Amateur Hour Continues

[RockyTop85]

There's been significant erosion, but Roe did have a balancing test (mother's privacy right vs. an increasing state interest in the prenatal life).

How do you propose turning the latter over to the states? They can and are taking it to the extreme end (Alabama), effectively voiding the woman's right.

Like I said, it’s not a pet issue of mine, so maybe I’m missing the point of what you’re asking. If so, I apologize.

I think of it as effectively setting a bar, beneath which the state cannot exert control but beyond which they can do whatever they want.

Some states, like Alabama, chafe that Casey’s Bar is too high. I don’t think that chafing is wholly unwarranted.

All I’m saying is to lower the bar. States that still want to allow abortions at present levels or expand access to abortions will still be able to. States that don’t, won’t have to, except whatever fundamental level is beneath the bar.

I don’t know how low the bar should be set, but it needs to at least restrict states from eliminating access for women with health concerns or in instances of rape, IMO.

I, personally, just do not value the woman’s right to privacy as highly as some. It seems to be a euphemism for allowing abortion in instances where a child is simply unwanted. To me, whether you have to make that consideration at the time of consent or allows them to defer it for a certain amount of time after conception is something that should be decided by the states.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Like I said, it’s not a pet issue of mine, so maybe I’m missing the point of what you’re asking. If so, I apologize.

I think of it as effectively setting a bar, beneath which the state cannot exert control but beyond which they can do whatever they want.

Some states, like Alabama, chafe that Casey’s Bar is too high. I don’t think that chafing is wholly unwarranted.

All I’m saying is to lower the bar. States that still want to allow abortions at present levels or expand access to abortions will still be able to. States that don’t, won’t have to, except whatever fundamental level is beneath the bar.

I don’t know how low the bar should be set, but it needs to at least restrict states from eliminating access for women with health concerns or in instances of rape, IMO.

I, personally, just do not value the woman’s right to privacy as highly as some. It seems to be a euphemism for allowing abortion in instances where a child is simply unwanted. To me, whether you have to make that consideration at the time of consent or allows them to defer it for a certain amount of time after conception is something that should be decided by the states.

In addition to the legal aspects, which I completely believe on issues like this should be left to the states, how about fiscal policy?

If it’s a state issue it’s a state issue. Including funding. If a state’s population decides they want to allow this I think that’s their right. If I’m opposed to a state’s politics I’ll move. I’m fine with that.

I made another post where I think the feds are already walking on their own codifying of a fetus’s human status being in conflict. Frankly I don’t think the feds are equipped to provide a one size fits all solution on abortion. Thus I think the fed policy should be “you want it then set policy... and pay for it out of your own state’s budget.

What say ye?

 

[RockyTop85]

You'll find posts of mine wondering why she was never asked why he went there. I don't doubt that some incredibly shady shizz was going on there that was covered up buy both parties.

So you admit he’s done at least as much to surrender the benefit of the doubt as they did, and you think they reached the point where it was fair to assume “shady shiz” was going on, despite the necessary proof being unavailable.

Sounds like we’re in total agreement.

 

[AM64]

In addition to the legal aspects, which I completely believe on issues like this should be left to the states, how about fiscal policy?

If it’s a state issue it’s a state issue. Including funding. If a state’s population decides they want to allow this I think that’s their right. If I’m opposed to a state’s politics I’ll move. I’m fine with that.

I made another post where I think the feds are already walking on their own codifying of a fetus’s human status being in conflict. Frankly I don’t think the feds are equipped to provide a one size fits all solution on abortion. Thus I think the fed policy should be “you want it then set policy... and pay for it out of your own state’s budget.

What say ye?

In a country of 300+ million real citizens and illegal change with wildly disparate regional differences, one size government will never fit all. It will simply ensure the whole populace exists in states somewhere between dislike and rage. Federalism has boiled the melting pot, but that melting pot has a lid clamped on and no relief valve right now. AOC may be right about twelve years, but just not for the reason she thinks.

 

[hog88]

So you admit he’s done at least as much to surrender the benefit of the doubt as they did, and you think they reached the point where it was fair to assume “shady shiz” was going on, despite the necessary proof being unavailable.

Sounds like we’re in total agreement.

