ChrisWeigant.com

It's The Alito Court Now

[ Posted Tuesday, May 3rd, 2022 – 15:32 UTC ]

Supreme Courts are commonly referred to using the name of the chief justice who runs them. In my own lifetime, we've had the Warren Court, the Burger Court, the Rehnquist Court, and now the Roberts Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts. The chief justice is not selected or elected by the other justices, it is a permanent position that only changes after the death or retirement of the previous holder of the title. But it is becoming increasingly obvious (and will continue to become so) that the current court is no longer being led by Roberts. We might as well just adjust to the new reality and start calling it the Alito Court instead.

Roberts did a fairly decent job of being either the swing vote or at least a moderating influence on the conservatives on the court, although this sometimes resulted in nothing short of legalistic window-dressing. Roberts knows that it is far more politically palatable to simply gut a landmark law -- leaving it technically still on the books but entirely toothless -- than it is to outright overturn one. This is why many (myself included, I must admit) fully expected Roberts to cajole enough of his fellow conservatives into merely stripping Roe v. Wade of any practical legal meaning rather than chuck it out altogether. There would be less of an outcry, as fewer people would fully grasp the magnitude of the consequences. This is precisely what he did to the Voting Rights Act, which still nominally remains law but has been gutted of two major sections that actually protected voting rights in states with long histories of suppressing them. So it wasn't out of the realm of possibility that Roberts would steer the court to do exactly the same thing to Roe -- leave it nominally on the books, but allow states to institute any and all restrictions they wanted (up to and including measures that for all practical purposes completely banned abortion in the state). By doing so, there would really be no need for the court to throw Roe out entirely -- because on a practical level, the consequences would be the same.

This doesn't appear to be the direction the court is about to head in, however. The bombshell scoop from Politico shows that Justice Samuel Alito has decided there is no need for such political niceties, and he has written an opinion to completely overturn Roe, which four other justices are supporting (at least, for now). To put this another way, what Roberts wants simply does not matter anymore. With a 6-3 court, it doesn't matter if Roberts is a swing vote, because that only swings the balance to 5-4 (which is not enough to prevail, obviously). What Alito and the four staunch conservatives on the court agree to is what the court is going to do, no matter what Roberts thinks about it.

As for the fallout from this leak, nobody now knows what it will be but it's a pretty safe bet that it will be significant. American women have lived for half a century with the right to body autonomy, and many of them (especially those born after Roe) have simply assumed that this right would always be there. Oh, sure, pro-choice activists have been warning about the threat to Roe for a long while, but this was seen as more of a "Chicken Little" sort of threat, not something that might actually come to pass.

That is about to change. Last night's leak was the start of this change, but the activists and political wonks had already been predicting it for months now. One way or another, the case before the Supreme Court was going to get decided by June, and it was always going to be a bombshell because that 6-3 majority certainly seemed predisposed to either gutting or overturning Roe. So while the leak of a draft opinion was indeed dramatic in the extreme (such leaks from the high court are so rare as to almost be non-existent), what the opinion says should really come as no surprise to anyone who has been following the story.

The political fallout seems rather uncertain at the moment. Democrats are excoriating the draft opinion, while Republicans are mostly limiting their outrage to the leak itself. This is a convenient distraction for them, of course, since by filling up all the time talking about the leak they figure they won't have to talk about Roe being overturned and what that will mean for tens of millions of women. One thing few have noted is that Donald Trump has yet to weigh in on the subject, and most Republicans these days are content to take their marching orders from him. So a lot of them may be hanging back waiting for direction from their Dear Leader.

Politically, the issue would seem to favor Democrats. Poll after poll shows that the American public supports Roe and does not want to see it overturned, by at least a 2-1 margin. Many people who were comfortable enough allowing Republicans to chip away at the right to choice are now faced with the real Republican agenda -- to outlaw abortion once and for all. And not just in red states -- a few days before this draft was leaked, one Republican was pushing a law which would outlaw abortions nationwide. If the GOP ever gets both houses of Congress and the White House at the same time, this could actually become a reality -- meaning that states like California and New York would no longer even be allowed to be safe harbor states. That is the Republican agenda, plain and simple.

The big question is going to be whether any of this creates a backlash. Will this finally be the issue which motivates young voters to actually get out and vote (even in midterm elections)? Will there be a wave of women voting who have previously never voted before, because now politics has gotten so personal to them? Will this continue the erosion of support the Republicans are seeing in the suburbs? Will a blue wave appear that sweeps aside enough Republican officeholders (at both the state and national level) to truly make a difference?

Those are all monumental questions, and nobody knows the answer to any of them right now. Previously, abortion has been an issue that mostly motivated conservative voters, but this was in large part due to the fact that many women simply did not believe that Roe was in any danger. There was a sense of complacency -- that the Supreme Court would uphold the rights women have had since 1973 and therefore there was nothing to be alarmed about, no matter how fervently Republicans pushed to restrict these rights. That complacency does not exist anymore, to state the obvious. The day many had warned would happen is now at hand. The Supreme Court is about to jettison a basic constitutional right that affects every woman in America.

Conservative voters are already pretty enthusiastic about the 2022 elections, so even if the issue does provide them with some motivation, they're already pretty motivated -- meaning it might not change the dynamic of the Republican base voters much at all. However, there was a decided lack of enthusiasm among Democratic voters, and this may light a fire under them in a way that nothing else (so far) has managed to do. And while nobody gets to vote any of the Supreme Court justices out of office, there will be important battleground races -- governors in swing states that have Republican statehouses, local races for those statehouses, all of the House of Representatives, and a third of the U.S. Senate. All of these could be crucial in determining what happens next, both in the states and at the national level.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced he will put a bill on the floor to codify abortion rights, but this is almost certainly going to fail. Joe Manchin is not going to vote for it (this bill already got a vote, and Manchin voted against it). Even if two Republicans vote for it (Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins), that is nowhere near enough to overcome the 60-vote threshold for a filibuster. And Manchin has already stated that he won't vote to remove the filibuster threat from such legislation, which means the vote will only happen so that Democrats can use the Republicans' votes against them in the campaign.

There is only one path forward for Democrats to effect real change, and it is currently seen as a very narrow one. If Democrats keep control of the House and manage to pick up two seats in the Senate, then Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin's objections to changing the filibuster rules will simply not matter anymore. Early next year, the Senate can either completely jettison the legislative filibuster or perhaps just allow for bills protecting constitutional rights (which would cover both abortion and voting rights) to get a simple up-or-down vote. Then the Senate could pass such bills and put them on President Joe Biden's desk for his signature. But, as I said, this is now seen as a rather long longshot.

There is one other route, but it is even more farfetched. Democrats could propose a sweeping "Right To Privacy" constitutional amendment, which could encompass all sorts of rights that are now merely "implied" by the courts. This would be a proactive move to prevent any further erosion of rights from the Alito Court, but it would almost certainly never be ratified by the requisite three-fourths of the states.

Make no mistake about it, the Alito Court will not stop at overturning Roe v. Wade. Alito hinted at such things in the text of his draft. Gay marriage, equal rights for all, even the right to contraception may all be on the chopping block next. The conservative legal agenda doesn't end with overturning Roe, it merely begins there. Conservatives would dearly love to see either a nation with a patchwork of rights that shift whenever a person crosses a state line, or their version of morality instituted nationwide. That is their true goal, and they've never been particularly shy about admitting it.

This is the country we now all live in. The Roberts Court ran from 2005 through 2022. But from now on, John Roberts is no more than a footnote to Supreme Court proceedings. From now on, we're all going to have to live in the era of the Alito Court.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

181 Comments on “It's The Alito Court Now”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Just one more pick from a Democratic or otherwise reasonable president and it could essentially be the Roberts Court, again.

    If that prospect doesn't remain incentive enough for the foreseeable future to get Democrats out to vote, in the wake of this radical draft opinion, then Democrats have a lot to worry about.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    From now on ... seems a bit too pessimistic, no?

  3. [3] 
    andygaus wrote:

    People vote on the basis of visceral responses, and Democrats at least have a chance now to elicit some strong visceral responses against Republicans. I hope that every Republican candidate will be forced to answer the question, "Should a woman be forced to bear a child by a man who raped her?" I'm pretty sure a majority of voters would answer a visceral NO!

  4. [4] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Michale I'm gonna borrow this thing you posted upstairs...


    No one is advocating for LAST MINUTE ABORTIONS if the mother's health is NOT in danger.. NO ONE..

    Hmm. Let's do it again.

    No one is advocating for GENDER SELECTION ABORTIONS (CCP-style) if the mother's health is NOT in danger.. NO ONE...

    How does the Fourth Amendment protect women's papers and effects but not their Lady parts? From Big Government searching (and then supervising) their uteruses?

    (Tony Montaña voixe)

    ...Jew got a problem with our Forth Amendment? Jew got a problem with Libertad?
    Ahem.

    Repugs claim to hate Big Government, for Libertarian reasons and such.

    YET Repugs want the State not the individual to control their family planning.

    But, keeping it real I expect y'all try to have it both ways, certainly in their right-wing alternative universe. The rubes, racists and Christofacists will buy in, just like they bought into trickle down and the Iraq War.


    BUT out here in the real world, maybe not so much. We'll see, won't we?

  5. [5] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Trump

    Gave Democrats the House, the Senate (including two winable races in Georgia) and motivated 81 million people to elect #JoeFuckingBiden.
    ... and a partridge in a part tree.

