Jump to content

Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade in landmark opinion


thetragichippy

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, 45thAND46thSucks said:

Heard the same thing about guns if the D's get their way, now R's are on board with their proposals... SMH, in 1 ear out the other 

If you can't see that they want a single payer system, you're not paying attention.

They actually come out and say that's what they want, smh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 45thAND46thSucks said:

I don't even recall a plan put forth... that says alot right there

You would think something millions of American are supposedly suffering due to Mr. Obama he'd try to fix.... lol duped fools

Personally, I don't want a plan from any politician, you seem to be a sheep in need of a plan from the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I like my insurance, we have the best system in the world.

Why do you think billionaires come here when they need medical care?

I'd guess maybe better surgeons etc, definitely ain't price

Same can be said about ppl leaving this country to go elsewhere for procedures... dental etc, I've heard Mexico has way cheaper dental 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Unwoke said:

Wrong! Healthy 22 yr olds on a individual policy do not pay the same as your Buttermilk A**. They pay more than before the Unaffordable Care Act was implemented but not the same as you.
 

 Hey genius, why did the government have to pass a law to force companies to do what their purpose was in the 1st place? 

You are so wrong that it's not even funny. 

What percentage of people actually buy an individual policy?  Don't worry, I'll do you're legwork for you.  It's less than 10%.  But if that's what you want to base your opinion on, so be it.  

Because they wanted to take on only the customers that would allow them to make the highest profits.  The government (rightfully) said that you're gonna have to take the good with the bad... kinda like car insurance companies have to do with bad drivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

You are so wrong that it's not even funny. 

What percentage of people actually buy an individual policy?  Don't worry, I'll do you're legwork for you.  It's less than 10%.  But if that's what you want to base your opinion on, so be it.  

Because they wanted to take on only the customers that would allow them to make the highest profits.  The government (rightfully) said that you're gonna have to take the good with the bad... kinda like car insurance companies have to do with bad drivers.

Your hilarious! Do the numbers on a healthy family versus a family with preexisting conditions like cancer. Their premiums will be much higher.

As far as car insurance. Go get a policy after having 3 wrecks in 3 years an their all your fault versus some who has a clean driving record. I promise you the high risk individual is about to get Gouged on his rates deservingly so. 
 

Oh an by the way providers ( Doctor Groups) aren’t obligated to take crap insurance policies so your point is moot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some info from Justice Aleto's majority opinion:  "We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.  Roe and Casey must be overturned...  ...and the authority to regulate must be returned to the people and their elected representatives."

This is upholding the 10th Amendment.  Those that are against this opinion clearly shows how Un-American and Anti-Constitution these people are.  

I've always said here that the Congress never passed an abortion law.  And since there was no right to an abortion in the Constitution, it was clearly made up out of thin air.  

Anyone notice Antifa is involved in the not-so peaceful protest?!   Plus -- anyone notice that the FBI and the Attorney General is no where to be found concerning this violence??!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 45thAND46thSucks said:

If this plan is so bad for so many Americans why didn't the last administration abolish it and put forth something new? I mean they ran on getting rid of it,  R's held all 3 branches for 2 years and didnt do squat with it... yeah, yeah i know RINO's to blame...hell even SCOTUS ruled in favor to keep it amid lawsuits 

"America first president" making all yall suffer cause his plan was never announced LOL

Mr. Obama still living in yalls head almost 6 years later 😎

This is the hidden content, please

Even you must realize that to passed legislation, you have to have the votes. It takes at least 60 votes in the Senate to override the filibuster. It is the same reason now that even though the Democrats have a one vote majority in the Senate, they cannot get any legislation passed without at least some Republican support.

Every single Republican could vote for overturning Obamacare and it still cannot get to the president’s desk.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Reagan said:

Some info from Justice Aleto's majority opinion:  "We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.  Roe and Casey must be overturned...  ...and the authority to regulate must be returned to the people and their elected representatives."

This is upholding the 10th Amendment.  Those that are against this opinion clearly shows how Un-American and Anti-Constitution these people are.  

