5 5
JerryBaumchen

Abortion Commentary

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi folks,

For the first time in my life, I have witnessed a miracle:  The mute speaks

Thomas says Supreme Court should reconsider contraception, gay marriage

Clarence Thomas says Supreme Court should reconsider contraception, gay marriage rulings | Fox News

Jerry Baumchen

Contraception??? The blithering idiot must be suffering dementia, causing him to believe he is the pope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kallend said:

My wife is semi-retired but the company she works for one day a week has just announced the same policy.

And such a brave policy, it is. So how did the announcing email read?

"Hey, all y'all's, this new abortion law thing is especially mas no bueno for some of our employees and we get it! So, we are going to take a fraction of what we save by having our corporate tax domicile located here in Talibanland and offer free bus transport to a more abortion enlightened, but less tax friendly for us, state. Please don't take note of the fact that your abortion benefit is less costly to us than the ridiculous child care benefit you wanted."

Am I close?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ryoder said:

Contraception??? The blithering idiot must be suffering dementia, causing him to believe he is the pope.

He's just doing what he was paid to do.  That ruling protected the right for married women to get contraceptives.  You can be sure that there are states that would like to ban that.  Damn women think they can do whatever they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, billvon said:

He's just doing what he we as paid to do.  That ruling protected the right for married women to get contraceptives.  You can be sure that there are states that would like to ban that.  Damn women think they can do whatever they want.

We who have the ability to see ahead and can facilitate the protection of those we love in the face of the new normal must do so. It's no different than any of the other solutions we figure out and never discuss. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billvon said:

He's just doing what he was paid to do.  That ruling protected the right for married women to get contraceptives.  You can be sure that there are states that would like to ban that.  Damn women think they can do whatever they want.

I’m honestly struggling to even understand this one. How or why would anyone pass a law that would specifically restrict married women’s access to contraception? What is the history of it?

 

Then, how could anyone not view that as a staggering intrusion into private life utterly incompatible with a free society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 5/21/2022 at 3:53 PM, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi folks,

The Catholic Church continues to remain in the Stone Age:  Pelosi will be denied Communion over her stance on abortion : NPR

And, people sometimes wonder why I am an atheist.

Jerry Baumchen

that statement comes from a common misunderstanding of the catholic church.  this diocese has said that about her, yet mine wouldn't do that.  each one is independent of the others in cases like this.  the pope doesn't control the activities of each diocese but leaves things like this to them as long as it doesn't go against church beliefs.  catholics actually believe in the theory of evolution and science - this was the  clincher for me to convert.  there are some conservatives who are against all the change that came from vatican 2, and i have had a run-in with some who have told me i should "read what the church fathers said" instead of starting with the pope, but i told them i had to listen to the pope, not them (church fathers). 

i actually agree with most of their teachings though, since they mainly preach love and acceptance until the 4th century.  of course there are exceptions, but there always are.  the way i get around the churches stance on abortion is by realizing that it is the woman who has the right to do as she wishes with her body, and even if it is a sin to have an abortion, it is not the sin of anyone except her (maybe the doctor or staff).  she can be forgiven, even in the catholic church.

Edited by sfzombie13
clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jakee said:

How or why would anyone pass a law that would specifically restrict married women’s access to contraception? What is the history of it?

Because that’s up to the husband. Doubletalk-version will be something like “it impacts the marriage and should be a joint decision,” but that’s just to make it sound more palatable

Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jakee said:

I’m honestly struggling to even understand this one. How or why would anyone pass a law that would specifically restrict married women’s access to contraception? What is the history of it?

 

Then, how could anyone not view that as a staggering intrusion into private life utterly incompatible with a free society?

Selling contraceptives, providing information about contraception, and even discussion about contraception used to be illegal in the US under the Comstock Act, passed in 1873.  Although this law was invalidated by Griswold v Connecticut (1965) it will become active again if Thomas gets his way and Griswold is overturned. It will require new legislation specifically removing Comstock, and that will likely be opposed by conservatives.  At the federal level new legislation to restore privacy rights will have to overcome the filibuster which may be a challenge.

This reflects a more general problem: old laws that are invalidated by SC decisions are generally not removed from the law books, they just become zombie laws that can't be enforced.  If the SC ruling is later overturned the zombie law springs back to life.  Some states had abortion ban laws before Roe v Wade and these are now in full effect even if the state no longer supports enforcement, which gives an avenue for conservatives to push their agenda even in some blue states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

And Justice Thomas' ruling opinion upheld:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It would seem the riot season is upon us.

