wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President.

---

Disingenuous, or laughable ignorance? Which republican senator was prepared to terminate the filibuster to restore Roe v Wade? Or were there ten of them ready to impose cloture? I would love to see that list.

---

Collins for one said she was if they had simply followed what was then current law/. Murkowski is another.

Senate fails to pass abortion rights bill again - Politicohttps://www.politico.com news 2022/05/11 senate...[url=http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/twitter/offer?pco=tbx32nj-1.0&url=https://politi.co/3FQdFn3&text=Senate+fails+to+pass+abortion+rights+bill+%E2%80%94+again&pubid=politico.com&via=politico][/url]

Caputo has identified herself as pro choice, but has not indicated if she would have voted for the bill. Then again no one asked, Both Collins and Murskowsi have said they told the Dems were interested and knew that Manchin would object (and apparently Joe is now saying he was protecting others in his party and that he was fooled by two judicial candidates - guess he didn't get Dajo's post)). So you tell me who is being disingenuous? The Dems literally had Harris sitting there like a puppet in front of the Senate for optics, ready to break the tie and Shummer said he was prepared to call to change the rules to allow a vote. Coillins and Murskowski would have offset Manchin and the Arizona Senator. So you tell me who is being disingenuous again?

This is the ultimate F/U to Congress by SCOTUS. Congress no longer has cover. Their turn to jump on to the third rail.

---

Collins for one. She is the most disingenuous person in the Senate. I wouldn't believe a word she says. Manchin has also shown to be a bad faith negotiator. Are we really going to continue to take these politicians at face value who always say, "I would have done what the Democrats wanted if only the Democrats had done X?" The legislation you linked to failed 49-51, just like everybody here, except apparently you, would have predicted.

Face it wife, you called Hillary Clinton a *****. It's no surprise you cast your 2016 vote with no concern towards how it would impact women. The end of abortion rights means death for women. Believe women when they tell you that.

---

Any you voted for a President that would rather have abortion right as a fund raising and vote puling devise for the masses of women who will die traveling to a nearby state. It's on you buddy., and you're four your old thought concepts of blame.

---

wifeisafurd lives in a world where people say and do what he says they say and do. Not what they actually say and do.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President.

---

Disingenuous, or laughable ignorance? Which republican senator was prepared to terminate the filibuster to restore Roe v Wade? Or were there ten of them ready to impose cloture? I would love to see that list.

---

Collins for one said she was if they had simply followed what was then current law/. Murkowski is another.

Senate fails to pass abortion rights bill again - Politicohttps://www.politico.com news 2022/05/11 senate...[url=http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/twitter/offer?pco=tbx32nj-1.0&url=https://politi.co/3FQdFn3&text=Senate+fails+to+pass+abortion+rights+bill+%E2%80%94+again&pubid=politico.com&via=politico][/url]

Caputo has identified herself as pro choice, but has not indicated if she would have voted for the bill. Then again no one asked, Both Collins and Murskowsi have said they told the Dems were interested and knew that Manchin would object (and apparently Joe is now saying he was protecting others in his party and that he was fooled by two judicial candidates - guess he didn't get Dajo's post)). So you tell me who is being disingenuous? The Dems literally had Harris sitting there like a puppet in front of the Senate for optics, ready to break the tie and Shummer said he was prepared to call to change the rules to allow a vote. Coillins and Murskowski would have offset Manchin and the Arizona Senator. So you tell me who is being disingenuous again?

This is the ultimate F/U to Congress by SCOTUS. Congress no longer has cover. Their turn to jump on to the third rail.

---

Collins for one. She is the most disingenuous person in the Senate. I wouldn't believe a word she says. Manchin has also shown to be a bad faith negotiator. Are we really going to continue to take these politicians at face value who always say, "I would have done what the Democrats wanted if only the Democrats had done X?" The legislation you linked to failed 49-51, just like everybody here, except apparently you, would have predicted.

Face it wife, you called Hillary Clinton a *****. It's no surprise you cast your 2016 vote with no concern towards how it would impact women. The end of abortion rights means death for women. Believe women when they tell you that.

---

Any you voted for a President that would rather have abortion right as a fund raising and vote puling devise for the masses of women who will die traveling to a nearby state. It's on you buddy., and you're four your old thought concepts of blame.

---

wifeisafurd lives in a world where people say and do what he says they say and do. Not what they actually say and do.

---

I live in the adult world where you have to vote for people that have view you agree and disagree with, unless you vote for yourself, and small minds on internet boards think the have a gotcha. Its not a point about actually discussing substance of matters, because you don't have the capacity to have the discussion. Two words: Joe Machin.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

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.

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.

---

Agreed 100%

And Furd appears to be totally unaware of states like Mississippi where legislators have "trigger laws" on the books in which all abortions will be banned with the exception of rape (incest is "ok"). Never mind that the rape exception would require criminal charges to be filed, which is clearly problematic in and of itself. And even if found guilty of a rape charge enabling a woman to receive an abortion, there wont be any clinics around to perform that abortion.

The 12 other states with some form of trigger law are Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

---

Going back my original comment was about where the mother's health was at risk. You misrepresented that the court held that the court's decision would allow restricting abortions in that situation. It did not, which you would have know if you read the 4 decisions, which I finally did. Here is a hint: 5 is a bigger number than 4. You are a firm believer in financial literacy, yet you don't seem to have gotten there on legal literacy. Can you name the states that have a trigger law that doesn't make an exception of abortions where the mother's health is at risk?

I get that lightweights like Dajo shout things about people dying, and other emotional over statements and exaggerations. But the substance of the decision, at least if you believe the NT Times is:

"The ruling may have a less dramatic effect on overall abortion rates. Some experts estimate that overturning Roe could reduce the number of legal abortions in the U.S. by as little as 13 percent. That's because abortion was already heavily restricted in red states and more people living in them oppose the practice."

Decision to have an abortion for any reason is always fraught with ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities. But in cases where it's a matter of mom's life are not part of the discussion here at it turns out due to the Courts different opinions and the state trigger laws making exceptions. But the reality is those ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities in most other cases are part of a democratic process where people vote. I think the better social policy is to allow abortions in most cases, thought there are far more important issues for me.

The court didn't say voters of each state. It said: "The authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives." The Democrats have a slim majority in Congress and the Presidency. They had a Vice-President sitting there ready to break a Senate tie, and yet the did not pass legislation that would have permitted most abortions rights in all states. The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President. And if the idiotic concept that the voting record of one individual causes everything that happens (which sounds like something you would hear out of four year old), then it is Dajo's fault, my fault and your fault if you voted for Biden. Apparently having the abortion issue alive at election time is more important than protection of women rights, or to take the more shrill hyperbole point of view, women dying.

---

It's nice to know that me pointing out that wifeisafurd voted for this in 2016 has left an indelible mark in his brain. Also typically laughable that lawyer's think everything is a court matter. How about getting government out of people's lives?

I said to my wife "Do you think anyone will commit suicide because they could not get an abortion?"
She instantly replied "yes."
Then she added "there will be all those boyfriends and husbands that murder them because they couldn't get one too" and that shook my fucking world.

— ScottyJohns (@highroadsaloon) June 25, 2022

---

You cite some random jackass on Twitter who quotes his wife for the truth and correctness of the wife's prediction?

Everyone wants the government out of their lives until they don't. Guns and abortion prove this both ways for both sides.

---

💯👇 pic.twitter.com/Mp1hWMmBBs

— Wu-Tang Is For The Children (@WUTangKids) June 25, 2022

Our court of extremist religious clerics has put us in a new small group of peer nations. Can't wait to see what the clerics do next to turn us into a catholic theocracy at odds with the will of the people. Minority rule without majority rights is not what the framers intended despite mistreatment of everyone not a white male being "deeply rooted" in our history.

The U.S. joins only 3 other countries that have restricted abortion access since 1994: Poland, Nicaragua & El Salvador.

Over the same period, 50+ nations have made it easier to get an abortion, including Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Ireland, Thailand & S. Korea.

— Ben Schamisso (@schamisso) June 24, 2022

---

Dobbs does NOT make abortion more restrictive. It leaves the issue to the states which concurrently makes it more restrictive in some places, less restrictive in other places and likely means no changes in many places

---

I'm sorry, but this is simply false. There is no state where the Dobbs decision makes abortion LESS restrictive. Maybe some states will liberalize their laws in response to Dobbs, but that's not the same thing. Where Dobbs has a direct effect, the only effect is to create more restrictions.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President.

---

Disingenuous, or laughable ignorance? Which republican senator was prepared to terminate the filibuster to restore Roe v Wade? Or were there ten of them ready to impose cloture? I would love to see that list.

---

Collins for one said she was if they had simply followed what was then current law/. Murkowski is another.

Senate fails to pass abortion rights bill again - Politicohttps://www.politico.com news 2022/05/11 senate...[url=http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/twitter/offer?pco=tbx32nj-1.0&url=https://politi.co/3FQdFn3&text=Senate+fails+to+pass+abortion+rights+bill+%E2%80%94+again&pubid=politico.com&via=politico][/url]

Caputo has identified herself as pro choice, but has not indicated if she would have voted for the bill. Then again no one asked, Both Collins and Murskowsi have said they told the Dems were interested and knew that Manchin would object (and apparently Joe is now saying he was protecting others in his party and that he was fooled by two judicial candidates - guess he didn't get Dajo's post)). So you tell me who is being disingenuous? The Dems literally had Harris sitting there like a puppet in front of the Senate for optics, ready to break the tie and Shummer said he was prepared to call to change the rules to allow a vote. Coillins and Murskowski would have offset Manchin and the Arizona Senator. So you tell me who is being disingenuous again?

