no, the point was how quickly you and others have moved on from the let the states decide argument. How can we trust you guys on anything else?
Tulsi Departs
- Thread starter OleFastball
- Start date
no, the point was how quickly you and others have moved on from the let the states decide argument. How can we trust you guys on anything else?
the problem with your argument is that grahams proposed national ban on abortion would still allow the states to keep or pass whatever laws they want. So it is states rights for red states but not blue states. Fair?
Listen to whats asked and the answers. Are you for late-term abortion? answer- I think thats a decision best left to the woman and doctor......Not Im against it except in a,b,c, etc. Its word play at its best. They cant come right out and say yes or no in any way. If they say yes the pro-death side will go after them, say no and most of the country will go after them. So if its left to the woman and doctor its abortion on demand at any point since there isnt a law to prevent it...word games
i dont support what he is doing. He is establishment rhino and I dont trust him. I would like for no abortions but I dont want a national law. It should be up to each state...Each side has t give a little for this thing to workout. Neither side will be 100% happy....
When she said (im paraphrasing)
“My first day of office I was greeted at the door but two well known politicians who explained to me that my job wasn’t to represent or fight for the people, it’s to ensure that nobody with an R beside their name wins. It’s us vs them and we absolutely have to ensure nobody with an R gets a win”
I knew she wasn’t going to last long. Good people start in politics but they never end up there. They get tossed out.
US Government has been infiltrated and it’s long gone. We act as if other countries have no interest in infiltrating our government and destroying it from the top down. It’s very real and like most, she was just in their way.
Democrats aren’t the problem with this country. It’s the wolves in sheep’s clothing who have Rs and Ds beside their name who actually are pulling against America. They’re bad people and they exist.
Corruption is rampant.
“My first day of office I was greeted at the door but two well known politicians who explained to me that my job wasn’t to represent or fight for the people, it’s to ensure that nobody with an R beside their name wins. It’s us vs them and we absolutely have to ensure nobody with an R gets a win”
I knew she wasn’t going to last long. Good people start in politics but they never end up there. They get tossed out.
US Government has been infiltrated and it’s long gone. We act as if other countries have no interest in infiltrating our government and destroying it from the top down. It’s very real and like most, she was just in their way.
Democrats aren’t the problem with this country. It’s the wolves in sheep’s clothing who have Rs and Ds beside their name who actually are pulling against America. They’re bad people and they exist.
Corruption is rampant.
Last edited:
Trust what? Propose reasonable legislation and vote on it. Counter Graham's proposal with one that protects both sides of the 15 week mark (ie not just limit it to 15 weeks, but also protect it up to 15 weeks).
This isn't hard. But D's don't want to solve the problem.
Wait, wait, wait. You are saying that you would support national legislation on abortion that would overwrite the red state abortion laws?
I actually agree with you though that the dems should do this tomorrow. We will all get whiplash seeing how fast the R's go back to calling for states rights.
Why not? Pubs already did national legislation to end blue state laws when it comes to slavery and civil rights. If its going to be on a national level the 12-15 week mark is the middle ground. If there is going to be national law thats where I can go along with it. If not then just leave it to the states. I wont support either extreme on this issue...
Yeah our justice department is so fair. So fair they frame one side. Bunch of sleaze bags.
Maybe none of the Yes People Trump planted in the justice dept. could find enough evidence to lock her up.
It was YOUR Justice Dept that could have framed her(lol) if they could find a shred of evidence to do so. Wonder why they didn't? 🤔
Why don't you dig a little deeper instead of taking out of context clips and framing them to mean something they don't? Is it because you really are that dumb or you just don't care about the correct answer? Remember that most of us here are smarter than you, so your posts are only taken seriously by the board members who are as slimy as you.
Lol. Let the dems propose the 15 week ban with full exception for rape, incest and health of the mother. Then watch the pubs raise hell about it. You are blind man.
I agree. That type of legislation shouldn’t have a problem passing. Do you think it’s the Ds who would vote something like that down?
Your IQ is below room temp so dont even try it my little pony....Here is the MS law you decided to go to court over. It allowed exceptions that you claim to be for past 15 weeks. It got rid of unrestricted late-term abortions. You had a cow about it but now are trying to say its not about unrestricted late-term abortions and that were dishonest bla bla bla? What the fuk was it about then? Now the law is no abortions , with few exceptions, since you went to court and opened that up. You got greedy...
