Respectfully, it is easy to have this view when it is someone else's core right at stake. This is a complex issue - the Constitution does also envision protecting the rights of the individual against the wishes of the masses.helltopay1 said:
Now, questions concerning abortion will be left to the States, just like God and the founding fathers intended. People will actually get to vote on the issue...Imagine that!!!!People voting on a issue!!!!!what will they think of next?????
Supreme Court Votes 6 - 3 to Overturn Casey and Roe
68,189 Views |
623 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by chazzed
Then don't have sex unless you are willing to live with the consequences???DiabloWags said:tequila4kapp said:In general "they" are all the human beings who have unprotected sex.DiabloWags said:Who's they?tequila4kapp said:
I know I'm going to get hammered for this but they could start by not having unprotected sex.
Black Americans?
Or the 7500 Americans in general in Alabama?
But what if the Supreme Court bans contraception?
What if insurance companies and state insurance like Medicaid stop paying for contraceptives?
What if access is limited or denied?
Two words: Joe Machin. Abortion rights would be the law of the land with Harris in attendance to break any tie-in on the vote to enshrine the abortion protections of Roe v. Wade into federal law. Basically Joe Manchin gets to decide what becomes law these days.dajo9 said:First and foremost we can blame Republicans and conservatives who support all this nonsenseDiabloWags said:You can blame all of those elite progressives and Bernie supporters who stupidly failed their Party and didnt get off the couch on voting day for Hillary not winning in 2016. And for what it's worth, 1 in 10 Bernie supporters voted for Trump.dimitrig said:
Can you imagine if Hillary had won the election? We'd still have faith in government, elections, and the courts. Instead, we have a deeply divided nation pitting neighbor against neighbor.
What a sad day.
1 In 10 Bernie Sanders Supporters Ended Up Voting For Trump : NPR
Do you really think this is realistic advice? On a societal level? Just don't have sex?tequila4kapp said:Then don't have sex unless you are willing to live with the consequences???DiabloWags said:tequila4kapp said:In general "they" are all the human beings who have unprotected sex.DiabloWags said:Who's they?tequila4kapp said:
I know I'm going to get hammered for this but they could start by not having unprotected sex.
Black Americans?
Or the 7500 Americans in general in Alabama?
But what if the Supreme Court bans contraception?
What if insurance companies and state insurance like Medicaid stop paying for contraceptives?
What if access is limited or denied?
The truth is that sex will happen, unwanted pregnancies will happen, and banning abortion doesn't stop it. It just makes abortion more dangerous and only accessible to the upper classes.
tequila4kapp said:
I know I'm going to get hammered for this but they could start by not having unprotected sex.
Bigger picture, I predict federal legislative remedies. Dem's will change the rules to not allow filibuster and they will get something passed. It will be too extreme. Repubs - after taking back Congress in the fall - will pass changes. Biden will veto it. At some point in the future - maybe 15-20 years from now - the federal law will settle somewhere more consistent with the populace. Lives will be impacted until then.
And there it is. The denial of rights because he disapproves of your morals.
Big government conservatives.
Flagged: flame post with no
Meaningful info
Meaningful info
oski003 said:DiabloWags said:Try again.oski003 said:
The Supreme Court does not have the authority to ban contraception.
Griswold vs Connecticut .... and Clarence Thomas' opinion.
What in there gives the Supreme Court the ability to ban contraception?
I'm gonna put you back on ignore for having poor reading comprehension and not able to do basic research.
Enjoy your weekend.
tequila4kapp said:Respectfully, it is easy to have this view when it is someone else's core right at stake. This is a complex issue - the Constitution does also envision protecting the rights of the individual against the wishes of the masses.helltopay1 said:
Now, questions concerning abortion will be left to the States, just like God and the founding fathers intended. People will actually get to vote on the issue...Imagine that!!!!People voting on a issue!!!!!what will they think of next?????
To be consistent with htp's views on individual rights vs. the power of the majority, I think the state of California should put it to a vote on whether htp is a he or a she. All appropriate gender affirming care should be mandated thereafter.
DiabloWags said:oski003 said:DiabloWags said:Try again.oski003 said:
The Supreme Court does not have the authority to ban contraception.
Griswold vs Connecticut .... and Clarence Thomas' opinion.
What in there gives the Supreme Court the ability to ban contraception?
I'm gonna put you back on ignore for having poor reading comprehension and not able to do basic research.
Enjoy your weekend.
I accept your ignore for your lack of understanding of how the law works, along with your uncanny Trumpesque ability to repeat the same things over and over. The Supreme Court cannot ban contraceptives. If for some rational reason, a state wanted to ban contraceptives and Justice Thomas' opinion became law, then the Supreme Court would allow that state to ban contraceptives. Allowing a state legislature the ability to enact a law is not the same as the Supreme Court enacting a law.
dajo9 said:tequila4kapp said:Respectfully, it is easy to have this view when it is someone else's core right at stake. This is a complex issue - the Constitution does also envision protecting the rights of the individual against the wishes of the masses.helltopay1 said:
Now, questions concerning abortion will be left to the States, just like God and the founding fathers intended. People will actually get to vote on the issue...Imagine that!!!!People voting on a issue!!!!!what will they think of next?????
To be consistent with htp's views on individual rights vs. the power of the majority, I think the state of California should put it to a vote on whether htp is a he or a she. All appropriate gender affirming care should be mandated thereafter.
I cant wait to see HTP stand up as a good Christian and start adopting some of those black infants from Alabama.
I think that he could start an incredible wave of goodwill in the retirement community that he lives in at Rossmoor.
I look forward to helping him in any way that I can.
This platform also included the repeal of the Voting Rights Act and the repeal of 17th Amendment (which allows direct election of Senators). They don't believe in democracy either.okaydo said:dimitrig said:tequila4kapp said:
I know I'm going to get hammered for this but they could start by not having unprotected sex.
Republicans also want to do away with contraception and sex education.
Yup, notice the date of this article:
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/18/texas-gop-platform-gender-sexuality-preborn/
DiabloWags said:dajo9 said:tequila4kapp said:Respectfully, it is easy to have this view when it is someone else's core right at stake. This is a complex issue - the Constitution does also envision protecting the rights of the individual against the wishes of the masses.helltopay1 said:
Now, questions concerning abortion will be left to the States, just like God and the founding fathers intended. People will actually get to vote on the issue...Imagine that!!!!People voting on a issue!!!!!what will they think of next?????
To be consistent with htp's views on individual rights vs. the power of the majority, I think the state of California should put it to a vote on whether htp is a he or a she. All appropriate gender affirming care should be mandated thereafter.
I cant wait to see HTP stand up as a good Christian and start adopting some of those black infants from Alabama.
I think that he could start an incredible wave of goodwill in the retirement community that he lives in at Rossmoor.
What about the white infants from Alabama? You are stealing going 4 racism's thunder again.
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
DiabloWags said:
6 - 3
Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett
Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan in dissent.
Judge Roberts wrote a separate concurring opinion.
26 states are certainly to be impacted.
No exceptions for cases of rape, incest, or health risk to the mother.
If there were exceptions for cases of rape, incest, or health risk to the mother you would ok with the decision?
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
dajo9 said:tequila4kapp said:
I know I'm going to get hammered for this but they could start by not having unprotected sex.
Bigger picture, I predict federal legislative remedies. Dem's will change the rules to not allow filibuster and they will get something passed. It will be too extreme. Repubs - after taking back Congress in the fall - will pass changes. Biden will veto it. At some point in the future - maybe 15-20 years from now - the federal law will settle somewhere more consistent with the populace. Lives will be impacted until then.
And there it is. The denial of rights because he disapproves of your morals.
Big government conservatives.
I stand with you and absolutely oppose any effort by the government to force both women and men to become pregnant.
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
DiabloWags said:The vote was 6 - 3 with Roberts writing a separate concurring opinion.tequila4kapp said:
I haven't read the opinion. I believe the vote was 6-3. Sounds like Roberts did vote to overturn Roe but wrote a concurrence to express different legal views.
He concurred in the judgement only, and would have limited the decision to upholding Mississippi law at issue in the case, which banned abortions after 15 weeks.
Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending right to abortion upheld for decades : NPR
Perspective - the Mississippi law prohibiting abortion after 15 weeks is less restrictive than the laws of France and Germany (12 wks). One of the deepest red states is in this sense more liberal than our West European friends. This is what people are freaking out about.
— FischerKing (@FischerKing64) June 24, 2022
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
1000% incorrect. If I were a legislator my views would probably be somewhere in the zone of Robert's Concurrence or perhaps Bill Clinton's line - abortions should be legal, safe and rare.dajo9 said:And there it is. The denial of rights because he disapproves of your morals.tequila4kapp said:
I know I'm going to get hammered for this but they could start by not having unprotected sex.
Bigger picture, I predict federal legislative remedies. Dem's will change the rules to not allow filibuster and they will get something passed. It will be too extreme. Repubs - after taking back Congress in the fall - will pass changes. Biden will veto it. At some point in the future - maybe 15-20 years from now - the federal law will settle somewhere more consistent with the populace. Lives will be impacted until then.
Big government conservatives.
"Future fights: Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion overturning Roe that the court should reconsider other due process precedents protecting same-sex relationships, marriage equality and access to contraceptives." Axios
Since Clarence Thomas is in such a "reconsider" mood, perhaps we should "reconsider" whether the good justice perjured himself during his Confirmation Hearing:
Clarence Thomas: The Case To Impeach Supreme Court Justice Over His Alleged Sexual Misconduct
https://www.newsweek.com/clarence-thomas-impeachment-perjury-sexual-harassment-812953
*One can only imagine what will happen when an internet porn case comes before this religion driven court. After Thomas' 10th "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" viewing of the objectionable material, he will collapse and fall off his chair like a parrot with a hard on falling off his perch.
Since Clarence Thomas is in such a "reconsider" mood, perhaps we should "reconsider" whether the good justice perjured himself during his Confirmation Hearing:
Clarence Thomas: The Case To Impeach Supreme Court Justice Over His Alleged Sexual Misconduct
https://www.newsweek.com/clarence-thomas-impeachment-perjury-sexual-harassment-812953
*One can only imagine what will happen when an internet porn case comes before this religion driven court. After Thomas' 10th "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" viewing of the objectionable material, he will collapse and fall off his chair like a parrot with a hard on falling off his perch.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
bearister said:
Since Clarence Thomas is in such a "reconsider" mood, perhaps we should "reconsider" whether the good justice perjured himself during his Confirmation Hearing:
Just wait until Clarence Thomas et al strikes down racial preferences at Harvard and other universities
— Michael Malice (@michaelmalice) June 24, 2022
The Cathedral's system is imploding
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
The clinic staff spent Friday canceling the appointments of 60-70 patients scheduled for abortions in the coming weeks.
— Leah M. Willingham (@LeahMWillingham) June 24, 2022
“Some patients broke down and could not speak through their sobbing. Some patients were stunned and didn't know what to say. Some patients did not understand.” https://t.co/xTlIqLk5E6
He said the court should reconsider and strike the concept of Substantive Due Process as a matter of law. Those cases certainly fall under that umbrella. Maybe it is meaningless semantics to some but he was attacking the legal basis for a host of decisions, not the rights afforded people under the decisions per se.bearister said:
"Future fights: Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion overturning Roe that the court should reconsider other due process precedents protecting same-sex relationships, marriage equality and access to contraceptives." Axios
Since Clarence Thomas is in such a "reconsider" mood, perhaps we should "reconsider" whether the good justice perjured himself during his Confirmation Hearing:
Clarence Thomas: The Case To Impeach Supreme Court Justice Over His Alleged Sexual Misconduct
https://www.newsweek.com/clarence-thomas-impeachment-perjury-sexual-harassment-812953
*One can only imagine what will happen when an internet porn case comes before this religion driven court. After Thomas' 10th "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" viewing of the objectionable material, he will collapse and fall off his chair like a parrot with a hard on falling off his perch.
