The Briefing Room

General Category => National News/Current Events => Topic started by: rangerrebew on May 12, 2019, 07:07:10 AM

Title: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: rangerrebew on May 12, 2019, 07:07:10 AM
 Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Posted By Bill McMorris On May 10, 2019 @ 11:40 am
 

Montana Democrat and expected 2020 presidential candidate Steve Bullock vetoed a bill that would have ensured newborns who survive abortion receive life-saving care.

Gov. Bullock vetoed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which was passed by both chambers of the Republican-controlled legislature. Bullock, who did not respond to requests for comment, became the second Red State Democratic governor to block such protections after North Carolina's Roy Cooper vetoed a similar bill in April. His decision comes as he prepares to enter the 2020 Democratic primary.

 
URL to article: https://freebeacon.com/issues/dem-gov-vetoes-newborn-care-bill/
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: austingirl on May 12, 2019, 10:50:54 AM
Barbaric act that boosts his democommie credentials.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Smokin Joe on May 12, 2019, 04:01:31 PM
Barbaric act that boosts his democommie credentials.
Governor 'dead baby' Bullock may be looking for work next election, too.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on May 12, 2019, 10:42:11 PM
To deprive care of a newborn is simply murder in my book.

How could neglect of an infant be anything otherwise?
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Smokin Joe on May 12, 2019, 11:08:31 PM
To deprive care of a newborn is simply murder in my book.

How could neglect of an infant be anything otherwise?
Quite correct. If the average parent did so causing the death of the newborn, it would be considered murder.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Applewood on May 13, 2019, 07:53:32 AM
I think there is a special place in hell waiting for those who think killing a baby is ok.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Polly Ticks on May 13, 2019, 10:09:29 AM
How did such ghoulishness become socially acceptable?  The mind boggles.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: verga on May 13, 2019, 01:03:18 PM
I think there is a special place in hell waiting for those who think killing a baby is ok.
:amen:
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: verga on May 13, 2019, 01:06:58 PM
How did such ghoulishness become socially acceptable?  The mind boggles.
I have a very simple rule that I do my best to follow: Never harm and innocent or through inaction allow one to come to harm.
This goes beyond the pale. It is a bad as Obozo voting "present" when the same bill came up in the Illinois legislature years ago.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on May 13, 2019, 09:38:26 PM
How did such ghoulishness become socially acceptable?  The mind boggles.
Not acceptable to me, nor anybody else I know.  Not to you either am sure.

The real question is why do we allow a minor viewpoint blatantly demand that behavior?

From a Democrat representative who berates an elderly woman for praying to save kids from doom and their mothers from a life of sorrow, to a Governor of Virginia who says being born alive does not necessarily mean a baby should live, to a Montana Governor who vetoes what the majority of the state legislators wish who represent the state's constituents.

None of these elected who stand for murdering infants would ever be able to stand up to the scrutiny of a majority of the people in this country who overwhelmingly reject infant murder.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Applewood on May 14, 2019, 07:31:28 AM
So this murderous governor has formally announced his candidacy for president.  What are we up to on the Democrat side now -- 400?  *****rollingeyes*****

I'd like to think once voters are aware of what he has done, they will reject him.  Only those for whom life is cheap might consider him.  I don't see this candidacy going anywhere. 

By the way, isn't Montana a more conservative state?  If so, whatever possessed the voters to elect him governor?
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Jazzhead on May 14, 2019, 08:39:13 AM
How did such ghoulishness become socially acceptable?  The mind boggles.

Because the two sides -  pro-life and pro-choice - are at war, where anything goes.   One side wants to ban abortion days after a missed period, and the other side wants to permit abortion even as the baby is gasping for life on the operating table.   

I've said this before, to deaf ears.    Those who truly want to reduce the number of abortions don't go monkeying around with Constitutional rights.   They do the hard work of persuasion and support for mothers in tough circumstances to do the right thing.   Or, as the left to its credit advocates,  they make contraceptives freely available.   

But the two warring sides have ratcheted things up to new levels.   So long as one side insists on passing cruel laws that ban abortion at six weeks, the other side will counter with the normalization of infanticide.   Both positions are inhumane and serve to harden hearts.    If only this issue could be removed from the political agenda,  both sides could work together toward the common goal of supporting life.   And the red/blue divide could begin to heal. 

But it's never going to happen.  Neither side will, it seems, acknowledge the bona fides and good faith of the other.   Each just lurches further down the road to extremism.   
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on May 14, 2019, 09:05:59 AM
So this murderous governor has formally announced his candidacy for president.  What are we up to on the Democrat side now -- 400?  *****rollingeyes*****

I'd like to think once voters are aware of what he has done, they will reject him.  Only those for whom life is cheap might consider him.  I don't see this candidacy going anywhere. 

By the way, isn't Montana a more conservative state?  If so, whatever possessed the voters to elect him governor?
Got this add logging into Google today

Quote
Steve Bullock 2020 | Send Steve to the Debates | actblue.com‎
Adsecure.actblue.com/‎
Steve Bullock needs 65,000 donors to get on the debate stage. Chip in $5 now.

The murderous scum is voting against babies to collect votes.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on May 14, 2019, 09:08:40 AM
Because the two sides -  pro-life and pro-choice - are at war, where anything goes.   One side wants to ban abortion days after a missed period, and the other side wants to permit abortion even as the baby is gasping for life on the operating table.   

I've said this before, to deaf ears.    Those who truly want to reduce the number of abortions don't go monkeying around with Constitutional rights.   They do the hard work of persuasion and support for mothers in tough circumstances to do the right thing.   Or, as the left to its credit advocates,  they make contraceptives freely available.   

But the two warring sides have ratcheted things up to new levels.   So long as one side insists on passing cruel laws that ban abortion at six weeks, the other side will counter with the normalization of infanticide.   Both positions are inhumane and serve to harden hearts.    If only this issue could be removed from the political agenda,  both sides could work together toward the common goal of supporting life.   And the red/blue divide could begin to heal. 

