patrick.net

richwicks says

mell says

don't compare this to inter-racial marriage - clearly protected by the constitution

Marriage in any form is not protected by the constitution.

We'd be better off with a Federal government 1/10th its size. The Federal government is involved in a ton of things they have no right to be involved with.

Depends. Literally yes, but the 14th amendment was interpreted to include the right to marry, have a family and raise children. Plus many states have introduced rights strengthening marriage and there is a marriage amendment. So I disagree on the absolutism of your premise unless you're just talking literally only. I agree that Federal government should get out of the business, shrink in size, and leave it up to the states. This was a good decision and should.be followed by leaving gay marriage regulation up to the states and many more

DooDahMan says

mell says

this to inter-racial marriage - clearly protected by the constitution

Senator Braun of Indiana has a difference of onion especially since Interracial Marriage was not the law of the land until the passage of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that legalized interracial marriage

Question: Would you apply that same basis to something like Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that legalized interracial marriage?

Answer: When it comes to the issues, you can't have it both ways. When you want that diversity to shine within our federal system, there are going to be rules and proceedings, they're going to be out of sync with maybe what other states would do. It's a beauty of the system, and that's where the differences among points of view in our 50 states ought to express themselves. And I'm not saying that rule wou...

No because 14th Amendment. Race has nothing to do with this as it is protected. Until another amendment overturns the 14th this is not a valid comparison nor a debate

Just sort of another thing to consider.

I was adopted at birth as was my brother…different biological parents.

I thank God every day and my biological parents as well that they had the compassion and selflessness to give me up for adoption. I believe I’ve had an oversized influence on the lives of friends, family, and coworkers. I enjoy this, helping and encouraging to build others up and make their lives better as a result.

A lot more people than myself would have been deprived had my biological mother opted for an abortion.

FWIW, I don’t really share this much in my personal life and I don’t think I’ve ever stated this here. But it stops ardent pro abortion people in their tracks. The only have two choices which is to play the sympathy card, for which exceptions already exist where the vast majority of the US population lives, or they can get mean. And you all have already seen how damn mean I can get.

As another aside one of my cousins was also adopted under the same circumstances. Him and his wife have absolutely had an oversized influence on life. They’ve adopted or fostered older children including teens…the ones no one wants…and seen them all the way through college. That is one helluva influence. Literally have directly made the lives of others exponentially better. We’re he aborted instead of being given up for adoption, the lives of at least 8 other people…well they’d likely be on the street.

A final note, and I’m pretty sure if I could directly talk to her and be around her, she would change her mind. I have a school mate that I maintain contact with on Facebook. She is a good person, still posts about her mom who used to work or volunteer in the classes I was in during elementary school, and has a daughter with a rare and crippling genetic defect. I can see the love her and her husband have for the child and the joy that the child brings them. The child will need continual and constant supervision throughout her life and even into adulthood as well as medical care. My classmate made this decision….and it is totally consistent with the person I knew growing up(we essentially lost contact during school for several years and then had a class during our senior year where we reconnected). Yet despite this she is staunchly pro choice. I find her decision and her point of view to be quite inconsistent and I’m not sure what the mentality is that drives that.

I could pretty easily find support for no abortions past 3 months except in cases of health risk to the mom and rape and incest. But the Dems and the leftists don’t want that and won’t agree. They want anything goes including post birth murder and that’s absolutely a moral wrong.

original link

According to cdc fewer than a couple hundred deaths a year due to self attempts to commit abortions each year prior to Roe. At 7 minutes in the video above according to Shapiro.

Interesting bust of a lie perpetuated by Democrat politicians and gulped down by utterly infuckable “feminists” like a $5 crack ho guzzling jizz.

https://slaynews.com/news/joe-biden-supported-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-and-allow-states-to-choose-in-1982-the-single-most-difficult-vote-ive-cast-as-a-u-s-senator/

Joe Biden Supported Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Roe v Wade And Allow States To Choose In 1982

mell says

You're just flinging crap at this point for the sake of arguing.

Yes, I'm sure that's what's going on.

How to make a rule against trolling? I suppose I could just say it, but it's a bit subjective.

The ignore button is beautiful. Why waste time with trolls?

Guess we know who is going to miss their baby guts facials, stem cell therapies, and adrenochrome smoothies:

LOL! How about those little pills that keep you from going preggo, you lazy psycho slut?

https://bioclandestine.substack.com/p/its-always-about-the-money

Now that we have had some time to celebrate the win, let’s analyze the situation. The Dems are pissed, but WHY are the Dems so angry about this ruling? Well many reasons, but its mostly about MONEY.

With the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, many States immediately cancelled all scheduled abortions, and shut down all Planned Parenthoods across the state. This will continue across every red state. This is a massive hit into campaign funding and slush money the DNC generates from Planned Parenthood.

