Take a look at comments 27 thru 29, including the time stamps. It shouldn't be too hard to figure out. Heh.

And, who gets to decide that?

Decide what? I'll try and guess what you're asking.

* A state's control over your rights is no less "government control" than a federal law.

Only a fool would argue that the SCOTUS instigated government control over abortion rights because only an imbecile would postulate that government at the state level is somehow the definition of "democracy" and "not government" while government at the federal level somehow equals "government control."

Even the most mentally retarded ammosexuals you'll ever meet seem to understand the basic concept of "government control" when it's applied to the laws of the state wherein they reside that outlaw their ownership of AR-15s, AK-47s, and similar.

State government is still government, and the SCOTUS didn't invent the abortion laws from which Norma McCorvey a.k.a. Jane Roe sought relief... quite the contrary.

* It is an outright lie that Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated that the ruling "never should have happened."

Lie. Lie. Lie. Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought that the ruling should have been made under the Equal Protection Clause rather than being based on the right of privacy of a woman with her doctor, as it was decided. RBG believed that forcing a woman to give birth was a violation of equal protection as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious.... The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.

~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg
July 2009 interview The New York Times

*
There's a huge difference between RBG taking issue with how Roe was decided from a strategic standpoint and the asinine claim that she believed it "never should have happened," and it's retarded on its face to keep spewing that ridiculous lie.

One can argue that it was the previous SCOTUS who created the contentious issue in the first place..

If one wished to appear ignorant, they certainly could.

Even high level Democrats such as RBG stated that the RvW ruling never should have happened..

This is an outright lie.

Is there a right to privacy in the realm of Democracy?

Exactly..

And it was the SCOTUS that enacted RvW who made the government the arbiter of what goes on inside someone's body...

"If ya wouldn't START none, there wouldn't BE none.."
-Will Smith, INDEPENDENCE DAY

having the government decide what goes on inside someone's body isn't democracy, it's tyranny.

Exactly...

RvW put the country right in the middle to get squashed like a grape..

Not factually accurate..

The current SCOTUS simply returned the issue to the realm of DEMOCRACY... Where it belongs...

and imperfect as it may have been, the decision to MAKE a decision was the right one.

And yet MANY Democrats in a far better position to make the determination disagree..

even if one were to presuppose that roe was the wrong decision, the current scotus did the opposite of putting things right - it put things nowhere. the court in roe recognized that a decision was necessary in the context of first wave feminism, for our system of government not to collapse into anarchy. and imperfect as it may have been, the decision to MAKE a decision was the right one.

JL

One can argue that it was the previous SCOTUS who created the contentious issue in the first place..

The current SCOTUS merely put right what once went wrong..

Even high level Democrats such as RBG stated that the RvW ruling never should have happened..

i appreciate the thoughtful response. my view on the supreme court ruling is that it's especially harmful because it threw out the existing legal standard (viability) without establishing any alternate standard that all states could follow.

even had the decision gone ultra-extreme and made abortion illegal nationwide, the current result might actually be even worse. it's the responsibility of the federal government on contentious issues to give the states clarity, and SCOTUS did the abject opposite. they eviscerated the existing standard without replacing it.

JL

I disagree, but appreciate your response..

And the reason I disagree is because today's Democrats threw out SAFE, LEGAL and RARE/Viability concept when Democrats went for unfettered abortion right up to the point of birth..

Granted, not ALL Democrats believe in this, but the ones who DON'T believe it did not refute the Democrats who do...

And, as we all know, Democrats follow the SILENCE GIVES ASSENT mantra...

but i think most people of all political persuasions would be okay with a procedural standard that moves with the technology.

And THAT is why you are the exception that emphasis the rule..

Now, do you think the Democrat Party would also agree and therefore be amiable to support a ban on baby-killing abortions??

My view is that the creature inside a woman (or otherwise defined person with a uterus) has limited rights, like those of a monkey or a cat. Not enough to override the rights of the human carrying it, but sufficient that society ought to afford it some consideration. Therefore, I believe that any technology which makes aborted pregnancies non lethal to the fetus without severely harming the person it's inside of, would be a good thing.

JL

Since you are the only Democrat I know enough to talk to AND has more than 2 brain cells to rub together AND has not completely succumbed to PTDS and Trump/America hate....

Let me pose to you a hypothetical...

Postulate a possible very near future where medical technology would be created and generally available that would allow a woman (you STILL can define what a 'woman' is, so that is another issue that sets you apart from the quintessential Democrat) to terminate her pregnancy and yet still allow the unborn child to survive and thrive, possibly in a surrogate mother...

Given this technology.... Would you believe that the Democrat Party as a whole would support the outlawing of baby-killing abortions?

Feel free to expand, but please try to give a straight yes/no answer...

Wouldn't it be ironic if William Shatner outlived them all, eh? :D

Close to the Edge, YES.

Just remember that Dems, as a whole, have never been as good as you are at presenting talking points. I know you won't let the exuberance of this moment in time get in the way of that fact! :-)

So, what's in it for fossil fuels, coal and Joe Manchin?

Republicans usually aren't this amusing, but we have to admit we laughed at that one.

You do realize this is twice in one week you've shown empathy for Trump impeacher Peter Meijer (R), right? If only Meijer hadn't chosen his conscience over servitude and his oath to his country over his Party, maybe he'd be just as popular with them. :)

It included all the healthcare improvements and even expanded one of them -- the increased Obamacare subsidies will now be extended for three years, not just two. This will become important, because if they had only managed two years then it would have moved the problem of them disappearing to the end of 2024 -- and those same letters would have gone out right before the presidential election.

And how incidentally fortuitous is it that West Virginia consistently lands in the top 10 list of states receiving the most federal funding per resident and that Manchin's reelection year (should he hereinafter declare to undertake the attempt) will also be in the year 2024?