This is the ultimate F/U to Congress by SCOTUS. Congress no longer has cover. Their turn to jump on to the third rail.

---

Collins for one. She is the most disingenuous person in the Senate. I wouldn't believe a word she says. Manchin has also shown to be a bad faith negotiator. Are we really going to continue to take these politicians at face value who always say, "I would have done what the Democrats wanted if only the Democrats had done X?" The legislation you linked to failed 49-51, just like everybody here, except apparently you, would have predicted.

Face it wife, you called Hillary Clinton a *****. It's no surprise you cast your 2016 vote with no concern towards how it would impact women. The end of abortion rights means death for women. Believe women when they tell you that.

---

Any you voted for a President that would rather have abortion right as a fund raising and vote puling devise for the masses of women who will die traveling to a nearby state. It's on you buddy., and you're four your old thought concepts of blame.

---

wifeisafurd lives in a world where people say and do what he says they say and do. Not what they actually say and do.

---

I live in the adult world where you have to vote for people that have view you agree and disagree with, unless you vote for yourself, and small minds on internet boards think the have a gotcha. Its not a point about actually discussing substance of matters, because you don't have the capacity to have the discussion. Two words: Joe Machin.

---

You voted for Trump in 2016. You voted to end abortion rights and let women die. You voted to dismantle gun control and let children die. You voted against climate change to let millions of poor people around the globe die.

None of that was unknown in 2016. Don't hide from it now. Own it.

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

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.

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.

---

Agreed 100%

And Furd appears to be totally unaware of states like Mississippi where legislators have "trigger laws" on the books in which all abortions will be banned with the exception of rape (incest is "ok"). Never mind that the rape exception would require criminal charges to be filed, which is clearly problematic in and of itself. And even if found guilty of a rape charge enabling a woman to receive an abortion, there wont be any clinics around to perform that abortion.

The 12 other states with some form of trigger law are Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

---

Going back my original comment was about where the mother's health was at risk. You misrepresented that the court held that the court's decision would allow restricting abortions in that situation. It did not, which you would have know if you read the 4 decisions, which I finally did. Here is a hint: 5 is a bigger number than 4. You are a firm believer in financial literacy, yet you don't seem to have gotten there on legal literacy. Can you name the states that have a trigger law that doesn't make an exception of abortions where the mother's health is at risk?

I get that lightweights like Dajo shout things about people dying, and other emotional over statements and exaggerations. But the substance of the decision, at least if you believe the NT Times is:

"The ruling may have a less dramatic effect on overall abortion rates. Some experts estimate that overturning Roe could reduce the number of legal abortions in the U.S. by as little as 13 percent. That's because abortion was already heavily restricted in red states and more people living in them oppose the practice."

Decision to have an abortion for any reason is always fraught with ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities. But in cases where it's a matter of mom's life are not part of the discussion here at it turns out due to the Courts different opinions and the state trigger laws making exceptions. But the reality is those ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities in most other cases are part of a democratic process where people vote. I think the better social policy is to allow abortions in most cases, thought there are far more important issues for me.

The court didn't say voters of each state. It said: "The authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives." The Democrats have a slim majority in Congress and the Presidency. They had a Vice-President sitting there ready to break a Senate tie, and yet the did not pass legislation that would have permitted most abortions rights in all states. The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President. And if the idiotic concept that the voting record of one individual causes everything that happens (which sounds like something you would hear out of four year old), then it is Dajo's fault, my fault and your fault if you voted for Biden. Apparently having the abortion issue alive at election time is more important than protection of women rights, or to take the more shrill hyperbole point of view, women dying.

---

It's nice to know that me pointing out that wifeisafurd voted for this in 2016 has left an indelible mark in his brain. Also typically laughable that lawyer's think everything is a court matter. How about getting government out of people's lives?

I said to my wife "Do you think anyone will commit suicide because they could not get an abortion?"
She instantly replied "yes."
Then she added "there will be all those boyfriends and husbands that murder them because they couldn't get one too" and that shook my fucking world.

— ScottyJohns (@highroadsaloon) June 25, 2022

---

You cite some random jackass on Twitter who quotes his wife for the truth and correctness of the wife's prediction?

Everyone wants the government out of their lives until they don't. Guns and abortion prove this both ways for both sides.

---

💯👇 pic.twitter.com/Mp1hWMmBBs

— Wu-Tang Is For The Children (@WUTangKids) June 25, 2022

Our court of extremist religious clerics has put us in a new small group of peer nations. Can't wait to see what the clerics do next to turn us into a catholic theocracy at odds with the will of the people. Minority rule without majority rights is not what the framers intended despite mistreatment of everyone not a white male being "deeply rooted" in our history.

The U.S. joins only 3 other countries that have restricted abortion access since 1994: Poland, Nicaragua & El Salvador.

Over the same period, 50+ nations have made it easier to get an abortion, including Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Ireland, Thailand & S. Korea.

— Ben Schamisso (@schamisso) June 24, 2022

---

Dobbs does NOT make abortion more restrictive. It leaves the issue to the states which concurrently makes it more restrictive in some places, less restrictive in other places and likely means no changes in many places

---

I'm sorry, but this is simply false. There is no state where the Dobbs decision makes abortion LESS restrictive. Maybe some states will liberalize their laws in response to Dobbs, but that's not the same thing. Where Dobbs has a direct effect, the only effect is to create more restrictions.

---

No one can argue in good faith that Dobbs isn't making abortion more restrictive. The anti choice people are celebrating this decision for exactly that reason. The fact that they need to also rely on state law, now permitted under Dobbs, to enact Christian Sharia doesn't mean that the US isn't backsliding on rights.

This is a religious minority imposing their will on a majority, courtesy of the anti democratic elements in our system of government.

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

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.

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.

---

Agreed 100%

And Furd appears to be totally unaware of states like Mississippi where legislators have "trigger laws" on the books in which all abortions will be banned with the exception of rape (incest is "ok"). Never mind that the rape exception would require criminal charges to be filed, which is clearly problematic in and of itself. And even if found guilty of a rape charge enabling a woman to receive an abortion, there wont be any clinics around to perform that abortion.

The 12 other states with some form of trigger law are Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

---

Going back my original comment was about where the mother's health was at risk. You misrepresented that the court held that the court's decision would allow restricting abortions in that situation. It did not, which you would have know if you read the 4 decisions, which I finally did. Here is a hint: 5 is a bigger number than 4. You are a firm believer in financial literacy, yet you don't seem to have gotten there on legal literacy. Can you name the states that have a trigger law that doesn't make an exception of abortions where the mother's health is at risk?

I get that lightweights like Dajo shout things about people dying, and other emotional over statements and exaggerations. But the substance of the decision, at least if you believe the NT Times is:

"The ruling may have a less dramatic effect on overall abortion rates. Some experts estimate that overturning Roe could reduce the number of legal abortions in the U.S. by as little as 13 percent. That's because abortion was already heavily restricted in red states and more people living in them oppose the practice."

Decision to have an abortion for any reason is always fraught with ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities. But in cases where it's a matter of mom's life are not part of the discussion here at it turns out due to the Courts different opinions and the state trigger laws making exceptions. But the reality is those ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities in most other cases are part of a democratic process where people vote. I think the better social policy is to allow abortions in most cases, thought there are far more important issues for me.

The court didn't say voters of each state. It said: "The authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives." The Democrats have a slim majority in Congress and the Presidency. They had a Vice-President sitting there ready to break a Senate tie, and yet the did not pass legislation that would have permitted most abortions rights in all states. The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President. And if the idiotic concept that the voting record of one individual causes everything that happens (which sounds like something you would hear out of four year old), then it is Dajo's fault, my fault and your fault if you voted for Biden. Apparently having the abortion issue alive at election time is more important than protection of women rights, or to take the more shrill hyperbole point of view, women dying.

---

It's nice to know that me pointing out that wifeisafurd voted for this in 2016 has left an indelible mark in his brain. Also typically laughable that lawyer's think everything is a court matter. How about getting government out of people's lives?

I said to my wife "Do you think anyone will commit suicide because they could not get an abortion?"
She instantly replied "yes."
Then she added "there will be all those boyfriends and husbands that murder them because they couldn't get one too" and that shook my fucking world.

— ScottyJohns (@highroadsaloon) June 25, 2022

---

You cite some random jackass on Twitter who quotes his wife for the truth and correctness of the wife's prediction?

Everyone wants the government out of their lives until they don't. Guns and abortion prove this both ways for both sides.

---

💯👇 pic.twitter.com/Mp1hWMmBBs

— Wu-Tang Is For The Children (@WUTangKids) June 25, 2022

Our court of extremist religious clerics has put us in a new small group of peer nations. Can't wait to see what the clerics do next to turn us into a catholic theocracy at odds with the will of the people. Minority rule without majority rights is not what the framers intended despite mistreatment of everyone not a white male being "deeply rooted" in our history.

The U.S. joins only 3 other countries that have restricted abortion access since 1994: Poland, Nicaragua & El Salvador.

Over the same period, 50+ nations have made it easier to get an abortion, including Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Ireland, Thailand & S. Korea.