Edited by RonD1120

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

And Justice Thomas' ruling opinion upheld:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

I see you skipped the bolding on the first 4 words.

 

Quote

It would seem the riot season is upon us.

In other words, maybe we're getting close to SHTF?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jakee said:

I’m honestly struggling to even understand this one. How or why would anyone pass a law that would specifically restrict married women’s access to contraception? What is the history of it?

 

Then, how could anyone not view that as a staggering intrusion into private life utterly incompatible with a free society?

There was no mention of contraception in the Magna Carta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

And Justice Thomas' ruling opinion upheld:

A well regulated Militia, ...

It would seem the riot season is upon us.

i left in the part that a lot of folks would do well to remember, but it does seem like something is pushing just to push.  some sort of collection of events trying to force an insurrection...protests, riots, an actual insurrection attempt, and now enough bullshit to stir everyone else.  maybe it's always like this and i don't know about it.  history leaves out a lot of the sentiment of the people at the time and is written by the winners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

And Justice Thomas' ruling opinion upheld:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It would seem the riot season is upon us.

Why weren't you on the January 6th Capitol tour? Seems to me that such an outing would be right up your alley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Selling contraceptives, providing information about contraception, and even discussion about contraception used to be illegal in the US under the Comstock Act, passed in 1873.  Although this law was invalidated by Griswold v Connecticut (1965) it will become active again if Thomas gets his way and Griswold is overturned. It will require new legislation specifically removing Comstock, and that will likely be opposed by conservatives.  At the federal level new legislation to restore privacy rights will have to overcome the filibuster which may be a challenge.

Would it? For real? Surely even among the minority of the population who are regular, active Republican voters there is no mandate for this absolute madness? Am I giving them too much credit or do you think it would just be a reflexive ‘oppose anything the Democrats like’ move?

 

Though I was giving them too much credit on the abortion. I cannot believe the ‘No exceptions’ laws that are being enacted. How can anyone who claims to be ‘pro-life’ support a law which demands that a non-viable pregnancy be left to kill the mother? These sanctimonious hypocrites are fucking disgusting.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jakee said:

Would it? For real? Surely even among the minority of the population who are regular, active Republican voters there is no mandate for this absolute madness? Am I giving them too much credit or do you think it would just be a reflexive ‘oppose anything the Democrats like’ move?

 

Though I was giving them too much credit on the abortion. I cannot believe the ‘No exceptions’ laws that are being enacted. How can anyone who claims to be ‘pro-life’ support a law which demands that a non-viable pregnancy be left to kill the mother? These sanctimonious hypocrites are fucking disgusting.

Would it for real? 

Read the last line of the 2nd paragraph and it will answer the questions at the beginning of the 1st one.

(Helpful hint: Yes. Those 'sanctimonious hypocrites' will oppose anything the Ds want to do. They will also do what ever they can to restrict the rights of anyone who isn't a straight white male.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, lippy said:

In other words, maybe we're getting close to SHTF?
 

Looks like it. As the goods from China are depleted by the end of the year, fear and anger will increase. China is only resupplying themselves at this juncture. It would appear they are preparing for war.

What will Americans do when they are unable to obtain needed, critical medicines? What will they do for food to feed their families?

Maranatha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RonD1120 said:

What will Americans do when they are unable to obtain needed, critical medicines?

Blame Biden, of course.  (Or perhaps Obama or Hillary Clinton, depending on your agenda.)

Which way are you leaning on this, the most important issue facing republicans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RonD1120 said:

Looks like it. As the goods from China are depleted by the end of the year, fear and anger will increase. China is only resupplying themselves at this juncture. It would appear they are preparing for war.

What will Americans do when they are unable to obtain needed, critical medicines? What will they do for food to feed their families?

Maranatha!

Be homeless, sleep under trees along the highway, suffer throughout the day and generally be ignored by everyone else? You know, just like the half million Americans who have bravely shown the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, billvon said:

The Great Replacement Theory has long held that ending abortion is essential to protect the white majority in the US.

Too bad they're still counting people of colors at 3/5ths per. Sort of screws up the theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

5 5