But it's never going to happen.  Neither side will, it seems, acknowledge the bona fides and good faith of the other.   Each just lurches further down the road to extremism.
Not the argument.

A baby born alive is a human being as any of us, which is a fact.

One side is condoning outright murder.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Hoodat on May 14, 2019, 09:09:03 AM
I've said this before, to deaf ears.    Those who truly want to reduce the number of abortions don't go monkeying around with Constitutional rights.

The only Constitutional right at play here is the right of a State to formulate its own abortion laws.  (See:  Amendment x)



They do the hard work of persuasion and support for mothers in tough circumstances to do the right thing.

That already happens.


But the two warring sides have ratcheted things up to new levels.   So long as one side insists on passing cruel laws that ban abortion at six weeks

Cruel?  Seriously?  So it is not "cruel" to chop that baby up like a blender, but it is "cruel" to save it?  It is not "cruel" to allow that mother to live the rest of her life bearing a heavy emotional scar knowing that she had her baby killed, but it is "cruel" to save her from this and live with the hope that her baby was raised with love from a family that desperately wanted to witness God fulfilling the destiny in his/her life?


But it's never going to happen.  Neither side will, it seems, acknowledge the bona fides and good faith of the other.   Each just lurches further down the road to extremism.

Nope.  Won't happen as long as one side continues to lie about being pro-'chioice' when they are adamant about denying choice to those willing to come forward and shape their own society for a better future.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Restored on May 14, 2019, 09:15:59 AM
Quote
One side wants to ban abortion days after a missed period

So?
As I have said before, I'm OK with abortion so long as the unborn child isn't harmed in the process.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Jazzhead on May 14, 2019, 09:16:47 AM
Not the argument.

A baby born alive is a human being as any of us, which is a fact.

One side is condoning outright murder.

I don't disagree.   But pro-lifers who insist on cruel legislation like these "heartbeat" bills drive the other side to their own extremism.   It is no coincidence that,  even a couple of years ago,  there was consensus that a born child should receive life-saving medical treatment,  just as a couple of years ago the pro-lifers sought to curb abortion after the 20th week.   Now pro-lifers want to force women to give birth only a few days after a missed period.   

Extremism begets extremism.   A lack of empathy on one side just triggers the other side's cruelty.   

To be honest,  I question the sincerity of the extremists on both sides.  Neither gives a damn about reducing abortions. 
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Hoodat on May 14, 2019, 09:19:53 AM
I don't disagree.   But pro-lifers who insist on cruel legislation like these "heartbeat" bills drive the other side to their own extremism.

Sorry, I'm simply not seeing it.  What part of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act do you consider to be "cruel"?
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Jazzhead on May 14, 2019, 09:45:22 AM
Sorry, I'm simply not seeing it.  What part of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act do you consider to be "cruel"?

You're misreading my post.  Try again.   Both sides are reacting to the other's extremism with extremism of their own.   

 
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: verga on May 14, 2019, 01:54:18 PM
Because the two sides -  pro-life and pro-choice - are at war, where anything goes.   One side wants to ban abortion days after a missed period, and the other side wants to permit abortion even as the baby is gasping for life on the operating table.   

I've said this before, to deaf ears.    Those who truly want to reduce the number of abortions don't go monkeying around with Constitutional rights.   They do the hard work of persuasion and support for mothers in tough circumstances to do the right thing.   Or, as the left to its credit advocates,  they make contraceptives freely available.   

But the two warring sides have ratcheted things up to new levels.   So long as one side insists on passing cruel laws that ban abortion at six weeks, the other side will counter with the normalization of infanticide.   Both positions are inhumane and serve to harden hearts.    If only this issue could be removed from the political agenda,  both sides could work together toward the common goal of supporting life.   And the red/blue divide could begin to heal. 

But it's never going to happen.  Neither side will, it seems, acknowledge the bona fides and good faith of the other.   Each just lurches further down the road to extremism.
The left makes the argument that it is a "clump of cells". well guess what, that description applies to every human being that has ever been born or will be born. The only difference between us and them and duration. The left also likes to make the argument that it is wholly dependent on the mother for life. Well guess what that also applies to children up tot he age of 6-7 and many people over the age of 90-95. Are you advocating that it is okay to put them to death as well if they are inconvenient? 
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Fishrrman on May 14, 2019, 06:40:43 PM
This thread serves as yet another example of how divided the nation (and the individual states that comprise it) has become.

Questions for anyone reading:
How do you think "a reconciliation" can or could be achieved with those who promote "at birth" abortions?
And those who embrace the rest of the leftist agenda?
How do you propose to bring them "back into the fold"?

Had coffee with a friend yesterday, and asked him essentially the same question regarding the leftists/democrat-communists? How can they be "brought back"?

His answer was simple:
"You can't"

So... what does this mean for the nation's future?
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Jazzhead on May 15, 2019, 08:29:04 AM
The left makes the argument that it is a "clump of cells". well guess what, that description applies to every human being that has ever been born or will be born. The only difference between us and them and duration. The left also likes to make the argument that it is wholly dependent on the mother for life. Well guess what that also applies to children up tot he age of 6-7 and many people over the age of 90-95. Are you advocating that it is okay to put them to death as well if they are inconvenient?

The difference between us and a 6-week old fetus is that the latter is literally part of the woman's body,  and can have no separate existence on its own.   It is, simply put,  within the dominion and control of the mother, as a matter of scientific fact.   That is completely different from the situation of a viable fetus, or of course a born child.

The "clump of cells" argument may be obnoxious,   but labelling women "murderers" is too.   No woman sets out to get pregnant for the purpose of abortion.   It is always a difficult and often heartbreaking decision.   I wish no one had to make such a choice.   But the bottom line is simple:

For better or for worse, it is the woman's decision to make.

Not the State's.   

And that is the view you would naturally take as a conservative if this were any issue other than abortion.     
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: thackney on May 15, 2019, 08:52:04 AM
The difference between us and a 6-week old fetus is that the latter is literally part of the woman's body,  and can have no separate existence on its own.   It is, simply put,  within the dominion and control of the mother, as a matter of scientific fact.   That is completely different from the situation of a viable fetus, or of course a born child.

