planomateo
Member
This.
Earlier it was the Rs were misrepresenting the proposed bill. Now they're not compromising.
Logic fails.
Last edited:
| CURRENT EVENTS Roe vs Wade and all that comes with this story. This guy. I am at a loss for words.
- Thread starter SoCalPatrick
- Start date
This.
Earlier it was the Rs were misrepresenting the proposed bill. Now they're not compromising.
Logic fails.
footballer
Member
I believe the Senate, the GOP and with the vote of D Joe Manchin, voted that democrat bill down, yesterday.
At a minimum every single American should celebrate anytime some prior right is returned to the individual States. That is how it is supposed to be. Maybe Jan 6 protesters/rioters haven’t been charged with sedition for the same reason no one in the confederacy was charged with treason.
rocknthefreeworld
Member
They did, Manchin was the deciding vote because it was 51-49. A tie would have went to the VP to decide and she would have voted for it.
That was just the cloture vote. It would have taken 60 to approve the bill. It never had a chance.
Rolltide24
Member
I have 4 friends/former friends that between them have had 7 abortions (one had 3 but the time she was 19). All had them by the 5th month. None had health issues or were raped. They just didn’t want to deal with protections. Laziness. I wish we’d put more emphasis and resources on teaching personal responsibility and sex education. Many folks just can’t be bothered with responsibility nowadays.
ElephantStomp
Member
That bill wouldn’t have seen the time of day had the “independent” SCOTUS left Roe v Wade alone.
There are trigger bills that almost completely eliminate abortion protections that will go into effect the moment Roe v Wade is overturned, the state I live in is one of said states. That’s not compromise
ElephantStomp
Member
Let’s not pretend Rs know what compromise is. 99% of republicans believe life begins at conception as a clump of cells, that’s not compromise, that’s religious ignorance.
They did misrepresent it, it was about body autonomy just like Rs wanted when it came to the vaccine
rocknthefreeworld
Member
But at this point the Dems can't even use this vote against the Republicans. They can't even get their own party to support allowing a vote on it even knowing it won't pass.
planomateo
Member
They didn't put this bill forward with the understanding it would pass. They merely got everyone on record for where they stand for mid terms.
rocknthefreeworld
Member
The reality is that this should remind people that when the Democrats could have made Roe v Wade an actual law they didn't. They only care about using it to scare people into voting for them.
ElephantStomp
Member
Agreed. They should’ve known at first chance Repubs would overturn Roe v Wade, that’s been their plan for decades
States rights are numerous while the federal authority narrowly defined was original intent. Beyond time to send more and more usurped rights back to the people, regardless of your purely personal desires.
rocknthefreeworld
Member
Too bad interstate commerce rulings now mean anything commerce related is the feds to rule.
rocknthefreeworld
Member
Just so everyone in aware, women are just as likely as men to believe abortion should never be legal. Men are slightly more likely to consider themselves pro life though. That means men are more likely to not let their personal feelings determine the legality.
news.gallup.com
Abortion Trends by Gender
This page outlines Gallup's long-term trends on Americans' views about abortion by gender.
news.gallup.com
TerryP
Staff
That's an interesting response, "it's simply people protesting a ruling and/or opinion that didn’t need to be made." That's the whole issue. It was a ruling made by SCOTUS that never should have been made. That's the point being made; "it's not our decision to make; never was."
(A greater point is found here. It was unconstitutional from day one. They made a mistake, they're trying to correct the mistake.)
It's quite ironic jurists have criticized R v W because of how it was presented to the Supreme Court originally—it is privacy rights—and that's the very thing some have no problems doing: allowing the judiciary privacy to make a decision.
My opinion, a male or female's opinion, and your opinion, mean nothing here because this is written law. People may disagree with the law, and people may choose to ignore the law. If they act on the latter they should face the consequences.
"It's against the law. I don't like the law. I'm going to break the law." Does that not boil this whole thing down to a few words? (Ironically, including the original SCOTUS decision?)
Another can of worms here ... if we jump into why jurists feel the R v W decision was wrong in the first place.
TerryP
Staff
The same people who want the SCOTUS to leave R v W alone are pointing to how this is wrong. Friday night Bill Maher** was talking about Psaki stating "the US Government doesn't have a position" on the protests. He responded stating "But we do. It's intimidation. It's against the law." Just as Maher doesn't represent every voice of those supporting Roe vs Wade, "the right in DC & on Fox News" don't support this notion they shouldn't be charged. Your accusations here are an over reach, ULTRA over reach.
Seriously. Find me one person from Fox News that's said that. Please. Or, rather, find something you can point to—other than hyperbolic opinions—where these "right in DC" have said that.
I mentioned this earlier in the thread specifically pointing to the group you're talking about here. It's a small group who were questioning a specific charge; conspiracy.
I touched on this earlier as well. And, Cruz has a point and it's from an educational point of view.
How can you call a group of people insurrectionist when they've not been charged with insurrection?
As a side note.
I've had several conversations with people about January 6th. Anyone, no, everyone following this should have their personal "red flags" flying at full mast. With little reason to trust what we hear from our legislature how can that event be judged correctly with that legislature refusing to release videos from that day? They say "it's not a matter of public record" but talk about it all the fucking time.
We have people wanting to see this evidence, they're being refused access to the evidence, but they're not supposed to question the judiciary process here? (Insert image: can of worms.)So, when I see January 6th being brought into conversation that are unrelated it's easy to catch the "whatcha doin' here" syndrome.
**Bill Maher.
I listen to variety of podcasts, often. (IE: I need to finish the support for my pole beams today (in two beds) and want to work on a table I'm building on the patio side of the house. I'm planning on finishing the Rogan episode with Gad Saad. @It Takes Eleven I've got The Parasitic Mind four or five down in my reading stack. It's been highly recommended. There's two dozen pages I've previewed.)
I'd encourage all you guys to take a bit and listen to Rogan and Maher. I've watched him for quite a while and found their episode together to be a pretty good insight into his mindset.
:
