Trump: “I’ll be great for women’s reproductive rights”

[Kafka]

He is a moderate. He believes it is up to the States.

You must realize that's a dodge. It's just a naked dodge. What he did was what the Religious Right has wanted for 50 years now. If it gets tossed back to the states then local nutters can forcibly remove freedom from women.

Why does it need to be put back to the states?

It's no business of the Federal government to endorse murder in any form.

You lost that war, Cletus. The South Lost and we have a federal government. Yes we still devolve some things to the states but not everything. This is one of those things that should not be devolved to the states.

Remember Cletus, when your Red state spikes in the number of back-alley abortions resulting in more women dying, the Red States will all be able to celebrate. And the rest of us will STILL continue paying the bills for you.

 

[Goyboy]

You must realize that's a dodge. It's just a naked dodge. What he did was what the Religious Right has wanted for 50 years now. If it gets tossed back to the states then local nutters can forcibly remove freedom from women.

Why does it need to be put back to the states?



You lost that war, Cletus. The South Lost and we have a federal government. Yes we still devolve some things to the states but not everything. This is one of those things that should not be devolved to the states.

Remember Cletus, when your Red state spikes in the number of back-alley abortions resulting in more women dying, the Red States will all be able to celebrate. And the rest of us will STILL continue paying the bills for you.

The Supreme Court ruled to correct a judgement that was in conflict with the Constitution. Do you have a problem with the Constitution?
The Federal Government has been stepping on State's Rights now for decades. On top of that, the Federal Government is not fulfilling it's true mandate and that is the protection of our borders. The Federal Government is in default.

 

[Kafka]

The Supreme Court ruled to correct a judgement that was in conflict with the Constitution.

How was it in conflict with the Constitution?

The Federal Government has been stepping on State's Rights now for decades.

Awwww, Bocephus. Did you not realize the South lost the Civil War? Yeah, it was a while back....not sure how you missed that.

On top of that, the Federal Government is not fulfilling it's true mandate and that is the protection of our borders.

I'm so sorry your job doing lawnwork is under threat. Really. I actually blame your employer.

 

[Goyboy]

How was it in conflict with the Constitution?



Awwww, Bocephus. Did you not realize the South lost the Civil War? Yeah, it was a while back....not sure how you missed that.



I'm so sorry your job doing lawnwork is under threat. Really. I actually blame your employer.

How was roe vs wade in conflict with the constitution?​

Roe v. Wade (1973) was in conflict with the Constitution in several ways:

1. Lack of explicit protection for abortion: The Constitution does not explicitly mention abortion, leaving its legality to be determined by the judiciary. The Court’s interpretation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (prohibiting states from depriving individuals of life, liberty, or property without due process) was seen as an overreach by some.
2. Expansion of the concept of “liberty”: The Court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, expanded the concept of “liberty” under the 14th Amendment to include a constitutional right to privacy, which was not explicitly mentioned in the Amendment. This expansion was criticized by some as an unwarranted judicial activism.
3. Conflict with the 10th Amendment: By establishing a federal constitutional right to abortion, the Court potentially encroached on the powers reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment. Some argued that abortion regulation was a matter of state law, rather than federal constitutional law.
4. Disregard for original intent: Critics claimed that the Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment ignored the original intent of the Founding Fathers, who did not envision a constitutional right to abortion.
5. Inconsistency with other Supreme Court precedents: Roe v. Wade was seen as inconsistent with other Supreme Court decisions that had previously upheld state laws regulating abortion, such as the 1821 Connecticut law prohibiting abortion “except to save the life of the mother” (Commonwealth v. Bangs, 1821). Brave AI

How has the federal government grown to overstep the constitution of the us and usurp states rights​

The federal government has grown to overstep the Constitution and usurp states’ rights in various ways:

• Expansion of Enumerated Powers: The federal government has increasingly interpreted its enumerated powers under Article I, Section 8, to justify federal intervention in areas not explicitly mentioned, such as education, healthcare, and environmental regulation. This has led to a blurring of lines between federal and state responsibilities.
• Commerce Clause Abuse: The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) has allowed the federal government to regulate activities under the guise of interstate commerce, even when they have little or no direct connection to commerce. This has led to federal overreach in areas like gun control, healthcare, and environmental policy.
• Supremacy Clause Misapplication: The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) has been used to preempt state laws and regulations, even when they are constitutional and within states’ rights. This has led to federal courts invalidating state laws and policies, effectively usurping states’ authority.
• Federal Agency Overreach: Federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Education, have expanded their powers beyond their statutory authority, often through regulatory interpretations and guidance documents. This has led to federal overreach in areas like environmental regulation and education policy.
• Lack of Enumerated Powers: The federal government has failed to obtain explicit constitutional authority for many of its activities, instead relying on implied powers or congressional delegation. This has led to a lack of accountability and a disregard for states’ rights.
• Federal Court Activism: The Supreme Court’s increasing willingness to strike down state laws and policies under the guise of constitutional interpretation has further eroded states’ rights. This has led to a perceived imbalance in the federal system, with the federal government exercising too much power at the expense of states. Brave AI

 

[Bigdog]

The vast majority of animal cruelty laws are at State level. The individual States give voice to those that have none.

The Declaration of Independence says gov'ts are created to protect these rights ... "all people are created equal and given certain unalienable rights by their Creator, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." ... human life is "created" at the moment of conception.

Germany and Italy have 12 week abortion restrictions. Others are 14 and 24. Different strokes for different folks. Even the EU doesn't agree on one size fits all.