    Putin

    Blundered spectacularly, chance to defeat the paper tiger Russian military, to unite NATO to an unimaginable degree and to crush their economy until Putin is dead or has been handed over to The Hague.

    Republicans

    Shamelessly packed the court and got Roe overturned, instantly solving the Democrat's turnout issue in November and beyond. Remember the Women's March the day after Cheetogod took office? You ain't seen nothing yet, a-yup.

    Twenty-two is starting to look up! Ukraine and NATO are kicking ass, the Repugs along with the court they packed have just pissed off 80% of the electorate. Sure, DOJ hasn't done anything in public, alas. But there are so many moving parts and so much criminality that a whole bunch of bombs will drop when they're good and ready. I want them to hurry but airtight and in time are my top priorities.

  6. [6] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Dammit, accidentally posted before proof read.

    My dominant hand is messed up and I'm having spinal fusion on my neck at the VA next month.

  7. [7] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    This quote has been floating around reddit for a while:

    The unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.

    -Methodist Pastor David Barnhart

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why are Republicans against paid family leave?

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do Republicans support universal childcare? What about universal healthcare?

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How long will it be before the Court overturns the constitutionality of the death penalty?

  11. [11] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [1]

    This is a huge gift to the Dems -- if only they rarely fail to underplay their hand. Harumph.


    Democracy

    1776-2024


    At least the Democrats respected Norms and Traditions...

    Harumph, again.

    TAKE THE HARUMPH!

    ELIZABETH this is where the rubber meets the road with Joe. Sure, Manchinema* have fucked things up but Lawdy, look at the Repug alternative...happening just months before the midterms.

    DON'T believe CW -- things have changed and voters minds are set by August along with Dems are doomed cuz that's the way its always happens in midterms are outdated and there's too many huge moving parts (read: J6C, indictments from Georgia, New York and DOJ oto the #SeditionCaucus along with SnowflakeInChief #PutinsBitch, Ukraine (handled way better than Afghanistan) and the economy, stupid) that have yet to resolve. Things will change, promise.

    Today's Alternative Because You're Pissed about Inflation Republican Party... full of interesting Conservatives like Matt Gaetz, cho'mo...the Madison Cawthorn dumpsterfire...y'all's candidates shooting up pretend voting machines...Jewish space lazers...Trump Uber Alles...

    LIKE they say in sports, Sports Fans, there's a reason they make them play the games because you never know and nothing is a lock. Michale please be more judicious in posting the crowing about something that's six looong months away. It didn't work out so well in 2020, remember? Just saying.

  12. [12] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    *I'd trade Manchinema for Murkollins any day of the week. Collikowski?

  13. [13] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Naw, Murkollins I think.

  14. [14] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [7]

    Yeah, that quote is a solid, Bashi. Can I refer to you as Bashi, do we know each other long enough? I mean, without necessarily having to bribe you with pie?

  15. [15] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    [8]

    Why are Republicans against paid family leave?

    [9]

    Do Republicans support universal childcare? What about universal healthcare?

    [10]

    How long will it be before the Court overturns the constitutionality of the death penalty?


    Hopefully this is where Joe's political chops can make all the difference in the world. If he leads-follows-coerces- bribes-whatever it takes and Dems use even some of these gifts they've been given we'll be okay.

  16. [16] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Oh and Michale. I do appreciate the stunning visual of Mickey's hands on the clock splaining 0100 LCT*
    to the worthless and weak among Weigantia. But it left me a little sour. Maybe it was because my Army CO was openly lesbian and none of us cared. I sorta got pissed off at Disney for being so heteronormitive in their indoctrination of Murican youth, considering we were pushing the 21st Century at that time 1984, already! so I've boycotted them ever since. Except Shrek.

  17. [17] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    *LCT

    Left
    Coast
    Time

    Not to be confused with,

    LBT
    La
    Bron
    Time

    Which is more LA-specific.

  18. [18] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Death to Disney! I'd scrawl on bathroom walls.

  19. [19] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Anyways, I'm be up at 0720 so we'll see each other when I'm comfortably seated on the, er, throne.

    Approprié, oui?

  20. [20] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    And with that stunning visual in mind, g'nite y'all.

  21. [21] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    No need to thank me.

    (rimshot)

    Thank your Waitresses and Bartenders instead.

  22. [22] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [10]

    How long will it be before the Court overturns the constitutionality of the death penalty?

    Uh, with this Alito Court the State will be putting disproportianately minority mo'fos to death for the foreseeable future.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC

    That's not what's at issue and I've never actually heard any Democrats say that last minute abortion okay.

    That's EXACTLY the issue and that's EXACTLY what Democrats are fighting for..

    NO restrictions on abortion right up to the point of birth..

    Are you saying you don't support that?? That you support restrictions on abortion??

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    So you do support "killing a baby in the moments before birth" under certain circumstances?

    You can't have it both ways...

    I support abortion *ONLY* if the mother's life is in danger...

    Now that I have answered your question, would you answer mine??

    Do you support abortion right up to the moment of birth if there is no danger to the health of the mother??

    Yes or no??

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is only one path forward for Democrats to effect real change, and it is currently seen as a very narrow one. If Democrats keep control of the House and manage to pick up two seats in the Senate,

    BBBWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Looks like the Weigantian Administration has developed a real sense of humor there.. :D

    Early next year, the Senate can either completely jettison the legislative filibuster or perhaps just allow for bills protecting constitutional rights (which would cover both abortion and voting rights) to get a simple up-or-down vote.

    Early next year, abortion WON'T be a Constitutional Right..

    So ya'all LOSE again...

    Make no mistake about it, the Alito Court will not stop at overturning Roe v. Wade. Alito hinted at such things in the text of his draft.

    Factually not accurate..

    Justice Alito actually did the opposite.. He stated unequivocally that this ruling SOLELY addressed abortion and nothing else..

    Gay marriage, equal rights for all, even the right to contraception may all be on the chopping block next.

    Nothing but hysterical fear-mongering without a single solitary FACT to back it up..

    The Democrat Party way... :^/

    This is the country we now all live in. The Roberts Court ran from 2005 through 2022. But from now on, John Roberts is no more than a footnote to Supreme Court proceedings. From now on, we're all going to have to live in the era of the Alito Court.

    "Elections have consequences"
    -Barack Hussein Odumbo

    Deal with it..

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    You asked me once to forgo the bold and I complied and things are better now because of it..

    I would ask you to forgo the mix of bold and italics and such because it makes your comments very hard to read..

    It's accepted here in Weigantia that italics denote a reference to a previous commenter comments and bold denotes either quotes from sources or headlines..

    When you throw in bold and italics every which way, it makes it hard to follow your comments..

    It's like those LEET jackAsses wh0 m1x number8 and captiLizai0n to make theMSElves s33m c00l..

    It looks ridiculous and makes it hard to follow..

    So, if you would limit your mix of bold to how they are normally used in Weigantia, it would be most appreciated by yours truly...

    Nothing will change vis a vis our dynamic if you choose not to.. I was just hoping you would help a brother out..

    Thanx either way..

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh and Michale. I do appreciate the stunning visual of Mickey's hands on the clock splaining 0100 LCT*

    Hehe that was actually from a book I once read (The GUARDIAN SERIES) from like 30 years ago and it stuck with me because it's funny.. :D First time I had a chance to use it.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    I support choice until the fetus can survive without being connected to it's host.

    So, your litmus test seems to be a person is not a person if they are hooked up in any way to survive..

    So, when you have people hooked up to a device for survival, you support their lives being "aborted" because they cannot survive without being hooked up to whatever they are hooked up to...

    That's pretty cold, JL...

    But on the plus side, you have just conceded that you support abortion restrictions after 22 weeks because after 22 weeks a baby can survive outside the womb..

    OK, I accept that...

    You see why over 80% of Americans support abortion restrictions.. The only point of contention is WHEN those restrictions would come into play..

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I noticed you didn't answer my question even though I ever so graciously answered yours..

    That saddens me.. :^(

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC

    YOU Repugs claim to hate Big Government for Libertarian reasons and such.

    Actually, I am the ONLY registered NPA in Weigantia..

    No Political Affiliation...

    So, they are not "MY" Repugs whatsoever. Not in any way, shape or form..

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    And it looks like President Trump still has the old magic!! :D

    And an Occasional Cortex endorsement is the kiss of death.. :D

    LOVE it!!! Life is good!! :D

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all seem hysterical now that ROE v WADE is being thrown on the trash heap of history, that other Democrat created "Constitutional Rights" are next on the chopping block..

    There is NOTHING in the draft ORDER OF THE COURT that has been leaked that would construe such an option is pending. Matter of FACT, Justice Alito's words specifically state that this SCOTUS order applies to abortion and abortion alone...

    BUT....

    But, even if it were factually accurate, that this is the first salvo, so??? Would that be such a bad thing??

    Thru SCOTUS rulings, Democrats have created "CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS" out of whole cloth where NOTHING in the Constitution would even HINT that such a right exists...

    So, yea... I would be perfectly abso-tively and posi-loutly 1000% all right with getting rid of those Constitutional Rights that really aren't in the Constitution whatsoever..

    That would be a GOOD thing to have those Democrat created rights overturned and ALSO thrown on the trash heap of history...

    So, even if what ya'all claim is factually accurate (it's not) then... YEA... go for it 6-3 Conservative SCOTUS...

