Abortion Rights May 2022 and why this should matter to you

[David PS]

1) I think this R vs V case was re-examined now for the Chatter Class (This is us people) as it helps maintain a high level of Distraction in the current 'relaxed atmosphere from Convid'.... 'do not look at the man behind the curtains'.

2) I do believe it is not a RIGHT guaranteed from the US Constitution, but is correctly placed into the States jurisdiction.

3) My question is "what is the Supreme Court going to do next?".

US Supreme Court adds controversial election case to October 2022 docket

The US Supreme Court announced Thursday that it will hear a controversial election case which deals with an emerging legal theory based on the elections clause of the US Constitution. The theory claim...

www.jurist.org

The conservative Supreme Court is just getting warmed up

Affirmative action, voting rights and state power over elections are on the line next.

www.politico.com

 

[Zigzag]

I'm not sure but, before tackling abortion, how about you american people solve the single motherhood issue that will sooner or later destabilize your country?

 

[TheCedar1]

I'm not sure but, before tackling abortion, how about you american people solve the single motherhood issue that will sooner or later destabilize your country?

If they want to solve that, they need to denounce feminism, marriage is literally one sided and benefits only the female, if a divorce happens, the man could lose everything, like their house, thats why no one wants to be married anymore in the west

 

[InChristAlone]

I'm not sure but, before tackling abortion, how about you american people solve the single motherhood issue that will sooner or later destabilize your country?

Yes that is the issue. And one that Marxism is all about. Destruction of the family. Families are the foundation of a healthy society. We need healthy marriages.

 

[Zigzag]

@TheCedar1 @sugarbabe Yep, agree with both of you. It's a very difficult issue to find a solution for though. From what I can see, the american society is at it's downfall. Men embrace the "enjoy the decline" approach, are afraid of forming families and have started dropping ouf of society, because they live in a highly gynocentric country.
Certain states that will ban abortions won't solve the issue at all. Low lives will keep spreading their genes and not forming healthy families.

 

[InChristAlone]

@TheCedar1 @sugarbabe Yep, agree with both of you. It's a very difficult issue to find a solution for though. From what I can see, the american society is at it's downfall. Men embrace the "enjoy the decline" approach, are afraid of forming families and have started dropping ouf of society, because they live in a highly gynocentric country.
Certain states that will ban abortions won't solve the issue at all. Low lives will keep spreading their genes and not forming healthy families.

But society isn't very gynocentric when we have women going back to work 6 weeks after giving birth and dropping their babies off in a daycare. That's not feminine at all. That's masculine. So the liberal viewpoint that we aren't supportive of women can be true in some cases when a woman has to work to feed her kids. But I'm not for gov't assistance. The more the gov't interferes the weaker families will be. Just look at the black community. Dad's no where to be found and Mom's living on gov't assistance. It's awful. It's collapsing society instead of supporting them. And it was all the goal all along. Marxism wanted the destruction of the family so they could be more easily controlled.

So if women are going to stop having sex due to not having easy access to an abortion then I'm all for it. Stop sleeping around, look for a Godly hard working man who wants to start a family with you and then be submissive to his leadership. That's how healthy families work. That's how a healthy society works. It's a safe environment for a woman, it's a safe environment for raising kids, and it ensures you don't need gov't assistance.

 

[Zigzag]

So if women are going to stop having sex due to not having easy access to an abortion then I'm all for it.

Here's the deal. They won't, at least the dumb and poor ones, they'll keep trying to chase men who clearly aren't father figures.

 

[InChristAlone]

Here's the deal. They won't, at least the dumb and poor ones, they'll keep trying to chase men who clearly aren't father figures.

Yeah it's a pipe dream. Girls aren't taught how to find a good man. I found my man in a Christian myspace group 14 yrs ago. Blue collar workers tend to be masculine as well. So you may find them at Home Depot, or maybe your HVAC technician. They do tend to not know how to talk to women so you have to do the talking initially, but these men are the ones who are more likely to be devoted to one woman. Not the ones who are outright flirting and wanting to get in your pants immediately. And women: you gotta be submissive! Gasp! Yes you can't walk all over your man and expect him to treat you right. Masculine men want submissive feminine women.

 

[FocusedOnHealth]

View: https://twitter.com/ramzpaul/status/1541797481276751874

I think these women are insane.

 

[FocusedOnHealth]

But society isn't very gynocentric when we have women going back to work 6 weeks after giving birth and dropping their babies off in a daycare. That's not feminine at all. That's masculine. So the liberal viewpoint that we aren't supportive of women can be true in some cases when a woman has to work to feed her kids. But I'm not for gov't assistance. The more the gov't interferes the weaker families will be. Just look at the black community. Dad's no where to be found and Mom's living on gov't assistance. It's awful. It's collapsing society instead of supporting them. And it was all the goal all along. Marxism wanted the destruction of the family so they could be more easily controlled.

So if women are going to stop having sex due to not having easy access to an abortion then I'm all for it. Stop sleeping around, look for a Godly hard working man who wants to start a family with you and then be submissive to his leadership. That's how healthy families work. That's how a healthy society works. It's a safe environment for a woman, it's a safe environment for raising kids, and it ensures you don't need gov't assistance.

Lol you kinda sound like me. I agree with you.

