"Friday evening, the Supreme Court responded, acknowledging the merits of Guinasso’s concerns and questioning the lower court’s authority to intervene in decisions made by Elisa’s guardians without first seeking to have their guardianship legally revoked."Well, at least a little sanity is showing up.
1 posted on
11/03/2012 8:00:18 AM PDT by
GonzoII
To: All
2 posted on
11/03/2012 8:01:04 AM PDT by
GonzoII
(Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
To: GonzoII
Now wait a minute, I thought government was suppose to leave women’s wombs alone! They can’t have it both ways! This just ticks me off to no end. If they are allowed to abort this woman’s baby against her wishes, what is to stop them from going even further? It’s either a woman’s choice or it isn’t. Where are the Pro Choice people when the Mother wants to keep her baby? Hypocrites!
To: GonzoII
Why is this even in court in the first place? If she wants the baby and her guardians want her to have the baby, who brought this to court to try to force an abortion? Who even has legal standing to pursue such an action?
4 posted on
11/03/2012 8:38:32 AM PDT by
pjd
To: GonzoII
May nefarious do-gooders rot in hell.
6 posted on
11/03/2012 9:10:20 AM PDT by
Tex-Con-Man
(Muppet season now open - no bag limit)
To: GonzoII; 185JHP; 230FMJ; AKA Elena; APatientMan; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping! Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Hopefully there are sane, moral men or women on the Nev. Supreme Court who will prevent this great evil. It is wrong on so many levels.
7 posted on
11/04/2012 3:52:54 PM PST by
little jeremiah
(Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson