Posted on 06/24/2022 7:28:04 AM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
Edited on 06/24/2022 9:45:30 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Went out on the porch this morning and the air just seemed fresher. then I saw the new Twitter tag “#sexstrike” and realized all those leftist liberal women’s legs slapping shut had another side affect!
Planned Parenthood should be thrilled, they’ll be able to focus on providing all of that non-abortion medical care they constantly remind us about.
https://twitter.com/willchamberlain/status/1540364163276496898
FYI: The U.S. Supreme Court, in correcting the numerous errors of Roe vs. Wade (1973), and Casey vs. Planned Parenthood (1992) IN NO WAY banned the ghoulish practice of abortion. What the Supremes ACTUALLY did, legally speaking, is to return the power to LEGISLATE abortion regulations to the STATES, where the PEOPLE can vote on it. Thus, the decision was strongly pro-democracy and pro-freedom.
Pro-Choice Democrat, Yale Law Prof: ‘Roe Doesn’t Cut It as a Constitutional Opinion’
“At the end of the day, if you say something is unconstitutional you have to show me where,” said the Yale law professor. “Roe v. Wade says it is unconstitutional to prohibit abortion before viability, basically 22 weeks. If you look at the Constitution, it doesn’t say anything about abortion one way or another…. Roe v. Wade doesn’t even quote the language of the Constitution that it says is applicable, which in effect says that liberty and property can be restricted with proper legal procedures.”
In response to people who criticized the decision for upending Supreme Court precedent, Amar argued that the primary law of the land is the Constitution — not the precedents. In his view, decisions that do not arise from the Constitution itself should be “thrown overboard.”
“Precedents can and should be disregarded when they’re egregiously wrong,” he said.
There was never any true constitutional rights given or reinforced because of Roe v Wade.
Please fix.
“Pro-Choice Democrat, Yale Law Prof: ‘Roe Doesn’t Cut It as a Constitutional Opinion’
“At the end of the day, if you say something is unconstitutional you have to show me where,” said the Yale law professor. “Roe v. Wade says it is unconstitutional to prohibit abortion before viability, basically 22 weeks. If you look at the Constitution, it doesn’t say anything about abortion one way or another…. Roe v. Wade doesn’t even quote the language of the Constitution that it says is applicable, which in effect says that liberty and property can be restricted with proper legal procedures.”
In response to people who criticized the decision for upending Supreme Court precedent, Amar argued that the primary law of the land is the Constitution — not the precedents. In his view, decisions that do not arise from the Constitution itself should be “thrown overboard.”
“Precedents can and should be disregarded when they’re egregiously wrong,” he said.”
WELL PUT! Thanks!
“There was never any such right to begin with!”
This is why their position is a loser.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.