Fantasy Saloon Pussy Good, Nevada

Quote from: Blkfyre on May 03, 2022, 12:53 AMUhm, what? https://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-center/oregon/portland/97212/ne-portland-health-center-3943-91400/abortion#:~:text=In%2Dclinic%20abortion%20is%20offered,that%20offer%20other%20abortion%20services.

"In-clinic abortion is offered up to 17 weeks and 6 days after the start of your last menstrual period. "

Oregon has one of the most restrictive time frames.

That's Planned Parenthood guidelines who follow Federal laws because of the corporation status, see the referral comment they will set the person up with a different clinic not under federal guidlines. Oregon law allows abortion at all stages of pregnancy.

Quote from: Danno on May 03, 2022, 09:34 AMHobby Lobby

That's what I thought... making shit up!

Hobby Lobby doesn't hand out "boner pills" or ban birth control pills, they just don't want to pay for them and the SCOTUS agreed:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hobby-lobby-ruling-employers-dont-have-cover-birth-control-n144321

The companies in the Hobby Lobby case had said that the use of some contraceptives is the equivalent of abortion, destroying a human life by interfering with a fertilized egg. For that reason, they said, providing the coverage would violate their religious beliefs.

Gotta love the "State rights" argument.  Even after slavery was outlawed, it was economically and socially continued through Jim Crow laws based on "State rights".  Poll taxes in the name of "State rights" were used to keep people from voting.  In 2022 we have State rights used to undermine voting eligibility, voting transaction, voting counting, and whether to accept the results of the count.  There is a legal theory underpinning any number of autocratic, anti-democratic, and racist choices.  Justice Scalia wrapped his ego in "originalist doctrine" until it came to Citizens United and creating from dust the notion that corporations had the rights of people.  These theories are lipstick on a KKKristian pig. 

Quote from: Danno on May 03, 2022, 09:46 AMThe companies in the Hobby Lobby case had said that the use of some contraceptives is the equivalent of abortion, destroying a human life by interfering with a fertilized egg. For that reason, they said, providing the coverage would violate their religious beliefs.

The only reason you horn dogs wants abortion legal is because you don't want some little bastard you fathered having to support! So when the Republican judges vote your way they are good judges and when they don't they are bad. 

I don't care one way or another, to me it is between the person and their creator!

This shines a light on the fact that confirmations are a joke. Almost every one of the nominees said that Roe was settled law. For those who don't know the definition: https://www.virginialawreview.org/articles/settled-law/

Quote from: rooftop on May 03, 2022, 09:55 AMGotta love the "State rights" argument.  Even after slavery was outlawed, it was economically and socially continued through Jim Crow laws based on "State rights".  Poll taxes in the name of "State rights" were used to keep people from voting.  In 2022 we have State rights used to undermine voting eligibility, voting transaction, voting counting, and whether to accept the results of the count.  There is a legal theory underpinning any number of autocratic, anti-democratic, and racist choices.  Justice Scalia wrapped his ego in "originalist doctrine" until it came to Citizens United and creating from dust the notion that corporations had the rights of people.  These theories are lipstick on a KKKristian pig. 

Yes and it was southern Democrats who:
1. Were in favor of slavery.
2. Started the civil war.
3. Enforced Jim Crow laws
4. Founded the KKK

Quote from: Blkfyre on May 03, 2022, 10:02 AMThis shines a light on the fact that confirmations are a joke. Almost every one of the nominees said that Roe was settled law. For those who don't know the definition: https://www.virginialawreview.org/articles/settled-law/

Just another opinion by a lawyer only has meaning to those that agree with it! In law, there are many differing opinions, who is to say which it correct and which is wrong? Depends on which side of the fence you are on!  Supreme Court throughout history has reversed its self on occassion.

On the subject of states rights: some states allow marijuana while others don't, some states have stricter electrical and plumbing codes than others, some states require recycling waste while most don't, the list goes on and on

I hear this from a lot of Democrats: "If you don't like it here then move to another state."
If a woman wants an abortion then she can travel to a state that allows it, that's the reason the SCOTUS decision in the 70's was made in the first place...a woman complained she had to travel to another state to get an abortion.

Quote from: Hobby on May 03, 2022, 10:23 AMJust another opinion by a lawyer only has meaning to those that agree with it! In law, there are many differing opinions, who is to say which it correct and which is wrong? Depends on which side of the fence you are on!  Supreme Court throughout history has reversed its self on occassion.

