19th amendment annulled

[Jackie S]

This is really an education issue.

The Abortion Industry has a vested interest in keeping women ignorant concerning exactly what is going on in their womb.

Even Bill Maher is now admitting that the old “it’s just a mass of cells” lie is contrary to science.

I could go for this as a compromise on the “choice” issue. Make it Federal Law that a woman can have an abortion only after she is presented with an authentic sonogram of what is actually growing in there.

When they actually see what a 12 week old “fetus” looks like, even the most jaded will have second thoughts about killing what appears to be a tiny human baby.

Once they see that image, and decide to kill it anyway, they are the ones who will have to live the rest of their lives with that decision.

[Ripmany]

Originally Posted by timmystool

IF women cant decide their own health choices, this is great reasoning to take away their right to vote!


Passed by Congress June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th amendment granted women the right to vote. The 19th amendment legally guarantees American women the right to vote. Achieving this milestone required a lengthy and difficult struggle—victory took decades of agitation and protest.




IF R V Wade is overturned, then is the next step




FYI:

I dont agree with any removal of rights,
its a women's body, her choice

It a baby body the woman just temporary housings. Does you car decided who to carry.

[Grace Preston]

I do have one question.


If it is truly about saving the life of an unborn... then why the sudden uptick in different government officials wanting to ban various forms of birth control-- up to and including one in Arizona who wants to ban condoms and another who wants to make birth control only available to married couples? IUD's are on the hit list in several states.. as is oral birth control in a few others.



This is the issue-- evangelicals want to legislate morality and see this as the front door-- they are ultimately going to conflate things and make it more difficult for those who are simply wanting to "save the unborn".

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by WTF

Please remind us the last time a constitutional amendment passed.

Why does that matter? The mechanism hasn't changed, it's just that libtards can't get what they want by amendment so they attempt to use the judicial process as an end run around the Constitution.

Originally Posted by WTF

Plus I do believe marriage falls under inalienable rights.

As usual, you are wrong. Marriage is a legal right, since it's a contract. It's defined by the government(s) as to who can enter into it.

Originally Posted by WTF

Although one could argue that marriage and the pursuit of happiness are opposites.

Just because your spouse had bad judgement doesn't mean the rest of us do.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by Grace Preston

If it is truly about saving the life of an unborn... then why the sudden uptick in different government officials wanting to ban various forms of birth control-- up to and including one in Arizona who wants to ban condoms and another who wants to make birth control only available to married couples? IUD's are on the hit list in several states.. as is oral birth control in a few others.

I guess elections have consequences. I don't support those bans on BC methods, but that's up the the people of the States where they are attempting those bans. If I were eligible to vote for a candidate espousing that policy I would decline to do so, based on Privacy rights. And I highly doubt that any such law would survive judicial review.

Originally Posted by Grace Preston

This is the issue-- evangelicals want to legislate morality and see this as the front door-- they are ultimately going to conflate things and make it more difficult for those who are simply wanting to "save the unborn".

And what do you call it when Leftists advocate for abortion up to and even after the birth? Is that legislating immorality? Or just their version of morality?

"The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother." - Gov. Ralph "Blackface" Northam Jan 2019.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by Ripmany

It a baby body the woman just temporary housings. Does you car decided who to carry.

If that's the best analogy you can come up with, you're slower than a backed up toilet in the winter time.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by WTF

Please remind us the last time a constitutional amendment passed...

Learning the lingo may help. Constitutional amendments don't get passed. The are first Proposed and may subsequently get Ratified. As an outrageous example from actual history:
The most recent Amendment Ratified was:

The XXVII Amendment, Limiting Congressional Pay Increases
Proposed on 25 September 1789, Ratified on 7 May 1992

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Wonder why only took a mere 203 years to be ratified?!?

[Grace Preston]

I don't support either political parties stance on abortion as they currently exist.


I don't believe a full on ban is the answer.


I don't believe that abortions at any point in pregnancy is the answer either.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by texassapper

If that's the best analogy you can come up with, you're slower than a backed up toilet in the winter time.

His statement is just as asinine as the OP’s original premis.

And then there is WTF’s failure to understand the difference between a fertilized egg and one that is not, be it a chicken or a human.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Grace Preston

I don't support either political parties stance on abortion as they currently exist.


I don't believe a full on ban is the answer.


I don't believe that abortions at any point in pregnancy is the answer either.

But Grace, you seem to be avoiding the question of Federalism and the reading of the Constitution. Should States have this right or 5 people in robes decide it?

[Grace Preston]

Oh I'm a firm believer that the action that SCOTUS is taking is the correct action based on the facts of the original rulings. That is not to say that I don't think it could come back before SCOTUS and presented under different premises and have different outcomes-- but as it sits now, the leaked memo seems to be the correct course.



States should have the ability to ban abortion-- but they should NOT have the ability to ban women from leaving the state to have an abortion-- that is another matter entirely. I'm also of the mind that these lawmakers need to take a bit more care in their wording-- some laws are written in such a way to where doctors are going to be afraid to deal with a woman with an ectopic pregnancy-- which is life threatening.

[Salty Again]

... Surely agree with your view here, pretty-bird...

Maybe sending this to the states for clarification would
lead to common-sense decisions like you mentioned.

### Salty

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Grace Preston

I do have one question.


If it is truly about saving the life of an unborn... then why the sudden uptick in different government officials wanting to ban various forms of birth control-- up to and including one in Arizona who wants to ban condoms and another who wants to make birth control only available to married couples? IUD's are on the hit list in several states.. as is oral birth control in a few others.



This is the issue-- evangelicals want to legislate morality and see this as the front door-- they are ultimately going to conflate things and make it more difficult for those who are simply wanting to "save the unborn".

It's about time another sister chimes in. You know girl, you crossed my mind. Where ya' been?

Bitches get tired of holdin' it down.

dilby, your artistic assesment?

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Grace Preston

Oh I'm a firm believer that the action that SCOTUS is taking is the correct action based on the facts of the original rulings. That is not to say that I don't think it could come back before SCOTUS and presented under different premises and have different outcomes-- but as it sits now, the leaked memo seems to be the correct course.



States should have the ability to ban abortion-- but they should NOT have the ability to ban women from leaving the state to have an abortion-- that is another matter entirely. I'm also of the mind that these lawmakers need to take a bit more care in their wording-- some laws are written in such a way to where doctors are going to be afraid to deal with a woman with an ectopic pregnancy-- which is life threatening.

Yes it is and we can have that argument if and when it happens not confuse the issue with matters that haven't happened. We are talking about intra state commerce and the right of every American to freely travel without telling the government, federal or state, the reason for that travel. No way in hell that stands Constitutional scrutiny.


Again, no lawyer here but

” In connection with Congress' Commerce Clause powers, courts have inferred that state governments do not have the power to regulate commerce in other states. The Dormant Commerce Clause (DCC) prohibits California and other states from discriminating against interstate commerce.

I would also believe that a person sending birth control pills and condoms, legal in their state to a woman in another state could also, easily fall in the category of intra state commerce and one state could not stop a person from mailing something legal to another state where it is illegal but all of these issues will have to be argued at the SC level and I'll live with any decision they hold and when all is said in done, abortion and birth control will not be banned in America.


Some people will be inconvenienced by this but none of us get to do anything we want, any time we want, any where we want. We adapt to the laws we live under and we change them when the majority decides to. What a great country we live in.

[HedonistForever]

New York is already gearing up to be the "destination for abortions". They want to see if they can out do the number of deaths caused by Covid and set a record they can be proud of.



"The state with more dead babies than any other state, visit New York and leave your fetus and cares behind".