Maybe but only if you ignored the fact that legislation was introduced yesterday by Republicans to fine any leaker of a SCOTUS decision in addition to a 10 year prison term. Never mind there have been protests outside of conservative justices' homes and an assassination attempt.okaydo said:
I think conservatives leaked it to blunt the impact of the ruling...When it's leaked, it's not official so there isn't as much outrage (even though there was outrage). And when it becomes official, you knew it was coming, so there isn't as much outrage as there would've been if this wasn't expected.
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
I don't think Roberts overruled Casey, but did give a thumbs-up to allowing the law in question. At this juncture, it is meaningless point of law.DiabloWags said:
6 - 3
Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett
Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan in dissent.
Judge Roberts wrote a separate concurring opinion.
26 states are certainly to be impacted.
No exceptions for cases of rape, incest, or health risk to the mother.
The no exceptions part is rather disturbing. Normally, with the price of gas at whatever, no one who would vote GOP cares that much. Women with means will just go to another state, and the really poor who want an abortion don't vote GOP much. But the health risk to the mother may have to be an immediate decision. I guess doctors will do what they need to do to save the mom and doctor the paperwork to make it work. You would think the rights of someone to live would be rather fundamental.
wifeisafurd said:I don't think Roberts overruled Casey, but did give a thumbs-up to allowing the law in question. At this juncture, it is meaningless point of law.DiabloWags said:
6 - 3
Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett
Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan in dissent.
Judge Roberts wrote a separate concurring opinion.
26 states are certainly to be impacted.
No exceptions for cases of rape, incest, or health risk to the mother.
The no exceptions part is rather disturbing. Normally, with the price of gas at whatever, no one who would vote GOP cares that much. Women with means will just go to another state, and the really poor who want an abortion don't vote GOP much. But the health risk to the mother may have to be an immediate decision. I guess doctors will do what they need to do to save the mom and doctor the paperwork to make it work. You would think the rights of someone to live would be rather fundamental.
This ruling is what you voted for in 2016. One would think an attorney would have known the lives of women were at stake.
i didn't read the opinion to say incest, rape, health risk to mother were allowed. I would expect such provisions are subject to the rational basis test. It's hard for me to see how such restrictions could pass even that low bar.wifeisafurd said:I don't think Roberts overruled Casey, but did give a thumbs-up to allowing the law in question. At this juncture, it is meaningless point of law.DiabloWags said:
6 - 3
Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett
Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan in dissent.
Judge Roberts wrote a separate concurring opinion.
26 states are certainly to be impacted.
No exceptions for cases of rape, incest, or health risk to the mother.
The no exceptions part is rather disturbing. Normally, with the price of gas at whatever, no one who would vote GOP cares that much. Women with means will just go to another state, and the really poor who want an abortion don't vote GOP much. But the health risk to the mother may have to be an immediate decision. I guess doctors will do what they need to do to save the mom and doctor the paperwork to make it work. You would think the rights of someone to live would be rather fundamental.
tequila4kapp said:1000% incorrect. If I were a legislator my views would probably be somewhere in the zone of Robert's Concurrence or perhaps Bill Clinton's line - abortions should be legal, safe and rare.dajo9 said:And there it is. The denial of rights because he disapproves of your morals.tequila4kapp said:
I know I'm going to get hammered for this but they could start by not having unprotected sex.
Bigger picture, I predict federal legislative remedies. Dem's will change the rules to not allow filibuster and they will get something passed. It will be too extreme. Repubs - after taking back Congress in the fall - will pass changes. Biden will veto it. At some point in the future - maybe 15-20 years from now - the federal law will settle somewhere more consistent with the populace. Lives will be impacted until then.
Big government conservatives.
JOE BIDEN, 2006: "I do not view abortion as a choice and a right. I think it's always a tragedy."
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 24, 2022
JOE BIDEN, 2022: Abortion-on-demand, without limits, until birth. pic.twitter.com/R45umDefNu
Joe Biden held the same view until he became president.