    Who was it who said something about "consequences" and "elections"?? Oh yea... That's right..

    "Elections have consequences"
    -Barack Hussein Odumbo

    Odumbo was so smug and arrogant when he said it..

    Now I am laughing my arse off that the shoe is on the OTHER foot now and Democrats are all a tizzy... :D

    It's funny...

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    andygaus,

    "Should a woman be forced to bear a child by a man who raped her?"

    Why should the baby be murdered for the crimes of his father???

    If your father was a bank robber and killed a bunch of cops, should YOU be held responsible and put to death because of the crimes of your father?? Of course not.. That would be sadistic'ly ridiculous..

    NO ONE is forcing the mother of a baby to actually be a mother to that baby...

    But there is absolutely NO REASON why the baby should be killed just because his or her father was a felon...

    Anyone who thinks otherwise is just trying to justify their love of baby killing.. :^/

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    How long will it be before the Court overturns the constitutionality of the death penalty?

    On what basis would the SCOTUS rule that the Death Penalty is unconstitutional??

    Why are Republicans against paid family leave?

    Do Republicans support universal childcare? What about universal healthcare?

    None of which has ANYTHING to do with baby killing AKA abortion...

    NO ONE is forcing a mother to actually BE a mother..

    THAT is the woman's choice... If she chooses to be a mother to the baby she just bore, then she is making the choice to care and provide for that baby.. If she does not have the means to care and provide for the baby, then she should make the CHOICE NOT to be a mother to that baby...

    It's all about the ability to CHOOSE..

    The woman CHOOSES to participate in an activity that could create a baby.. Once the makes that CHOICE then, all things being equal, she should be HELD to the responsibility that that CHOICE entailed and not KILL the baby..

    Once the baby is born, she can make ANOTHER CHOICE not to be a mother to that baby and give the baby up for adoption..

    But if she CHOOSES to be a mother and provide and care for the baby, then that is HER CHOICE and she should expect no help from others when it was HER CHOICE to make..

    You see how easy it all is once you discard hysterical emotionalism??? :D

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    OK I just noticed that comment #26 was totally frak'ed up and made it impossible to understand..

    Allow me to rephrase..

    MC,

    You asked me once to forgo the bold and I complied and things are better now because of it..

    I would ask you to forgo the mix of bold and italics and such because it makes your comments very hard to read..

    It's accepted here in Weigantia that italics denote a reference to a previous commenter comments and bold denotes either quotes from sources or headlines..

    When you throw in bold and italics every which way, it makes it hard to follow your comments..

    It's like those LEET jackAsses wh0 m1x number8 and captiLizai0n to make theMSElves s33m c00l..

    It looks ridiculous and makes it hard to follow..

    So, if you would limit your mix of bold to how they are normally used in Weigantia, it would be most appreciated by yours truly...

    Nothing will change vis a vis our dynamic if you choose not to.. I was just hoping you would help a brother out..

    Thanx either way..

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    If it's between saving the baby or saving the mother, then I would chose the mother.

    Then you and I are in complete agreement..

    And if it's a choice between saving the baby where the mother is not in any danger at all then I would choose saving the baby..

    ANY sane and rational person would choose saving the baby..

    Only the insane serial killer types (yunno.. Democrats) would want to kill a baby....

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the Democrat crazies are coming out of the woodwork..

    Rep. Jayapal claims Supreme Court justices 'do not have the right' to overturn Roe v. Wade

    Democrats condemned the Supreme Court after draft opinion leaks

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/rep-jayapal-scotus-do-not-right-overturn-roe-v-wade

    THESE are the crazies you Democrats elect????

    WOW... :D

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    "These justices are acting like this is somehow something that they have the right to change. They do not have the right to change this which has been settled law for two generations now of people who have grown up and have gone through their twenties in the firm belief that they can make these decisions about their own bodies,"
    -Rep Jayapal

    So, jaypal doesn't think that SCOTUS has the right to overturn precedent..

    So, OBVIOUSLY jaypal believes that PLESSY v FERGUSON that held SEPARATE BUT EQUAL should still be the law of the land..

    jaypal believes that DRED SCOT v STANFORD that held that blacks are inferior to whites should still be the law of the land..

    What *IS* it about you people's Democrats that they are so utterly and completely IGNORANT???

    Are they INTENTIONALLY that stoopid?? Or just pretend to be that stoopid???

    Inquiring minds want to know if Democrats really are that ignorant and stoopid..

    Anyone?? Anyone?? Beuhler??

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't know why Democrats are all in a huff..

    The SCOTUS ruling is completely and 1000% in keeping with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the matter of abortion..

    And SHE is a Democrat icon...

    So, what's ya'all's problem???

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oklahoma governor signs Texas-style ban on most abortions
    https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-health-texas-oklahoma-528aede70223d68dd5ed09160098445f

    GOOD!! Things are coming together quite nicely.. :D

    Ya'all gotta give Texas credit.. They came up with a novel way to enforce a NO ABORTION law that is effective and evades interference from Federal Authorities.. :D

    Pretty damn smart of them, if I do say so myself.. :D

    And, since it's going to be established that there never was any Constitutional Right to abortion, that's going to make establishing such laws as the Texas Law easier..

    WIN-WIN... :D

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's an established FACT that abortions in Texas have almost totally and completely STOPPED...

    So, like I said.. WIN-WIN

    :D

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC


    Hopefully this is where Joe's political chops can make all the difference in the world.

    Have you SEEN Joe's "political chops" recently??? :^/

    It seems like Joe has left his "chops" in a little container of cleaner on his sink...

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    Crow all you like, Michale, as you do so enjoy it.

    I do indeed..

    Liberal Tears are like manna from heaven..

    I *LOVE* feasting on Liberal Tears.. :D

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here ya go, Liz.. Here's one for you.. :D

    Pope Francis Says NATO Started War in Ukraine by ‘Barking at Putin’s Door’

    The pontiff defended Putin and claimed—without foundation—that it was “others who created the conflict” in Ukraine.
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/pope-francis-says-nato-started-war-in-ukraine-by-barking-at-putins-door

    Don't say I never give ya nuttin'.. :D

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    That's not what's at issue and I've never actually heard any Democrats say that last minute abortion okay.

    Stopping Late-Term Abortion Is the End of Freedom in U.S.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/03/as-the-us-supreme-court-moves-to-end-abortion-is-america-still-a-free-country

    Well, NOW you have heard about it MC..

    So, the question remains, which you have yet to answer..

    Do you support a woman's "right" to kill her baby moments before that baby is born...

    It's a simple yes/no question..

    Why do you find it so hard to answer??

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    The rest of the above article can be summed up thusly..

    "Waaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaa"
    https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/600/1*EE9ddHLiwQYPEG-SrV4Zdw.jpeg

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, THAT link didn't work..

    OK Try this one..

    https://i.imgflip.com/2wxwiy.jpg

    Yea... THAT works.. :D

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    72% of Americans support abortion restrictions in the 2nd trimester..

    87% of Americans support abortion restrictions in the 3rd trimester..

    The vast majority of Americans support abortion restrictions..

    The only question is WHEN those restrictions kick in..

    JL has stated that he supports abortion as long as the baby cannot survive outside the womb... That would be at T-minus 22 weeks..

    Which implies he supports abortion restrictions after 22 weeks..

    Americans are on the side of the baby... PERIOD...

  49. [49] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    So, when you have people hooked up to a device for survival, you support their lives being "aborted" because they cannot survive without being hooked up to whatever they are hooked up to...
    [snip]
    JL has stated that he supports abortion as long as the baby cannot survive outside the womb... That would be at T-minus 22 weeks..

    not exactly.

    my personal opinion is that the transition point between goldfish and person is indeterminate. maybe 22 weeks, maybe 33, but the point is that the needs of the host need to be put first.

    if our society wants to take the little fishy out and grow it in a machine, that's something we can decide collectively. but it needs to be the host's decision when she decides the two must be separated.

    JL

  50. [50] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    There is only one path forward for Deathocrats to effect real change?

    Nonsense.

    Deathocrats could pass legislation that puts a nine year term limit on Supreme Court justices with the judge in the ninth year being the Chief Justice for that year. A justice serving out their term could be reappointed for another nine years.

    This would not require a constitutional amendment as there is no specific lifetime appointment requirement in the Constitution, just that the justices shall hold office during good behavior and it would not be good behavior to ignore the term limit set by legislation.

    But Deathocrats would rather have it the way it is as it provides another excuse for not getting things done and a lifetime appointment is much scarier than a nine year term making it easier to manipulate people.

    No more 17 years of the Roberts Court, no more from now on the Alito Court.

    Just an actual solution to the problem instead of just exploiting the problem to manipulate voters with fear.

    This could even be put into effect in time for Biden to make an appointment or reappointment or two before 2024.

    But it is not the Deathocrats DNA to solve a problem that they could much more easily perpetuate and exploit to sell the Big Lie.

    And just like in the Shake and Bake commercials CW can say "And I helped!"

    Enough with the shake and bake fake, CW.

    It's time for WAKE and TAKE.

    Wake the fuck up and help citizens take control of our country from the scumbags instead of being a porter on the gravy train rather than be a REporter.

    TAKE THE VACCINE!

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    my personal opinion is that the transition point between goldfish and person is indeterminate.

    Not factually accurate..

