1 in 4 women have abortions? Wow.

El Correcto

god is dead
The decision in Dobbs v Jackson explicitly states several times that this decision does not affect other privacy cases due to the fact that this situation involves the ending of a life. I had to read a highlighted version of the 200+ page decision, so there may be something I missed.
You missed Clarence Thomas apparently.
That is where the controversy comes from when referring to this. I wouldn’t bring homosexuality into this if Clarence didn’t.
 

El Correcto

god is dead
I'll read more closely when I get a chance. Have you read the whole decision?
Not at all.
Clarence Thomas specifically mentioned undoing substantive due process which was apparently in his view required to reach same sex marriage and going against sodomy laws among other things.
He wants to go all the way back to Griswold.
 

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
Not at all.
Clarence Thomas specifically mentioned undoing substantive due process which was apparently in his view required to reach same sex marriage and going against sodomy laws among other things.
He wants to go all the way back to Griswold.

Because the idea of substantive due process allows the courts to legislate to an extent by reading rights into the constitution that don't exist. The way I understand it is that's why he opposes the concept, because it's a separation of powers violation. I don't think he said he intended to roll back other privacy related cases, or believes they should be rolled back, but I'd be interested in hearing any evidence to the contrary.
 

El Correcto

god is dead
Because the idea of substantive due process allows the courts to legislate to an extent by reading rights into the constitution that don't exist. The way I understand it is that's why he opposes the concept, because it's a separation of powers violation. I don't think he said he intended to roll back other privacy related cases, or believes they should be rolled back, but I'd be interested in hearing any evidence to the contrary.
@bbsam what was that 14th amendment stuff.
Tell this man I will be deprived of life and liberty if I don’t get to fornicate with another.
It clearly is there you just don’t want to see it.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
@bbsam what was that 14th amendment stuff.
Tell this man I will be deprived of life and liberty if I don’t get to fornicate with another.
It clearly is there you just don’t want to see it.
My limited, off the top of my head understanding is, that the 14th Amendment originally was ratified in order to state and protect the fact that newly freed slaves would be afforded the same rights as all freeborn people of the United States. That being born with dark skin and having biological roots stemming from the African continent did not subjugate people to livestock status. The laws of the land would not (and could not) be written in such a way as to treat them as “less than”. As citizens, they would have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as all citizens.

It’s really a simple pronouncement but one that is demonstrably powerful. It’s the United States emphatically putting forth that slavery would no longer be a “states rights” issue. And as we’ve seen over the last hundred years or so, the same spirit has been called upon in the courts to reaffirm the equality of other groups in the eyes of the law. It is the basis of the “protected classes”.

1656330142665.png


Although it’s been argued many times that the 14th amendment “creates rights where the constitution doesn’t give them”, to me that misses the foundation of America, it’s founding, and it’s progressive path better government. The ratification of the 14th amendment should have put to bed forever some of the mindsets we see boldly stated today: that the US is a Christian nation. that white Europeans built this country. that women make less money because their work is worth less. On and on it goes.

In short, the equal protection clause states in no uncertain terms that such statements are bull:censored2: and the federal government will protect the rights of all individuals. In cases where it is believed that a state acts unlawfully against an individual or a group under state law, the federal government can and does intervene to “protect the civil rights” of the person or persons.

As I said, very simple concept but powerful in its fundamental nature.
 

wilberforce15

Well-Known Member
LSSI isn’t anti abortion. It’s the organization that oversaw my adoption. Are you making things up?
You literally cannot read.

Anti-abortion organizations are all intimately connected to adoption organizations.

I did NOT say that all adoption organizations were anti-abortion.

Are you unable to read? Or just unable to think?
 

wilberforce15

Well-Known Member
My limited, off the top of my head understanding is, that the 14th Amendment originally was ratified in order to state and protect the fact that newly freed slaves would be afforded the same rights as all freeborn people of the United States. That being born with dark skin and having biological roots stemming from the African continent did not subjugate people to livestock status. The laws of the land would not (and could not) be written in such a way as to treat them as “less than”. As citizens, they would have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as all citizens.

It’s really a simple pronouncement but one that is demonstrably powerful. It’s the United States emphatically putting forth that slavery would no longer be a “states rights” issue. And as we’ve seen over the last hundred years or so, the same spirit has been called upon in the courts to reaffirm the equality of other groups in the eyes of the law. It is the basis of the “protected classes”.

View attachment 389870

Although it’s been argued many times that the 14th amendment “creates rights where the constitution doesn’t give them”, to me that misses the foundation of America, it’s founding, and it’s progressive path better government. The ratification of the 14th amendment should have put to bed forever some of the mindsets we see boldly stated today: that the US is a Christian nation. that white Europeans built this country. that women make less money because their work is worth less. On and on it goes.

In short, the equal protection clause states in no uncertain terms that such statements are bull:censored2: and the federal government will protect the rights of all individuals. In cases where it is believed that a state acts unlawfully against an individual or a group under state law, the federal government can and does intervene to “protect the civil rights” of the person or persons.

As I said, very simple concept but powerful in its fundamental nature.
Age is not a federally protected class, because you want to be free to murder people based on age, and that is currently legal in many states.
 

wilberforce15

Well-Known Member
Post them for me
I did.

All of them.

Every single one of them has direct local relationships with pregnancy support centers and adoption connections, the kinds of places that you people firebomb.

It's literally one united operation in each region or city. Some do the pro-life legislative work and protesting. Some do the crisis pregnancy centers. Others do the connection with adoption agencies. And local churches fill the very long line of adoptive parents.

Name a city.
 

wilberforce15

Well-Known Member
Alright, fine: I'll pick at random.
Pensacola FL.


The right to life places near it:

The adoption agency:
Bethany Christian Services, the Lutherans, About Us, and other folks.
Then a big church with its own adoption network and pro-life arm: FamiliesFirst Network

Since all the babies are adopted, the churches have focused on fosters: In midst of brokenness: Churches embrace Foster Families - Florida Baptist Convention | FBC

These organizations all know each other, trade leadership, work together, and share volunteers. It's all the same group of people.

Christians are solving the broken families democrats created. You guys break marriages. We adopt and save the innocents.
I'm not from Pensacola. I just chose it to show you it's anywhere. I've never even been to Florida.
Name a city. You can do the same thing.
The Christians. The adoptive parents. The pregnancy centers. And the pro-life protestors are all the same group.
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
Alright, fine: I'll pick at random.
Pensacola FL.


The right to life places near it:

The adoption agency:
Bethany Christian Services, the Lutherans, About Us, and other folks.
Then a big church with its own adoption network and pro-life arm: FamiliesFirst Network

Since all the babies are adopted, the churches have focused on fosters: In midst of brokenness: Churches embrace Foster Families - Florida Baptist Convention | FBC

These organizations all know each other, trade leadership, work together, and share volunteers. It's all the same group of people.

Christians are solving the broken families democrats created. You guys break marriages. We adopt and save the innocents.
I'm not from Pensacola. I just chose it to show you it's anywhere. I've never even been to Florida.
Name a city. You can do the same thing.
The Christians. The adoptive parents. The pregnancy centers. And the pro-life protestors are all the same group.
The church we go to does a similar networking.

We also say provide free and very low cost childcare as well as assistance for single mothers.

Such a awful group of Bible thumpers…
 
Top