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
bearister said:
"Future fights: Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion overturning Roe that the court should reconsider other due process precedents protecting same-sex relationships, marriage equality and access to contraceptives." Axios
Since Clarence Thomas is in such a "reconsider" mood, perhaps we should "reconsider" whether the good justice perjured himself during his Confirmation Hearing:
Clarence Thomas: The Case To Impeach Supreme Court Justice Over His Alleged Sexual Misconduct
https://www.newsweek.com/clarence-thomas-impeachment-perjury-sexual-harassment-812953
*One can only imagine what will happen when an internet porn case comes before this religion driven court. After Thomas' 10th "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" viewing of the objectionable material, he will collapse and fall off his chair like a parrot with a hard on falling off his perch.
I find it peculiar that Clarence Thomas forgot to include Loving v. Virginia in his list of substantive due process cases that he would like to see overturned. To quote the originalists in the room, show me where the Constitution says anything about the right to interracial marriage.
BearForce2 said:Maybe but only if you ignored the fact that legislation was introduced yesterday by Republicans to fine any leaker of a SCOTUS decision in addition to a 10 year prison term. Never mind there have been protests outside of conservative justices' homes and an assassination attempt.okaydo said:
I think conservatives leaked it to blunt the impact of the ruling...When it's leaked, it's not official so there isn't as much outrage (even though there was outrage). And when it becomes official, you knew it was coming, so there isn't as much outrage as there would've been if this wasn't expected.
The point of the leak was to ensure that Roe v. Wade passed and to make sure Kavanagh or another conservative didn't back down.
Show me where Biden has ever said anything close to "Abortion-on-demand, without limits, until birth."BearForce2 said:tequila4kapp said:1000% incorrect. If I were a legislator my views would probably be somewhere in the zone of Robert's Concurrence or perhaps Bill Clinton's line - abortions should be legal, safe and rare.dajo9 said:And there it is. The denial of rights because he disapproves of your morals.tequila4kapp said:
I know I'm going to get hammered for this but they could start by not having unprotected sex.
Bigger picture, I predict federal legislative remedies. Dem's will change the rules to not allow filibuster and they will get something passed. It will be too extreme. Repubs - after taking back Congress in the fall - will pass changes. Biden will veto it. At some point in the future - maybe 15-20 years from now - the federal law will settle somewhere more consistent with the populace. Lives will be impacted until then.
Big government conservatives.JOE BIDEN, 2006: "I do not view abortion as a choice and a right. I think it's always a tragedy."
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 24, 2022
JOE BIDEN, 2022: Abortion-on-demand, without limits, until birth. pic.twitter.com/R45umDefNu
Joe Biden held the same view until he became president.
okaydo said:BearForce2 said:Maybe but only if you ignored the fact that legislation was introduced yesterday by Republicans to fine any leaker of a SCOTUS decision in addition to a 10 year prison term. Never mind there have been protests outside of conservative justices' homes and an assassination attempt.okaydo said:
I think conservatives leaked it to blunt the impact of the ruling...When it's leaked, it's not official so there isn't as much outrage (even though there was outrage). And when it becomes official, you knew it was coming, so there isn't as much outrage as there would've been if this wasn't expected.
The point of the leak was to ensure that Roe v. Wade passed and to make sure Kavanagh or another conservative didn't back down.
The point of the leak was to pressure conservative justices to not overturn Roe v Wade.
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
BearForce2 said:tequila4kapp said:1000% incorrect. If I were a legislator my views would probably be somewhere in the zone of Robert's Concurrence or perhaps Bill Clinton's line - abortions should be legal, safe and rare.dajo9 said:And there it is. The denial of rights because he disapproves of your morals.tequila4kapp said:
I know I'm going to get hammered for this but they could start by not having unprotected sex.
Bigger picture, I predict federal legislative remedies. Dem's will change the rules to not allow filibuster and they will get something passed. It will be too extreme. Repubs - after taking back Congress in the fall - will pass changes. Biden will veto it. At some point in the future - maybe 15-20 years from now - the federal law will settle somewhere more consistent with the populace. Lives will be impacted until then.
