Jump to content

SCOTUS and whatnot


pfife

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Archie said:

I find it interesting that those who are support mass abortion think that a man or woman who have the opportunity to purchase several birth control options aren't responsible for their own bad decisions, but think that a 6 year old is responsible enough to decide their gender at recess. The liberal mind(less) hard at work.

Lol try reality sometime

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barney, that is the reality.  What I posted is 100% true.  There are a few reason why a pregnancy should be terminated.  Birth control is not one of them. People should be responsible for their actions and when they're not thats on them and not the unborn child.  Abortion is made too easy in this country and it shouldn't be.  Way more lives are lost to abortion than guns but only guns are bad to the liberals.  So very stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Archie said:

Barney, that is the reality.  What I posted is 100% true.  There are a few reason why a pregnancy should be terminated.  Birth control is not one of them. People should be responsible for their actions and when they're not thats on them and not the unborn child.  Abortion is made too easy in this country and it shouldn't be.  Way more lives are lost to abortion than guns but only guns are bad to the liberals.  So very stupid.

it's not true, who's barney

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Archie said:

I find it interesting that those who are support mass abortion think that a man or woman who have the opportunity to purchase several birth control options aren't responsible for their own bad decisions, but think that a 6 year old is responsible enough to decide their gender at recess. The liberal mind(less) hard at work.

Keep working on those strawmen 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

also congratulations on your promotion to decider of whether terminating pregnancy is reasonable.  Because obviously YOU are the best candidate for that job

sir matthew hale give you the promotion chief? they've apparently been very active in constitutional textualist circles lately 

Edited by pfife
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Archie said:

I find it interesting that those who are support mass abortion think that a man or woman who have the opportunity to purchase several birth control options...

Any comment on the Missouri bill that seems to target popular forms of contraception that will decrease options for pregnant women? Or the possibility that other states could enact similar restrictions?

Edited by mtutiger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, chasfh said:

 

remember when he said Obama was lying when he said that Citizens United would cause foreign money to flow into our elections?   That was hilarious.   He sure nailed that one.

Edited by pfife
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Will people in Missouri be able to buy contraception in Illinois? 

I mean, with IUDs, it's not exactly as simple as "buying" them.... it requires a medical procedure.

And going to Illinois doesn't help when you live in, say, Joplin or St. Joseph.

Granted, they haven't fully gone so far as to enact anything like this yet, but the discussion is out there... and I'm not gonna assume that it couldn't happen either.

Edited by mtutiger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Any comment on the Missouri bill that seems to target popular forms of contraception that will decrease options for pregnant women? Or the possibility that other states could enact similar restrictions?

what types of contraception?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

A Louisiana legislative committee on Wednesday advanced a bill to make abortion a crime of homicide in which the mother or those assisting her in terminating the pregnancy can be charged.

The measure cleared the House Appropriations Committee on a 7-2 vote despite at least one of the representatives voting in favor acknowledging the bill is unconstitutional.

Rep. Danny McCormick said his House Bill 813 should move forward even though the U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to overturn Roe v. Wade that guarantees abortion rights as soon as June, according to an opinion leaked from the high court this week.

"We can't wait on the Supreme Court," said McCormick, a Republican from Oil City.

McCormick's bill says the unborn should be protected at fertilization.

He said the Rev. Brian Gunter of First Baptist Church in Livingston helped author the bill.

"No compromises; no more waiting," Gunter said. "The bloodshed in our land is so great we have a duty ... to protect the least of these among us."

Bradley Pierce of the Foundation to Abolish Abortion said state legislatures have the right to ignore the U.S. Supreme Court if they disagree with any high court decision.

"If the Supreme Court ignores the (U.S.) Constitution, you should ignore the court," Pierce said. "The Legislature has the right to disregard the Supreme Court."

Opponents argued the bill would not only put the mother and doctor at risk of murder prosecution but criminalize in vitro fertilization and perhaps some forms of birth control.

Ellie Schilling, an abortion rights attorney, said the bill would "annihilate" the Constitution. 

Republican Prairieville Rep. Tony Bacala voted for the bill even though he agreed it "won't pass (constitutional) muster."

The measure now goes to the full House for debate.

So many red flags in this story...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, buddha said:

what types of contraception?

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/fight-over-birth-control-looms-as-missouri-lawmakers-prepare-for-special-session/article_7073a044-a7b7-5bdb-8910-c50156afd22e.html

Quote

State lawmakers on Wednesday were preparing for an extraordinary legislative session next week that could determine whether low-income Missouri women continue to have access to certain birth control methods through Medicaid.

