Posted on 06/24/2022 8:28:08 AM PDT by DallasBiff
She claims this criminalizes a
woman’s “right” to an abortion
/\
She also claimed Republicans aim to pass federal law against abortion
Guess she can’t read or hear
S.C. ruled ,,,
,,,,,no fed power ,,,,,,,over state prerogative.
Regarding no express constitutional protection for unthinkingly murdering unborn Democratic voters, contrast the desperate Democratic, politically correct “right” to abortion with the protections that the very enumerated 2nd Amendment has famously provided for gun owners.
Insights welcome.
Also, Trump’s red tsunami of patriot supporters are reminded that they must vote twice this election year. Your first vote is to primary career RINO incumbents. Your second vote is to replace outgoing Democrats and RINOs with Trump-endorsed patriot candidates.
Again, insights welcome.
Some women insist on being in control of their “own” bodies, but why do we sometimes hear them say that they’re “eating for two” when they’re pregnant?
Devout Catholic? Better described as a high ranking official in Satan’s Army.
Overturning precedent is only for liberals! When they do it, it can even be something that’s been in place for hundreds of years, not just 50.
Nancy’s uterus dried into a prune 75 years ago.
brace for all the noise to stack the court. I think that is a real possibility now.
The mid-term election is a little more then four months from now and I think Congress’s summer recess is coming up.
I never listen to Pelosi.
Except today.
Because I am enjoying her anguish.
Well Nanzis love their abortion.
Thank you.
This ruling means that States make the call on abortion. Liberal states will allow abortion. So Pelosi’s husband’s mistress (if he has one) can dump the product of the affair... And Garland? Who knows what his problem is... too much hatred of everyday Americans is my guess.
Pelosi is doing exactly what she and her kangaroo court is trying Trump on .. exciting insurrection!😡
Even Jonathan Turley said so!😊
Incoherently spewing venomous hate. That’s Nancy for ya.
Madame Speaker assumes facts not in evidence: Unlike right to bear arms, right to abortion never mentioned in the Constitution.
Justice Alito writing in today's Dobbs decision:
For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113. Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one. It did not claim that American law or the common law had ever recognized such a right, and its survey of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant (e.g., its discussion of abortion in antiquity) to the plainly incorrect (e.g., its assertion that abortion was probably never a crime under the common law). After cataloging a wealth of other information having nobearing on the meaning of the Constitution, the opinion concluded with a numbered set of rules much like those that might be found in a statute enacted by a legislature.
Under this scheme, each trimester of pregnancy was regulated differently, but the most critical line was drawn atroughly the end of the second trimester, which, at the time,corresponded to the point at which a fetus was thought toachieve “viability,” i.e., the ability to survive outside thewomb. Although the Court acknowledged that States had a legitimate interest in protecting “potential life,”1 it found that this interest could not justify any restriction on previability abortions. The Court did not explain the basis for this line, and even abortion supporters have found it hard to defend Roe’s reasoning. (emphasis added) (footnote omitted).
"And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein" (Luke 18:15-17 AV)But she would never admit that, would she? Hypocrite, IMHO. Apostle Paul wrote according to the Spirit of God:
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats(various foods), which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth" (1 Timothy 4:1-3 AV)Seems to me that describes Nancy and every single one of the hundreds of legislators and media writers/publishers that support her stance, which is:
To be fair, stupid people is government's constituency. We normals don't need it.
Yeah, where’s Mitch? Nancy hissed his name.
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.