    SCIENCE has determined that a person is not a goldfish.. SCIENCE can tell AT CONCEPTION that a person is not a goldfish..

    maybe 22 weeks, maybe 33, but the point is that the needs of the host need to be put first.

    The needs of the host from a MEDICAL standpoint.. NOT from a social or economic standpoint..

    but it needs to be the host's decision when she decides the two must be separated.

    Except it's no longer a little fishy.. It's a PERSON with it's own distinct DNA and heartbeat and organs and fingerprints...

    As such, the ONLY consideration is medical considerations and NOT social or economic status..

    If what YOU propose was acceptable, then there is no difference between a Casey Anthony who kills her baby a week BEFORE it's born because she can't socially or economically afford a baby and a Casey Anthony who kills her baby a week AFTER it's born because she can't socially or economically afford a baby...

    In the Democrat Baby Killing, such a concept is perfectly acceptable..

    But you and I, as 2 thinking and rational human beings, both know that such a thing is COMPLETELY unacceptable..

    You can't kill a baby JUST because he or she is economically and socially inconvenient...

    It doesn't matter if it's a week before birth or a week after birth..

    In a civilized society, it simply cannot be allowed..

    I would have thought you would acknowledge the logic of this..

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Got ahead of myself there..

    In the Democrat Baby Killing, such a concept is perfectly acceptable..

    In the Democrat Baby Killing World, such a concept is perfectly acceptable..

    And that's bullshit and you know it.. :D

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    not exactly.

    If it's not exactly accurate, then you concede that it is at least partially accurate.. :D

    I'll take it.. :D

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats want to codify baby killing laws...

    They should call it the Casey Anthony law, because it allows mothers to kill their babies when the babies are socially inconvenient...

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump is still King!!! :D

    A Big Night for Vance and Trump
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/05/04/a_big_night_for_vance_and_trump_147558.html

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    “We will vote to protect a woman’s right to choose like the way Casey Anthony was able to choose, and every American is going to see which side every senator stands on. Democrats stand with Casey Anthony!!”
    -Democrat Chuck Schumer

    Well, we have Chuckie boy on record as to what HE believes.. :^/

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I have said... It's GREAT that Democrats are moving even FURTHER to the Left over this issue...

    It will make their losses in November be even bigger!!

  58. [58] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    me: my personal opinion...
    you: Not factually accurate..

    does not compute? yes, of course a fetus isn't precisely a fish, because it has human DNA. but for the purposes of determining sentience, in my OPINION it is EQUIVALENT to a goldfish.

    The needs of the host from a MEDICAL standpoint.. NOT from a social or economic standpoint..

    NO, from a WHY-EVER SHE DAMN WELL PLEASES standpoint. she is a sentient being, and the creature inside her isn't.

    JL

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    In fact, the issue can cut both ways. Most Americans, myself included, support abortion rights, but most also recognize the need for some kind of limits.

    Democrats used to recognize that need, too, with Bill Clinton saying in 1992 that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.”

    Coming two decades after Roe supposedly settled the issue, it was a brilliant formulation that offered something of a middle ground. Alas, the polarization driving the parties to opposite corners is perhaps most pronounced on abortion.

    Republicans are almost universally opposed, while “safe, legal and rare” would get Clinton drummed out of his party today because absolutist Dems now demand nothing short of the unfettered right to infanticide.

    As in most things, the left has weakened itself by going too far. Some Planned Parenthood advertisements jettison any sense of the lethal reality of abortion and make it seem like just another casual lifestyle choice.

    Medical science also has worked against the absolutists as the time when a newborn is able to survive outside the womb marches forward. One result is that 26 states have asked the Court to overrule Roe, with the Mississippi law at the center of the battle forbidding most abortions after 15 weeks except for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality.
    https://nypost.com/2022/05/03/democrats-dirty-supreme-may-surprise/

    Things were fine when Democrats believed that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare"...

    Democrats REALLY scroo'ed da pooch when they thought it would be awesome to #SHOUT OUT their infanticide and #CELEBRATE their baby killing..

    ROE v WADE being thrown on the trash heap of history??? Is simply an expected and logical reaction to Democrats going overboard...

    Democrats EARNED Roe v Wade being thrown out.... It's THAT simple..

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    does not compute? yes, of course a fetus isn't precisely a fish, because it has human DNA. but for the purposes of determining sentience, in my OPINION it is EQUIVALENT to a goldfish.

    Not factually accurate.. The determination of sentience includes a future state..

    A goldfish will NEVER be sentient.. A human will...

    I get it.. To support baby killing and live with one's self, one must dehumanize the baby to the point that it's no different than squashing a bug... I get it.. I really do...

    Abortion kills a human life... This is a simple fact that no amount of rationalizing will change..

    she is a sentient being, and the creature inside her isn't.

    Again, not factually accurate.. Simply because a baby cannot do calculus doesn't mean it's not a baby.. At 13 weeks a baby feels pain..

    The woman made the CHOICE that she knew could have resulted in a baby.... She made her choice and now, barring a MEDICAL issue, she has to live with that choice..

    It's called being an adult...

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    me: my personal opinion...
    you: Not factually accurate..

    Personal opinions are not exempt from being factually assessed..

    Now, if you want to say that it's your opinion and you could be wrong... OK.. That's something I can work with.. :D

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.”
    -Justice Alito

    Even Justice RBG agreed with this assessment of Roe V Wade..

    Why do you people want to go against RBG!!??

  63. [63] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Not factually accurate.. The determination of sentience includes a future state..

    Not necessarily. That is a matter of scientific opinion. The general consensus is that sentience is achieved between 24 and 28 weeks.

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another challenge for Alito was the issue of overturning long-standing precedents, known as stare decisis. The Court has understandably held such decisions to a higher standard, and Democrats seized on that history Tuesday to argue it was reckless to abandon a law that prevailed since 1973.

    But Alito’s argument is again compelling when he notes the abortion battles have “remained bitterly divisive for the past half-century” and said the Court “cannot bring about the permanent resolution of a rancorous national controversy simply by dictating a settlement and telling the people to move on.”

    Besides, he noted, the court has overturned many previous cases and a footnote listed scores of them as examples. “Stare decisis is not an inexorable command,” he wrote, saying it “is at its weakest when we interpret the Constitution.”

    Naturally, such logic and legal reasoning is summarily rejected by the left. It wants what it wants and anything or anyone standing in the way must be destroyed.

    Now the Supreme Court is the target and soon enough we’ll know whether it can survive the attack on its legitimacy.

    For those who feel that stare decisis is sacrosanct..

    I guess Democrats prefer that Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scot v Sanford would still be the law of the land, eh??

    Do Democrats actually THINK THROUGH their ridiculous and thoroughly moronic arguments!!???

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not necessarily. That is a matter of scientific opinion. The general consensus is that sentience is achieved between 24 and 28 weeks.

    OK...

    So you would support abortion restrictions at 26ish weeks???

    We're zeroing in on common ground here.. :D

    Wha, wait.. We already have common ground..

    We BOTH support abortion restrictions..

    Our only difference of opinion is WHEN those restrictions should kick in..

    Amiright??

  66. [66] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "A human will eventually become a sentient being."

    So if you are human there is hope you will someday become sentient!

    Even CW could become sentient! :D

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fed. Court Won't Hear Redistricting Challenge Before Midterms
    https://realclearflorida.com/2022/05/04/fed_court_wont_hear_redistricting_challenge_before_midterms_830550.html

    Florida wins again!!! :D

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remarkable...

    Looking over my comments..

    The vast majority of them are ON TOPIC!!!!

    How about that shitz, eh!?? :D

  69. [69] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    A woman just called into Washington Journal and said women should tell their husbands if they vote for Republikillers that want to end abortion no more sex.

    An interesting concept.

    You don't do what we want and we won't do what you want.

    If only there was some way to use this concept to get politicians to stop taking big money by not giving them our votes.

    We could really use an organization citizens could use to achieve this goal using this concept and could probably come with a name for that organization that would be related somehow to this one demand.

    It's not rape if you give permission and giving your vote to big money politicians is giving them permission to fuck you over and over and over......

  70. [70] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    If you give them permission to fuck you can't complain when you get knocked up and birth a devil baby.

  71. [71] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    There is no condom that can protect you from catching an STD from the Deathocrats and Republikillers. (Stupidly Transmissed Delusion)

    The only option to avoid and be cured from this STD is abstinence.

    No more giving them permission to fuck you by giving them your votes.

    And no more devil babies.

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Florida Dems Worry They Can’t Beat the Governor
    https://realclearflorida.com/2022/05/04/florida_dems_worry_they_cant_beat_the_governor_830557.html

    Democrats SHOULD be worried..

    Floridians LOVE their Governor! :D

  73. [73] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Transmitted.

    Only got halfway through changing transmissible to transmitted.

    Hope the spelling error did not offend you, Liz. :D

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Florida is being California'ized.. :D

    In the sense that Florida is no longer a swing state, but a bona-fide RED state that Democrats are the very very small minority...

    WOOT!!! :D

  75. [75] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I will try to engage in a more careful undertaking next time. :D

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    “It is becoming serious [for Democrats],” said Alex Berrios, who served as Palm Beach County regional field director for President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign. “It’s not unsalvageable, but the situation is becoming critical.”

    A two-decade absence from the Florida governor’s mansion has left Democrats functionally powerless in the third most populous state in the country. But Democrats face other problems too, including President Joe Biden’s unpopularity, rising prices due to inflation and a statewide electoral landscape that increasingly does not favor Democrats.

