moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Jun 28, 2022 8:08:40 GMT -5
I’ll remember for your next Joe Biden poll thread. Can Joe go any lower? No president including Donald Trump is ever polled this bad. Let’s be honest, you elected an idiot. Remember, leadership is never easy. |
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Jun 28, 2022 8:39:43 GMT -5
Can Joe go any lower? No president including Donald Trump is ever polled this bad. Let’s be honest, you elected an idiot. Remember, leadership is never easy. Especially when you’re in decline like Joe Biden. |
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Jun 28, 2022 11:38:57 GMT -5
Remember, leadership is never easy. Especially when you’re in decline like Joe Biden. He's got those cue cards to help him out, tell him where to go and what to do. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 28, 2022 12:24:37 GMT -5
So 16% of Republicans say abortion should be illegal even when the pregnancy threatens the mothers life or health. I think that supports my statement? |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 28, 2022 12:29:08 GMT -5
Did you read the article? “ Noem told CBS “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan that while South Dakota would charge doctors who violate the abortion ban” … “ In South Dakota, abortions are illegal and performing the operation is now a felony unless it will save the life of the mother.” So if they’re saving the life of the mother, they aren’t violating the ban, and will not be prosecuted. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2022 12:32:16 GMT -5
There has been and remains a difference between what the language as written actually means and what you *want* it to mean. I support a constitutional amendment. That’s the real way. But you want to cheat. I don't want to cheat, I want the government to protect constitutional rights. By arbitrary, false interpretation of the actual language. IE, cheating.
Abortion is not in the constitutional language. And for that matter neither is privacy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2022 12:33:12 GMT -5
They should not practice in SD, then.
States are not going to be able to sue doctors who practice in other states where such practices are protected by those state's laws. It's just not gonna happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 28, 2022 12:33:29 GMT -5
So 16% of Republicans say abortion should be illegal even when the pregnancy threatens the mothers life or health. I think that supports my statement? Most Republicans do not want a complete ban on abortion unless the mother’s health is in danger. It seems like most Republicans want a ban after some period of time (for example, 6 weeks). That’s not what I read in your initial statement. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2022 12:35:09 GMT -5
Page 9: Constitution has no explicit reference to a right to abortion
The Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion, and therefore those who claim that it protects such a right must show that the right is somehow implicit in the constitutional text.
Roe, however, was remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text. It held that the abortion right, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is part of a right to privacy, which is also not mentioned.
BuT It'S iN tHe CoNsTiTuTioN!!!!!!!111111@@@@
|
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Jun 28, 2022 12:44:45 GMT -5
I guess we should do away with every right not explicitly mentioned.
I wonder if there's an amendment dealing with that very proposition?
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 28, 2022 12:45:00 GMT -5
They should not practice in SD, then. States are not going to be able to sue doctors who practice in other states where such practices are protected by those state's laws. It's just not gonna happen.
That doesn't prevent State legislatures from passing laws that intend to do just that. Then, those lawsuits will wind their way through the legal system, and perhaps several years down the road, there might be a final resolution at the Supreme Court level. Perhaps in the long-term "it's just not gonna happen", but it might take a while to get there. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2022 12:46:41 GMT -5
They should not practice in SD, then. States are not going to be able to sue doctors who practice in other states where such practices are protected by those state's laws. It's just not gonna happen.
That doesn't prevent State legislatures from passing laws that intend to do just that. Then, those lawsuits will wind their way through the legal system, and perhaps several years down the road, there might be a final resolution at the Supreme Court level. Perhaps in the long-term "it's just not gonna happen", but it might take a while to get there. It won't happen in the meantime, either.
Texas and Oklahoma won't be allowed to prosecute an abortion doc in Connecticut, when the legality of such a law is entirely untested. That is pure fantasy. (a very perverse fantasy, at that)
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 28, 2022 12:56:08 GMT -5
That doesn't prevent State legislatures from passing laws that intend to do just that. Then, those lawsuits will wind their way through the legal system, and perhaps several years down the road, there might be a final resolution at the Supreme Court level. Perhaps in the long-term "it's just not gonna happen", but it might take a while to get there. It won't happen in the meantime, either. Texas and Oklahoma won't be allowed to prosecute an abortion doc in Connecticut, when the legality of such a law is entirely untested. That is pure fantasy. (a very perverse fantasy, at that)
That's not how it works. The Connecticut doctor would be charged in Oklahoma, then an arrest warrant would be issued, and/or an extradition would be requested (Connecticut would probably refuse). In the meantime, if that Connecticut doctor ever travelled to Oklahoma, he/she would be in jeopardy of being arrested and tried. An Oklahoma trial judge would decide whether or not the doctor would face trial, and while that decision is adjudicated, the doctor may or may not be released on bond. It isn't fantasy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2022 13:00:13 GMT -5
It won't happen in the meantime, either. Texas and Oklahoma won't be allowed to prosecute an abortion doc in Connecticut, when the legality of such a law is entirely untested. That is pure fantasy. (a very perverse fantasy, at that)
That's not how it works. The Connecticut doctor would be charged in Oklahoma, then an arrest warrant would be issued, and/or an extradition would be requested (Connecticut would probably refuse). In the meantime, if that Connecticut doctor ever travelled to Oklahoma, he/she would be in jeopardy of being arrested and tried. An Oklahoma trial judge would decide whether or not the doctor would face trial, and while that decision is adjudicated, the doctor may or may not be released on bond. It isn't fantasy. This is pure fantasy.
Conjured up by the activism/hysteria machine, to drum up fundraising.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2022 13:02:48 GMT -5
Absolute worst case (though there won't be any need for it to come to this):
Connecticut comes up with a "waiver" or some kind of request form, such that anyone "deemed worthy of need" who signs the form is allowed to immediately be declared a resident of Connecticut.
Sign the form. *poof* You're no long a resident of Oklahoma when the abortion is performed in Connecticut by a Conn. doc.
Oklahoma literally has no grounds for any kind of charge.
|
|
