Roe v. Wade overturned?

taxme

Time Out
Feb 11, 2020
2,349
973
113
Well, this is going to be interesting.


All abortions to be done have now been handed back over to each state. The feds have no say in abortions anymore. If a state does not allow an abortion, then a woman can go to a pro-abortion state. Interesting indeed.
 

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,746
1,135
113
All abortions to be done have now been handed back over to each state. The feds have no say in abortions anymore. If a state does not allow an abortion, then a woman can go to a pro-abortion state. Interesting indeed.
I believe the feds did say that if you let a woman die because you didn't provide an abortion when her life was in immediate danger then the feds would look at whether that was some species of negligence causing death or some such thing. Basically you can't have an abortion law that directly leads to the mother's death because that would be unlawful. The feds argue basically that it would be like passing a law that specifically forced people to die rather than have medical treatment to save their lives. It's an interesting argument, i'm not 100 percent sure how much the feds could really enforce it but they did mention it.

But "imminent death" obviously wasn't the case here seeing as the woman wasn't in immediate danger and in fact did get an abortion elsewhere.
 

taxme

Time Out
Feb 11, 2020
2,349
973
113
I believe the feds did say that if you let a woman die because you didn't provide an abortion when her life was in immediate danger then the feds would look at whether that was some species of negligence causing death or some such thing. Basically you can't have an abortion law that directly leads to the mother's death because that would be unlawful. The feds argue basically that it would be like passing a law that specifically forced people to die rather than have medical treatment to save their lives. It's an interesting argument, i'm not 100 percent sure how much the feds could really enforce it but they did mention it.

But "imminent death" obviously wasn't the case here seeing as the woman wasn't in immediate danger and in fact did get an abortion elsewhere.

The only time that an abortion should be legal is when a woman's life is in real jeopardy or when she was either raped or there was incest involved. Otherwise, if you screw around and get pregnant then have that baby and either keep it or give it up for adoption after it is born. That is where I stand on this abortion issue. Works for me.
 

taxme

Time Out
Feb 11, 2020
2,349
973
113
So far they all can run faster than me. Since both knees are shot about the only thing I can catch is 70 year old with a walker.

At 70, most men cannot get it up, and most woman have already dried up. Can you still get it up? Just asking. :unsure:
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
50,983
4,301
113
Washington DC
At 70, most men cannot get it up, and most woman have already dried up. Can you still get it up? Just asking. :unsure:
I calculate you'll never pay a dime in fuck tax.

Good to know, though, that you read me talk about "catching a 70 year old" and thinks that mean I am 70 years old.

Comforting to know you're still stupid.
 

taxme

Time Out
Feb 11, 2020
2,349
973
113
I calculate you'll never pay a dime in fuck tax.

Good to know, though, that you read me talk about "catching a 70 year old" and thinks that mean I am 70 years old.

Comforting to know you're still stupid.

Man, do I ever regret that your mama did not abort you. The world would be a much better place to live in today if you had been aborted. I will bet that when you were born the doctor slapped your mother in the face rather than your little shitty arse hole. I guess that shit does really happen at times.

I can easily see and can calculate that you have very few brain cells left in your stupid Chief's head. Your replies are the hint, old stunned one.

About that fuck tax? I guess that your Marxist hero Turdeau cannot count on you then for him to make any fuck tax money off of you, eh? I guess that little old hard to find limp dick of yours is only good for pissing out of now these days, right Chief? I will bet that at most times when you go for a pee you end up getting most of your undies all wet from not being able to find that little weenie of yours. It sure is comforting to know alright that you still pee your pants. LOL.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
50,983
4,301
113
Washington DC
Man, do I ever regret that your mama did not abort you. The world would be a much better place to live in today if you had been aborted. I will bet that when you were born the doctor slapped your mother in the face rather than your little shitty arse hole. I guess that shit does really happen at times.

I can easily see and can calculate that you have very few brain cells left in your stupid Chief's head. Your replies are the hint, old stunned one.

About that fuck tax? I guess that your Marxist hero Turdeau cannot count on you then for him to make any fuck tax money off of you, eh? I guess that little old hard to find limp dick of yours is only good for pissing out of now these days, right Chief? I will bet that at most times when you go for a pee you end up getting most of your undies all wet from not being able to find that little weenie of yours. It sure is comforting to know alright that you still pee your pants. LOL.
Oh, dear. You forgot I'm not Canadian.

Because you're stupid.
 

Dixie Cup

House Member
Sep 16, 2006
4,677
2,716
113
Edmonton
All abortions to be done have now been handed back over to each state. The feds have no say in abortions anymore. If a state does not allow an abortion, then a woman can go to a pro-abortion state. Interesting indeed.
Yes or people can get together to have laws changed. I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand. Abortions will still be available & if not in a particular State, there are ways to make changes. It's just that whatever each State decides, it's the people in those States that have the final say, not governments. Governments (are supposed to anyway) make regulations/laws based on what their constituents want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxme

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
50,983
4,301
113
Washington DC
Yes or people can get together to have laws changed. I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand. Abortions will still be available & if not in a particular State, there are ways to make changes. It's just that whatever each State decides, it's the people in those States that have the final say, not governments. Governments (are supposed to anyway) make regulations/laws based on what their constituents want.
Interesting. What other Federal laws would you override and send to the states? Civil rights, maybe? Racial and sex equality? Religious freedom?
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
50,983
4,301
113
Washington DC
My understanding is that whatever is NOT in the Constitution goes to the States to decide. Is that not correct?
Sort of. But let me give you an idea of the problem.