OK, how about the court itself?

"In his hearings, Kavanaugh was under great pressure on this issue, especially given how tight the vote was at the time. He needed Collins. When asked about Roe, he repeatedly described it as "precedent on precedent" and "settled as precedent," citing other decisions that affirmed it, including Planned Parenthood v. Casey. He said a decision by the court to overturn precedent should be rare and that a majority of the court disagreeing with a prior decision should not be enough to overturn it."

"Amy Coney Barrett told senators during her Senate confirmation hearing that laws could not be undone simply by personal beliefs, including her own. "It's not the law of Amy," she quipped."

"The Supreme Court has recognized the right to an abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade case — has affirmed it many times," he told Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

To Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Kavanaugh stressed "the importance of the precedent" under the previous court rulings and a "woman has a constitutional right to obtain an abortion before viability," referring to the 24 weeks of pregnancy now in question under the Mississippi law, which would lower the threshold to 15 weeks."

"Judge Sotomayor. All precedent of the Supreme Court I consider settled law, subject to the
deference the doctrine of stare decisis would counsel."

"Senator Feinstein. The Supreme Court has decided on more than seven occasions that the law
cannot put a woman's health at risk. It said it in Roe in '73, in Danforth in '76, in Planned
Parenthood in '83, in Thornburgh in '86, in Casey in '92, in Carhart in 2000 and in Ayotte in
2006. With both Justices Roberts and Alito on the Court, however, this rule seems to have
changed, because in 2007, in Carhart II, the Court essentially removed this basic constitutional
right from women. Now, here's my question: when there are multiple precedents and a question
arises, are all the previous decisions discarded, or should the court reexamine all the cases on
point?
Judge Sotomayor. . . . In the Carhart case, the Court looked to its precedents. And as I
understood that case, it was deciding a different question, which was whether there were other
means—safer means, and equally effective means—for a woman to exercise her right than the
procedure at issue in that case. That was, I don't believe, a rejection of its prior precedents. Its
prior precedents are still the precedents of the Court. The health and welfare of a woman must
be—must be a compelling consideration."

"Senator Coburn. You've been asked a lot of questions about abortion. And you've said that
Roe v. Wade is settled law. Where are we today? What is the settled law in America about
abortion?
Judge Sotomayor. I can speak to what the Court has said in its precedent. In Planned
Parenthood v. Casey, the Court reaffirmed the core holding of Roe v. Wade, that a woman has a
constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy in certain circumstances. In Casey, the Court
announced that in reviewing state regulations that may apply to that right, that the Court
considers whether that regulation has an undue burden on the woman's constitutional right.
That's my understanding of what the state of the law is."

https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Current-Supreme-Court-Justices-Answers-to-Questions-621-HB.pdf

Quote from: Romanticlover on May 03, 2022, 10:37 AMOn the subject of states rights: some states allow marijuana while others don't, some states have stricter electrical and plumbing codes than others, some states require recycling waste while most don't, the list goes on and on

I hear this from a lot of Democrats: "If you don't like it here then move to another state."
If a woman wants an abortion then she can travel to a state that allows it, that's the reason the SCOTUS decision in the 70's was made in the first place...a woman complained she had to travel to another state to get an abortion.

Except, you know, the states that write into laws that a woman could be sued for getting one out of state tho, right?

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-03-11/editorial-missouri-might-make-it-illegal-to-help-a-woman-get-an-abortion-elsewhere-thats-ridiculous

At this point, all speculation is based on a leaked first draft.  Have to wait to see the final version. So if a person says they will make decisions based on the merits and not personal beliefs don't believe them. But if a person accuses someone with no collaboration of something that happened over 30 years ago is to be believed... LMAO... That is so fucked up beyond words...

Perhaps the best way to settle the abortion issue is to stop arguing about the right to abortion and make performing abortions illegal with a stiff penalty. Mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison, 10,000 dollars fine, and loss of medical license. Physicians oath... do no harm. Time to ensure they don't do any harm...

As to the comment that the FBI is investigating the leak, that is false. I did some reading and found out there is no Federal law stating stealing SCOTUS paperwork is illegal. It's the responsibility of the SCOTUS Marshall to investigate conduct of people who work and visit the building, sort of like the Sergeant at Arms in Congress.