The "clump of cells" argument may be obnoxious,   but labelling women "murderers" is too.   No woman sets out to get pregnant for the purpose of abortion.   It is always a difficult and often heartbreaking decision.   I wish no one had to make such a choice.   But the bottom line is simple:

For better or for worse, it is the woman's decision to make.

Not the State's.   

And that is the view you would naturally take as a conservative if this were any issue other than abortion.   

Protection of the innocent is always a conservative choice.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Jazzhead on May 15, 2019, 09:14:26 AM
Protection of the innocent is always a conservative choice.

But that is because of your moral view of the matter.   You think of a six-week old fetus as a "baby" when it is something quite different.   The conservative choice it to protect liberty from intrusion by the State.   At the six-week mark,  only one person has a liberty interest - the woman.    When the fetus is viable,  and the woman has had the meaningful opportunity to choose to continue her pregnancy,  then I can accept your "protection of the innocent" perspective.    But at the six-week mark?   No.  The State cannot force a woman to bear that burden.   

As for your moral view of the matter,  I don't disagree.   But again:  persuasion's a good thing.  Coercion is not.   
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: thackney on May 15, 2019, 09:28:55 AM
You think of a six-week old fetus as a "baby" when it is something quite different.

From the legal point of view, if you can be charged with homicide for killing the unborn baby, it is a baby.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Hoodat on May 15, 2019, 09:40:51 AM
The difference between us and a 6-week old fetus is that the latter is literally part of the woman's body

Absolutely not true.  The woman's body ends at the placenta.  The fetus has its own singular DNA that is separate from the mother.  Never is it part of the mother's body.   But you knew that already.


.  .  .  and can have no separate existence on its own.

Neither can a one-year-old.  Left on its own, he/she will die.


It is, simply put,  within the dominion and control of the mother, as a matter of scientific fact.

If I place a gun to your head, your life is within the dominion and control of me, as a matter of scientific fact.  Does that make it OK to pull the trigger?


That is completely different from the situation of a viable fetus, or of course a born child.

There you go with that word 'viable' again.  Still waiting for you to direct me to that part of the Constitution that covers it.  Meanwhile, we will continue to see babies born prematurely (i.e. before Roe's "viability" date) who survive and grow to be healthy adults.


No woman sets out to get pregnant for the purpose of abortion.

No drunk driver sets out to commit vehicular manslaughter either.  Nor does an armed robber set out to put a liquor store out of business.  But there are responsibilities that come with actions.  When a woman chooses to freely exercise control of her body by allowing a man to ejaculate inside of her, she is freely engaging in an exercise with a high probability of creating a new life.  She is not a victim here.  She was in control of her body.  She exercised free control with full knowledge of the consequences.  Women are due far more credit here than you are willing to give.


It is always a difficult and often heartbreaking decision.

Especially from the baby's point of view.  Except it isn't just heart-breaking.  It is heart-ending.

(https://top-messtechnik.com/media/image/product/1006/lg/fetal-doppler-fd1_1.jpg)


I wish no one had to make such a choice.

I wish no one would make the choice of engaging in unprotected sex if they are unwilling to give a baby a chance at life.  Even for a woman who does not believe herself to be compatible with motherhood, she still has the choice to give her child to a loving, nurturing family instead of killing her child.


But the bottom line is simple:
For better or for worse, it is the woman's decision to make.  Not the State's. 

The Constitution says otherwise.  I will go by what the Constitution actually says instead of by what you wish it said.


And that is the view you would naturally take as a conservative if this were any issue other than abortion.   

The Conservative approach is, and always will be, to allow the people to come together and decide what is best for society within the confines of the Constitution of the United States of American.  The fascist approach (i.e. your approach) is to ignore the Constitution and impose your will not only on your state, but on every other State in the country by any means necessary.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Hoodat on May 15, 2019, 09:44:46 AM
From the legal point of view, if you can be charged with homicide for killing the unborn baby, it is a baby.

And to think that infanticide laws are enacted by each individual State per the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: verga on May 15, 2019, 10:00:11 AM
But that is because of your moral view of the matter.   You think of a six-week old fetus as a "baby" when it is something quite different.
Quote a scientific source that that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is not a "baby" It is the product of human sperm fertilizing a human egg. That is the ONLY thing it can be.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: mountaineer on May 15, 2019, 10:03:48 AM
It's a sad thing that our laws provide more protection to animals than to human beings.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Hoodat on May 15, 2019, 10:40:08 AM
It's a sad thing that our laws provide more protection to animals than to human beings.

Our laws do provide more protection to human beings than to animals.  But we aren't dealing with laws here.  We are dealing with tyrannical edicts from the bench that supplant our laws.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Smokin Joe on May 15, 2019, 11:16:53 AM
Because the two sides -  pro-life and pro-choice - are at war, where anything goes.   One side wants to ban abortion days after a missed period, and the other side wants to permit abortion even as the baby is gasping for life on the operating table.   

I've said this before, to deaf ears.    Those who truly want to reduce the number of abortions don't go monkeying around with Constitutional rights.   They do the hard work of persuasion and support for mothers in tough circumstances to do the right thing.   Or, as the left to its credit advocates,  they make contraceptives freely available.   

But the two warring sides have ratcheted things up to new levels.   So long as one side insists on passing cruel laws that ban abortion at six weeks, the other side will counter with the normalization of infanticide.   Both positions are inhumane and serve to harden hearts.    If only this issue could be removed from the political agenda,  both sides could work together toward the common goal of supporting life.   And the red/blue divide could begin to heal. 

But it's never going to happen.  Neither side will, it seems, acknowledge the bona fides and good faith of the other.   Each just lurches further down the road to extremism.
Let me boil this down for you.

Dems=Party of Death
Republicans (and others)=Give Life a chance.

