Tomi Lahren: Conservatives Who Go After Roe “Might as Well Spit on the Constitution”

[Oceander]

Roe created a right that wasn't previously there, definitely not in the Constitution. SCOTUS legislated from the bench.

Science has also advanced greatly since the 70's, so Lahren needs to understand that whatever 'right' she thinks exists may be greatly limited because of it.

Actually, no, they didn’t create a right out of thin air.  They recognized the right to controlling one’s own body as a fundamental right, and held that under the due process clauses that the government could not interfere with that right in the context of abortion until the fetus was viable. 

They utilized the same basic reasoning they used to impose (most of) the Bill of Rights on the states, even though nothing in the Constitution mandates or expressly permits that result. 

So, if you think that Roe v. Wade invented something that wasn’t permitted by the Constitution, then you’re committed to the position that imposing the Bill of Rights on the states was also illegitimate. 

Which of course means, for example, that you are committed to the position that Oregon was well within its rights to penalize bakers for discriminating against gays.

[Jazzhead]

It is to you when it comes to Trump.  You have ZERO tolerance by your own admission.

My, you're such a delicate teacup.

[Oceander]

I'm willing to let science dictate the facts. If it has a heartbeat, it's a human being subject to all the rights the rest of us have.

And at least until it’s viable, it cannot be used as an excuse by the state to commandeer another human being’s body for use as a compelled incubator; its rights are subservient to hers until that point. 

[INVAR]

My, you're such a delicate teacup.

When it comes to Hypocrisy being displayed, I'm like white on rice to point it out.

Hardly delicate.

More like in-your-face.

[Oceander]

Why stop at pre-birth, how about laws that parents can do away with their offspring for the first 18 years of their life??

Because previability is the point at which the conflict between the mother’s rights and the fetuses rights cannot be resolved by separating them.  Once a child is born, anyone can raise it, so there is absolutely no irremedial conflict that would allow such a drastic result. 

[Oceander]

When it comes to Hypocrisy being displayed, I'm like white on rice to point it out.

Hardly delicate.

More like in-your-face.

No, no you’re not. 

[DCPatriot]

So why wasn't Romney elected? Evangelicals say because Evangelicals did not support Romney.

You don't want to confront that Trump would not have been elected without the Evangelical vote. If one doesn't know that, one doesn't know the news. You are the one who is impractical and non-pragmatic.

Franklin Graham

Robert Jeffers

John Hagee

James Dobson,

All prominent Evangelicals, you had this with no other president in modern history, total BS evasion of facts.

But not all of the aforementioned gentlemen would withhold their vote if Brett Kavanaugh cites Roe V Wade as "precedent"...one of the three things he said he would consider on his rulings.

Only by gentle persuasion can abortion become an aberration and not the norm.

[Oceander]

That's your papal proclamation. Not much else backs you up, except the world view that exists only in your mind.

Ahhh.  So, until 1973, nobody had a right to control what was done with or to their own bodies, or such a trifling little right that it could be overrun for mere trifles. 

[endicom]

...President Donald Johnathan Trump.

Johnathan?

[Frank Cannon]

Wait one Texas minute here. One of the Mods pulled this post of mine.......

[endicom]

For so long as women have the option of abortion, no man should be liable for child support.

[Frank Cannon]

For so long as women have the option of abortion, no man should be liable for child support.

LOL. That's a solid point.

[GrouchoTex]

Tomi Lahren never struck me as conservative anyway.
A TV personality, making decent money, staying on her parents Obamacare plan, just because she could, is no conservative.
Not, the pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps-rugged-individual type, anyway.
No, just another RINO.

Let's be honest, Abortion hasn't worried about women's health issues in a long time.
If so, they would be mandated to follow the same rules any doctors office would, yet they find themselves exempt from such rules.
A Texas law trying to do just that was shot down.

No, its about money, pure and simple.

Take my earlier example of making the morning after pill available over the counter.
Heck, why stop there?
Allow school nurses to carry it, make it available through mail (internet) order, subsidize it to the poor,etc.
Make it so there is no excuse whatsoever to have someone claim they did not have access to it.

Just watch how would scream the loudest and longest if that happened.

I have a pretty good idea who that would be.

As science has and will improve in the coming years, there should be a move, by all concerned, on both sides of the issue, to make this abortion business obsolete.

Let's see which interest would be for that and which ones would not.

[Right_in_Virginia]

For so long as women have the option of abortion, no man should be liable for child support.

So not only do you have zero regard for a woman as a human being, you feel the same way about your kids.

Good to know.

[Free Vulcan]

Actually, no, they didn’t create a right out of thin air.  They recognized the right to controlling one’s own body as a fundamental right, and held that under the due process clauses that the government could not interfere with that right in the context of abortion until the fetus was viable. 

They utilized the same basic reasoning they used to impose (most of) the Bill of Rights on the states, even though nothing in the Constitution mandates or expressly permits that result. 