At issue is the renewal of the Federal Reimbursement Allowance, a tax on hospitals and other medical providers seen as critical to the state’s Medicaid program. Conservatives blocked renewal of the tax during the Legislature’s regular session, holding out for restrictions on contraceptives and bans on money flowing to abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood.

According to a draft provided Wednesday by staff for Senate appropriations chairman Sen. Dan Hegeman, R-Cosby, it appeared Republicans were moving forward with renewal of the tax — with bans on coverage for certain methods of birth control such as the Plan B pill and intrauterine devices, or IUDs. The draft does not address funding for Planned Parenthood.

Drugs that would not be covered under the draft legislation include levonorgestrel (Plan B), and a second emergency contraceptive, ella. It also restricts intrauterine devices, or IUDs. Those methods prevent pregnancy; the legislation also singles out the abortion pill, which ends a pregnancy.

All of those methods are classified as an “abortifacient drug or device” under the legislation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://michigandems.com/

If you want to fight back sign up and become a dues paying member of the Michigan Democratic Party. Once you are a member, make sure to sign up on their volunteer list to help re-elect Governor Whitmer/Lt. Governor Gilchrist, AG Dana Nessel, SOS Jocelyn Benson, State Supreme Court Justices Richard Bernstein and new State Supreme Court Justice Kyra Harris-Bolden. After you sign up there find out who is running for State Representative, State Senate, County Commission, City Council, Mayor, and School Board where you live and volunteer with local candidates. Knock doors, make phone calls, send texts, offer to help with their social media, website, graphic design, whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I mean, with IUDs, it's not exactly as simple as "buying" them.... it requires a medical procedure.

And going to Illinois doesn't help when you live in, say, Joplin or St. Joseph.

Granted, they haven't fully gone so far as to enact anything like this yet, but the discussion is out there... and I'm not gonna assume that it couldn't happen either.

It wasn't meant as a solution but I genuinely think they would punish women for traveling to Illinois to get contraception like an abortion pill. They will probably treat it the same way as trafficking drugs across state lines. I only use Illinois because that's the only blue state that borders Missouri. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

It wasn't meant as a solution but I genuinely think they would punish women for traveling to Illinois to get contraception like an abortion pill. They will probably treat it the same way as trafficking drugs across state lines. I only use Illinois because that's the only blue state that borders Missouri. 

The only thing that is going to cross the Missouri state lines is your guns and your Bible.  

Edited by Tiger337
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mtutiger said:

i think the reasoning being those are devices that "kill" a fertilized egg, which includes iuds.

im not sure if that's factually accurate about all iuds, but that's the reasoning.  they had the same arguments in those exception to obamacare cases where some religious institutions didnt want to pay for certain types if birth control that acted to destroy a fertilized egg.

again, i dont knownif that's true about iuds, but thats the reasoning.  theyre not banning condoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, buddha said:

i think the reasoning being those are devices that "kill" a fertilized egg, which includes iuds.

im not sure if that's factually accurate about all iuds, but that's the reasoning.  they had the same arguments in those exception to obamacare cases where some religious institutions didnt want to pay for certain types if birth control that acted to destroy a fertilized egg.

again, i dont knownif that's true about iuds, but thats the reasoning.  theyre not banning condoms.

"IUD" covers a lot of devices that don't all necessarily have either the same or a single mechanism.

Edited by gehringer_2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, buddha said:

i think the reasoning being those are devices that "kill" a fertilized egg, which includes iuds.

im not sure if that's factually accurate about all iuds, but that's the reasoning.  they had the same arguments in those exception to obamacare cases where some religious institutions didnt want to pay for certain types if birth control that acted to destroy a fertilized egg.

again, i dont knownif that's true about iuds, but thats the reasoning.  theyre not banning condoms.

I am fully aware of the reasoning and am fully aware that they aren't banning condoms.

But in the case of the bill in question, it's a regressive policy (ie. targeting Medicaid recipients who are generally lower income - also a demo that sees a lot of abortions), the net effect will lead to less options for contraception for those who cannot afford to pay for an IUD or who don't have medical insurance that will cover the procedure.

I just don't see that as a good thing, and am gonna call it out when I see a poster lecturing everyone about contraception when the most effective forms of it end up at risk of being limited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...