For all their crap about equal rights, they'd deny a newborn the fundamental care to keep them alive. As usual, all the blather about equality is a sham, although those babies end up equally dead.

We have the means ability to keep premature neonates alive and healthy. We can do surgery in utero and heal the unborn.
Medically, it is marvelous. One of my great granddaughters weighed in under 2 lbs when born, a victim of TTTS (https://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/service/f/fetal-care/conditions/twin-twin-transfusion-syndrome) (Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome), and is a healthy schoolgirl today (as is her big sister, who weighed just under 4 lbs).
Instead, the Dems would deny a newborn a blanket and a bottle and let them die, and howl for a 'right' to dismember those same babies before they see the light of day. Every fundamental human instinct rails against such treatment of a child, any child, unless your ass just isn't wired right. It's just plain evil, @Jazzhead , there is no justifying it. But now the veil of legitimacy has been lifted, and the true nature of the slaughter is there to be seen by all.

It doesn't get any more plain than that. True colors and all that.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: txradioguy on May 15, 2019, 11:25:03 AM
You're misreading my post.  Try again.   Both sides are reacting to the other's extremism with extremism of their own.

How is protecting the life of an unborn baby "extremism"?
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: verga on May 15, 2019, 11:47:44 AM
BKMK
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Smokin Joe on May 15, 2019, 12:11:39 PM
Just a few observations:

For all the howling about the "patriarchy",  the abortion industry got its start keeping someone's "good name" from being sullied by the presence of little bastards running around, not to mention the likely social and fiscal inconvenience of some extramarital progeny. It was a quicker, less messy (socially) alternative to sending the little darling who had been putting on weight out of state to 'stay with their relatives' for a while, or off to the convent for the duration of an obvious 'condition' that was often a cause for social embarrassment for the rich, powerful, or those who wanted to preserve a squeaky clean image (an image that was a lie, obviously), in the days when pregnancy out of wedlock was considered a big deal and when bastard children complicated matters of estate and inheritance. (talk about "patriarchy"!)
In a time when over 40% of children are born out of wedlock, with rates as high as 70% in some demographic groups, that excuse really no longer exists.

Of all the animals, mammals in particular, and marsupials, which nurture their young, humans (supposedly the most evolved) have fought for the survival of their young. Mothers are famous for their ferocity in the defense of their offspring (never get between mama bear and the cubs!). Such is the natural order of things.
From a human nature standpoint, we have finally created a society where the fundamental nurturing instincts of the mother have been so overturned by lies and propaganda that over a million mothers a year choose to have their infant torn limb from limb, ripped to shreds, and/or chemically poisoned in ways we would not kill a convicted mass murderer, literally torn from their mother's womb. These horrors aren't being perpetrated by Concentration Camp denizens in medical experiments which would be rewarded with a noose to popular acclaim, but by nicely dressed people in nondescript clinics, paid for by people who have no choice but to render their taxes which are diverted so the abortionists can render children.
 
That we are even having this discussion is a measure of the depths to which our culture has sunk, that anyone could argue for such practices as a "right" is an indicator of a sickness which would guarantee the extinction of any other species.

Calling this a "Choice" is like saying that getting a room high up in a hotel and shooting up a concert crowd or setting off a bomb in a subway is a "choice", yet when that happens, people are screaming for the equipment used to be banned and surviving perpetrators to be hunted down, not howling they had a "right to choose" and blather about "their body", despite the obvious consequences for the other person involved. It's like arguing Mr. Paddock had a right to do with his trigger finger what he wanted to? After all, it's his body.
The reply, of course, is that other lives were involved, other bodies would suffer damage.
Look (https://www.abortionno.org/wp-content/gallery/abortion-pictures/10_weeks-01_medium.jpg), and you tell me there aren't in this case, too (WARNING, graphic image). Maybe that's a chicken wing and not a human hand. Oh, wait..

For all the howling about separating children from foreign lands from their families, the Left argues vehemently for a "right" to separate American children from themselves (dismemberment) and their mothers (abortion). Definitely the stuff of logical malfunction.

One of the defining aspects of Western Culture is that we value human life. We don't do human sacrifices on pyramid peaks, we don't throw virgins to the fire god, we hold murder to be a most heinous crime. We naturally are revolted, even after decades of media desensitization, by the sight of dismembered blood and bodies, the smells of humans burned, of blood, of bodies ripped apart. The toughest veteran firefighter will vomit at the scene of a really bad car accident, the emotional scars of battlefield injuries and damaged bodies haunt many of our veterans, yet somehow it is to be considered normal for a mother to be indifferent to the fate of her own child within the sanctity of her womb, the one place that child should be safest. Biologically, she is constructed to protect that offspring, it floats in a sac filled with fluid, one of the most efficient shock absorbing systems ever, every normal instinct is for the preservation of the future of her bloodline and the species. There is nothing normal about destroying that offspring, especially for something as inconsequential as convenience. Nor is there anything normal, by Western standards, in men or other women trying to convince other people that this is normal, any more than it is normal to wrap your child (from a Western Civilization viewpoint) in a vest full of explosives and put them on the bus. This is a sickness that reaches every level of a culture, and when the courts, the protectors of the innocent, the guardians of our natural Rights, rule otherwise to legitimize this slaughter, they rule against Nature, the most fundamental of Rights (Life!), and the very foundations of our culture.
But this is just another unnatural act the courts have decreed to be okay.

The time has come to choose, and the nature of that choice is ever more evident. Our culture, our nation's foundations, and your eternity hang in the balance.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Jazzhead on May 15, 2019, 12:23:26 PM
How is protecting the life of an unborn baby "extremism"?

Because it denies a woman her fundamental liberty.   A six-week fetus is not a "baby" - that's emotionalism that puts the rabbit in the hat.   If the states want to restrict abortion, then fine, but to deny it altogether is unconstitutional.

I understand what's going on here.   States are passing extreme abortion bans - the most extreme, perhaps, is the new Alabama ban - which are explicitly intended to defy Roe v. Wade and force the SCOTUS to consider overturning this 40-year precedent upon women have come to rely in ordering their lives.   