    Democrats are an endangered spieces in FL

  77. [77] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Florida being the Sunshine State contradicts sunlight being the best disinfectant. :D

  78. [78] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    again, glass houses. you're from new jersey.

  79. [79] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And I can still smell Florida over the Jersey Turnpike!

  80. [80] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    So you would support abortion restrictions at 26ish weeks???

    depends what you mean by restrictions. i think it's every woman's right to be parted from the being inside her whenever she likes. however, if that creature is competent to think and breathe outside of her, even if that takes some machinery to accomplish, it should be attempted.

    JL

  81. [81] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    that's not florida you smell.

  82. [82] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Not only Florida. New York, too. :D

  83. [83] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    cool article about florida dems. i've actually met and conversed with taddeo, sweet lady. the other contenders i don't know so closely.

    JL

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    depends what you mean by restrictions.

    Restrictions means that a woman can't kill her baby a week before birth... Just as she can't kill her baby a week after birth...

    Do you agree with such restrictions??

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, do you support a Democrat Casey Anthony Law ... A law that lets women kill their babies..

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Don't be sad. I'm pressed for time but, what was that question, again?

  87. [87] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [23]

    That's not what's at issue and I've never actually heard any Democrats say that last minute abortion okay.

    So here you might quote an actual Dem or Weigantia who advocates this...or DROP if you cannot.

    [26]

    So, if you would limit your mix of bold to how they are normally used in Weigantia, it would be most appreciated by yours truly...

    Nothing will change vis a vis our dynamic if you choose not to.. I was just hoping you would help a brother out..

    Thanx either way..

    No worries and I appreciate your feedback. Making me a better Libtard-- Bwahahahaha!

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't be sad. I'm pressed for time but, what was that question, again?

    Just giving ya a hard time.. You know I could never be mad at you.. :D

    Is baby killing as inappropriate in the week before birth as it is in the week after birth??

    In other words, do you support baby killing beyond medical threat to the mother in the 3rd trimester? Or do you feel that such baby killings should be restricted..

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    So here you might quote an actual Dem or Weigantia who advocates this...or DROP if you cannot.

    I already did...

    Stopping Late-Term Abortion Is the End of Freedom in U.S.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/03/as-the-us-supreme-court-moves-to-end-abortion-is-america-still-a-free-country

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    So you are saying that you DO support baby killing restrictions in the 3rd trimester where the health of the mother is not an issue???

    It's a simple yes/no question...

    It's amazing that so many people have a problem answering it..

    It's because it violates the Democrat Party baby killing agenda..

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    cool article about florida dems. i've actually met and conversed with taddeo, sweet lady. the other contenders i don't know so closely.

    Yea, they are in sorry shape down here... So bummed that Florida is moving so towards President Trump.. :D

  92. [92] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    I think the question was whether it is okay to drop a fetus on the floor after an abortion or if the ten second rule applies. :D

  93. [93] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Is baby killing as inappropriate in the week before birth as it is in the week after birth?? In other words, do you support baby killing beyond medical threat to the mother in the 3rd trimester? Or do you feel that such baby killings should be restricted.

    Making a choice to abort a pregnancy in the week before birth would seem a highly extreme action to take - unless, of course, the health of the mother is at stake.

    But, I also believe strongly in the 'right to privacy' and what a woman does with her own body is the absolute height of privacy.

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don!

    You should take your act on the road. Seriously!

    And, to be clear, I'm not asking you to leave. Heh.

  95. [95] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [38]

    YOU Repugs claim to hate Big Government for Libertarian reasons and such.
    ***
    Actually, I am the ONLY registered NPA in Weigantia..

    No Political Affiliation...

    So, they are not "MY" Repugs whatsoever. Not in any way, shape or form..

    I'm your Huckleberry! It's just like Kick ain't no damned Democrat but mostly aligns with their political philosophy.

  96. [96] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    If I go on the road I won't be attending any Deatbocrat fundraisering dinners.

    Everyone knows what they use the aborted fetuses for because they taste like chicken. :D

  97. [97] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Tastes like chicken. Bwahk. Bwahk. Bwahk."
    -Stargate

  98. [98] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    []

    The woman CHOOSES to participate in an activity that could create a baby.. Once the makes that CHOICE then, all things being equal, she should be HELD to the responsibility that that CHOICE entailed and not KILL the baby..

    So it's simply don't do sex amirite? Or be compelled by the State Slavery is Freedom to carry to term?

    That's Handmaiden's Tale-level Christofacist ideology and doesn't work in the real world... and you call yourself non-religious! Huh?

  99. [99] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, Biden talked about the economy today and why Democrats are better economic stewards than Republicans. Duh.

    But, he still refuses to call a spade a spade and utter the pertinent phrase, Republican cult of economic failure, for some uncomprehensible reason. Maybe he's saving it for closer to the midterms or, ah, late stages of the presidential election campaign when, you know, people are paying attention, presumably. Sigh.

    'Trickle-down economics' which Biden derided a couple of times just doesn't have the same sting to it. Double sigh.

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Making a choice to abort a pregnancy in the week before birth would seem a highly extreme action to take - unless, of course, the health of the mother is at stake.

    Completely agreed..

    But THAT is exactly the "right" that Democrats are fighting for..

    The only question is, do you agree with Democrats on that??

    But, I also believe strongly in the 'right to privacy' and what a woman does with her own body is the absolute height of privacy.

    But, as has been well established, we are NOT talking about the woman's body.. We are talking about a separat and distinct body that doesn't belong to the woman..

    The easiest way to make this apparent is to compare the baby a week after birth to the baby a week before birth...

    He or she is, for all intents and purposes, the SAME..

    What Democrats are arguing for is the "right" to kill that person a week before birth..

    Which is, morally and ethically NO DIFFERENT than killing that person a week after birth...

    And THAT is the question before..

    Approaching it from a different angle...

    Can we agree that a mother who kills her baby a week AFTER birth has committed the crime of murder..

    Can we agree on that??

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, Biden talked about the economy today and why Democrats are better economic stewards than Republicans. Duh.

    Sorry, Liz.. That's off topic... :D

    hehehehehehehehehehehehehe

    Sorry.. I just couldn't resist.. I am not that strong.. :D

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    That's Handmaiden's Tale-level Christofacist ideology and doesn't work in the real world... and you call yourself non-religious! Huh?

    It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with what's decent and moral..

    If killing a baby a week after birth is wrong.. Then killing a baby a week before birth is equally wrong.. Because genetically and physically and morally and ethically there is NO DIFFERENCE between the two babies..

    I am surprised I have to explain this....

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    And I have never watched HANDMAIDEN'S TALE, so I don't get the reference..

  104. [104] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    But, as has been well established, we are NOT talking about the woman's body.. We are talking about a separat and distinct body that doesn't belong to the woman..

    You just lost me.

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm your Huckleberry! It's just like Kick ain't no damned Democrat but mostly aligns with their political philosophy.

    Fair enough.. I understand the distinction and have since apologized to Kick for my error..

    In my defence, I have shown evidence to PROVE I am an NPA.. No one here to date has done the same..

    So I must go where the facts and evidence takes me..

    And, as such, I am the only factually confirmed NPA here in Weigantia.. Everyone else is a proven Democrat... :D

  106. [106] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I do see what you are trying to do with your week before/week after birth nonsense. You are playing on the extreme fringed edges of this issue. I don't play there.

  107. [107] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Only the insane serial killer types (yunno.. Democrats) would want to kill a baby..

    In the Democrat Baby Killing World, such a concept is perfectly acceptable..

    Quotes like these make me wonder if you personally think and feel this way or are you regurgitating Repug -- er, NPA nuttiness? I'm cool with Odumbo and Cheetogod but I don't think these contribute to our normal discourse.

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    }}}}But, as has been well established, we are NOT talking about the woman's body.. We are talking about a separat and distinct body that doesn't belong to the woman..{{{{

    You just lost me.

    The baby inside the woman is it's own distinct 'body'... He or she has their own distinct DNA completely separate from the woman. He or she has their own distinct heartbeat completely separate from the woman.. He or she has their own set of distinct fingerprints completely separate from the woman..

    So, it's NOT the woman's body we are talking about.. It's the baby's body that is in question here..

    To make it simpler to envision, the woman is driving an SUV and the baby is in the back in a car seat...

    If Democrats are to be believed, in that scenario, the woman should be able to turn around and shoot the baby in the head... Because the woman is the "driver"....

    I am sure you agree that such a scenario is completely whacked and morally repugnant...

    So it is with the scenario that a woman, a week before birth should be allowed to kill her baby that's riding in the "car seat" of the woman's womb...

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    Quotes like these make me wonder if you personally think and feel this way or are you regurgitating Repug -- er, NPA nuttiness?

    As I said, I was happy to ride the pine when Democrats were of the mind that baby killing should be "safe, legal and rare"...

    But Democrats changed the program..

    NOW Democrats are all about #SHOUT OUT their baby killing.. NOW Democrats are all about #CELEBRATE their baby killing..

    And THAT just pisses me off..

    As it would ANY American who is a father or grandfather...

    Wouldn't you agree??

  110. [110] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    The Reuplikiller cult of economic failure?

    Good for Biden for not telling that lie.

    It's the Reupblikiller/Deathocrat cult of economic failure.