— Ben Schamisso (@schamisso) June 24, 2022

---

Dobbs does NOT make abortion more restrictive. It leaves the issue to the states which concurrently makes it more restrictive in some places, less restrictive in other places and likely means no changes in many places

---

I'm sorry, but this is simply false. There is no state where the Dobbs decision makes abortion LESS restrictive. Maybe some states will liberalize their laws in response to Dobbs, but that's not the same thing. Where Dobbs has a direct effect, the only effect is to create more restrictions.

---

California and others have announced their intention to pass new laws making abortion more available. I have no doubt they will.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President.

---

Disingenuous, or laughable ignorance? Which republican senator was prepared to terminate the filibuster to restore Roe v Wade? Or were there ten of them ready to impose cloture? I would love to see that list.

---

Collins for one said she was if they had simply followed what was then current law/. Murkowski is another.

Senate fails to pass abortion rights bill again - Politicohttps://www.politico.com news 2022/05/11 senate...[url=http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/twitter/offer?pco=tbx32nj-1.0&url=https://politi.co/3FQdFn3&text=Senate+fails+to+pass+abortion+rights+bill+%E2%80%94+again&pubid=politico.com&via=politico][/url]

Caputo has identified herself as pro choice, but has not indicated if she would have voted for the bill. Then again no one asked, Both Collins and Murskowsi have said they told the Dems were interested and knew that Manchin would object (and apparently Joe is now saying he was protecting others in his party and that he was fooled by two judicial candidates - guess he didn't get Dajo's post)). So you tell me who is being disingenuous? The Dems literally had Harris sitting there like a puppet in front of the Senate for optics, ready to break the tie and Shummer said he was prepared to call to change the rules to allow a vote. Coillins and Murskowski would have offset Manchin and the Arizona Senator. So you tell me who is being disingenuous again?

This is the ultimate F/U to Congress by SCOTUS. Congress no longer has cover. Their turn to jump on to the third rail.

---

Collins for one. She is the most disingenuous person in the Senate. I wouldn't believe a word she says. Manchin has also shown to be a bad faith negotiator. Are we really going to continue to take these politicians at face value who always say, "I would have done what the Democrats wanted if only the Democrats had done X?" The legislation you linked to failed 49-51, just like everybody here, except apparently you, would have predicted.

Face it wife, you called Hillary Clinton a *****. It's no surprise you cast your 2016 vote with no concern towards how it would impact women. The end of abortion rights means death for women. Believe women when they tell you that.

---

Any you voted for a President that would rather have abortion right as a fund raising and vote puling devise for the masses of women who will die traveling to a nearby state. It's on you buddy., and you're four your old thought concepts of blame.

---

wifeisafurd lives in a world where people say and do what he says they say and do. Not what they actually say and do.

---

says the white guy with the white family from the white suburbs, truyitng to use race to defect that his white President and white senators would rather have abortion right as a fund raising and mid-terms vote puling devise for the masses of women who will die traveling to a nearby state. It's on you white buddy., and you're four your old thought concepts of blame

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President.

---

Disingenuous, or laughable ignorance? Which republican senator was prepared to terminate the filibuster to restore Roe v Wade? Or were there ten of them ready to impose cloture? I would love to see that list.

---

Collins for one said she was if they had simply followed what was then current law/. Murkowski is another.

Senate fails to pass abortion rights bill again - Politicohttps://www.politico.com news 2022/05/11 senate...[url=http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/twitter/offer?pco=tbx32nj-1.0&url=https://politi.co/3FQdFn3&text=Senate+fails+to+pass+abortion+rights+bill+%E2%80%94+again&pubid=politico.com&via=politico][/url]

Caputo has identified herself as pro choice, but has not indicated if she would have voted for the bill. Then again no one asked, Both Collins and Murskowsi have said they told the Dems were interested and knew that Manchin would object (and apparently Joe is now saying he was protecting others in his party and that he was fooled by two judicial candidates - guess he didn't get Dajo's post)). So you tell me who is being disingenuous? The Dems literally had Harris sitting there like a puppet in front of the Senate for optics, ready to break the tie and Shummer said he was prepared to call to change the rules to allow a vote. Coillins and Murskowski would have offset Manchin and the Arizona Senator. So you tell me who is being disingenuous again?

This is the ultimate F/U to Congress by SCOTUS. Congress no longer has cover. Their turn to jump on to the third rail.

---

Collins for one. She is the most disingenuous person in the Senate. I wouldn't believe a word she says. Manchin has also shown to be a bad faith negotiator. Are we really going to continue to take these politicians at face value who always say, "I would have done what the Democrats wanted if only the Democrats had done X?" The legislation you linked to failed 49-51, just like everybody here, except apparently you, would have predicted.

Face it wife, you called Hillary Clinton a *****. It's no surprise you cast your 2016 vote with no concern towards how it would impact women. The end of abortion rights means death for women. Believe women when they tell you that.

---

Any you voted for a President that would rather have abortion right as a fund raising and vote puling devise for the masses of women who will die traveling to a nearby state. It's on you buddy., and you're four your old thought concepts of blame.

---

wifeisafurd lives in a world where people say and do what he says they say and do. Not what they actually say and do.

---

says the white guy with the white family from the white suburbs, truyitng to use race to defect that his white President and white senators would rather have abortion right as a fund raising and mid-terms vote puling devise for the masses of women who will die traveling to a nearby state. It's on you white buddy., and you're four your old thought concepts of blame

---

Now I'm using race. You're losing it, old guy.

Dajo9 said:

---

It's nice to know that me pointing out that wifeisafurd voted for this in 2016 has left an indelible mark in his brain. Also typically laughable that lawyer's think everything is a court matter. How about getting government out of people's lives?

I said to my wife "Do you think anyone will commit suicide because they could not get an abortion?"
She instantly replied "yes."
Then she added "there will be all those boyfriends and husbands that murder them because they couldn't get one too" and that shook my fucking world.

— ScottyJohns (@highroadsaloon) June 25, 2022

---

His 2500 word "essays" on California employment contract law in the Teri McKeever thread tell you as much. Ive noticed that he has a habit of getting so far out in the "weeds" on topics that he cant see the forest through the trees. He's always fixated on the "bark".

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President.

---

Disingenuous, or laughable ignorance? Which republican senator was prepared to terminate the filibuster to restore Roe v Wade? Or were there ten of them ready to impose cloture? I would love to see that list.

---

Collins for one said she was if they had simply followed what was then current law/. Murkowski is another.

Senate fails to pass abortion rights bill again - Politicohttps://www.politico.com news 2022/05/11 senate...[url=http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/twitter/offer?pco=tbx32nj-1.0&url=https://politi.co/3FQdFn3&text=Senate+fails+to+pass+abortion+rights+bill+%E2%80%94+again&pubid=politico.com&via=politico][/url]

Caputo has identified herself as pro choice, but has not indicated if she would have voted for the bill. Then again no one asked, Both Collins and Murskowsi have said they told the Dems were interested and knew that Manchin would object (and apparently Joe is now saying he was protecting others in his party and that he was fooled by two judicial candidates - guess he didn't get Dajo's post)). So you tell me who is being disingenuous? The Dems literally had Harris sitting there like a puppet in front of the Senate for optics, ready to break the tie and Shummer said he was prepared to call to change the rules to allow a vote. Coillins and Murskowski would have offset Manchin and the Arizona Senator. So you tell me who is being disingenuous again?

This is the ultimate F/U to Congress by SCOTUS. Congress no longer has cover. Their turn to jump on to the third rail.

---

Collins for one. She is the most disingenuous person in the Senate. I wouldn't believe a word she says. Manchin has also shown to be a bad faith negotiator. Are we really going to continue to take these politicians at face value who always say, "I would have done what the Democrats wanted if only the Democrats had done X?" The legislation you linked to failed 49-51, just like everybody here, except apparently you, would have predicted.

Face it wife, you called Hillary Clinton a *****. It's no surprise you cast your 2016 vote with no concern towards how it would impact women. The end of abortion rights means death for women. Believe women when they tell you that.

---

Any you voted for a President that would rather have abortion right as a fund raising and vote puling devise for the masses of women who will die traveling to a nearby state. It's on you buddy., and you're four your old thought concepts of blame.

---

wifeisafurd lives in a world where people say and do what he says they say and do. Not what they actually say and do.

---

says the white guy with the white family from the white suburbs, truyitng to use race to defect that his white President and white senators would rather have abortion right as a fund raising and mid-terms vote puling devise for the masses of women who will die traveling to a nearby state. It's on you white buddy., and you're four your old thought concepts of blame

---

Now I'm using race. You're losing it, old guy.

---

yup, reacted to your post about me in another thread. My bad. In retrospect, the Politico article which I posted and repeated what it said was wholly inaccurate, and I must acknowledge that your world view and what you say Imust be correct or you will throw a tantrum and blame my singular vote for all the word's ills.

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

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.

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.

---

Agreed 100%

And Furd appears to be totally unaware of states like Mississippi where legislators have "trigger laws" on the books in which all abortions will be banned with the exception of rape (incest is "ok"). Never mind that the rape exception would require criminal charges to be filed, which is clearly problematic in and of itself. And even if found guilty of a rape charge enabling a woman to receive an abortion, there wont be any clinics around to perform that abortion.

The 12 other states with some form of trigger law are Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

---

Going back my original comment was about where the mother's health was at risk. You misrepresented that the court held that the court's decision would allow restricting abortions in that situation. It did not, which you would have know if you read the 4 decisions, which I finally did. Here is a hint: 5 is a bigger number than 4. You are a firm believer in financial literacy, yet you don't seem to have gotten there on legal literacy. Can you name the states that have a trigger law that doesn't make an exception of abortions where the mother's health is at risk?