Well,  you know what's next, don't you?    Attacks by state legislatures on the RKBA,  seeking to force the SCOTUS to restrict or overturn the individual right found by Heller.     Count on it,  and may those attacks in overturning your gun rights be as successful as the attacks seeking to overturn a woman's right to self-determination.   

Fascism is fascism, folks.   The denial of essential liberty is contemptible whether coming from the right or the left.   And it permanently poisons the political process,  with right-wingers defending only the rights they care about and left-wingers defending only the rights they care about.   The hypocrisy on both sides is mind-boggling.

Why not defend liberty in both circumstances?   

Mark my words - the current wave of anti-abortion extremism,  if backed uncritically by the Republican party, is going to force many good people to switch sides.   The government has no flippin' business in a woman's womb.     
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Jazzhead on May 15, 2019, 12:29:40 PM
The time has come to choose, and the nature of that choice is ever more evident. Our culture, our nation's foundations, and your eternity hang in the balance.

Oh, bullshit.   Unplanned pregnancies are in decline,  and there are far more effective ways to reduce the number of abortions than denying a woman's liberty.   

Pro-lifers who support this extremism want to start a war.  And they will get it - the same tactics they employ will be used by the left to deny the gun right.   But you care about that right because it affects you.  Not the rights of mere sperm receptacles.

Liberty for me but not for thee -  that's contemptible!     
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Smokin Joe on May 15, 2019, 12:57:31 PM
Because it denies a woman her fundamental liberty.   A six-week fetus is not a "baby" - that's emotionalism that puts the rabbit in the hat. 
What is it, then? Is it a duck? A doorknob? A moon rock? 
Quote
If the states want to restrict abortion, then fine, but to deny it altogether is unconstitutional.
1. Show me the part of the Constitution which guarantees a right to dismember or poison a baby. 2. Fine. I'm thinking of a number, between 0 and infinity, to an infinite number of decimal places, so if you can guess it, okay. Otherwise, no abortion.

Quote
I understand what's going on here.   States are passing extreme abortion bans - the most extreme, perhaps, is the new Alabama ban - which are explicitly intended to defy Roe v. Wade and force the SCOTUS to consider overturning this 40-year precedent upon women have come to rely in ordering their lives.   
Maybe women should consider the plethora of contraceptives and methods available in ordering their lives so that order doesn't involve taking other lives.

Quote
Well,  you know what's next, don't you?    Attacks by state legislatures on the RKBA,  seeking to force the SCOTUS to restrict or overturn the individual right found by Heller.     Count on it,  and may those attacks in overturning your gun rights be as successful as the attacks seeking to overturn a woman's right to self-determination.   
Pissy, today, aren't we? You have just cleared the closet door on the RKBA, by saying "your" instead of "our", and calling for the destruction of a fundamental Civil Right that has been under attack far longer than some claimed "right" to slaughter one's own offspring, even after they clear the chute and are breathing air.

Women still have the right to SELF determination, they still choose to have sex or not, to prevent pregnancy or not, they just won't be able to engage the services of murder for hire as an afterthought.

I can defend my RKBA by exercising it, if necessary, from the rooftops. That someone should have to defend babies from their own mothers is an indication of how far this alleged civilization has sunken. I'm not so sure "civilization" is the appropriate term, should this practice prevail.
Quote
Fascism is fascism, folks.   The denial of essential liberty is contemptible whether coming from the right or the left.   And it permanently poisons the political process,  with right-wingers defending only the rights they care about and left-wingers defending only the rights they care about.   The hypocrisy on both sides is mind-boggling.

Why not defend liberty in both circumstances?   
LIBERTY IS USELESS WITHOUT LIFE.
That's why LIFE was mentioned first, ya think?  Nothing is more permanently poisoning than being dead.

Quote
Mark my words - the current wave of anti-abortion extremism,  if backed uncritically by the Republican party, is going to force many good people to switch sides.   The government has no flippin' business in a woman's womb.     
You think Montana isn't losing Democrats to this issue? Wholesale. Letting a live born baby die due to medical neglect is a real tough pill for people to swallow. But those who succeed are less human than any lump of tissue you keep braying about.

You have what it takes. All we have to do is declare ____________ (fill in the blank) to not be human, and we can kill, torture, maim, buy/sell it or the parts at will. It isn't a human so we can do what we want with it, right?

Come on, even animals don't get treated that way.

Here's the rub, though. Once we cross that line of declaring some humans not human, all we have to do is just change the definition. Just tweak that a little to take in the neighbor, the church lady, that annoying telemarketer. With a dash of the proverbial pen, it's open season on everyone! We're seeing this when people praying across the street from one of these industrial murder sites get physically attacked.

All this mish mash about Rights, yet you never argue for the rights of that little human who can't argue for their own--yet the Constitution and Bill of Rights were crafted with the idea in mind that the rights of those who had little voice would be protected from the shouts of the mob. 

How about a compromise? How about any woman can have an abortion for any reason, only she gets sterilized, permanently, along with it. The only exception would be for abortions which were medically necessary to save the life of the mother (kinda like the Alabama law). Then, instead of being mass murderers, those who rely on abortion to 'structure their lives' would only have to do it once, kinda like a vaccine, and they wouldn't have to worry about getting 'preggers' again, missing punctuation marks, or the inconvenience of having a child (or another procedure). Think of the savings for the taxpayers. Even the reduction in medical 'waste' that would have to be disposed. Think of the benefit to society.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Smokin Joe on May 15, 2019, 01:00:52 PM
Oh, bullshit.   Unplanned pregnancies are in decline,  and there are far more effective ways to reduce the number of abortions than denying a woman's liberty.   

Pro-lifers who support this extremism want to start a war.  And they will get it - the same tactics they employ will be used by the left to deny the gun right.   But you care about that right because it affects you.  Not the rights of mere sperm receptacles.