Will Harris repeal the 2003 national Partial Birth abortion ban?

B-elite begged for answer, but it looks he did not like my answer. So I will reply to myself.

Fetal Pain in the First Trimester - PMC​

National Institutes of Health (NIH) (.gov)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC8935428


by B Thill · 2022 · Cited by 16 — Current neuroscientific evidence indicates that the onset of fetal pain perception is possible during the first trimester. At the center of the ...

 

[Kafka]

1. Expansion of the concept of “liberty”: The Court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, expanded the concept of “liberty” under the 14th Amendment to include a constitutional right to privacy, which was not explicitly mentioned in the Amendment. This expansion was criticized by some as an unwarranted judicial activism.

Can I just say that I LOVE It when you nitwits bring up the "right to privacy". As if you don't value it for yourself. LOL. You come across as a completely dishonest debator when you suggest that the right to privacy is "judicial activism". I know this because you would SCREAM BLOODY BLUE FUCKIN' MURDER IF YOUR PRIVACY WAS VIOLATED.

We know this with 100% perfect accuracy.

So why doe women not deserve the same rights as you? Are you "superior" to women? That might be your problem.

 

[Goyboy]

Can I just say that I LOVE It when you nitwits bring up the "right to privacy". As if you don't value it for yourself. LOL. You come across as a completely dishonest debator when you suggest that the right to privacy is "judicial activism". I know this because you would SCREAM BLOODY BLUE FUCKIN' MURDER IF YOUR PRIVACY WAS VIOLATED.

We know this with 100% perfect accuracy.

So why doe women not deserve the same rights as you? Are you "superior" to women? That might be your problem.

So you have nothing to say. Just rant about the alleged rights women are being denied. Abortion is legal in every state. Different states have different protocols. In fact it's always been that way.

 

[Kafka]

So you have nothing to say.

I noted your hypocrisy. Wasn't that enough?

Just rant about the alleged rights women are being denied.

No, talking about the rights YOU want to deny women but reserve for yourself.

Abortion is legal in every state. Different states have different protocols. In fact it's always been that way.

You are playing dishonestly now. You KNOW that many states are flirting with TOTAL ABORTION BANS right as we speak. In fact, that was the plan ALL ALONG. And that's why your guy Trump is backpedaling like a fiend. He knows he can't be associated with any total abortion bans but HIS OWN ACTIONS SET THEM IN PLAY.

He played to the religious nutters and when he saw exactly how rabidly they want to throttle women's rights he realized it might not look good for his re-election so he's now backing away.

 

[Goyboy]

I noted your hypocrisy. Wasn't that enough?



No, talking about the rights YOU want to deny women but reserve for yourself.



You are playing dishonestly now. You KNOW that many states are flirting with TOTAL ABORTION BANS right as we speak. In fact, that was the plan ALL ALONG. And that's why your guy Trump is backpedaling like a fiend. He knows he can't be associated with any total abortion bans but HIS OWN ACTIONS SET THEM IN PLAY.

He played to the religious nutters and when he saw exactly how rabidly they want to throttle women's rights he realized it might not look good for his re-election so he's now backing away.

That is unlikely to happen. No State will flat out forbid abortion. What irks me is why your are so extremely agitated about a issue that is being blown out of proportion. Everything will balance out. It always does.

 

[Kafka]

That is unlikely to happen.

Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Missouri, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama all have it as pretty much illegal.

 

[Goyboy]

Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Missouri, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama all have it as pretty much illegal.

You know. You rant and rave as if there is nothing called birth control. Abortion seems like a really radical method of birth control. Don't you think?

 

[Kafka]

You know. You rant and rave as if there is nothing called birth control.

Thanks for backing away from your earlier claim.

You know men can wear rubbers as well. So if we want to stop abortions there's actually TWO people involved.

Abortion seems like a really radical method of birth control. Don't you think?

Yes. I do.

Personally I'm not a fan of abortion. If I were a woman facing that sort of thing it would probably be pretty hard to go that route for me. In fact I bet it is tough as fuckin' hell for ANY woman.

The way I would deal with eliminating abortion is to improve the social safety net. Help more. But I also understand that for some people God tells them that the only thing they can REALLY do is go to an abortion clinic and scream at women in pain and agony.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Is that a fact? Then unless a woman consents to give birth she's obligated to abort, in your view.

Unless that woman was impregnated against her will, she consented to an activity KNOWING the possible consequences and is obligated to give birth.
If a woman has the right to opt out of being a mother, then a man should have the right to opt out of paying for a child he doesn't want.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

By its very nature, that's an extremist position. The vast majority of Americans do not think it's "killing unborn children," nor do the courts.

I know some on the pro-life side hold to it and say things like most people used to support slavery, and an appeal to the majority is meaningless - but the fact is, that makes what you said an extremist position in 2024.

There are so many instances where pregnancies happen in ways that have little or nothing to do w/ a woman's consent. Women need to have the right to decide for themselves, w/ their healthcare professionals. There are already horror stories of women suffering needlessly because of what has happened since Roe was overturned, that sound like tales from a more oppressive time in world history.

1. what's popular isn't always right and what's right isn't always popular. If being pro life is extreme, then i'll be extreme. It's also how I feel about the death penalty.
2. I'll restate my position. If a woman was impregnated against her will, I'm on the side of her being allowed to terminate. Otherwise, she consented to an activity with full knowledge that pregnancy was possible and should be held accountable.
3. I am not as extreme as some of those on the right that would force a woman to die if there are complications, nor would I want a forced birth to a child that is going to have extreme hardships and disabilities due to major abnormalities.