I get that lightweights like Dajo shout things about people dying, and other emotional over statements and exaggerations. But the substance of the decision, at least if you believe the NT Times is:

"The ruling may have a less dramatic effect on overall abortion rates. Some experts estimate that overturning Roe could reduce the number of legal abortions in the U.S. by as little as 13 percent. That's because abortion was already heavily restricted in red states and more people living in them oppose the practice."

Decision to have an abortion for any reason is always fraught with ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities. But in cases where it's a matter of mom's life are not part of the discussion here at it turns out due to the Courts different opinions and the state trigger laws making exceptions. But the reality is those ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities in most other cases are part of a democratic process where people vote. I think the better social policy is to allow abortions in most cases, thought there are far more important issues for me.

The court didn't say voters of each state. It said: "The authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives." The Democrats have a slim majority in Congress and the Presidency. They had a Vice-President sitting there ready to break a Senate tie, and yet the did not pass legislation that would have permitted most abortions rights in all states. The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President. And if the idiotic concept that the voting record of one individual causes everything that happens (which sounds like something you would hear out of four year old), then it is Dajo's fault, my fault and your fault if you voted for Biden. Apparently having the abortion issue alive at election time is more important than protection of women rights, or to take the more shrill hyperbole point of view, women dying.

---

It's nice to know that me pointing out that wifeisafurd voted for this in 2016 has left an indelible mark in his brain. Also typically laughable that lawyer's think everything is a court matter. How about getting government out of people's lives?

I said to my wife "Do you think anyone will commit suicide because they could not get an abortion?"
She instantly replied "yes."
Then she added "there will be all those boyfriends and husbands that murder them because they couldn't get one too" and that shook my fucking world.

— ScottyJohns (@highroadsaloon) June 25, 2022

---

You cite some random jackass on Twitter who quotes his wife for the truth and correctness of the wife's prediction?

Everyone wants the government out of their lives until they don't. Guns and abortion prove this both ways for both sides.

---

💯👇 pic.twitter.com/Mp1hWMmBBs

— Wu-Tang Is For The Children (@WUTangKids) June 25, 2022

Our court of extremist religious clerics has put us in a new small group of peer nations. Can't wait to see what the clerics do next to turn us into a catholic theocracy at odds with the will of the people. Minority rule without majority rights is not what the framers intended despite mistreatment of everyone not a white male being "deeply rooted" in our history.

The U.S. joins only 3 other countries that have restricted abortion access since 1994: Poland, Nicaragua & El Salvador.

Over the same period, 50+ nations have made it easier to get an abortion, including Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Ireland, Thailand & S. Korea.

— Ben Schamisso (@schamisso) June 24, 2022

---

Dobbs does NOT make abortion more restrictive. It leaves the issue to the states which concurrently makes it more restrictive in some places, less restrictive in other places and likely means no changes in many places

---

I'm sorry, but this is simply false. There is no state where the Dobbs decision makes abortion LESS restrictive. Maybe some states will liberalize their laws in response to Dobbs, but that's not the same thing. Where Dobbs has a direct effect, the only effect is to create more restrictions.

---

California and others have announced their intention to pass new laws making abortion more available. I have no doubt they will.

---

They could have also passed those laws without Dobbs. The decision doesn't affect the ability to do that. It does now allow 100% abortion bans, which have already gone into effect.

It's a pro-restriction decision.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President.

---

Disingenuous, or laughable ignorance? Which republican senator was prepared to terminate the filibuster to restore Roe v Wade? Or were there ten of them ready to impose cloture? I would love to see that list.

---

Collins for one said she was if they had simply followed what was then current law/. Murkowski is another.

Senate fails to pass abortion rights bill again - Politicohttps://www.politico.com news 2022/05/11 senate...[url=http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/twitter/offer?pco=tbx32nj-1.0&url=https://politi.co/3FQdFn3&text=Senate+fails+to+pass+abortion+rights+bill+%E2%80%94+again&pubid=politico.com&via=politico][/url]

Caputo has identified herself as pro choice, but has not indicated if she would have voted for the bill. Then again no one asked, Both Collins and Murskowsi have said they told the Dems were interested and knew that Manchin would object (and apparently Joe is now saying he was protecting others in his party and that he was fooled by two judicial candidates - guess he didn't get Dajo's post)). So you tell me who is being disingenuous? The Dems literally had Harris sitting there like a puppet in front of the Senate for optics, ready to break the tie and Shummer said he was prepared to call to change the rules to allow a vote. Coillins and Murskowski would have offset Manchin and the Arizona Senator. So you tell me who is being disingenuous again?

This is the ultimate F/U to Congress by SCOTUS. Congress no longer has cover. Their turn to jump on to the third rail.

---

Collins for one. She is the most disingenuous person in the Senate. I wouldn't believe a word she says. Manchin has also shown to be a bad faith negotiator. Are we really going to continue to take these politicians at face value who always say, "I would have done what the Democrats wanted if only the Democrats had done X?" The legislation you linked to failed 49-51, just like everybody here, except apparently you, would have predicted.

Face it wife, you called Hillary Clinton a *****. It's no surprise you cast your 2016 vote with no concern towards how it would impact women. The end of abortion rights means death for women. Believe women when they tell you that.

---

Any you voted for a President that would rather have abortion right as a fund raising and vote puling devise for the masses of women who will die traveling to a nearby state. It's on you buddy., and you're four your old thought concepts of blame.

---

wifeisafurd lives in a world where people say and do what he says they say and do. Not what they actually say and do.

---

says the white guy with the white family from the white suburbs, truyitng to use race to defect that his white President and white senators would rather have abortion right as a fund raising and mid-terms vote puling devise for the masses of women who will die traveling to a nearby state. It's on you white buddy., and you're four your old thought concepts of blame

---

Now I'm using race. You're losing it, old guy.

---

yup, reacted to your post about me in another thread. My bad. In retrospect, the Politico article which I posted and repeated what it said was wholly inaccurate, and I must acknowledge that your world view and what you say Imust be correct or you will throw a tantrum and blame my singular vote for all the word's ills.

---

Go take a nap

DiabloWags said:

---

Dajo9 said:

---

It's nice to know that me pointing out that wifeisafurd voted for this in 2016 has left an indelible mark in his brain. Also typically laughable that lawyer's think everything is a court matter. How about getting government out of people's lives?

I said to my wife "Do you think anyone will commit suicide because they could not get an abortion?"
She instantly replied "yes."
Then she added "there will be all those boyfriends and husbands that murder them because they couldn't get one too" and that shook my fucking world.

— ScottyJohns (@highroadsaloon) June 25, 2022

---

His 2500 word "essays" on California employment contract law in the Teri McKeever thread tell you as much. Ive noticed that he has a habit of getting so far out in the "weeds" on topics that he cant see the forest through the trees. He's always fixated on the "bark".

---

So how is that letter to the Chancellor to have Terry fired immediately doing? Looks like they are following the law and doing that investigation. She must be fixated on the bark. Losing your powers to persuade?

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

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.

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.

---

Agreed 100%

And Furd appears to be totally unaware of states like Mississippi where legislators have "trigger laws" on the books in which all abortions will be banned with the exception of rape (incest is "ok"). Never mind that the rape exception would require criminal charges to be filed, which is clearly problematic in and of itself. And even if found guilty of a rape charge enabling a woman to receive an abortion, there wont be any clinics around to perform that abortion.

The 12 other states with some form of trigger law are Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

---

Going back my original comment was about where the mother's health was at risk. You misrepresented that the court held that the court's decision would allow restricting abortions in that situation. It did not, which you would have know if you read the 4 decisions, which I finally did. Here is a hint: 5 is a bigger number than 4. You are a firm believer in financial literacy, yet you don't seem to have gotten there on legal literacy. Can you name the states that have a trigger law that doesn't make an exception of abortions where the mother's health is at risk?

I get that lightweights like Dajo shout things about people dying, and other emotional over statements and exaggerations. But the substance of the decision, at least if you believe the NT Times is:

"The ruling may have a less dramatic effect on overall abortion rates. Some experts estimate that overturning Roe could reduce the number of legal abortions in the U.S. by as little as 13 percent. That's because abortion was already heavily restricted in red states and more people living in them oppose the practice."

Decision to have an abortion for any reason is always fraught with ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities. But in cases where it's a matter of mom's life are not part of the discussion here at it turns out due to the Courts different opinions and the state trigger laws making exceptions. But the reality is those ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities in most other cases are part of a democratic process where people vote. I think the better social policy is to allow abortions in most cases, thought there are far more important issues for me.

The court didn't say voters of each state. It said: "The authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives." The Democrats have a slim majority in Congress and the Presidency. They had a Vice-President sitting there ready to break a Senate tie, and yet the did not pass legislation that would have permitted most abortions rights in all states. The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President. And if the idiotic concept that the voting record of one individual causes everything that happens (which sounds like something you would hear out of four year old), then it is Dajo's fault, my fault and your fault if you voted for Biden. Apparently having the abortion issue alive at election time is more important than protection of women rights, or to take the more shrill hyperbole point of view, women dying.

---

It's nice to know that me pointing out that wifeisafurd voted for this in 2016 has left an indelible mark in his brain. Also typically laughable that lawyer's think everything is a court matter. How about getting government out of people's lives?