    Wherever we go, whoever we screw
    We're gonna go screw them together
    We may not go far, but sure as a star
    We're gonna screw people together

    Through thick and through thin, we'll draw suckers in
    and whether it's win, place or show
    with you for me and me for you
    We'll muddle through whoever we screw
    together, wherever we ho.

  111. [111] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    But, as has been well established, we are NOT talking about the woman's body.. We are talking about a separate and distinct body that doesn't belong to the woman..

    But it's not a separate and distinct body when it's inside a uterus! And it's not a fucking pre born baby it's a fetus. Or goldfish if you like.

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I do see what you are trying to do with your week before/week after birth nonsense. You are playing on the extreme fringed edges of this issue. I don't play there.

    But that "nonsense" is at the HEART of the matter because THAT "nonsense" is EXACTLY what Democrats are fighting for..

    Democrats are fighting for the RIGHT to kill the baby right up to the moment of birth..

    It appears that you agree with me.. That such a right is frak'ed and morally and ethically unacceptable..

    It's a moot point because it looks like Democrats, as they are wont to do, over extended themselves and will lose the right to kill babies much much MUCH earlier..

    Democrats only have themselves to blame..

  113. [113] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    But Democrats changed the program..

    NOW Democrats are all about #SHOUT OUT their baby killing.. NOW Democrats are all about #CELEBRATE their baby killing..

    And THAT just pisses me off..

    As it would ANY American who is a father or grandfather...

    Wouldn't you agree??

    I missed this part of history. Providing examples of Democrat's #CELEBRATE BABY KILLING change in political strategy would illuminate this for me.

  114. [114] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Democrats are fighting for the RIGHT to kill the baby right up to the moment of birth..

    Quotes? Links, even from the right-wing alternative universe? I don't believe this is true about Dems so give me something besides your opinion to work with.

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    I missed this part of history. Providing examples of Democrat's #CELEBRATE BABY KILLING change in political strategy would illuminate this for me.

    Really???

    #ShoutYourAbortion is a social media campaign where people share their abortion experiences online without “sadness, shame or regret” for the purpose of “destigmatization, normalization, and putting an end to shame." Tens of thousands of people worldwide have shared their abortion experiences online using the hashtag # ...
    https://shoutyourabortion.com/

    In “Shout Your Abortion,” a Celebration of Life - YES! Magazine

    Shout Your Abortion (@ShoutYrAbortion) / Twitter

    Shout Your Abortion Campaign is A Celebration of Life

    Why I Celebrate My Abortion on Mother's Day - Rewire.News

    Do you need additional examples, MC???

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Quotes? Links, even from the right-wing alternative universe? I don't believe this is true about Dems so give me something besides your opinion to work with.

    I have provided you examples.. TWICE..

    If you won't see it now you simply don't WANT to acknowledge the facts..

    There are none so blind as those who will not see

  117. [117] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    If life begins at conception then you should be advocating for One Demand that has been conceived to be born.

    Why do you not want my baby to be born?

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    Shout Your Abortion (@shoutyourabortion) • Instagram photos ...
    https://www.instagram.com/shoutyourabortion/?hl=en

    Amelia Bonow, "Shout Your Abortion" - YouTube

    Home | Shout Your Abortion

    I set up #ShoutYourAbortion because I am not sorry, and I will ...

    Shout Your Abortion | Chicago Public Library

    Shout Your Abortion Campaign is A Celebration of Life

    If you need additional examples, just let me know.. :^/

  119. [119] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Why are all of you kicking and punching my baby in it's womb rather than provide the assistance needed to birth this baby?

    Not very progressive or conservative- just evil.

    It is clearly not a devil baby.

  120. [120] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Shout your abortion of One Demand in Weigantia!

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    From stigma to pride: health professionals and ... - PubMed
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31771465/

    Abortion Pride? | Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia

    'Thank God for Abortion' Float Comes to Pride - Paper Magazine

    Why I Celebrate My Abortion on Mother's Day - Rewire.News

    Do you need additional examples of how Democrats are so proud of their baby killing???

  122. [122] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Don't forget, imitation is the most severe form of sarcasm. :D

  123. [123] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    You know you make me wanna
    Shout
    Kick my heels up and
    Shout
    Throw my hands up and
    Shout
    Pull that kid out and
    Shout
    Don't forget to say you kill....

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    I provided numerous examples of Democrats CELEBRATING and SHOUTING OUT their abortions..

    Please get with me when you have had time to digest the utter despicable and senseless and morally corrupt actions of Democrats.. :^/

  125. [125] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Michale [121]

    The actual title of the paper you linked to:

    From stigma to pride: health professionals and abortion policies in the Metropolitan Area of Buenos Aires

    Democrats are responsible for abortions in Buenos Aires, Argentina now? WTF?

    Though if you read the study you linked to it does show the future of red states: some of it is about medical residents (doctors in training) first experiencing death dealing with the aftermath of back alley abortions and how since legalization that has changed. They are not proud of aborting fetuses but proud of women gaining control of their bodies...

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    There's our Bashi.. Nit picking ONE link out of a dozen to try and call into question the entire point.. :D

    The simple fact is, which you cannot refute... Democrats have went from abortion should be SAFE, LEGAL and RARE to #ShoutOut Your Abortion and #CELEBRATE your abortion..

    I acknowledge your valiant try, but it's for naught...

    The facts are clear...

    Democrats want people to be PROUD of baby killing..

    The facts that PROVE this are irrefutable..

    Speaking of which, you never answered the question..

    Do you support a woman's right to kill her baby moments before actual birth??

    Yes or No...

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't ever change, Bashi... :D

    I actually envy you that you live in the PNW...

    Despite the Democrat bullshit, I miss the area immensely..

    Some of the best times of my life were spent in Salem and Whidbey....

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    I simply CANNOT believe this has not been commemorated!

    HAPPY STAR WARS DAY everyone!!!

    May The 4th Be With You!! :D

  129. [129] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    There's our Bashi.. Nit picking ONE link out of a dozen to try and call into question the entire point.. :D

    The simple fact is, which you cannot refute... Democrats have went from abortion should be SAFE, LEGAL and RARE to #ShoutOut Your Abortion and #CELEBRATE your abortion..

    Did you bother to read the other links? I scrolled to the bottom of the page to see what's up and found a lie. Why should I take the other links seriously?

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    But it's good to know at least someone here reads all my links faithfully.. :D

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did you bother to read the other links? I scrolled to the bottom of the page to see what's up and found a lie. Why should I take the other links seriously?

    Because you have no facts to refute ALL of the links..

    It's a very easy premise..

    DID Democrats go from "Safe Legal and Rare" to #CELEBRATE and #SHOUT OUT their abortions??

    The answer is unequivocally and factually YES...

  132. [132] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    But it's good to know at least someone here reads all my links faithfully.. :D

    "All" is a bit strong...

  133. [133] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    DID Democrats go from "Safe Legal and Rare" to #CELEBRATE and #SHOUT OUT their abortions??

    Are you sure? I'm not convinced you read any of them beyond the title...

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    "It's like going to confession every time I hear you speak!!
    Some call it sick, but I call it weak!!"

    -EAGLES, Get Over It

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are you sure? I'm not convinced you read any of them beyond the title...

    Then, by all means.. Refute all the links with facts.

    Because there are plenty more links where those came from.. :D

  136. [136] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Because there are plenty more links where those came from.. :D

    Are you going to read any of them before posting?

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    Alyssa Milano Celebrates Her 2 Abortions, Pastor Fires Back ...
    https://faithit.com/jarrid-wilson-responds-alyssa-milano-abortion-great-joys/

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    But the point is simple..

    Caddy didn't believe that Democrats actually CELEBRATE their baby killings..

    I have proven that Democrats do indeed CELEBRATE and SHOUT OUT their abortions..

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sixty three millions babies have been killed since Roe v Wade...

    The vast majority have been black babies..

    So, for Democrats, apparently black lives DON'T matter...

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are you going to read any of them before posting?

    That's what I have you for! :D

    If they don't say what I claim they say, I am sure you will tell everyone...

    But the vast majority do, indeed, show how Democrats #SHOUT OUT and #CELEBRATE their baby killing...

    Which is sickening, as I am sure every Weigantian here will agree..

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump touts that all candidates he endorsed won in Ohio, Indiana, predicts 'tremendous season' for GOP

    'I was 22 and 0,' Trump told Fox News. 'I won every race.'
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-touts-victories-for-every-candidate-he-endorsed-in-ohio-indiana-predicts-tremendous-season-for-gop

    President Trump is king!! :D

    Compare that to Odumbo's deplorable endorsement record..

    :D

  142. [142] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Elizabeth et Weigantia,

    Here's Beau's Ukraine update, (4:04*) which is confirmed by most of the longer stuff (10:41) that I inhale. I really looove this stuff!

    I summarize:

    There is fighting but very little movement, except Ukraine has pushed Russia 25 miles away from Kharkov.

    It's now down to a race, and when we have a winner we will have movement.

    The race is between Russia getting its act together -- so many problems, sad! and a modern version of our WW2 Red Ball Express...
    how fast can we get Ukraine's war materials to her.

    *It's extra hassle on my cracked smartphone but I like to extend y'all the courtesy of showing what your time investment will be.

    It's a well documented FACT that this can be handy during Sunday Night Canada Party nights because I like looong songs

    ...like Supper's Ready, eh? (23:05)

  143. [143] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [137]


    Alyssa Milano Celebrates Her 2 Abortions, Pastor Fires Back ...