Abortion Rights
Every individual has the right to an abortion in the United States, regardless of their circumstances, and abortion is legal in Mississippi. However, the already very limited abortion access in Mississippi is on the line pending a SCOTUS decision.
www.aclu-ms.org
Please take a Prevagen and try again my little feckless dotard. Do you even understand the argument I was trying to make? You posted edited clips in an attempt to say that Dems want unrestricted abortions up until the baby sticks it's head out. I called that a dishonest claim, without context...i.e., you're a liar. This MS lawsuit doesn't change any point I was making. Even the original Roe ruling didn't allow for unrestricted late term abortions.Your IQ is below room temp so dont even try it my little pony....Here is the MS law you decided to go to court over. It allowed exceptions that you claim to be for past 15 weeks. It got rid of unrestricted late-term abortions. You had a cow about it but now are trying to say its not about unrestricted late-term abortions and that were dishonest bla bla bla? What the fuk was it about then? Now the law is no abortions , with few exceptions, since you went to court and opened that up. You got greedy...
Abortion Rights
Every individual has the right to an abortion in the United States, regardless of their circumstances, and abortion is legal in Mississippi. However, the already very limited abortion access in Mississippi is on the line pending a SCOTUS decision.
Do I need to write this in crayon?
" The Court then attempted to balance the state’s distinct compelling interests in the health of pregnant women and in the potential life of fetuses. It placed the point after which a state’s compelling interest in the pregnant woman’s health would allow it to regulate abortion “at approximately the end of the first trimester” of pregnancy. With regard to the fetus, the Court located that point at “capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb,” or viability, which occurs at about 24 weeks of pregnancy."
Roe v. Wade | Summary, Origins, Right to Privacy, & Overturning | Britannica
Roe v. Wade, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, ruled (7–2) that unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional. The Court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a constitutional right to privacy.
www.britannica.com
except, it is not what graham has proposed. His bill is not like the European countries. He would allow red states to keep their current draconian laws. His bill would therefore only apply to blue states.
Also, in his bill the government would intervene in a case of rape, incest or health of the mother to determine what decision should be made. He would even require rape victims to go to counseling to determine if the abortion should proceed. In Europe those decisions are between a doctor and the mother.
hmm I havent read that it would only apply to blue states. If thats the case that would be wrong. If a national law is made it has to be equal and fair everywhere. I rather it remained a states issue and dont support LG. Cali should live like its people want, just like Carolina people should do the same. Weed laws should be a states issue also....
Again most people are ok with abortion up to 12-15 weeks and those exceptions after 15 weeks. Most are against abortion on demand after that point and want a ban on it. Your side is against any restrictions. Even 40% of Dems oppose late-term abortions on demand. The number is above 90% for independents and 98% of pubs...Please take a Prevagen and try again my little feckless dotard. Do you even understand the argument I was trying to make? You posted edited clips in an attempt to say that Dems want unrestricted abortions up until the baby sticks it's head out. I called that a dishonest claim, without context...i.e., you're a liar. This MS lawsuit doesn't change any point I was making. Even the original Roe ruling didn't allow for unrestricted late term abortions.
Do I need to write this in crayon?
" The Court then attempted to balance the state’s distinct compelling interests in the health of pregnant women and in the potential life of fetuses. It placed the point after which a state’s compelling interest in the pregnant woman’s health would allow it to regulate abortion “at approximately the end of the first trimester” of pregnancy. With regard to the fetus, the Court located that point at “capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb,” or viability, which occurs at about 24 weeks of pregnancy."
Roe v. Wade | Summary, Origins, Right to Privacy, & Overturning | Britannica
Roe v. Wade, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, ruled (7–2) that unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional. The Court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a constitutional right to privacy.
How do you look yourself in the mirror, knowing that you come on here daily and lie with impunity? How do we find common ground with you when you don't care about the truth?
“Val Demings supports abortion up until the moment of birth.”
— Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), in a tweet, Sept. 6
“Mark Kelly believes in nationwide abortion on-demand up until the moment of birth, with zero limits.”
— website of Blake Masters, Republican Senate nominee in Arizona
These accusations are emblematic of a frequent Republican attack on Democrats who support abortion rights. The line provides a vivid image — that a baby could be aborted literally as a mother is about to give birth. Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel this week even coined a new phrase — “due date abortion.”
Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.), who is challenging Rubio, and Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) say such attacks mischaracterize their positions because they do not support late-term abortions and accept limits on the procedure.
Republicans defend their allegations by pointing to votes these candidates cast for the Women’s Health Protection Act, a bill that would have restored the right to abortion enshrined in Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case recently overturned by the Supreme Court. The legislation includes exceptions for the health of the mother, which Republicans describe as a loophole that puts no limit on when an abortion can take place.
But the GOP attacks are disingenuous at best. They imply that late-term abortions are common — and that they are routinely accepted by Democrats.
The reality, according to federal and state data, is that abortions past the point of viability are extremely rare. When they do happen, they often involve painful, emotional and even moral decisions.
Finding common ground on basic facts in this debate is not easy."