So, if you think that Roe v. Wade invented something that wasn’t permitted by the Constitution, then you’re committed to the position that imposing the Bill of Rights on the states was also illegitimate. 

Which of course means, for example, that you are committed to the position that Oregon was well within its rights to penalize bakers for discriminating against gays.

There are a myriad of situations where you can't use your body to do with as you please. There area myriad of situations where controlling your body leads to consequences.

Pregnancy unless raped is not a forced situation. It's also only a 9 month situation. The entity created is genetically different than the mother and not part of her body in any scientific meaning of the phrase. That entity is also a life and a human being.

Which means you are selectively applying those rights to who you wish and who you do not, regardless of science. If you accept that then you believe the govt can selectively apply rights to any class of persons they wish.

[Frank Cannon]

Tomi Lahren never struck me as conservative anyway.

Because she is not. Looking at her resume it is a string of jobs she got because she was young and hot. College gig to some start up online Right Wing job. Then she gets hired by Beck because she had the right look. Then to FOX because that is where anyone who looks good on camera goes these days. All this in the space of 3 years.

[TomSea]

Jerusalem was recognized, Jeffers and John Hagee were over there as guests of Trump, Former-President Romney criticized this , he sure did not  get that vote. Jay Sekulow, point man for Trumps legal defense is Evangelical and a Messianic Jew.

Pro-Choicers like Tomi should go home to the Democrat party.

Trump doing as much for Jerusalem is seen, at least in part, a nod to Evangelicals.

Check what Trump said in the debates too.

[GrouchoTex]

Because she is not. Looking at her resume it is a string of jobs she got because she was young and hot. College gig to some start up online Right Wing job. Then she gets hired by Beck because she had the right look. Then to FOX because that is where anyone who looks good on camera goes these days. All this in the space of 3 years.

All true.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Wait one Texas minute here. One of the Mods pulled this post of mine.......

 

Guess if you like skinny boys.

[TomSea]

But not all of the aforementioned gentlemen would withhold their vote if Brett Kavanaugh cites Roe V Wade as "precedent"...one of the three things he said he would consider on his rulings.

Only by gentle persuasion can abortion become an aberration and not the norm.

Your opinion, no one needs the high abortion rates of Maryland in Arkansas. Why do you want to force it on other people?

One can see, high abortion states, NY, California, Planned Parenthood's research arm even stopped giving out that info because there are such big differences. States should legislate, not have it forced on them.

[TomSea]

American Taliban, you know who has used that phrase people? Daily Kos, unbelievable really. Might as well call leftists, leftists.

[TomSea]

Actually, no, they didn’t create a right out of thin air.  They recognized the right to controlling one’s own body as a fundamental right, and held that under the due process clauses that the government could not interfere with that right in the context of abortion until the fetus was viable. 

They utilized the same basic reasoning they used to impose (most of) the Bill of Rights on the states, even though nothing in the Constitution mandates or expressly permits that result. 

So, if you think that Roe v. Wade invented something that wasn’t permitted by the Constitution, then you’re committed to the position that imposing the Bill of Rights on the states was also illegitimate. 

Which of course means, for example, that you are committed to the position that Oregon was well within its rights to penalize bakers for discriminating against gays.

@Oceander 

Dershowitz and Scalia said that abortion is not in the constitution. Are you saying you know the Constitution better than them?

Asked and Answered, thank you. We may not be all legal-eagles but we can still use reason.

[TomSea]

Trump definitely pro-life, let's hope Tomi and those who think like her go back to the Democratic party.

No President Trump without the Evangelical vote....

[Oceander]

@Oceander 

Dershowitz and Scalia said that abortion is not in the constitution. Are you saying you know the Constitution better than them?

Who knows?  Perhaps I do.  Perhaps what it indicates is a difference of opinion on what is a fundamental right, whether such rights exist independent of the express terms of the Constitution (although the Ninth Amendment makes it clear there are), and whether substantive due process exists to protect those rights from any interference by the State at all. 

I, for one, do not see a lot of difference between the process the Roe court used to apply substantive due process protection to the right to one’s body and the process the Supreme Court has used in any number of other cases to apply the limitations of the Bill of Rights to the states through substantive due process under the fourteenth amendment. 

In both cases, the Court relied on emanations and penumbras to reach the conclusions it did.  The concept “ordered liberty” which is the touchstone of much of the cases that impose the Bill of Rights on the states is just as much an emanation or penumbra as is the right to privacy articulated in Roe v. Wade.

[Oceander]

@Oceander 

Dershowitz and Scalia said that abortion is not in the constitution. Are you saying you know the Constitution better than them?

Asked and Answered, thank you. We may not be all legal-eagles but we can still use reason.

Answered, yes, by my post immediately above.  You should have waited a little longer before presuming I wasn’t answering.