    Michale did you read through this link you posted?

    Dude, how us it not YOUR job to know what's in your links? Are you just throwing shit at the wall -- let the Libtards sort it out? IF true it kind of disrespects Weigantia and also needlessly hurts your FACT based credibility, just saying.

  144. [144] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [143]

    I asked if you read your link because I did and you misrepresented it.

    The actress (the word Democrat is absent) isn't celebrating her abortions she was celebrating her Fourth Amendment right to choose for herself her family planning. Not tyrannical government.

    (Tony Montaña voice)

    ...Jew got a problem with our Forth Amendment? Jew got a problem with Libertad?

    Only Repugs believe the lie that women celebrate/look forward to/go out of their way to have abortions.

    Pastor fires back was, um, urging parents to post pictures of their kids on Twitter, big whoop. Like that moved the needle.

    In other words you needlessly wasted my time. An unforced error, Big guy.

  145. [145] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [142]

    If you never heard of the Red Ball Express than you clearly were not a High School WW2-nut, like me. Worthless and weak, the whole lot of you!

    Oh, and the fact that the RBE featured our (segregated) black Murican soldiers as the drivers might be another reason you haven't heard about it.

  146. [146] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    We BOTH support abortion restrictions..

    Our only difference of opinion is WHEN those restrictions should kick in..

    Difference is that we support restrictions on when abortions when the unborn fetus is viable. You want to restrict women’s access to legal abortions completely!

    Oh wait! You are saying that you support abortion restrictions that grant a woman the right to medical abortions up until a certain time in the fetus’ development?

    So you support the killing of babies? If you support a woman’s right to medical abortions with restrictions, as you claim, then you are a baby killer by your own definition!


    If killing a baby a week after birth is wrong.. Then killing a baby a week before birth is equally wrong.. Because genetically and physically and morally and ethically there is NO DIFFERENCE between the two babies..

    You are the one on here screaming that we are wanting full access to abortion for any reason up until the child is borne…and on multiple occasions, as above, claim that we should have no problem with murdering a child since we support a woman’s right to choose.

    Completely agreed..

    But THAT is exactly the "right" that Democrats are fighting for..

    The only question is, do you agree with Democrats on that??

    UTTER BULLSHIT! Democrats are NOT the ones fighting to change any of the abortion restrictions that we have had in place for decades…it’s only Republicans who have to use abortion as a campaign tool that keep fraking with it!

    Want to prove me wrong? Name a single legal case before the court seeking it??!!?? FIND ONE CASE THAT SCOTUS IS CONSIDERING THAT SEEKS THAT!!!

    The Democrats have been perfectly content with abortion restrictions being where they were for decades… it’s you asshats that keep thinking that you can whittle away at the right for women’s privacy to determine her own medical decisions regarding her body that are trying to change the rules.

    So any argument claiming that Democrats are trying to change ANYTHING regarding a woman’s right to medical abortions with restrictions is a FUXKING LIE!

  147. [147] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The simple fact is, which you cannot refute... Democrats have went from abortion should be SAFE, LEGAL and RARE to #ShoutOut Your Abortion and #CELEBRATE your abortion..

    I acknowledge your valiant try, but it's for naught...

    The facts are clear...

    Democrats still want abortion to be SAFE, LEGAL, AND RARE… nothing has changed on our part. And maybe if you weren’t constantly attempting to shame women who sought an abortion — calling them BABY KILLER — then there would be no need for women to #CELEBRATE your abortion in order to show support for those who are trying to make huge life decisions.

    And it is YOU and the REPUBLICANS that are the ones who want abortions to no longer be SAFE, LEGAL, AND RARE! Your support for ending Roe is proof of that!

  148. [148] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [16]

    It's accepted here in Weigantia that italics denote a reference to a previous commenter comments and bold denotes either quotes from sources or headlines..

    When you throw in bold and italics every which way, it makes it hard to follow your comments..

    It's like those LEET jackAsses wh0 m1x number8 and captiLizai0n to make theMSElves s33m c00l..

    It looks ridiculous and makes it hard to follow..

    So, if you would limit your mix of bold to how they are normally used in Weigantia, it would be most appreciated by yours truly...

    It's accepted in Weigantia... wait a minute! I thought Elizabeth is Board Mother. What are you Deputy BM or something?

    It's accepted in the real world that italics are used both in quotations but also as emphasis, and I'll use it to do so -- but I'll try to minimize my use/abuse to make it more Michale-friendly.

    ...and bold denotes either quotes from sources or headlines.

    Bold is also used to emphasize and command visual attention

  149. [149] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    ... and as you kindly refrain from long all boldified quotes I'll likewise chill on using it's real world emphasis function.

    Would you agree that we're all writing down our thoughts AND simultaneously trying to convey our vehemence via the words? All caps/bold/italics are all forms of shouting to my mind. Less is more...

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    You want to restrict women’s access to legal abortions completely!

    Not factually accurate..

    I am on record MULTIPLE times of agreeing that an abortion is appropriate if the life of the mother is at risk..

    YOU, on the other hand, are on record as saying you approve of baby killing in the hours before birth..

    Democrats are fighting for the right of unrestricted abortion up until birth..

    This is well documented..

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's accepted in Weigantia... wait a minute! I thought Elizabeth is Board Mother. What are you Deputy BM or something?

    Nope.. But I have established certain protocols here in Weigantia that everyone has followed..

    The name WEIGANTIA for example.. :D

    Bold is also used to emphasize and command visual attention

    SO IS ALL CAPS.. BUT USE OF ALL CAPS IS ALSO FROWNED UPON HERE IN WEIGANTIA

    :D

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Democrats still want abortion to be SAFE, LEGAL, AND RARE… nothing has changed on our part.

    Bullshit.. Democrats NOW want abortions to be PREVELANT and to use baby killing as birth control.

    Democrats want to put PRIDE in having people kill their babies..

    This is well documented..

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats are fighting for the right of unrestricted abortion up until birth..

    This is well documented..

    You don't believe it??

    Then show me instances where Democrats have fought FOR baby killing restrictions..

    You can't because Democrats NEVER have fought for abortion restrictions..

    Democrats want UNLIMITED ability to kill their babies right up to the moment of birth..

    Basically, Democrats are PRO Casey Anthony..

    Go ahead... Try and find me ANY facts that disprove that fact....

    I double dog dare you...

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats want UNLIMITED ability to kill their babies right up to the moment of birth..

    Unless you want to admit here and now for the record that *YOU* personally support baby killing restrictions..

    Do you, Russ???

    DO YOU support baby killing, AKA abortion restrictions??

    YES or NO...

    If you do, congrats.. You are part of the 80% of Americans who *ALSO* support abortion restrictions..

    Like I do.. Like JL does..

    Like ANY person with a moral compass does..

  155. [155] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Now, it's 'hours' before birth?

    Your nonsense here today knows no bounds, seemingly.

    So, you only want abortions to be legal when they are done to protect the health of the woman? Is that it?

  156. [156] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    What about six weeks after conception?

    Do you think abortions should be illegal then, too, unless the health of the woman is threatened?

  157. [157] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yeah, you better call it a day. ;)

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you DON'T support abortion restrictions, then you agree that women should be allowed to use baby killing as birth control right up to the point of birth..

    Does ANYONE here support that??

    Yes or No....

    It's a very simple question that, up to this point, NO ONE has been able to answer..

    Which is an answer in itself..

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Unlike others, I don't have a problem answering the tough questions..

    I think that once a fetal heartbeat is detected, baby killing should be illegal unless it is to prevent the death or serious bodily harm to the mother..

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, it's 'hours' before birth?

    I have ALWAYS asked the question, 'hours before birth'.. No one here has been willing to answer that question..

    So, you only want abortions to be legal when they are done to protect the health of the woman? Is that it?

    Yes.. At six weeks when a fetal heartbeat is detected, then killing that baby should not be allowed unless it is to save the life of the mother..

    Like I said.. I am alone in being willing to state my beliefs for the record..

    NO ONE here to date has been willing to do the same..

    Which is very telling in itself..

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, you better call it a day. ;)

    At the point when I have everyone running scared!!

    Why ever for!!!??? :D

    NO ONE here wants to commit to a firm opinion..

    I suspect it's because their firm opinion contradicts the Democrat Party line where baby killing SHOULD be allowed right up to the moment of birth..

    Like they do in China...

    It's amazing how China, North Korea, Iran and the Democrat Party are all on the same page as far as pushing baby killing...

    Very telling, that...

  162. [162] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    Look, let's stop using phrases like 'abortion right up to birth.' The only place I know of where that was a practice was China during the time when only one child was permitted and women who tried to conceal a second pregnancy were, reportedly, forcibly aborted however advanced the pregnancy was.

    When there is danger to a woman's life or health late in pregnancy, or the baby is alive and presumably viable but unlikely to survive to term, a caesarian section is carried out, with the aim of saving mother and baby. In cases like eclampsia, the baby may be too damaged to survive in any case; not intervening would simply mean both dying.

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    Look, let's stop using phrases like 'abortion right up to birth.' The only place I know of where that was a practice was China during the time when only one child was permitted and women who tried to conceal a second pregnancy were, reportedly, forcibly aborted however advanced the pregnancy was.

    Actually, that is EXACTLY what Democrats are fighting for..

    Unrestricted Abortions right up to the point of birth..

