To: GODFEARINGWOMAN
Norplant..
2 posted on
05/08/2004 7:23:40 PM PDT by
Drammach
(The Wolves are at the Door... Hey, Kids! Your lunch is here!)
To: GODFEARINGWOMAN
Bump.
3 posted on
05/08/2004 7:24:19 PM PDT by
TheSpottedOwl
(Torrance Ca....land of the flying monkeys)
To: GODFEARINGWOMAN
``I don't know of any precedent that would permit a judge to do this,'' Anna Schissel, staff attorney for the Reproductive Rights Project of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told the Democrat and Chronicle of Rochester. ``And even if there were a precedent, it would be blatantly unconstitutional because it violates the United States Constitution and the New York Constitution.''Perhaps Ms. Schissel can tell us just where in the U.S. Constitution and/or the New York Constitution it says that people are entitled to reproduce beyond their means and expect the rest of us to pay for them shooting out kids like a defective salad shooter?
4 posted on
05/08/2004 7:28:19 PM PDT by
NYC GOP Chick
("If I could shoot like that, I would still be in the NBA" -- Bill Clinton, circa 1995)
To: GODFEARINGWOMAN
Neither parent attended the proceeding or secured legal representation. The mother waived her right to a lawyer, and the father never showed up in court. I'm sure public floggings or beatings cannot cost as much as court hearings not attended by the principals - even without charging admission to help recoup the costs.
9 posted on
05/08/2004 7:43:14 PM PDT by
solitas
(sometimes I lay awake at night looking up at the stars wondering where the heck did the ceiling go?)
To: GODFEARINGWOMAN
Appoint Judge Marilyn O'Conner to the US Supreme Court, at the next opportunity. She's probably too rational to be confirmed though.
12 posted on
05/08/2004 7:48:18 PM PDT by
F.J. Mitchell
(Republicans who die between now and 2 Nov. will be voting for Kerry. Stay healthy!)
To: GODFEARINGWOMAN
There are lots of loving couples that do not have children. Why did the judge not put the kids up for adoption?
14 posted on
05/08/2004 8:14:10 PM PDT by
ikka
To: GODFEARINGWOMAN
I'm torn between two opinions here. While I agree this couple has no right to place the burden for raising their children on responsible taxpayers, I'm also disturbed by thought of a judge being able dictate birth control from the bench.
To put a little feminist spin on it, "What about this woman's right to privacy? It's her body!!" </feminist rant>
Of course the death-loving abortionists probably don't give a #%& about a woman's right to privacy when she exercises her right(?) to deliver her children instead of aborting them.
Like I said, I'm just not sure what I think of this ruling.
To: GODFEARINGWOMAN
Yes...right...might as well have the Pope tell Kerry he can't take Communion!
28 posted on
05/09/2004 1:01:55 PM PDT by
Hotdog
To: GODFEARINGWOMAN
37 posted on
06/29/2004 7:27:10 PM PDT by
Coleus
(Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson