forum.
"Contrary to Fox news denial, abortion access is a concern among voters."
I agree, but it is not health care that is of vital interest to most pro-choice supporters. It is more about the right of women to dismiss an inconvenient pregnancy that could have been avoided in the first place. Yeah, I know; rape, incest, blah, blah, blah. Rape is an arguable consideration perhaps, but most incest was a pro-choice agreement in the first place. Incest is almost as old as mankind and is almost always voluntary. Can't buy into abortion for that."
"dismiss an inconvenient pregnancy" --> Think Herschel Walker, and, in fairness to him; many other true tomcats and philanderers. The wife, mistress, girlfriend, or some chick whose old fashioned daddy still owns a shotgun. The possibilities are endless and the most obvious victim is the child (not fetus, or growth, or clump of unidentifiable cells: It is a CHILD).
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
1
@thirdperson
"Contrary to Fox news denial, abortion access is a concern among voters."
I agree, but it is not health care that is of vital interest to most pro-choice supporters. It is more about the right of women to dismiss an inconvenient pregnancy that could have been avoided in the first place. Yeah, I know; rape, incest, blah, blah, blah. Rape is an arguable consideration perhaps, but most incest was a pro-choice agreement in the first place. Incest is almost as old as mankind and is almost always voluntary. Can't buy into abortion for that."
"dismiss an inconvenient pregnancy" --> Think Herschel Walker, and, in fairness to him; many other true tomcats and philanderers. The wife, mistress, girlfriend, or some chick whose old fashioned daddy still owns a shotgun. The possibilities are endless and the most obvious victim is the child (not fetus, or growth, or clump of unidentifiable cells: It is a CHILD).
Re-instituting the six week abortion ban will be a Walker/Republican disaster. I am not commenting on abortion itself, which I am personally dedicated against; just the politics of this decision. The question is still open as to whether any of the courts are now applying true constitutional beliefs, and interpretations, or just personal/political convictions to their decisions. It seems to me as though the courts (State-Fed, it doesn't matter) have gone as politically partisan as the two major parties. Thoughts?
Maybe. Certainly SCOTUS with overturning abortion rights law of 50 years despite the vast majority of American public wanting to keep it, stands as Exhibit A.
What we shouldn't do is assume that because various courts rule a given way in various cases that automatically implies partisanship. Far from it. Still, courts are comprised of humans and they are imperfect. So from time to time it can happen.
0
Quote Originally Posted by KeyElement:
Re-instituting the six week abortion ban will be a Walker/Republican disaster. I am not commenting on abortion itself, which I am personally dedicated against; just the politics of this decision. The question is still open as to whether any of the courts are now applying true constitutional beliefs, and interpretations, or just personal/political convictions to their decisions. It seems to me as though the courts (State-Fed, it doesn't matter) have gone as politically partisan as the two major parties. Thoughts?
Maybe. Certainly SCOTUS with overturning abortion rights law of 50 years despite the vast majority of American public wanting to keep it, stands as Exhibit A.
What we shouldn't do is assume that because various courts rule a given way in various cases that automatically implies partisanship. Far from it. Still, courts are comprised of humans and they are imperfect. So from time to time it can happen.
Upon further review from pundits on both sides of the aisle they say the supreme court had nothing to do with handing Warnock the victory. An awful candidate who was picked, promoted and endorsed by the same fascist fool who called for terminating the constitution 3 days before same day voting, lost for far greater reasons.
1
"Georgia Supreme Court Elects Warnock"
Upon further review from pundits on both sides of the aisle they say the supreme court had nothing to do with handing Warnock the victory. An awful candidate who was picked, promoted and endorsed by the same fascist fool who called for terminating the constitution 3 days before same day voting, lost for far greater reasons.
Hot Forum Topics