Big government conservatives.JOE BIDEN, 2006: "I do not view abortion as a choice and a right. I think it's always a tragedy."
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 24, 2022
JOE BIDEN, 2022: Abortion-on-demand, without limits, until birth. pic.twitter.com/R45umDefNu
Joe Biden held the same view until he became president.
Very nicely typically disingenuous of you....now do the full quote from 2006 where he says he supports roe v Wade and wants access to safe a orations but wants to work on lowering the total number .... Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Then you can put an actual quote from him today since the second statement is not a quote.
I based my comments on what Diablo said either in the OP or the post thereafter. If cases of where the mother's health at risk are still to be fundamental rights, then the issue really is about access for poor women. You can then argue about the social policy of forcing additional children for poor women, which by my characterization of the issue, tells you where I stand.tequila4kapp said:i didn't read the opinion to say incest, rape, health risk to mother were allowed. I would expect such provisions are subject to the rational basis test. It's hard for me to see how such restrictions could pass even that low bar.wifeisafurd said:I don't think Roberts overruled Casey, but did give a thumbs-up to allowing the law in question. At this juncture, it is meaningless point of law.DiabloWags said:
6 - 3
Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett
Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan in dissent.
Judge Roberts wrote a separate concurring opinion.
26 states are certainly to be impacted.
No exceptions for cases of rape, incest, or health risk to the mother.
The no exceptions part is rather disturbing. Normally, with the price of gas at whatever, no one who would vote GOP cares that much. Women with means will just go to another state, and the really poor who want an abortion don't vote GOP much. But the health risk to the mother may have to be an immediate decision. I guess doctors will do what they need to do to save the mom and doctor the paperwork to make it work. You would think the rights of someone to live would be rather fundamental.
https://abortionfunds.org/
Looks to be a good resource for finding funds to donate to, to help people get abortions. Many of these funds assist women with travel and lodging which is now more important than ever.
Looks to be a good resource for finding funds to donate to, to help people get abortions. Many of these funds assist women with travel and lodging which is now more important than ever.
tequila4kapp said:In general "they" are all the human beings who have unprotected sex.DiabloWags said:Who's they?tequila4kapp said:
I know I'm going to get hammered for this but they could start by not having unprotected sex.
Black Americans?
Or the 7500 Americans in general in Alabama?
So, if someone rapes your daughter and she gets pregnant as a result, you'll just say "You shouldn't have had unprotected sex…"
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
Rights for me, but not for thee.Vandalus said:bearister said:
"Future fights: Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion overturning Roe that the court should reconsider other due process precedents protecting same-sex relationships, marriage equality and access to contraceptives." Axios
Since Clarence Thomas is in such a "reconsider" mood, perhaps we should "reconsider" whether the good justice perjured himself during his Confirmation Hearing:
Clarence Thomas: The Case To Impeach Supreme Court Justice Over His Alleged Sexual Misconduct
https://www.newsweek.com/clarence-thomas-impeachment-perjury-sexual-harassment-812953
*One can only imagine what will happen when an internet porn case comes before this religion driven court. After Thomas' 10th "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" viewing of the objectionable material, he will collapse and fall off his chair like a parrot with a hard on falling off his perch.
I find it peculiar that Clarence Thomas forgot to include Loving v. Virginia in his list of substantive due process cases that he would like to see overturned. To quote the originalists in the room, show me where the Constitution says anything about the right to interracial marriage.
okaydo said:
The point of the leak was to ensure that Roe v. Wade passed and to make sure Kavanagh or another conservative didn't back down.
Correct.
Featured Stories
See All
Football Roster Post Spring - The Tight Ends
by Bear Insider
Dixon-Veal Ready to Show What He Can Do For the Bears
by Jim McGill
The Football Roster Post Spring - The Offensive Line Room
by Bear Insider
Bears Head To ACC Outdoor Championships
by Cal Athletics