I said to my wife "Do you think anyone will commit suicide because they could not get an abortion?"
She instantly replied "yes."
Then she added "there will be all those boyfriends and husbands that murder them because they couldn't get one too" and that shook my fucking world.

— ScottyJohns (@highroadsaloon) June 25, 2022

---

You cite some random jackass on Twitter who quotes his wife for the truth and correctness of the wife's prediction?

Everyone wants the government out of their lives until they don't. Guns and abortion prove this both ways for both sides.

---

💯👇 pic.twitter.com/Mp1hWMmBBs

— Wu-Tang Is For The Children (@WUTangKids) June 25, 2022

Our court of extremist religious clerics has put us in a new small group of peer nations. Can't wait to see what the clerics do next to turn us into a catholic theocracy at odds with the will of the people. Minority rule without majority rights is not what the framers intended despite mistreatment of everyone not a white male being "deeply rooted" in our history.

The U.S. joins only 3 other countries that have restricted abortion access since 1994: Poland, Nicaragua & El Salvador.

Over the same period, 50+ nations have made it easier to get an abortion, including Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Ireland, Thailand & S. Korea.

— Ben Schamisso (@schamisso) June 24, 2022

---

Dobbs does NOT make abortion more restrictive. It leaves the issue to the states which concurrently makes it more restrictive in some places, less restrictive in other places and likely means no changes in many places

---

I'm sorry, but this is simply false. There is no state where the Dobbs decision makes abortion LESS restrictive. Maybe some states will liberalize their laws in response to Dobbs, but that's not the same thing. Where Dobbs has a direct effect, the only effect is to create more restrictions.

---

California and others have announced their intention to pass new laws making abortion more available. I have no doubt they will.

---

They could have also passed those laws without Dobbs. The decision doesn't affect the ability to do that. It does now allow 100% abortion bans, which have already gone into effect.

It's a pro-restriction decision.

---

It's a pro-restriction impact. No where doss the court say that they favor a more abortion available or less available policy. The 100% abortion ban language is hyperbole, as the trigger laws have exception which permit abortions in certain circumstances. A lot of what is going on is misstating or exaggerating what court did for political advantage.

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

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.

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.

---

Agreed 100%

And Furd appears to be totally unaware of states like Mississippi where legislators have "trigger laws" on the books in which all abortions will be banned with the exception of rape (incest is "ok"). Never mind that the rape exception would require criminal charges to be filed, which is clearly problematic in and of itself. And even if found guilty of a rape charge enabling a woman to receive an abortion, there wont be any clinics around to perform that abortion.

The 12 other states with some form of trigger law are Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

---

Going back my original comment was about where the mother's health was at risk. You misrepresented that the court held that the court's decision would allow restricting abortions in that situation. It did not, which you would have know if you read the 4 decisions, which I finally did. Here is a hint: 5 is a bigger number than 4. You are a firm believer in financial literacy, yet you don't seem to have gotten there on legal literacy. Can you name the states that have a trigger law that doesn't make an exception of abortions where the mother's health is at risk?

I get that lightweights like Dajo shout things about people dying, and other emotional over statements and exaggerations. But the substance of the decision, at least if you believe the NT Times is:

"The ruling may have a less dramatic effect on overall abortion rates. Some experts estimate that overturning Roe could reduce the number of legal abortions in the U.S. by as little as 13 percent. That's because abortion was already heavily restricted in red states and more people living in them oppose the practice."

Decision to have an abortion for any reason is always fraught with ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities. But in cases where it's a matter of mom's life are not part of the discussion here at it turns out due to the Courts different opinions and the state trigger laws making exceptions. But the reality is those ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities in most other cases are part of a democratic process where people vote. I think the better social policy is to allow abortions in most cases, thought there are far more important issues for me.

The court didn't say voters of each state. It said: "The authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives." The Democrats have a slim majority in Congress and the Presidency. They had a Vice-President sitting there ready to break a Senate tie, and yet the did not pass legislation that would have permitted most abortions rights in all states. The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President. And if the idiotic concept that the voting record of one individual causes everything that happens (which sounds like something you would hear out of four year old), then it is Dajo's fault, my fault and your fault if you voted for Biden. Apparently having the abortion issue alive at election time is more important than protection of women rights, or to take the more shrill hyperbole point of view, women dying.

---

It's nice to know that me pointing out that wifeisafurd voted for this in 2016 has left an indelible mark in his brain. Also typically laughable that lawyer's think everything is a court matter. How about getting government out of people's lives?

I said to my wife "Do you think anyone will commit suicide because they could not get an abortion?"
She instantly replied "yes."
Then she added "there will be all those boyfriends and husbands that murder them because they couldn't get one too" and that shook my fucking world.

— ScottyJohns (@highroadsaloon) June 25, 2022

---

You cite some random jackass on Twitter who quotes his wife for the truth and correctness of the wife's prediction?

Everyone wants the government out of their lives until they don't. Guns and abortion prove this both ways for both sides.

---

💯👇 pic.twitter.com/Mp1hWMmBBs

— Wu-Tang Is For The Children (@WUTangKids) June 25, 2022

Our court of extremist religious clerics has put us in a new small group of peer nations. Can't wait to see what the clerics do next to turn us into a catholic theocracy at odds with the will of the people. Minority rule without majority rights is not what the framers intended despite mistreatment of everyone not a white male being "deeply rooted" in our history.

The U.S. joins only 3 other countries that have restricted abortion access since 1994: Poland, Nicaragua & El Salvador.

Over the same period, 50+ nations have made it easier to get an abortion, including Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Ireland, Thailand & S. Korea.

— Ben Schamisso (@schamisso) June 24, 2022

---

Dobbs does NOT make abortion more restrictive. It leaves the issue to the states which concurrently makes it more restrictive in some places, less restrictive in other places and likely means no changes in many places

---

I'm sorry, but this is simply false. There is no state where the Dobbs decision makes abortion LESS restrictive. Maybe some states will liberalize their laws in response to Dobbs, but that's not the same thing. Where Dobbs has a direct effect, the only effect is to create more restrictions.

---

California and others have announced their intention to pass new laws making abortion more available. I have no doubt they will.

---

They could have also passed those laws without Dobbs. The decision doesn't affect the ability to do that. It does now allow 100% abortion bans, which have already gone into effect.

It's a pro-restriction decision.

---

It's a pro-restriction impact. No where doss the court say that they favor a more abortion available or less available policy. The 100% abortion ban language is hyperbole, as the trigger laws have exception which permit abortions in certain circumstances. A lot of what is going on is misstating or exaggerating what court did for political advantage.

---

Okay, many of the laws have one exception for if the life of the mother is threatened. Hooray!

The Court knew these trigger bans were in effect and knew what the impact of their decision would be. To argue otherwise is naive. A more moderate option was on the table (Roberts' finding that a 15 week ban is okay but not reversing Roe entirely). They chose to go this route.

Murder is the #1 cause of death for pregnant women in the U.S.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.insider.com/pregnant-women-in-the-us-homicide-leading-cause-of-death-report-says-2021-12%3famp

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

It's a pro-restriction impact. No where doss the court say that they favor a more abortion available or less available policy. The 100% abortion ban language is hyperbole, as the trigger laws have exception which permit abortions in certain circumstances. A lot of what is going on is misstating or exaggerating what court did for political advantage.

---

Okay, many of the laws have one exception for if the life of the mother is threatened. Hooray!

The Court knew these trigger bans were in effect and knew what the impact of their decision would be. To argue otherwise is naive. A more moderate option was on the table (Roberts' finding that a 15 week ban is okay but not reversing Roe entirely). They chose to go this route.

---

It's downright mind-boggling that people would claim that SCOTUS would be unaware of "trigger laws".

In fact, the "trigger law" in Michigan goes all the way back to 1931.

Shockingly naive.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Our court of extremist religious clerics has put us in a new small group of peer nations. Can't wait to see what the clerics do next to turn us into a catholic theocracy at odds with the will of the people. Minority rule without majority rights is not what the framers intended despite mistreatment of everyone not a white male being "deeply rooted" in our history.

The U.S. joins only 3 other countries that have restricted abortion access since 1994: Poland, Nicaragua & El Salvador.

Over the same period, 50+ nations have made it easier to get an abortion, including Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Ireland, Thailand & S. Korea.

— Ben Schamisso (@schamisso) June 24, 2022

---

European nations largely have abortion laws that resemble regulations supported by many Republican-led state governments

In much of Western Europe, including Ireland and Germany, abortion procedures are banned in the majority of cases after 12 weeks.

Italy doesn't allow abortions after 90 days, or just under 13 weeks. France, Austria and Spain have banned the procedure after 14 weeks.

The U.K. allows abortions up to 24 weeks, according to the nation's National Health Service.

Some blue states have abortion laws that align with laws in North Korea and China.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/abortion-laws-by-state
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-falsely-says-abortion-ruling-makes-us-outlier-developed-nations

DiabloWags said:

---

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

It's a pro-restriction impact. No where doss the court say that they favor a more abortion available or less available policy. The 100% abortion ban language is hyperbole, as the trigger laws have exception which permit abortions in certain circumstances. A lot of what is going on is misstating or exaggerating what court did for political advantage.

---

Okay, many of the laws have one exception for if the life of the mother is threatened. Hooray!

The Court knew these trigger bans were in effect and knew what the impact of their decision would be. To argue otherwise is naive. A more moderate option was on the table (Roberts' finding that a 15 week ban is okay but not reversing Roe entirely). They chose to go this route.