Look at Planned Parenthood’s campaign donations. They are 100% to DNC candidates. The DNC are running their campaigns on the revenue from slaughtering babies.

They spent $45+ million on the 2020 elections alone. Every penny was given to Democrats.

The Democrat politicians are not concerned about “women’s rights”, they are upset because they just lost $20+ million in campaign funding per year.

I'm wondering if the timing of RVW is simply to distract the masses and explain the drastic decline in the birth rate due to the jab.

By outlawing abortion in half the country, the govt can then say that people aren't having sex anymore due to lack of abortion access.

While normal thinkers will think "uh, families are gonna keep having kids and abortion access wouldn't affect birth rate" the rest of the NPCs will just be like "people won't screw anymore because of abortion access.

Here's an article on the decline in pregnancies: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1540914383349395456.html

Anyone else think the left would lose their shit worse if gay marriage was revoked vs revoking roe?

Ceffer says

This is the real issue isn’t it? Mentally ill females raging on against something they have zero hope of reaching logical conclusions on.

Booger says

Oh honey, sorry to tell you, but you’re too fat for love.

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/blue-states-double-down-on-abortion-extremism/

In states like Maryland, non-physicians can perform abortions and receive no penalty for the death of an infant up to 28 days old.

It's bad enough to kill a viable baby at 8 or 9 months in the womb, but the killing of infants who have already been born openly violates laws against murder.

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/fall-feminism-roe-wade-abortion-apologies/

The apologetic turn in feminism is at least a decade old but ramped up in the past couple of years. In the summer of 2020, the progressive zeitgeist abruptly shifted from #MeToo, which presented sexually abused young women as society’s great victims, to Black Lives Matter, and an insistence that no, actually racism was the most pressing concern.

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/fox-news-canceled-matt-drudge-too-pro-life/

Drudge wanted to use a photo of a twenty-one-week-old fetus reaching out from its mother’s womb to grasp the surgeon’s hand on his show. (The famous photo is called the “Hand of Hope” and can be seen here.) Fox said no.

I had not heard about this baby's hand reaching out of the womb:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_of_Hope

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/thinking-seinfeld-roe-v-wade-falls/

Later, after Elaine declares herself madly in love with her latest beau, Jerry sees a chance for revenge. “And what is his stand on abortion?” he asks. Elaine is sure he’s pro-choice because “he’s just so good-looking,” but Jerry has gotten under her skin.

Cut to Elaine in the car with this guy. She assumes a faraway look. “I’m just thinking about this woman I know,” she says. “She got impregnated by her troglodytic half-brother and decided to have an abortion.” She turns her eyes hopefully to the hunk.

“You know,” he responds, “someday we’re gonna get enough people in the Supreme Court to change that law.”

That comment was funny because it seemed "impossible" at the time.

Maybe we can get a ban on the dangerous and worse than ineffective vaxx, and new Nuremberg trials for those who forced it on the public at the threat of job loss and exclusion from travel and public life.

https://nitter.net/Evie_Magazine/status/1540561018174291968#m

@Evie_Magazine
Jun 25
Planned Parenthood was started as The Negro Project. Its founder was a racist who wanted to exterminate the black population. This is a well-documented, historical fact.

I had not heard this before.

It's something everyone should be pointing out to liberals, if only to see the frantic cognitive dissonance.

https://nitter.net/sarahbeth345/status/1540548045032398848#m

Sarah Beth Burwick
@sarahbeth345
Jun 25
If you can’t admit that covid vaccine mandates violate medical privacy and bodily autonomy, then I cannot take you seriously on any other matter associated with these principles.

Because these principles matter to me. Not only when it’s convenient — all the time. They matter to me so much that I lost friends over them.

Would you give something up for your principles?

I'm really curious what the Supreme Court will do with the 2020 election cases coming up.

https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/on-losing-roe

In this long-ago essay, I warned that while I was pro-choice, I also recognized that the death of a fetus is a real death, and that an abortion always represents a loss. I warned that we as feminists risked becoming increasingly hard-hearted and soulless if we continued to embrace a discourse in which a fetus was merely “a clump of cells”, and if we persisted in pretending that abortion was spiritually meaningless, and that a second- or even third trimester abortions were nothing more bloody or devastating than “personal choices”.

I also warned that such mechanistic, amoral language and such increasingly monstrous policies would eventually also create a certain losing political scenario. I warned that this posture and these policies would eventually lose us the reasonable middle: the majority of the country that supports abortion rights in the first trimester but that withdraws its support progressively as pregnancies progress.

I don’t mean always to be Cassandra. It is a drag. But nota bene, that is exactly what has come about in this past week.

Today, woman — a woman — posted to me on Gettr: “I have always been on [board] with 1st trimester abortions. But when they started pushing for late terms abortions I could no longer go along with that. So if I am forced to choose full term abortions or no abortions, I am going to side with no abortions. The left just had to keep pushing and that is where I draw the line. I am hoping that we can come together and dial back the insanity.”