Liberty for me but not for thee -  that's contemptible!   
Are in decline? Show me the statistics?
Are you telling me that the 40+% (overall, almost double that in some groups) of out of wedlock babies were planned? And those don't include the million or more every year that are shredded or poisoned, just the ones who made it out alive.
Seriously?
Powerful forces have been at war with my right to be armed since well before the Magna Carta. Nothing new, but unenforceable. You can't take my Right to Keep and Bear Arms away, and the government didn't give me that Right, it is one I possess by benefit of being armed, and a Right that those who formed this country refused to surrender to that government, hence its mention as a protected Right.
 
Contrast that with claims to a right to kill someone who has not been found to be guilty of a capital crime, to deprive them of Life (and liberty) without due process, in defiance of other Rights in the Constitution, and to take their lives by means which would be considered "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" even if they had been found guilty of the most horrible crime.
You don't have a leg to stand on.

NOWHERE DO I CLAIM THE "LIBERTY" TO TAKE AN INNOCENT LIFE!
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: txradioguy on May 15, 2019, 01:07:33 PM
Because it denies a woman her fundamental liberty.

So now murder = liberty.  Do you realize how repugnant that sounds? 

There is nothing "fundamental" in wiping out the life of an unborn child no matter how you try to justify the ghoulishness of it just so you can look yourself in the mirror each day.


Quote
A six-week fetus is not a "baby" - that's emotionalism that puts the rabbit in the hat. 


Oh bullshit it isn't.

Quote
The nose, mouth, and ears that you'll spend so much time kissing in eight months are beginning to take shape. If you could see into your uterus, you'd find an oversize head and dark spots where your baby's eyes and nostrils are starting to form. His emerging ears are marked by small depressions on the sides of the head, and his arms and legs by protruding buds. His heart is beating about 100 to 160 times a minute – almost twice as fast as yours – and blood is beginning to course through his body. His intestines are developing, and the bud of tissue that will give rise to his lungs has appeared. His pituitary gland is forming, as are the rest of his brain, muscles, and bones.

https://www.babycenter.com/6-weeks-pregnant (https://www.babycenter.com/6-weeks-pregnant)

You can call it a fetus all you want...but that's the cowards way of justifying snuffing out the life of a living breathing human being.


Quote
but to deny it altogether is unconstitutional.

There is no Constitutional "right" to abortion.  Show me which Amendment it falls under.

Quote
I understand what's going on here.   States are passing extreme abortion bans - the most extreme, perhaps, is the new Alabama ban - which are explicitly intended to defy Roe v. Wade and force the SCOTUS to consider overturning this 40-year precedent upon women have come to rely in ordering their lives.
 

You and the rest of the pro baby murderers call it "extreme"...people with a conscious and a soul call it doing everything possible to protect ALL life.


Quote
Fascism is fascism, folks.   The denial of essential liberty is contemptible whether coming from the right or the left.   And it permanently poisons the political process,  with right-wingers defending only the rights they care about and left-wingers defending only the rights they care about.   The hypocrisy on both sides is mind-boggling.

And what about the "essential liberty" of that baby that was sucked into the sink?

Quote
Why not defend liberty in both circumstances?
 

Speaking of hypocrites.  *****rollingeyes***** 

Quote
Mark my words - the current wave of anti-abortion extremism,  if backed uncritically by the Republican party, is going to force many good people to switch sides.

Not really.  With all the pro abortion @ssholes like you out there...there's not gonna be enough Progressives left having kids to have enough of a political party to fight the ultimate reversal of Roe. 


Quote
The government has no flippin' business in a woman's womb.     

Unless of course...the Government is taking your side where abortion is concerned.  Then you're all for them being in there.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: txradioguy on May 15, 2019, 01:11:44 PM
Are in decline? Show me the statistics?
Are you telling me that the 40+% (overall, almost double that in some groups) of out of wedlock babies were planned? And those don't include the million or more every year that are shredded or poisoned, just the ones who made it out alive.
Seriously?


@Smokin Joe

The pro baby murderers will do and say just about anything to justify the blood on their hands.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: txradioguy on May 15, 2019, 01:26:42 PM
If the case for abortion rights is so strong, why is it always cloaked in such euphemisms as “choice,” “women’s health,” and the biggest howler of all, “reproductive rights?” Whatever abortion is about, it is most certainly not about “reproduction.”
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Jazzhead on May 15, 2019, 01:47:36 PM
Are in decline? Show me the statistics?

They are, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.   According to an article in today's WSJ reporting the numbers:

Quote
  The trends suggest that a decline in unplanned pregnancies is a big part of America's lower fertility rate.   Research led by Kasey Buckles, an associate professor of economics at the University of Notre Dame, found that about 35% of the fertility decline from 2007 to 2016 is because of declines in pregnancies that were likely unintended.

The decline in U.S. births is also a partly caused by a "particularly dramatic" drop in births among teens ages 15 - 19,  probably because of increased access to contraceptives.

(I'd provide a link, but the story is behind a paywall).

So the real solution appears to lie with better contraception,  education and economic growth.    Preventing an unintended pregnancy is the best way to reduce abortions.   And the beauty part is that encouraging planned pregnancies is consistent with a woman's liberty.   Anti-abortion extremism just pits one half of the nation against the other, each at the other's throats.     
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Jazzhead on May 15, 2019, 01:50:50 PM
So now murder = liberty.  Do you realize how repugnant that sounds? 


Even the state of Alabama won't jail a woman for having an abortion.  So, no, it's not "murder".   Stop with the pearl-clutching dramatics. 

Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: txradioguy on May 15, 2019, 01:57:34 PM
Even the state of Alabama won't jail a woman for having an abortion.

Strawman.  Quit with the distractions that have nothing to do with this.

Quote
So, no, it's not "murder".   Stop with the pearl-clutching dramatics.

Yes murder.  It's no different than some gang banger in Philly killing a 9 year old lady.  Either way a life is taken.

How about you stop with the @s covering justifications for killing an unborn child?