 

[Peatness]

But society isn't very gynocentric when we have women going back to work 6 weeks after giving birth and dropping their babies off in a daycare. That's not feminine at all. That's masculine. So the liberal viewpoint that we aren't supportive of women can be true in some cases when a woman has to work to feed her kids. But I'm not for gov't assistance. The more the gov't interferes the weaker families will be. Just look at the black community. Dad's no where to be found and Mom's living on gov't assistance. It's awful. It's collapsing society instead of supporting them. And it was all the goal all along. Marxism wanted the destruction of the family so they could be more easily controlled.

So if women are going to stop having sex due to not having easy access to an abortion then I'm all for it. Stop sleeping around, look for a Godly hard working man who wants to start a family with you and then be submissive to his leadership. That's how healthy families work. That's how a healthy society works. It's a safe environment for a woman, it's a safe environment for raising kids, and it ensures you don't need gov't assistance.

I'm always surprised things are not worse for the black community than it is considering that the CIA flooded their community with drugs and guns. These issues are not seen in Africa. Mind you, as I have demonstrated on the Africa thread, Africa is controlled by many foreign interestes who want to exploit it for resourses. I guess it's a matter of time.

No, Most Black Kids Are Not Fatherless

Moving in the right direction begins with understanding the reality. Most black children are not fatherless. And most black dads are setting a great example.

www.huffpost.com

 

[Peatful]

 

[Old Irenaeus]

View attachment 38682

Ouch. This one is well done.

 

[Zsazsa]

View: https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1545471913442549761

 

[Peatful]

 

[tankasnowgod]

View attachment 38786

Lol. In case you wanted more proof this moron Biden was suffering from dementia (assuming this tweet is real).

Anyone who understands "Separation of Powers" knows that the Executive Branch can't make laws. This ain't gonna trump any state law, passed by actual legislatures. And no "Executive Order" can overrule the Supreme Court. And if there is a dispute? Funny, it just goes back to that exact same Supreme Court. Any "Executive Order" will be as impotent as his OSHA vaccination rule.

Actually, probably less so, ever since the Supreme Court ruled against Executive Fiat in the agencies just days after the Dobbs ruling-

US Supreme Court Case: West Virginia vs EPA - Congressional Power To Delegate Authority About To Be Taken Away?

"The ruling would declare that Congress lacks the power to delegate authority to federal agencies to implement policy." View: https://twitter.com/nycjayjay/status/1541409031557980165 View: https://twitter.com/josh_adell/status/1541542810414977028

raypeatforum.com

 

[Peatful]

Biden’s executive order on abortion, briefly explained

It marks an important first step, though there’s still more the White House could do.

www.vox.com

 

[David PS]

Biden administration says federal law preempts state abortion bans when emergency care is needed | CNN

In new clarifying guidance announced Monday, the Biden administration said that federal law preempts state abortion bans when emergency care is needed and that the federal government can penalize institutions or providers that fail to provide abortions as needed to treat medical emergencies.

www.cnn.com

 

[BRMarshall]

I don't know. I think I am inclined to agree with the original poster. I think this may be an attempt to set some kind of legal precedent about whether an individual has a sovereign right to choose their own treatment options. Particularly when there is another "person" that may be affected. It may be harder legally to say that a person is not allowed to make their own health decisions if another person is involved, when a woman is allowed to terminate a pregnancy. I can see them saying that you are not allowed to opt out of vaccination because it affects other people. I could be totally wrong but I do wonder if they are anticipating future court cases trying to fight universal vaccination.

Also, I am inclined to think you are wrong that the government cannot make you do anything. There have been several cases where parents were forced to give their child Chemo even though they were philosophically and or morally opposed.

I do, however, agree that if they can the powers that be always prefer to coerce or manipulate people into volunteering themselves. For example, my husbands work cannot force universal vaccination on staff that already work for them but all new hires must be vaccinated. So if you want to work for them you have to go on your own time to get vaccinated and then you technically choose to be vaccinated.

Before the XIV Ammendment there was no legal definition of citizen.
it should be remembered that it was "We the people" as sovereign, who created the Constitution, after having first broke the unconscionable contract of the decrees of the British Crown.
The Constitution did set up the provenance for a Judicial system in the new nation that did not do away with the common law, which has its roots
in the Magna Carta. The Constitution speaks of "law and equity".
The common law is the law of the sovereign individual with no subjects but themselves.
The common law is practiced before a "court of record" which proceeds according to the common law, where the soverign as plaintiff is the tribunal makes the law
and where the magistrate (judge) does not have the right to make a decision in a case.
What has happened is that people do not understand the law, and get sucked in to pleading by lawyers who are beholden to equity law and its attendant traps.

So yes people have volunteered for a status that they think gives them rights, but actually puts them into jurisdiction where they lose their rights.

1215.org is an excellent resource for greater details. Follow the steps!

 

[Peatful]

Before the XIV Ammendment there was no legal definition of citizen.
it should be remembered that it was "We the people" as sovereign, who created the Constitution, after having first broke the unconscionable contract of the decrees of the British Crown.
The Constitution did set up the provenance for a Judicial system in the new nation that did not do away with the common law, which has its roots
in the Magna Carta. The Constitution speaks of "law and equity".
The common law is the law of the sovereign individual with no subjects but themselves.
The common law is practiced before a "court of record" which proceeds according to the common law, where the soverign as plaintiff is the tribunal makes the law
and where the magistrate (judge) does not have the right to make a decision in a case.
What has happened is that people do not understand the law, and get sucked in to pleading by lawyers who are beholden to equity law and its attendant traps.

So yes people have volunteered for a status that they think gives them rights, but actually puts them into jurisdiction where they lose their rights.

1215.org is an excellent resource for greater details. Follow the steps!

Thank you.