This is going to be disastrous for the republicans in states that are a close call and people are distracted from the real horror that is the complete collapse of the economy.
I wonder what they will use when people are getting angry about there no longer being any food on the shelves
The most obnoxious statement and you must know how you sound when you say it, right? Have you not LIVED your life? Gotten drunk and done stupid shit? Or gotten angry or emotional and behaved irrationally? You seriously think it's fair to slap the responsibility on the woman like this??? She has to deal with all the consequences and dudes are free to bang away all day without a 2nd thought? Comn man.
Not only the next stroke poke, but other stuff too. What happens when they declare climate change a “public health” crisis and tell you you can’t buy meat then hand you your ration of bugs? Or if they say posting on anonymous message boards causes mental illness and you get sent in for reeducation? It seems to me that they can now do anything to you in the name of public health.
But if the abortion issue were decided with public health in mind they would allow it 100% due to the increased rate of violent crime which results from banning it.
“Public Health” is definitely not the reason they decided like they did but that’s what the state is going to use this decision for. I’ll bet dollars to Krispy Kremes on that one! Kavenaugh makes a point of saying specifically in his opinion that “we are not banning abortion”. And that they don’t really have the power to anyway. But they all bring up the 14th and 5th which to me says this is about due process for 14th amendment citizens. And if you use an ssn that means you! In other words, all those so called substantive rights you think you have you really don’t and from now on when we tell you to jump you better say how high massa.
Did anyone actually read the decision or understand the argument at the core?
The argument is that 'medical privacy' does not exclude legal action for illegal medical procedures or intervention.
A non-abortion example: When pill-mills in Florida were writing huge OxyContin prescriptions for people who wanted to sell or abuse opiates, this was a "medical decision" made between patient and doctor. The ruling says that 'medical privacy' does not protect the doctor from legal actions for overprescribing controlled drugs.
The Roe vs. Wade ruling could be used in the same way that it protected abortions, to protect pill-mills.
The Supreme Court ruled that this was not a valid application of the principle of 'medical privacy'.
Nothing about the ruling can force anyone to take a vaccine or accept medical treatments that they do not want. It simply removes a "shield" from doctors who do things that violate state law.
There is a HUGE difference between a law saying you CANNOT do something and a law saying you MUST do something.
I have seen it as well, on one side people make this claim, on the left people try to compare vaccine refusal to abortion in an attempt to claim it is hypocritical to oppose mandatory vaccines and abortion.
I hope my post can enlighten people to what the ruling actually means.
I haven't seen the leaker mentioned at all since before last week. I wonder how that was supposed to unfold since people weren't supposed to know about the ruling. If the decision had just hit cold out of nowhere on an unsuspecting country I feel like the reaction would be closer to the summer of 2020, riots and fires everywhere. A true, proper distraction from whatever slimy move we should be watching.
No, it was planned and permitted.
This is going to be disastrous for the republicans in states that are a close call and people are distracted from the real horror that is the complete collapse of the economy.
I wonder what they will use when people are getting angry about there no longer being any food on the shelves
Damn.... That's NOT the epiphany I wanted to have but damn if that doesn't fit....
Damn
We'll be able to get out of this one. Just say you believe in my body my choice but why did you have sex if you weren't prepared for the consequences?
The most obnoxious statement and you must know how you sound when you say it, right? Have you not LIVED your life? Gotten drunk and done stupid shit? Or gotten angry or emotional and behaved irrationally? You seriously think it's fair to slap the responsibility on the woman like this??? She has to deal with all the consequences and dudes are free to bang away all day without a 2nd thought? Comn man.
Not only the next stroke poke, but other stuff too. What happens when they declare climate change a “public health” crisis and tell you you can’t buy meat then hand you your ration of bugs? Or if they say posting on anonymous message boards causes mental illness and you get sent in for reeducation? It seems to me that they can now do anything to you in the name of public health.
Thaaaaank you.
But if the abortion issue were decided with public health in mind they would allow it 100% due to the increased rate of violent crime which results from banning it.
“Public Health” is definitely not the reason they decided like they did but that’s what the state is going to use this decision for. I’ll bet dollars to Krispy Kremes on that one! Kavenaugh makes a point of saying specifically in his opinion that “we are not banning abortion”. And that they don’t really have the power to anyway. But they all bring up the 14th and 5th which to me says this is about due process for 14th amendment citizens. And if you use an ssn that means you! In other words, all those so called substantive rights you think you have you really don’t and from now on when we tell you to jump you better say how high massa.
It really is not.
Did anyone actually read the decision or understand the argument at the core?
The argument is that 'medical privacy' does not exclude legal action for illegal medical procedures or intervention.
A non-abortion example: When pill-mills in Florida were writing huge OxyContin prescriptions for people who wanted to sell or abuse opiates, this was a "medical decision" made between patient and doctor. The ruling says that 'medical privacy' does not protect the doctor from legal actions for overprescribing controlled drugs.
The Roe vs. Wade ruling could be used in the same way that it protected abortions, to protect pill-mills.
The Supreme Court ruled that this was not a valid application of the principle of 'medical privacy'.
Nothing about the ruling can force anyone to take a vaccine or accept medical treatments that they do not want. It simply removes a "shield" from doctors who do things that violate state law.
There is a HUGE difference between a law saying you CANNOT do something and a law saying you MUST do something.
I have seen it as well, on one side people make this claim, on the left people try to compare vaccine refusal to abortion in an attempt to claim it is hypocritical to oppose mandatory vaccines and abortion.
I hope my post can enlighten people to what the ruling actually means.
I haven't seen the leaker mentioned at all since before last week. I wonder how that was supposed to unfold since people weren't supposed to know about the ruling. If the decision had just hit cold out of nowhere on an unsuspecting country I feel like the reaction would be closer to the summer of 2020, riots and fires everywhere. A true, proper distraction from whatever slimy move we should be watching.
Yeah, I am beginning to entertain the idea that the leak was intentional and sanctioned by the justices for this purpose.