Roe V Wade is about to be overturned

[CUT93]

I am guessing that "tax the rich" will still be more effective than the republicans' new battle cry: "tax the poor!"

But like I said in another thread...

Banning contraceptives.
Banning abortions.
Cancelling social programs like food stamps, housing assistance, medicaid and TANF.

That is a recipe for success in the welfare states. I can't imagine what those law enforcement budgets are going to look like.

Maybe is @CUT93 gets his wish and the republicans secede, then I won't end up paying for all of that shit like I do today.

Again, you are showing a lack of basic comprehension skills. If there were a succession, I don't think the laws passed for pubs would impact the dem state, right? Are you planning on joining us?

 

[CUT93]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

California is looking at a $60B budget surplus this year. I bet all those republicans in the south are licking their chops to get some of handouts from that money.

Look, welfare boy, I would love to try that experiment also. I don't think it would go the way you think it would go.

Just fyi, SC has a budget surplus this year as well. I know this doesn't fit your argument so feel free to ignore this info.

 

[nytigerfan]

Again, you are showing a lack of basic comprehension skills. If there were a succession, I don't think the laws passed for pubs would impact the dem state, right? Are you planning on joining us?

LOL at "succession".

I said the welfare states. Those are the ones where you live. I think your reading comprehension and writing proficiency could use some work.

 

[nytigerfan]

Just fyi, SC has a budget surplus this year as well. I know this doesn't fit your argument so feel free to ignore this info.

They have a budget surplus because of my tax dollars. You're welcome. Welfare!

 

[scotchtiger]

I am guessing that "tax the rich" will still be more effective than the republicans' new battle cry: "tax the poor!"

But like I said in another thread...

Banning contraceptives.
Banning abortions.
Cancelling social programs like food stamps, housing assistance, medicaid and TANF.

That is a recipe for success in the welfare states. I can't imagine what those law enforcement budgets are going to look like.

Maybe is @CUT93 gets his wish and the republicans secede, then I won't end up paying for all of that shit like I do today.

Yea, nobody is canceling those social programs.

My position is that we should be proactively addressing the root cause of people winding up on these programs. Much better focus on vocational education. And requiring 40 hours per week of combined work, job training or volunteering in order to receive benefits. Designing a glidepath off of these programs so it's a hand up instead of hand out.

Regarding contraceptives, my personal opinion is we need to feed these to the poor like candy to try to reduce unwanted pregnancies, out-of-wedlock babies and abortions.

 

[CUT93]

LOL at "succession".

I said the welfare states. Those are the ones where you live. I think your reading comprehension and writing proficiency could use some work.

Below is your direct quote:

"Maybe is @CUT93 gets his wish and the republicans secede, then I won't end up paying for all of that shit like I do today."

Your words! Nice try though.

 

[DW4_2016]

As mentioned above, you need to seek mental health counseling immediately. You have either completely lost touch with reality or are one of the biggest racists on earth and you are letting that view blind you to the world we currently live in. Either way, I am truly sorry for you. No joke.

i agree you have no legs to stand on in this argument. definitely make it about something other than the substance.

 

[CUT93]

i agree you have no legs to stand on in this argument. definitely make it about something other than the substance.

I think I have more than one leg to stand on. Equal protection involving race is specifically mentioned in the amendment. It is a very logical conclusion that equal protection would follow to things outside of voting. That is completely different from abortion, which is not mentioned in any way anywhere in the constitution or amendments.
Show me one proposed law, quote, or any other evidence where anyone has even mentioned the they would even broach the idea of banning interracial marriage. I don't mean from some deranged lunatic like you void of their grasp of reality projecting what you think someone might do, I mean where any(republican) lawmaker has even brought up the subject.
If someone holds the belief that abortion is murdering a child, they are going to do everything they can to prevent that. I am not that far on end of the spectrum and would be against banning abortion(not that that has anything to do with whether Roe is constitutional or not), but I can understand that view. Interracial marriage is not even remotely related to abortion. Again, if you think there is any possibility that interracial marriage could/would be banned there is something very, very wrong with you.