I've always said here that the Congress never passed an abortion law.  And since there was no right to an abortion in the Constitution, it was clearly made up out of thin air.  

Anyone notice Antifa is involved in the not-so peaceful protest?!   Plus -- anyone notice that the FBI and the Attorney General is no where to be found concerning this violence??!!

There is a constitutional (and I think sometimes controversial) principle call substantive  due process. That is where the Court rules that you have a right when that right is not exactly spelled out in some part of the Constitution. It is not a literal translation of the Constitution but a subjective, kind of, we think this may be what they meant or would say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Even you must realize that to passed legislation, you have to have the votes. It takes at least 60 votes in the Senate to override the filibuster. It is the same reason now that even though the Democrats have a one vote majority in the Senate, they cannot get any legislation passed without at least some Republican support.

Every single Republican could vote for overturning Obamacare and it still cannot get to the president’s desk.

 

I understand how it works,  you'd think putting forth something to even get to vote would be logical... I guess Conalds excuse could be it wouldn't pass anyway.. campaign promises failed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2022 at 9:16 AM, LumRaiderFan said:

So you’re saying we’ve become such a debased irresponsible society that the mechanism to kill babies in the womb on demand should stay in place?

Serious question.

I’m saying that there will be drastically more unwanted babies than there were before Roe vs. Wade, and your question of “how did we manage all of the unwanted babies before 1973” is irrelevant.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 45thAND46thSucks said:

Is that what this conversation is about? Clown couldn't do what majority of presidents do= win re election bid 🤣 

No, the conversation was pointing out that you really don’t have a grasp of what happens in Washington, even though you work so hard to make it look like you do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2022 at 7:33 AM, Unwoke said:

I am not going to speculate on hypotheticals but I believe the next step for States is to find a way to streamline adoptions and lower costs for families wanting to adopt. I believe that can be accomplished. There is a demand for families wanting to adopt children. 

That will help some.  But I don’t believe the demand for cheap adoptions will come close to keeping up with the amount of unwanted babies, so they’re going to have to figure out some other ways to take care of them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

I’m saying that there will be drastically more unwanted babies than there were before Roe vs. Wade, and your question of “how did we manage all of the unwanted babies before 1973” is irrelevant.  

You may be right but all I know is the answer to the problem you think will come is not to kill the unborn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,207
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    JBarry68
    Newest Member
    JBarry68
    Joined



  • Posts

    • That should tell everyone something pretty clearly. Does anyone really think BH is recruiting elementary kids, to get them to transfer in Jr. high? Seriously? Here is the "dirty little secret" about BH: Most people move to the district for a quality living environment to raise their young family, and benefit from the outstanding acedemics at BH. Even If all athlectics suddenly disappeared from BH, people would still want their kids in the district. If thats not enough to convince anyone, and BH really was determined to recruit, first step would be to have open enrollemnt. It is closed.        Yes, I get it, no one ever wants to give BH the benefit of the doubt on anything. Some of the accusations are beyond ridiculous though. This paranoia the BH critics are afflicted with is not just sad, its flat out laughable.     
    • Opting is always an option. Are they considering any BC assistants? Highly qualified after that season they put up. 
    • Be that as it may, only time will tell. Hide and watch. Don’t be surprised if the next HC hire uses his own recipe. That happens more than not historically. I am not arguing the point that Hooks & CT had a winning combination that could’ve been carried over. I’m saying that finding someone to do that is not going to be as easy as one might think. Tell me again why Saban’s replacement, who even has Saban’s assistance if he wants it, just lost another game to an unranked team and has taken the Tide out of playoff contention? Why wouldn’t he just follow the success of possibly the greatest college football coach ever lived? 
    • We've acknowledged having 2 HOF coaches hasn't been like most other schools. So why everyone jumps to the conclusion it wouldn't work here is beyond my comprehension. I see it carry over with these other hires. Gilmer, Aledo, North Shore, Austin Westlake. Next man up that continues the system in place has instant success. Matter fact there was 2 rookie HC that won the state championship the same year we handed over the keys. Same book. Same recipe. Better ingredients.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...