And again I'll put this out there:

If the case for abortion rights is so strong, why is it always cloaked in such euphemisms as “choice,” “women’s health,” and the biggest howler of all, “reproductive rights?” Whatever abortion is about, it is most certainly not about “reproduction.”
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: txradioguy on May 15, 2019, 02:00:52 PM
Quote
The decline in U.S. births is also a partly caused by a "particularly dramatic" drop in births among teens ages 15 - 19,  probably because of increased access to contraceptives.

No more likely because of their ability...encouraged by the likes of Planned Parenthood and their supporters...to use abortion as birth control.

Using words like fetus instead of baby dumbs down and desensitizes people...especially kids to what is actually being done...it's portrayed as "cool" and "no big deal".

So you should be rejoicing at all of this.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Victoria33 on May 15, 2019, 02:41:04 PM
@txradioguy

My mother told me I was an "accident".  I was born in 1933 so it was good my parents were religious, thought I was a person when she was pregnant, plus abortions were not done then except for the kitchen table kind which could kill the mother.  I think "Accidental" babies now are in danger of being killed before they are born.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: txradioguy on May 15, 2019, 02:43:49 PM
@txradioguy

My mother told me I was an "accident".  I was born in 1933 so it was good my parents were religious, thought I was a person when she was pregnant, plus abortions were not done then except for the kitchen table kind which could kill the mother.  I think "Accidental" babies now are in danger of being killed before they are born.

@Victoria33 not jsut before they are born...now we're moving into killing them after they are born in some states.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Victoria33 on May 15, 2019, 02:48:01 PM
@Victoria33 not jsut before they are born...now we're moving into killing them after they are born in some states.
@txradioguy

Let's take this to its final truth:
If it is okay to kill a baby after it is born alive, this means it is okay to kill a person of age 20 since the person was born alive, too.  Kill a person of any age since he/she was born alive.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: txradioguy on May 15, 2019, 03:02:19 PM
@txradioguy

Let's take this to its final truth:
If it is okay to kill a baby after it is born alive, this means it is okay to kill a person of age 20 since the person was born alive, too.  Kill a person of any age since he/she was born alive.

@Victoria33 just goes to show how far adrift from any kind of moral compass the Progressives are these days.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Jazzhead on May 15, 2019, 03:04:25 PM
@txradioguy

Let's take this to its final truth:
If it is okay to kill a baby after it is born alive, this means it is okay to kill a person of age 20 since the person was born alive, too.  Kill a person of any age since he/she was born alive.

Yes, that is extremism.    But so are defiant laws that take away any practical opportunity for a woman to decide, even early on, whether to carry a pregnancy to term.   

Extremism begets extremism.    Both sides are acting like fascists, seeking the government to enforce their moral priorities.   
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Hoodat on May 15, 2019, 04:21:15 PM
Yes, that is extremism.    But so are defiant laws that take away any practical opportunity for a woman to decide   

In societies where abortion is banned, women decide by exercising control over their bodies and not inviting a man to ejaculate inside of them.  It is called "the right to choose".


Extremism begets extremism.    Both sides are acting like fascists, seeking the government to enforce their moral priorities.   

Au contraire, mon frere.  My side seeks for the people to come together and decide on what laws they want.  Your side seeks to deny my side that fundamental Constitutional right.  (See: Amendment X)

I am perfectly willing for the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to come together and decide through their representatives how they want their abortion laws shaped.  Yet you demand the courts instill your will on the people of the State of Georgia, thus denying our people the right to choose their own laws per the Constitution of the United States.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Hoodat on May 15, 2019, 04:28:22 PM
Here's the rub, though. Once we cross that line of declaring some humans not human, all we have to do is just change the definition. Just tweak that a little to take in the neighbor, the church lady, that annoying telemarketer. With a dash of the proverbial pen, it's open season on everyone! We're seeing this when people praying across the street from one of these industrial murder sites get physically attacked.

All this mish mash about Rights, yet you never argue for the rights of that little human who can't argue for their own--yet the Constitution and Bill of Rights were crafted with the idea in mind that the rights of those who had little voice would be protected from the shouts of the mob.

 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
 T H I S


How about a compromise? How about any woman can have an abortion for any reason, only she gets sterilized, permanently, along with it. The only exception would be for abortions which were medically necessary to save the life of the mother (kinda like the Alabama law). Then, instead of being mass murderers, those who rely on abortion to 'structure their lives' would only have to do it once, kinda like a vaccine, and they wouldn't have to worry about getting 'preggers' again, missing punctuation marks, or the inconvenience of having a child (or another procedure). Think of the savings for the taxpayers. Even the reduction in medical 'waste' that would have to be disposed. Think of the benefit to society.

That is a decision for the people of Alabama to collectively make through their legislative representatives.  Or at least that is what the Constitution says.  But Jazzhead doesn't believe in the Constitution.  He prefers tyranny.  He believes that "abortion must remain legal" by any means necessary.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Jazzhead on May 15, 2019, 05:26:40 PM
That is a decision for the people of Alabama to collectively make through their legislative representatives.  Or at least that is what the Constitution says.  But Jazzhead doesn't believe in the Constitution.  He prefers tyranny.  He believes that "abortion must remain legal" by any means necessary.

Oh cut the crap.   The Tenth Amendment doesn't give the states the freedom to deny individual rights guaranteed under the Constitution.   Your gun right under the Constitution is worthless if the legislature of your state decides to take it away.    Similarly,  Alabama cannot collectively deny a woman's right to self-determination.   

The whole point of protecting individual rights under the Constitution is to prevent the tyranny of the majority.   You're the one who prefers tyranny - according to your warped view of the Constitution,  a majority of Alabamans can "come together" to decide to take away a disfavored individual's right to free speech, or free assembly, or the right to own a gun for personal protection, or (especially and in the here and now) a woman's right to privacy and sovereignty over her own body. 

Bullshit!   
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Jazzhead on May 15, 2019, 05:28:55 PM

 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
 T H I S


That is a decision for the people of Alabama to collectively make through their legislative representatives.  Or at least that is what the Constitution says.  But Jazzhead doesn't believe in the Constitution.  He prefers tyranny.  He believes that "abortion must remain legal" by any means necessary.