---

It's downright mind-boggling that people would claim that SCOTUS would be unaware of "trigger laws".
In fact, the "trigger law" in Michigan goes all the way back to 1931.
Shockingly naive.

---

Who claimed that the SCOTUS was unaware of trigger laws?

wifeisafurd said:

---

white President and white senators would rather have abortion right as a fund raising and mid-terms vote puling devise for the masses of women who will die traveling to a nearby state. It's on you white buddy., and you're four your old thought concepts of blame

---

What a crock. Show me the 50 votes to terminate the filibuster. You can't and so you are just plain full of it.

Go!Bears said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

white President and white senators would rather have abortion right as a fund raising and mid-terms vote puling devise for the masses of women who will die traveling to a nearby state. It's on you white buddy., and you're four your old thought concepts of blame

---

What a crock. Show me the 50 votes to terminate the filibuster. You can't and so you are just plain full of it.

---

I claim you can't read. Did you even open the link to the Politico article? I didn't come up with 2 GOP senators, they did.

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Dajo9 said:

---

It's nice to know that me pointing out that wifeisafurd voted for this in 2016 has left an indelible mark in his brain. Also typically laughable that lawyer's think everything is a court matter. How about getting government out of people's lives?

---

His 2500 word "essays" on California employment contract law in the Teri McKeever thread tell you as much. Ive noticed that he has a habit of getting so far out in the "weeds" on topics that he cant see the forest through the trees. He's always fixated on the "bark".

---

So how is that letter to the Chancellor to have Terry fired immediately doing? Looks like they are following the law and doing that investigation. She must be fixated on the bark. Losing your powers to persuade?

---

Yeah, it must have had something to do with her Employment Contract.

The one that is literally worthless and has nothing to do with the investigation. The one in which she waived her right to a Skelly hearing.

The one that you wrote several 2500 word "essays" about?

Yeah, that must be "it".

Hahahahahahaaaaaa!

wifeisafurd said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

white President and white senators would rather have abortion right as a fund raising and mid-terms vote puling devise for the masses of women who will die traveling to a nearby state. It's on you white buddy., and you're four your old thought concepts of blame

---

What a crock. Show me the 50 votes to terminate the filibuster. You can't and so you are just plain full of it.

---

I claim you can't read. Did you even open the link to the Politico article? I didn't come up with 2 GOP senators, they did.

---

Wait, what's your point? You think those two GOP Senators will vote to remove the filibuster?

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

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.

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.

---

Agreed 100%

And Furd appears to be totally unaware of states like Mississippi where legislators have "trigger laws" on the books in which all abortions will be banned with the exception of rape (incest is "ok"). Never mind that the rape exception would require criminal charges to be filed, which is clearly problematic in and of itself. And even if found guilty of a rape charge enabling a woman to receive an abortion, there wont be any clinics around to perform that abortion.

The 12 other states with some form of trigger law are Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

---

Going back my original comment was about where the mother's health was at risk. You misrepresented that the court held that the court's decision would allow restricting abortions in that situation. It did not, which you would have know if you read the 4 decisions, which I finally did. Here is a hint: 5 is a bigger number than 4. You are a firm believer in financial literacy, yet you don't seem to have gotten there on legal literacy. Can you name the states that have a trigger law that doesn't make an exception of abortions where the mother's health is at risk?

I get that lightweights like Dajo shout things about people dying, and other emotional over statements and exaggerations. But the substance of the decision, at least if you believe the NT Times is:

"The ruling may have a less dramatic effect on overall abortion rates. Some experts estimate that overturning Roe could reduce the number of legal abortions in the U.S. by as little as 13 percent. That's because abortion was already heavily restricted in red states and more people living in them oppose the practice."

Decision to have an abortion for any reason is always fraught with ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities. But in cases where it's a matter of mom's life are not part of the discussion here at it turns out due to the Courts different opinions and the state trigger laws making exceptions. But the reality is those ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities in most other cases are part of a democratic process where people vote. I think the better social policy is to allow abortions in most cases, thought there are far more important issues for me.

The court didn't say voters of each state. It said: "The authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives." The Democrats have a slim majority in Congress and the Presidency. They had a Vice-President sitting there ready to break a Senate tie, and yet the did not pass legislation that would have permitted most abortions rights in all states. The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President. And if the idiotic concept that the voting record of one individual causes everything that happens (which sounds like something you would hear out of four year old), then it is Dajo's fault, my fault and your fault if you voted for Biden. Apparently having the abortion issue alive at election time is more important than protection of women rights, or to take the more shrill hyperbole point of view, women dying.

---

It's nice to know that me pointing out that wifeisafurd voted for this in 2016 has left an indelible mark in his brain. Also typically laughable that lawyer's think everything is a court matter. How about getting government out of people's lives?

I said to my wife "Do you think anyone will commit suicide because they could not get an abortion?"
She instantly replied "yes."
Then she added "there will be all those boyfriends and husbands that murder them because they couldn't get one too" and that shook my fucking world.

— ScottyJohns (@highroadsaloon) June 25, 2022

---

You cite some random jackass on Twitter who quotes his wife for the truth and correctness of the wife's prediction?

Everyone wants the government out of their lives until they don't. Guns and abortion prove this both ways for both sides.

---

💯👇 pic.twitter.com/Mp1hWMmBBs

— Wu-Tang Is For The Children (@WUTangKids) June 25, 2022

Our court of extremist religious clerics has put us in a new small group of peer nations. Can't wait to see what the clerics do next to turn us into a catholic theocracy at odds with the will of the people. Minority rule without majority rights is not what the framers intended despite mistreatment of everyone not a white male being "deeply rooted" in our history.

The U.S. joins only 3 other countries that have restricted abortion access since 1994: Poland, Nicaragua & El Salvador.

Over the same period, 50+ nations have made it easier to get an abortion, including Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Ireland, Thailand & S. Korea.

— Ben Schamisso (@schamisso) June 24, 2022

---

Dobbs does NOT make abortion more restrictive. It leaves the issue to the states which concurrently makes it more restrictive in some places, less restrictive in other places and likely means no changes in many places

---

I'm sorry, but this is simply false. There is no state where the Dobbs decision makes abortion LESS restrictive. Maybe some states will liberalize their laws in response to Dobbs, but that's not the same thing. Where Dobbs has a direct effect, the only effect is to create more restrictions.

---

California and others have announced their intention to pass new laws making abortion more available. I have no doubt they will.

---

They could have also passed those laws without Dobbs. The decision doesn't affect the ability to do that. It does now allow 100% abortion bans, which have already gone into effect.

It's a pro-restriction decision.

---

Kinda maybe. IIRC Casey /Roe placed limits on the right. Maybe the state laws would have passed muster under that standard. With Rational Basis it's virtually certain the new laws will be deemed Constitutional and it's likely the new laws will reach further than previously planned

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

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.

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.

---

Agreed 100%

And Furd appears to be totally unaware of states like Mississippi where legislators have "trigger laws" on the books in which all abortions will be banned with the exception of rape (incest is "ok"). Never mind that the rape exception would require criminal charges to be filed, which is clearly problematic in and of itself. And even if found guilty of a rape charge enabling a woman to receive an abortion, there wont be any clinics around to perform that abortion.

The 12 other states with some form of trigger law are Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

---

Going back my original comment was about where the mother's health was at risk. You misrepresented that the court held that the court's decision would allow restricting abortions in that situation. It did not, which you would have know if you read the 4 decisions, which I finally did. Here is a hint: 5 is a bigger number than 4. You are a firm believer in financial literacy, yet you don't seem to have gotten there on legal literacy. Can you name the states that have a trigger law that doesn't make an exception of abortions where the mother's health is at risk?

I get that lightweights like Dajo shout things about people dying, and other emotional over statements and exaggerations. But the substance of the decision, at least if you believe the NT Times is:

"The ruling may have a less dramatic effect on overall abortion rates. Some experts estimate that overturning Roe could reduce the number of legal abortions in the U.S. by as little as 13 percent. That's because abortion was already heavily restricted in red states and more people living in them oppose the practice."

Decision to have an abortion for any reason is always fraught with ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities. But in cases where it's a matter of mom's life are not part of the discussion here at it turns out due to the Courts different opinions and the state trigger laws making exceptions. But the reality is those ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities in most other cases are part of a democratic process where people vote. I think the better social policy is to allow abortions in most cases, thought there are far more important issues for me.

The court didn't say voters of each state. It said: "The authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives." The Democrats have a slim majority in Congress and the Presidency. They had a Vice-President sitting there ready to break a Senate tie, and yet the did not pass legislation that would have permitted most abortions rights in all states. The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President. And if the idiotic concept that the voting record of one individual causes everything that happens (which sounds like something you would hear out of four year old), then it is Dajo's fault, my fault and your fault if you voted for Biden. Apparently having the abortion issue alive at election time is more important than protection of women rights, or to take the more shrill hyperbole point of view, women dying.

---

It's nice to know that me pointing out that wifeisafurd voted for this in 2016 has left an indelible mark in his brain. Also typically laughable that lawyer's think everything is a court matter. How about getting government out of people's lives?

I said to my wife "Do you think anyone will commit suicide because they could not get an abortion?"
She instantly replied "yes."
Then she added "there will be all those boyfriends and husbands that murder them because they couldn't get one too" and that shook my fucking world.