 

[DW4_2016]

I think I have more than one leg to stand on. Equal protection involving race is specifically mentioned in the amendment. It is a very logical conclusion that equal protection would follow to things outside of voting. That is completely different from abortion, which is not mentioned in any way anywhere in the constitution or amendments.
Show me one proposed law, quote, or any other evidence where anyone has even mentioned the they would even broach the idea of banning interracial marriage. I don't mean from some deranged lunatic like you void of their grasp of reality projecting what you think someone might do, I mean where any(republican) lawmaker has even brought up the subject.
If someone holds the belief that abortion is murdering a child, they are going to do everything they can to prevent that. I am not that far on end of the spectrum and would be against banning abortion(not that that has anything to do with whether Roe is constitutional or not), but I can understand that view. Interracial marriage is not even remotely related to abortion. Again, if you think there is any possibility that interracial marriage could/would be banned there is something very, very wrong with you.

If it isn't specifically enumerated, how can you assume that it's there? That's the point the SC made with this ruling. Ergo, it's not wild to assume they'd have to make the same ruling if someone brought up another decision that was based on assumptions about what the constitution should say or what you think it says.

I can show you dozens of quotes from sitting SC justices that they won't be looking into Roe v Wade. That they think the case is decided and shouldn't be adjudicated again. Do you believe them?

 

[CUT93]

If it isn't specifically enumerated, how can you assume that it's there? That's the point the SC made with this ruling. Ergo, it's not wild to assume they'd have to make the same ruling if someone brought up another decision that was based on assumptions about what the constitution should say or what you think it says.

I can show you dozens of quotes from sitting SC justices that they won't be looking into Roe v Wade. That they think the case is decided and shouldn't be adjudicated again. Do you believe them?

Abortion is not mentioned or even alluded to anywhere in the constitution or amendments. Not one word or reference to it.
Equal protection based on race is specifically mentioned. It is not specifically mention as it relates to marriage, I will grant you that. However, that is so far away from the abortion issue. It is a reasonable, logical conclusion to draw that if equal protection based on race applies to voting, it applies to other issues as well. You could not very well list every possible instance where race would come up even if you wanted to. You are not making some giant leap of faith to apply equal protection for things other than voting.
With abortion, there is not even a starting place to make a leap of faith from. It is not even mentioned at all. Nada, zero zilch, nothing, not one word. There is no place to make further assumptions about abortion based on what is already there, bc there is literally nothing there. The two issues are not even in the same relative stratosphere.
Again, lets just assume I am completely wrong and scotus decides there is no constitutional protection for interracial marriage. You know what that means, don't you? That's right, a big fat nothing burger! It doesn't matter at all. Why, because there is zero chance any politician will ever bring such a racist, disgusting bill even to a committee vote, much less statewide legislation because it would be the most lopsided vote ever taken. Additionally, If scotus were to say there was not constitutional protection, there would be an amendment passed unanimously within a month.
I am seriously sorry for whatever happened to you that took your ability to think rationally and make you believe something like that is even possible. Go get some help. If not bc you think you need it, do it just to prove me wrong.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Not a Dem, but Schumer is negotiating. Congress negotiations happen behind the scenes and in the public sphere. That comment is negotiation 101 using the media. General public gets in a tizzy over the back and forth in the media.

Schumer knows that, too. Negotiations are underway.

One of the main issues at hand is the Hyde Amendment. Dem bill overturns the Hyde Amendment, which eliminates federal funding sources for abortions. Collins/Murkowski bill maintains the Hyde Amendment. Dems wanted to narrow or eliminate the Hyde Amendment.

Both bills strengthen the law beyond the existing standing for Roe.

For example, the Collins/Murkowski legislation says a state cannot impose such an undue burden on a woman to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability but that it could restrict a woman’s ability to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy post-viability unless the pregnancy would affect the mother’s health. The legislation would allow states to enact regulations to ensure a woman seeking an abortion’s health and safety.

Here is the provision in the bill that generate frustration from the far right. The bill would remove protections for healthcare providers who oppose performing the procedure on moral or religious grounds. In addition, the current draft of the bill would be exempt from a defense raised under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, a law that created legal safeguards for religious people and entities with respect to federal rules.

I, personally, need to read more into the RFRA implications before commenting.

Separately, Republicans in DC are watching the polling on overturning Roe. There is a strong interest in not generating a record mid-term turnout for Dems over this issue, which is why the Republican interest in a bill that cuts off the forthcoming SCOTUS ruling. Most Rs in Congress never expected Roe to get overturned. For them, its been the golden goose for fundraising, which is why Rs have been litmus testing other issues in case Roe gets overturned.

Nice info, but in no way shape or form do I think the abortion issue will drive any significant higher turnout for mid terms. If anything the hardcore on each side will cancel each other out.