After the Civil War, many states established a set of laws called Jim Crow laws, pretty much setting up apartheid by race. These laws were generally upheld by the courts, including the United States Supreme Court in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson. Then in 1955 in the case of Brown v. Topeka, Kansas Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that Plessy was wrong, that "separate but equal" was not Constitutional. After that, Jim Crow laws were mostly overridden by the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1965, 1967, and 1968.

But is the status of the races a Federal matter, or a state matter? Arguments have been made both ways, and both answers have been the "right" answer for periods of decades.

What do you think? Do you think each state should be allowed to decide whether racial discrimination in education, employment, housing, and voting should be legal in that state? If yes, you can find plenty of authoritative language supporting that argument in Plessy and other cases. If no, you'll have to rely on Brown and its successor cases (equally authoritative and persuasive, from an objective viewpoint).
 

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,746
1,135
113
Interesting. What other Federal laws would you override and send to the states? Civil rights, maybe? Racial and sex equality? Religious freedom?
Which other federal laws are actually not part of the federal jurisdiction and were supposed to be State controlled in the first place? Those ones.

And that's a very very odd response to the statement "the laws and the constitution can be changed if that's what the people want". Almost like you're trying to avoid that fact. Hmmmmm.
 

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,746
1,135
113
But is the status of the races a Federal matter, or a state matter?
Sigh. Neither.

It was a simple question of whether or not it was addressed by the constitution. The constitution covers ALL levels of gov't equally. If a thing is not allowed by the constitution, then it's not allowed federally, state, municipal, etc. Pretty simple.

How do you not know this?
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
25,054
5,720
113
B.C.
Sort of. But let me give you an idea of the problem.

After the Civil War, many states established a set of laws called Jim Crow laws, pretty much setting up apartheid by race. These laws were generally upheld by the courts, including the United States Supreme Court in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson. Then in 1955 in the case of Brown v. Topeka, Kansas Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that Plessy was wrong, that "separate but equal" was not Constitutional. After that, Jim Crow laws were mostly overridden by the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1965, 1967, and 1968.

But is the status of the races a Federal matter, or a state matter? Arguments have been made both ways, and both answers have been the "right" answer for periods of decades.

What do you think? Do you think each state should be allowed to decide whether racial discrimination in education, employment, housing, and voting should be legal in that state? If yes, you can find plenty of authoritative language supporting that argument in Plessy and other cases. If no, you'll have to rely on Brown and its successor cases (equally authoritative and persuasive, from an objective viewpoint).
Are you trying to equate racial discrimination with abortion ?
 

taxme

Time Out
Feb 11, 2020
2,349
973
113
Interesting. What other Federal laws would you override and send to the states? Civil rights, maybe? Racial and sex equality? Religious freedom?

A federal law to have liberal socialist's idiots like you from having the right to freedom of speech. Hopefully, the midterms will see the Republicans take both houses. Get out your hanky, chief. Now get back in your teepee. And keep watching out for those smoke signals. I am now starting to gather some logs together. :p
 

taxme

Time Out
Feb 11, 2020
2,349
973
113
I calculate you'll never pay a dime in fuck tax.

Good to know, though, that you read me talk about "catching a 70 year old" and thinks that mean I am 70 years old.

Comforting to know you're still stupid.

Phukin right I will not be paying a dime in fuck tax. And I doubt very much that you would ever be paying a fuck tax anyway? You have to know how to fuck first, chief. And are you even capable of raising that little limp wee-nee of yours and get it to stand at attention to get to pay a fuck tax? Maybe a masturbation tax should be implemented just for chiefs like you. Chuckle-chuckle.

A 70 year old would match your speed anyway. Very slow with no results in the end. Oh dear, I just tired myself out completely from just thinking about having sex with you. Good job, chief. :sleep:

I must be stupid alright. I am wasting my precious time trying to debate with you, chief. Do you ever give a real shit about anything at all other than starting fires outside your teepee? :unsure:
 

taxme

Time Out
Feb 11, 2020
2,349
973
113
Sort of. But let me give you an idea of the problem.

After the Civil War, many states established a set of laws called Jim Crow laws, pretty much setting up apartheid by race. These laws were generally upheld by the courts, including the United States Supreme Court in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson. Then in 1955 in the case of Brown v. Topeka, Kansas Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that Plessy was wrong, that "separate but equal" was not Constitutional. After that, Jim Crow laws were mostly overridden by the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1965, 1967, and 1968.

But is the status of the races a Federal matter, or a state matter? Arguments have been made both ways, and both answers have been the "right" answer for periods of decades.

What do you think? Do you think each state should be allowed to decide whether racial discrimination in education, employment, housing, and voting should be legal in that state? If yes, you can find plenty of authoritative language supporting that argument in Plessy and other cases. If no, you'll have to rely on Brown and its successor cases (equally authoritative and persuasive, from an objective viewpoint).

What are you trying to do here anyway? Make it appear as though you know something? The Jim Crow laws were probably laws created to try and protect the civilized people from uncivilized heathens like you. Just saying. :unsure:
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
32,389
2,383
113
it will be interesting to see how much damage this will do to tonights republican votes.