Oh cut the crap.   The Tenth Amendment doesn't give the states the freedom to deny individual rights guaranteed under the Constitution.   Your gun right under the Constitution is worthless if the legislature of your state decides to take it away.    Similarly,  Alabama cannot collectively deny a woman's right to choose an abortion.   

The whole point of protecting individual rights under the Constitution is to prevent the tyranny of the majority.   You're the one who prefers tyranny - according to your warped view of the Constitution,  a majority of Alabamans can "come together" to decide to take away a disfavored individual's right to free speech, or free assembly, or the right to own a gun for personal protection, or (especially and in the here and now) a woman's right to privacy and sovereignty over her own body. 

Bullshit!   
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: txradioguy on May 15, 2019, 06:21:44 PM
Oh cut the crap.   The Tenth Amendment doesn't give the states the freedom to deny individual rights guaranteed under the Constitution.   Your gun right under the Constitution is worthless if the legislature of your state decides to take it away.    Similarly,  Alabama cannot collectively deny a woman's right to choose an abortion.   

*ahem*

Quote
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people


Despite all your foot stomping and childish protestation there is no "constitutional right to abortion".  It's not anywhere in the Constitution.

And the partner Amendment to the 10th...the 9th Amendment actually makes it more clear how restricted the reach of the Federal government really is.

Quote
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

If a state like Alabama or Georgia wants to restrict or outright ban abortion within their borders with the exception of a set of very narrow and strict exceptions...that is their right. 

The only "bullshit" around here is the pro infanticide you're shoveling.

Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Hoodat on May 15, 2019, 07:00:12 PM
Oh cut the crap.   The Tenth Amendment doesn't give the states the freedom to deny individual rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Abortion isn't an individual right guaranteed under the Constitution.  If it were, you would have produced it already.   Yet after three years of asking for it, you come up empty again and again and again.  Yet here you are once again stating a claim that you know to be false.


Your gun right under the Constitution is worthless if the legislature of your state decides to take it away.

The primary difference here is that the Constitution specifically mentions the right to keep and bear arms.  Not so when it comes to the right to kill the unborn.


Similarly,  Alabama cannot collectively deny a woman's right to self-determination.

When my right to self-determination infringes on your right to live, you bet your sweet liberal ass that Alabama has the right to deny my right to kill you.   (See:  Amendment X)


The whole point of protecting individual rights under the Constitution is to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Absolutely.  It has been my point from Day One.  "Within the confines of the Constitution" - these have been my exact words.  It means that Alabama cannot legalize slavery because it violates the Constitution, specifically Amendment XIII.  It means that Alabama cannot force people to quarter national guard troops without compensation because it violates the Constitution, specifically Amendment III.  It means that Alabama cannot deny anyone in a civil trial the right to trial by jury, specifically Amendment VII.  And as soon as you cite which Amendment protects a woman's right to an abortion, I will recognize that said right cannot be denied.  But until then, I will revert to Amendment X, which basically covers everything that is not listed since it directly cites the Constitution as the basis of law.


You're the one who prefers tyranny - according to your warped view of the Constitution,  a majority of Alabamans can "come together" to decide to take away a disfavored individual's right to free speech, or free assembly, or the right to own a gun for personal protection, or (especially and in the here and now) a woman's right to privacy and sovereignty over her own body. 

The States are not restricted from regulating free speech and free assembly - at least that's what the Constitution says.  As for gun rights, that is specifically stated in Amendment II.  But when it comes to abortion rights, there is no such right listed, nor can the basis for said right be drawn from any wording within the Constitution.  But then you knew that already.  Yet here you are again stating something you know not to be true.

Sovereignty over a woman's body?  No one is disputing that.  And it her free exercise of sovereignty over her body that makes it possible for a new singular life to be created.  Again, no one here is trying to deny her that right.  No one.  But the people of Georgia have decided through their legislature that this new singular life is to be protected by law as is their right under the Constitution, specifically enumerated in Amendment X.  And it is your desire to deny them that right.

And for the record, amending the Georgia State Constitution is not a difficult task.  At any time, you can drive your life-devaluing self down to Georgia and organize for a referendum to be placed on a State-wide ballot to overturn the heartbeat bill and make abortion available at taxpayer expense up until the age of 10, and then let every Georgian vote on it.  But you won't, because you would rather take the lazy tyrannical approach and let some black-robed fiatist impose your will on the rest of us.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: Axeslinger on May 15, 2019, 07:08:12 PM
@Hoodat

Bra-f’ing-vo

 :hands:
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: TomSea on May 15, 2019, 07:24:05 PM
Oh cut the crap.   The Tenth Amendment doesn't give the states the freedom to deny individual rights guaranteed under the Constitution.   Your gun right under the Constitution is worthless if the legislature of your state decides to take it away.    Similarly,  Alabama cannot collectively deny a woman's right to choose an abortion.   

The whole point of protecting individual rights under the Constitution is to prevent the tyranny of the majority.   You're the one who prefers tyranny - according to your warped view of the Constitution,  a majority of Alabamans can "come together" to decide to take away a disfavored individual's right to free speech, or free assembly, or the right to own a gun for personal protection, or (especially and in the here and now) a woman's right to privacy and sovereignty over her own body. 

Bullshit!   

States should have the right to legislate as they see fit, community values.  Not one size fits all.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: txradioguy on May 15, 2019, 10:00:55 PM
Quote
Your gun right under the Constitution is worthless if the legislature of your state decides to take it away.

You must have been asleep during Constitutional Law 101 counselor.

Unlike abortion...the right to keep and bear arms is codified in the Bill of Rights.

So yet again your pro infanticide v 2nd Amendment argument is severely flawed and completely off base.
Title: Re: Dem Gov. Vetoes Newborn Care Bill
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on May 17, 2019, 07:52:40 AM
(https://www.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2019-05/213718_5_.jpg)