Patrick says

https://nitter.net/Evie_Magazine/status/1540561018174291968#m

@Evie_Magazine
Jun 25
Planned Parenthood was started as The Negro Project. Its founder was a racist who wanted to exterminate the black population. This is a well-documented, historical fact.

I had not heard this before.

It's something everyone should be pointing out to liberals, if only to see the frantic cognitive dissonance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

After World War I, Sanger increasingly appealed to the societal need to limit births by those least able to afford children. The affluent and educated already limited their child-bearing, while the poor and uneducated lacked access to contraception and information about birth control.[114] Here she found an area of overlap with eugenicists.[114] She believed that they both sought to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit." She distinguished herself from other eugenicists, by writing "eugenists [sic] imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother."[115] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aimed to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit.[7]

Sanger's view of eugenics was influenced by Havelock Ellis and other British eugenicists,[116] including H.G. Wells, with whom she formed a close, lasting friendship.[117] She did not speak specifically to the idea of race or ethnicity being determining factors and "although Sanger articulated birth control in terms of racial betterment and, like most old-stock Americans, supported restricted immigration, she always defined fitness in individual rather than racial terms."[118][23]: 195–6  Instead, she stressed limiting the number of births to live within one's economic ability to raise and support healthy children. This would lead to a betterment of society and the human race.[119] Sanger's view put her at odds with leading American eugenicists, such as Charles Davenport, who took a racist view of inherited traits. In A History of the Birth Control Movement in America, Engelman also noted that "Sanger quite effortlessly looked the other way when others spouted racist speech. She had no reservations about relying on flawed and overtly racist works to serve her own propaganda needs."[120]

In "The Morality of Birth Control", a 1921 speech, she divided society into three groups: the "educated and informed" class that regulated the size of their families, the "intelligent and responsible" who desired to control their families in spite of lacking the means or the knowledge, and the "irresponsible and reckless people" whose religious scruples "prevent their exercising control over their numbers". Sanger concludes, "There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped."[121]

Sanger's eugenics policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods, and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, as well as compulsory segregation or sterilization for the "profoundly retarded".[122][123] Sanger wrote, "we [do not] believe that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding."[124] In The Pivot of Civilization she criticized certain charity organizations for providing free obstetric and immediate post-birth care to indigent women without also providing information about birth control nor any assistance in raising or educating the children.[125] By such charities, she wrote, "The poor woman is taught how to have her seventh child, when what she wants to know is how to avoid bringing into the world her eighth."

In personal correspondence she expressed her sadness about the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program, and donated to the American Council Against Nazi Propaganda.[123]

Sanger believed that self-determining motherhood was the only unshakable foundation for racial betterment.[126] Initially she advocated that the responsibility for birth control should remain with able-minded individual parents rather than the state.[127] Later, she proposed that "Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples," but added that the requirement should be implemented by state advocacy and reward for complying, not enforced by punishing anyone for violating it.[128]

She was supported by one of the most racist authors in America in the 1920s, the Klansman[129][130] Lothrop Stoddard, who was a founding member of the Board of Directors of Sanger's American Birth Control League.[131][132][133] Chesler comments:

Margaret Sanger was never herself a racist, but she lived in a profoundly bigoted society, and her failure to repudiate prejudice—especially when it was manifest among proponents of her cause—has haunted her ever since.[23]: 15 

mell says

Depends. Literally yes, but the 14th amendment was interpreted

Fuck that. The Federal government has no legal jurisdiction over marriage, at all.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Stop letting the mother fuckers grab more power. We're the UNITED STATES - we're a Federal UNION of nations. The weakest part of our government should be Federal especially since it's the most evil part of our government.

richwicks says

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Seems 100% clear to me that red flag laws are unconstitutional then.

joshuatrio says

I'm wondering if the timing of RVW is simply to distract the masses and explain the drastic decline in the birth rate due to the jab.

Maybe. I never cease to be amazed at how the “experts” are able to sell a paradoxical result as a logical consequence but why would they put themselves into this position voluntarily? They would never plan it that way. If they wanted to hide the real reason for fewer births they would expand the availability of abortion, not restrict it.

No, if this decision is about furthering the vaccine agenda I’d say it’s about discarding the idea that medical privacy is a constitutionally guaranteed right. “My body, my choice” had outlived its usefulness and was now just getting in the way.

Dizzey has announced that it will give employees airfare to fly to states to get abortions on demand.

I find this interesting in that they don't realize homosexuals can't get pregnant no matter how much they have sex.

https://babylonbee.com/news/compromise-texas-says-abortion-can-remain-legal-but-the-baby-gets-an-ar-15-to-defend-himself