— ScottyJohns (@highroadsaloon) June 25, 2022

---

You cite some random jackass on Twitter who quotes his wife for the truth and correctness of the wife's prediction?

Everyone wants the government out of their lives until they don't. Guns and abortion prove this both ways for both sides.

---

💯👇 pic.twitter.com/Mp1hWMmBBs

— Wu-Tang Is For The Children (@WUTangKids) June 25, 2022

Our court of extremist religious clerics has put us in a new small group of peer nations. Can't wait to see what the clerics do next to turn us into a catholic theocracy at odds with the will of the people. Minority rule without majority rights is not what the framers intended despite mistreatment of everyone not a white male being "deeply rooted" in our history.

The U.S. joins only 3 other countries that have restricted abortion access since 1994: Poland, Nicaragua & El Salvador.

Over the same period, 50+ nations have made it easier to get an abortion, including Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Ireland, Thailand & S. Korea.

— Ben Schamisso (@schamisso) June 24, 2022

---

Dobbs does NOT make abortion more restrictive. It leaves the issue to the states which concurrently makes it more restrictive in some places, less restrictive in other places and likely means no changes in many places

---

I'm sorry, but this is simply false. There is no state where the Dobbs decision makes abortion LESS restrictive. Maybe some states will liberalize their laws in response to Dobbs, but that's not the same thing. Where Dobbs has a direct effect, the only effect is to create more restrictions.

---

California and others have announced their intention to pass new laws making abortion more available. I have no doubt they will.

---

They could have also passed those laws without Dobbs. The decision doesn't affect the ability to do that. It does now allow 100% abortion bans, which have already gone into effect.

It's a pro-restriction decision.

---

Kinda maybe. IIRC Casey /Roe placed limits on the right. Maybe the state laws would have passed muster under that standard. With Rational Basis it's virtually certain the new laws will be deemed Constitutional and it's likely the new laws will reach further than previously planned

---

We don't have to guess. Abortion bans are already in place in some states as a direct result of this decision.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

white President and white senators would rather have abortion right as a fund raising and mid-terms vote puling devise for the masses of women who will die traveling to a nearby state. It's on you white buddy., and you're four your old thought concepts of blame

---

What a crock. Show me the 50 votes to terminate the filibuster. You can't and so you are just plain full of it.

---

I claim you can't read. Did you even open the link to the Politico article? I didn't come up with 2 GOP senators, they did.

---

Who can't read? You are making a fool of yourself.

"The failed vote is the latest example of the constraints Democrats face in a 50-50 Senate. While the possible reversal of Roe has some senators calling for a workaround or end to the legislative filibuster to pass abortion rights legislation, there's zero chance of that happening this Congress given opposition from Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.). Further, even if they could kill or amend the filibuster, Democrats don't even have a simple majority that would vote to enact federal protections for abortion."

tequila4kapp said:

---

Dobbs does NOT make abortion more restrictive. It leaves the issue to the states which concurrently makes it more restrictive in some places, less restrictive in other places and likely means no changes in many places

---

Can you at least be honest in the dialogue? Don't play legal semantic? Your position here sounds like a kid in the back seat saying "I didn't punch you, you punched yourself."

If SCOTUS turned the right to arms to states and all the states banned them and SCOTUS knew this would happen in advance would your position be "Technically they didn't ban guns." Your posts elicit a big eye roll of come on, be real.

blungld said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Dobbs does NOT make abortion more restrictive. It leaves the issue to the states which concurrently makes it more restrictive in some places, less restrictive in other places and likely means no changes in many places

---

Can you at least be honest in the dialogue? Don't play legal semantic? Your position here sounds like a kid in the back seat saying "I didn't punch you, you punched yourself."

If SCOTUS turned the right to arms to states and all the states banned them and SCOTUS knew this would happen in advance would your position be "Technically they didn't ban guns." Your posts elicit a big eye roll of come on, be real.

---

Sadly, we see these types of posts frequently here.
Calbear80 has also shown the same kind of posts . . . which clearly arent interested in an honest discussion.

To argue that SCOTUS was not aware of any "trigger" laws regarding Roe v Wade is a dishonest claim.
Some of these "trigger" laws go back as far as 1931, as in the case of Michigan. For Mississippi, it was 2007.

To actually argue that SCOTUS was oblivious to these laws by the States is terribly disingenuous.

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

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.

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.

---

Agreed 100%

And Furd appears to be totally unaware of states like Mississippi where legislators have "trigger laws" on the books in which all abortions will be banned with the exception of rape (incest is "ok"). Never mind that the rape exception would require criminal charges to be filed, which is clearly problematic in and of itself. And even if found guilty of a rape charge enabling a woman to receive an abortion, there wont be any clinics around to perform that abortion.

The 12 other states with some form of trigger law are Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

---

Going back my original comment was about where the mother's health was at risk. You misrepresented that the court held that the court's decision would allow restricting abortions in that situation. It did not, which you would have know if you read the 4 decisions, which I finally did. Here is a hint: 5 is a bigger number than 4. You are a firm believer in financial literacy, yet you don't seem to have gotten there on legal literacy. Can you name the states that have a trigger law that doesn't make an exception of abortions where the mother's health is at risk?

I get that lightweights like Dajo shout things about people dying, and other emotional over statements and exaggerations. But the substance of the decision, at least if you believe the NT Times is:

"The ruling may have a less dramatic effect on overall abortion rates. Some experts estimate that overturning Roe could reduce the number of legal abortions in the U.S. by as little as 13 percent. That's because abortion was already heavily restricted in red states and more people living in them oppose the practice."

Decision to have an abortion for any reason is always fraught with ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities. But in cases where it's a matter of mom's life are not part of the discussion here at it turns out due to the Courts different opinions and the state trigger laws making exceptions. But the reality is those ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities in most other cases are part of a democratic process where people vote. I think the better social policy is to allow abortions in most cases, thought there are far more important issues for me.

The court didn't say voters of each state. It said: "The authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives." The Democrats have a slim majority in Congress and the Presidency. They had a Vice-President sitting there ready to break a Senate tie, and yet the did not pass legislation that would have permitted most abortions rights in all states. The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President. And if the idiotic concept that the voting record of one individual causes everything that happens (which sounds like something you would hear out of four year old), then it is Dajo's fault, my fault and your fault if you voted for Biden. Apparently having the abortion issue alive at election time is more important than protection of women rights, or to take the more shrill hyperbole point of view, women dying.

---

It's nice to know that me pointing out that wifeisafurd voted for this in 2016 has left an indelible mark in his brain. Also typically laughable that lawyer's think everything is a court matter. How about getting government out of people's lives?

I said to my wife "Do you think anyone will commit suicide because they could not get an abortion?"
She instantly replied "yes."
Then she added "there will be all those boyfriends and husbands that murder them because they couldn't get one too" and that shook my fucking world.

— ScottyJohns (@highroadsaloon) June 25, 2022

---

You cite some random jackass on Twitter who quotes his wife for the truth and correctness of the wife's prediction?

Everyone wants the government out of their lives until they don't. Guns and abortion prove this both ways for both sides.

---

💯👇 pic.twitter.com/Mp1hWMmBBs

— Wu-Tang Is For The Children (@WUTangKids) June 25, 2022

Our court of extremist religious clerics has put us in a new small group of peer nations. Can't wait to see what the clerics do next to turn us into a catholic theocracy at odds with the will of the people. Minority rule without majority rights is not what the framers intended despite mistreatment of everyone not a white male being "deeply rooted" in our history.

The U.S. joins only 3 other countries that have restricted abortion access since 1994: Poland, Nicaragua & El Salvador.

Over the same period, 50+ nations have made it easier to get an abortion, including Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Ireland, Thailand & S. Korea.

— Ben Schamisso (@schamisso) June 24, 2022

---

Dobbs does NOT make abortion more restrictive. It leaves the issue to the states which concurrently makes it more restrictive in some places, less restrictive in other places and likely means no changes in many places

---

I'm sorry, but this is simply false. There is no state where the Dobbs decision makes abortion LESS restrictive. Maybe some states will liberalize their laws in response to Dobbs, but that's not the same thing. Where Dobbs has a direct effect, the only effect is to create more restrictions.

---

California and others have announced their intention to pass new laws making abortion more available. I have no doubt they will.

---

They could have also passed those laws without Dobbs. The decision doesn't affect the ability to do that. It does now allow 100% abortion bans, which have already gone into effect.

It's a pro-restriction decision.

---

It's a pro-restriction impact. No where doss the court say that they favor a more abortion available or less available policy. The 100% abortion ban language is hyperbole, as the trigger laws have exception which permit abortions in certain circumstances. A lot of what is going on is misstating or exaggerating what court did for political advantage.

---

Okay, many of the laws have one exception for if the life of the mother is threatened. Hooray!

The Court knew these trigger bans were in effect and knew what the impact of their decision would be. To argue otherwise is naive. A more moderate option was on the table (Roberts' finding that a 15 week ban is okay but not reversing Roe entirely). They chose to go this route.

---

I'm not arguing (nor is anyone else that I saw that there were no state trigger laws. What I am saying is the Democratic majority (along with some Republicans) could have provided there own trigger law to override the states, but instead decided to not do that to keep the abortion issue alive for their political benefit and to protect Democratic senators in pro life states..

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

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.

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.