    Mezzo, if you are saying you DON'T support that, then congratulations..

    You are part of the 80% of Americans who support abortion restrictions..

    When there is danger to a woman's life or health late in pregnancy, or the baby is alive and presumably viable but unlikely to survive to term, a caesarian section is carried out, with the aim of saving mother and baby. In cases like eclampsia, the baby may be too damaged to survive in any case; not intervening would simply mean both dying.

    Which has nothing to do with the baby killing that Democrats are advocating for..

    So, the question becomes Mezzo..

    Do you support abortion restrictions or don't you???

    How say you??

  164. [164] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    The beliefs you hold are one thing. Legally imposing those beliefs on and exerting your control over women and their bodies is simply not acceptable.

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I believe that it is wrong to kill an innocent baby's life SOLEY based on "convenience"...

    If legally "imposing" that belief on others is wrong, then I guess I gladly accept being in the wrong..

  166. [166] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    150

    I am on record MULTIPLE times of agreeing that an abortion is appropriate if the life of the mother is at risk..

    Yes, you definitely are on record, and so you've already established multiple times and in multiple ways that you meet or exceed your own definitions of a baby killer.

    Why should the baby be murdered simply because the mother is corpulent and/or sickly due to its parent's promiscuous lifestyle?

    Using your own analogy:

    Why should you be allowed to kill the "passenger in the car seat" just because it's in a lousy car with a reckless driver who put the baby in danger?

  167. [167] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Like I said.. I am alone in being willing to state my beliefs for the record..

    NO ONE here to date has been willing to do the same..

    Why would we, Mr. Baby Killer?!?! You are always stating what our beliefs are for us and no matter how many times we tell you that you are wrong; you just keep on claiming that you are right and we are wrong about what we believe.

    So tell me this Mr. Baby Killer…why the fuk would I bother expending the time to do what you ask when you have no intention of accepting our answer as the truth???

    For example, regarding the law you keep referring to as the Anti-Grooming Law even though you admitted that no where in the law does it even mention “grooming”, you keep asking why I would not support a law that bans 4 year olds (which aren’t old enough to be in kindergarten) from being taught about sexual orientation. I have replied multiple times that the part that says teachers cannot teach sex Ed as part of their lesson plans for kids K - 3rd grade, I have no problem with. You, refuse to accept that I am able to make that determination for myself.

    I have said the issue I have with the law is that it then says that the school can be sued if any parent feels that a teacher said something in front of a child that was inappropriate based on the age and/or grade of their child. It is not what they are covering in their lesson plans, it’s anything they might say regardless of who initiated the conversation…any age or grade.

    Can’t wait until a football coach tries to pray before the game with the team! Because thanks to the Republicans failure to define what is and isn’t “inappropriate”, that school will find themselves sued!

    Sorry, train hit a mental tangent there…

    I say a woman has the right to terminate the birth at up until the mid 3rd trimester. That’s where my abortion restrictions stand (unless extraordinary circumstances are present).

    You say it should end at 6 weeks when a heartbeat is first heard. The woman can have them induce labor at that point and we leave it up to God it the “baby” survives.

  168. [168] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Actually, that is EXACTLY what Democrats are fighting for..

    Unrestricted Abortions right up to the point of birth..

    Find me one legal case where this is being argued! One! You cannot because you are a lying Baby Killer! Supporting abortion as an opinion up until a fetal heartbeat exists still makes you a baby killer, Mr. Baby Killer!

  169. [169] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Actually, that is EXACTLY what Democrats are fighting for..

    Unrestricted Abortions right up to the point of birth..

    Bullshit. 20 to 24 weeks is generally the upper limit per state law, most states limit it to viability outside the womb which is around 20-21 week. Beyond that it requires a doctor to get involved because the health of the mother is threatened and clinics that are set up to do the procedure that late are actually quite rare. I have not seen anything from democrats that contradicts that...

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hi Kick!!!

    Glad to see you back again!! :D Thank you so much for your input.. :D

    Yes, you definitely are on record, and so you've already established multiple times and in multiple ways that you meet or exceed your own definitions of a baby
    killer.

    Not factually accurate..

    No more a "baby killer" than an LEO is a killer who is working the streets who defends themselves against some scumbag who wants to kill the LEO...

    Why should the baby be murdered simply because the mother is corpulent and/or sickly due to its parent's promiscuous lifestyle?

    Because the mother's life is paramount, even if she is corpulent and/or sickly..

    Of course, if the mother decides that her baby's life is more important than her own life, then she has that right..

    But, in the absence of clear direction in that regard, the mother's life has priority..

    Why should you be allowed to kill the "passenger in the car seat" just because it's in a lousy car with a reckless driver who put the baby in danger?

    Because that's the way our laws and our morality works..

    Again, thank you SOO much for weighing in..

    Your thoughts are VERY instructive as to your frame of mind.. :D

    I appreciate your comments SOOO much.. :D

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    So, you are claiming that Democrats are perfectly OK with abortion restrictions??

    OK Fine.. Then we are in 100% agreement..

    Baby killing restrictions ARE appropriate..

    I am glad we can all agree on that point..

    Isn't it wonderful!???

    WE ALL agree that there SHOULD be abortion restrictions imposed on the American people..

    Hallelujah!!! :D

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think this is a first for Weigantia..

    *EVERYONE* agrees that there SHOULD be abortion restrictions here in America....

    What an AWESOME and FRABJOUS day!!!! :D

  173. [173] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale

    So, when you have people hooked up to a device for survival, you support their lives being "aborted" because they cannot survive without being hooked up to whatever they are hooked up to...

    No, what you are arguing is that family do not have the right to pull the plug on anyone kept alive by machines. You claim that doing so would violate your abortion laws. But I don’t see you arguing against a woman’s right to end the life of a sick parent being kept alive by machines. Damn..,first you are a Baby Killer and already worked your way up to Granny Killer too!

  174. [174] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    What an AWESOME and FRABJOUS day!!!! :D

    A very clever tactical retreat, Major.

    Captain Louis Renault, Casablanca

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    You DO realize that your last sentence TOTALLY contradicts your first sentence!! :D

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHAHHA

    I don't know what you are so huffy about..

    You just agreed with me that there SHOULD be restrictions on abortion...

    So you and I are in COMPLETE agreement...

    Abortions SHOULD have some restrictions..

    We completely agree..

    Isn't that wonderful!! :D

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    What retreat??

    I have been arguing for the last 2 days that abortions SHOULD have restrictions..

    You, Russ, Kick, JL, Mezzo and everyone else *AGREES* with that position...

    No retreat necessary..

    WE ALL AGREE that abortion SHOULD have restrictions here in the US... :D

    The only point of contention is WHEN those restrictions should kick on..

    But, since we all agree that there SHOULD be abortion restrictions, that's a win for me!! :D

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    The only point of contention is WHEN those restrictions should kick on..

    Kick in, even!!! :D

    I was so excited, I mis-typed!!! :D

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    Who could have POSSIBLY thunked it that everyone would come around to *MY* way of thinking regarding abortion, eh??!!??

    It's a miracle!!! A May Miracle!!! :D

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I am just soooo overwhelmed that we actually have a day where EVERYONE in Weigantia agrees!!!

    There SHOULD be restrictions on abortion here in the US!!!

    I am just SOOOO excited on this complete and 1000% agreement that I have to just take a break... :D

    I'll catch ya'all in the morning..

    And just let me close by saying it's totally and completely awesome that ya'all see things my way when it comes to abortion!!!!

    I am simply overwhelmed that my arguments were so gosh darned convincing that they invoked complete and 1000% agreement.. Even from Mezzomamma which I NEVER saw coming!!! :D

    Thanx ya'all... Ya'all have restored my faith in Americans!!! :D

    See ya'all in the morning.. :D

  180. [180] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    170

    Glad to see you back again!! :D

    I never left.

    Thank you so much for your input.. :D

    No need.

    Not factually accurate..

    Killing is killing. If you're willing to kill the baby for any reason, it is no less killing; a dead baby is a dead baby. If you're willing to kill one to save a life, you're no less a baby killer.

    No more a "baby killer" than an LEO is a killer who is working the streets who defends themselves against some scumbag who wants to kill the LEO...

    I wasn't expecting you to prove my point for me by comparing an unborn baby to a scumbag with a desire to kill. So... like I said... you meet your own definition of "baby killer."

    Because the mother's life is paramount, even if she is corpulent and/or sickly..

    So you're still willing to kill the baby even when the baby is innocent and it was the mother herself who put her own life and the baby's life in danger. You meet or exceed your own definition of baby killer.

    Because that's the way our laws and our morality works..

    "Our morality"! No offense, but I'm laughing at the very idea that you would attempt to give a lecture on morality. :)

    Again, thank you SOO much for weighing in..

    No need.

    Your thoughts are VERY instructive as to your frame of mind.. :D

    You... giving anyone... a lecture... on morality!!!!!!!!

  181. [181] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [whatever]

    Nope.. But I have established certain protocols here in Weigantia that everyone has followed..

    The name WEIGANTIA for example.. :D

    Excuse me, but I missed the part about somebody dying and putting you in charge. IMO Elizabeth Miller is the #OneTrueBoardMother, period. Which begs the question which is exactly WHY should I give a bleep?

    For the record I myself coined and deployed Weigantia long before I saw anyone else using it. So if you coined the term years ago, great. As in, great minds think alike, great!

Comments for this article are closed.