---

Agreed 100%

And Furd appears to be totally unaware of states like Mississippi where legislators have "trigger laws" on the books in which all abortions will be banned with the exception of rape (incest is "ok"). Never mind that the rape exception would require criminal charges to be filed, which is clearly problematic in and of itself. And even if found guilty of a rape charge enabling a woman to receive an abortion, there wont be any clinics around to perform that abortion.

The 12 other states with some form of trigger law are Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

---

Going back my original comment was about where the mother's health was at risk. You misrepresented that the court held that the court's decision would allow restricting abortions in that situation. It did not, which you would have know if you read the 4 decisions, which I finally did. Here is a hint: 5 is a bigger number than 4. You are a firm believer in financial literacy, yet you don't seem to have gotten there on legal literacy. Can you name the states that have a trigger law that doesn't make an exception of abortions where the mother's health is at risk?

I get that lightweights like Dajo shout things about people dying, and other emotional over statements and exaggerations. But the substance of the decision, at least if you believe the NT Times is:

"The ruling may have a less dramatic effect on overall abortion rates. Some experts estimate that overturning Roe could reduce the number of legal abortions in the U.S. by as little as 13 percent. That's because abortion was already heavily restricted in red states and more people living in them oppose the practice."

Decision to have an abortion for any reason is always fraught with ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities. But in cases where it's a matter of mom's life are not part of the discussion here at it turns out due to the Courts different opinions and the state trigger laws making exceptions. But the reality is those ethical, cultural, religious, political and moral complexities in most other cases are part of a democratic process where people vote. I think the better social policy is to allow abortions in most cases, thought there are far more important issues for me.

The court didn't say voters of each state. It said: "The authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives." The Democrats have a slim majority in Congress and the Presidency. They had a Vice-President sitting there ready to break a Senate tie, and yet the did not pass legislation that would have permitted most abortions rights in all states. The failure to keep one Senator in line or reach out to several GOP senators that wanted a pro chice law is on the Democrats and this President. And if the idiotic concept that the voting record of one individual causes everything that happens (which sounds like something you would hear out of four year old), then it is Dajo's fault, my fault and your fault if you voted for Biden. Apparently having the abortion issue alive at election time is more important than protection of women rights, or to take the more shrill hyperbole point of view, women dying.

---

It's nice to know that me pointing out that wifeisafurd voted for this in 2016 has left an indelible mark in his brain. Also typically laughable that lawyer's think everything is a court matter. How about getting government out of people's lives?

I said to my wife "Do you think anyone will commit suicide because they could not get an abortion?"
She instantly replied "yes."
Then she added "there will be all those boyfriends and husbands that murder them because they couldn't get one too" and that shook my fucking world.

— ScottyJohns (@highroadsaloon) June 25, 2022

---

You cite some random jackass on Twitter who quotes his wife for the truth and correctness of the wife's prediction?

Everyone wants the government out of their lives until they don't. Guns and abortion prove this both ways for both sides.

---

💯👇 pic.twitter.com/Mp1hWMmBBs

— Wu-Tang Is For The Children (@WUTangKids) June 25, 2022

Our court of extremist religious clerics has put us in a new small group of peer nations. Can't wait to see what the clerics do next to turn us into a catholic theocracy at odds with the will of the people. Minority rule without majority rights is not what the framers intended despite mistreatment of everyone not a white male being "deeply rooted" in our history.

The U.S. joins only 3 other countries that have restricted abortion access since 1994: Poland, Nicaragua & El Salvador.

Over the same period, 50+ nations have made it easier to get an abortion, including Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Ireland, Thailand & S. Korea.

— Ben Schamisso (@schamisso) June 24, 2022

---

Dobbs does NOT make abortion more restrictive. It leaves the issue to the states which concurrently makes it more restrictive in some places, less restrictive in other places and likely means no changes in many places

---

I'm sorry, but this is simply false. There is no state where the Dobbs decision makes abortion LESS restrictive. Maybe some states will liberalize their laws in response to Dobbs, but that's not the same thing. Where Dobbs has a direct effect, the only effect is to create more restrictions.

---

California and others have announced their intention to pass new laws making abortion more available. I have no doubt they will.

---

They could have also passed those laws without Dobbs. The decision doesn't affect the ability to do that. It does now allow 100% abortion bans, which have already gone into effect.

It's a pro-restriction decision.

---

It's a pro-restriction impact. No where doss the court say that they favor a more abortion available or less available policy. The 100% abortion ban language is hyperbole, as the trigger laws have exception which permit abortions in certain circumstances. A lot of what is going on is misstating or exaggerating what court did for political advantage.

---

Okay, many of the laws have one exception for if the life of the mother is threatened. Hooray!

The Court knew these trigger bans were in effect and knew what the impact of their decision would be. To argue otherwise is naive. A more moderate option was on the table (Roberts' finding that a 15 week ban is okay but not reversing Roe entirely). They chose to go this route.

---

I'm not arguing (nor is anyone else that I saw that there were no state trigger laws. What I am saying is the Democratic majority (along with some Republicans) could have provided there own trigger law to override the states, but instead decided to not do that to keep the abortion issue alive for their political benefit and to protect Democratic senators in pro life states..

---

The Democratic majority has never had enough votes to override a filibuster and codify Roe.

DiabloWags said:

---

blungld said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Dobbs does NOT make abortion more restrictive. It leaves the issue to the states which concurrently makes it more restrictive in some places, less restrictive in other places and likely means no changes in many places

---

Can you at least be honest in the dialogue? Don't play legal semantic? Your position here sounds like a kid in the back seat saying "I didn't punch you, you punched yourself."

If SCOTUS turned the right to arms to states and all the states banned them and SCOTUS knew this would happen in advance would your position be "Technically they didn't ban guns." Your posts elicit a big eye roll of come on, be real.

---

Sadly, we see these types of posts frequently here.
Calbear80 has also shown the same kind of posts . . . which clearly arent interested in an honest discussion.

To argue that SCOTUS was not aware of any "trigger" laws regarding Roe v Wade is a dishonest claim.
Some of these "trigger" laws go back as far as 1931, as in the case of Michigan. For Mississippi, it was 2007.

To actually argue that SCOTUS was oblivious to these laws by the States is terribly disingenuous.

---

Nobody argued that the Supreme Court is unaware of trigger laws. Sadly, this forum has become a place of incredible ingenuousness and idiocy, embarrassing the great University of California. Perhaps this forum needs a reading comprehension test?

DiabloWags said:

---

blungld said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Dobbs does NOT make abortion more restrictive. It leaves the issue to the states which concurrently makes it more restrictive in some places, less restrictive in other places and likely means no changes in many places

---

Can you at least be honest in the dialogue? Don't play legal semantic? Your position here sounds like a kid in the back seat saying "I didn't punch you, you punched yourself."

If SCOTUS turned the right to arms to states and all the states banned them and SCOTUS knew this would happen in advance would your position be "Technically they didn't ban guns." Your posts elicit a big eye roll of come on, be real.

---

Sadly, we see these types of posts frequently here.
Calbear80 has also shown the same kind of posts . . . which clearly arent interested in an honest discussion.

To argue that SCOTUS was not aware of any "trigger" laws regarding Roe v Wade is a dishonest claim.
Some of these "trigger" laws go back as far as 1931, as in the case of Michigan. For Mississippi, it was 2007.

To actually argue that SCOTUS was oblivious to these laws by the States is terribly disingenuous.

---

Look, you and others can disagree with me until the sun comes up. Fine. You can take umbrage with my writing or communication style. But I'll ask politely that you don't call me dishonest.

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I'm not arguing (nor is anyone else that I saw that there were no state trigger laws. What I am saying is the Democratic majority (along with some Republicans) could have provided there own trigger law to override the states, but instead decided to not do that to keep the abortion issue alive for their political benefit and to protect Democratic senators in pro life states..

---

The Democratic majority has never had enough votes to override a filibuster and codify Roe.

---

Why does Furd continue to repeat something that wasnt even remotely possible?
It's bizarre.

MS. PSAKI: "Well, I think it's important to note that there has been a vote on this; it failed. It did not have even 50 votes, which means even if the filibuster were overturned, there would have not had been enough votes to get this passed. He has stated this many times publicly. This is his known position. This is many of one of many topics he discusses with lawmakers."

"We've been down this road once already. There aren't enough horses to do it," said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.).
"Nothing's changed."

Go!Bears said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

white President and white senators would rather have abortion right as a fund raising and mid-terms vote puling devise for the masses of women who will die traveling to a nearby state. It's on you white buddy., and you're four your old thought concepts of blame

---

What a crock. Show me the 50 votes to terminate the filibuster. You can't and so you are just plain full of it.

---

I claim you can't read. Did you even open the link to the Politico article? I didn't come up with 2 GOP senators, they did.

---

Who can't read? You are making a fool of yourself.

"The failed vote is the latest example of the constraints Democrats face in a 50-50 Senate. While the possible reversal of Roe has some senators calling for a workaround or end to the legislative filibuster to pass abortion rights legislation, there's zero chance of that happening this Congress given opposition from Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.). Further, even if they could kill or amend the filibuster, Democrats don't even have a simple majority that would vote to enact federal protections for abortion."

---

Let's do the math.

From the article: " Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who support abortion rights, opposed the Democratic bill. They see that legislation as too expansive and are instead pushing a narrower alternative that would codify the Roe and Casey decisions the Supreme Court is expected to overturn."

So Roe and Casey could have been codified because Collins and Murkowski were prepared to vote that way. Substitute Collins and Murkowski for Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema in your prior sentence and your argument becomes BS.