There was a mountain of unexplained crap that went on in Libya/Benghazi compared to the rabbit turds you guys keep slinging. But keep on slinging.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

Hilarious (but likely true) thread

The only thing doctored in this video is herself with Vodka.

 

[lawgator1]

.

 

[McDad]

.View attachment 206816

That's pretty good. A rare win for you, LG. Congrats.

 

[Velo Vol]

Like I said, it’s not a pet issue of mine, so maybe I’m missing the point of what you’re asking. If so, I apologize.

I think of it as effectively setting a bar, beneath which the state cannot exert control but beyond which they can do whatever they want.

Some states, like Alabama, chafe that Casey’s Bar is too high. I don’t think that chafing is wholly unwarranted.

All I’m saying is to lower the bar. States that still want to allow abortions at present levels or expand access to abortions will still be able to. States that don’t, won’t have to, except whatever fundamental level is beneath the bar.

I don’t know how low the bar should be set, but it needs to at least restrict states from eliminating access for women with health concerns or in instances of rape, IMO.

I, personally, just do not value the woman’s right to privacy as highly as some. It seems to be a euphemism for allowing abortion in instances where a child is simply unwanted. To me, whether you have to make that consideration at the time of consent or allows them to defer it for a certain amount of time after conception is something that should be decided by the states.

I'm picking up on that now.

Abortion isn't one of my core interests, however your suggestion that Roe isn't necessarily dead in this court got me to thinking about it and what an overturning would do to the Court's legitimacy.

As far as a more narrowly tailored decision goes, I'm not sure how much more space there is to bend but not break on Roe.

Casey strikes me as a moderate decision in line with public opinion--it allows reasonable restrictions (not abortion on demand), but a woman who wants an abortion can get one

 

[Velo Vol]

 

[Septic]

The only thing doctored in this video is herself with Vodka.

Lol, you fell for it again. Trump and his lowrent minions are the biggest purveyors of fake news in the land.

 

[Matt2496]

House Judiciary Chairman Nadler Nearly Faints at NYC Event

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

Lol, you fell for it again. Trump and his lowrent minions are the biggest purveyors of fake news in the land.

BS. Does he control Google too? Because any video of her during this sitdown interview on youtube I can find sounds exactly the same.

 

[Septic]

BS. Does he control Google too? Because any video of her during this sitdown interview on youtube I can find sounds exactly the same.

Lol, you're so easily duped. This is what your party thinks of you, too dim to connect the dots.

You guys are clowns.

Don't feel too bad though, Ding dongs like Rudy G had to walk it back on his Twitter today as well.

 

[lawgator1]

Got to be a joke

 

[evillawyer]

Got to be a joke

 

[evillawyer]

Where are all my redhatters who claimed Obama thought he was a king?

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

Lol, you're so easily duped. This is what your party thinks of you, too dim to connect the dots.

You guys are clowns.

Don't feel too bad though, Ding dongs like Rudy G had to walk it back on his Twitter today as well.

The NYT is BS too. I didn't mention Twitter or Facebook. I said youtube. You know, that video server that has original video.

 

[hog88]

Where are all my redhatters who claimed Obama thought he was a king?

Sounds to me the gum flapper is blasting congress not the administration.

I wonder why he didn't push for congress to reclaim it's power when the Rs had control?

 

[Hunerwadel]

It they’re that put out by our process, and you also, why not just move to a prop vote state?

No one should have to move in order for their vote to count. Why not just assign my vote to to person I actually voted for?

 

[golfballs]

Lol, you fell for it again. Trump and his lowrent minions are the biggest purveyors of fake news in the land.

Not sure what planet you've been logging on to VN from for the last two years, but you clearly ignore the MUH Russiagate and the Trump Hysteria thread as much as possible.

 

[golfballs]

How long ago was it that the media had a conniption over the 'DOCTORED' (gasp) video of Joe Biden sniffing himself. Lmao

 

[NorthDallas40]

No one should have to move to get their vote counted. Why not just assign my vote to to person I actually voted for?

It is assigned to the person you voted for. In your state of residence. Working as intended our system was never set up for direct election of POTUS by “the people”... thank God!

 

[golfballs]

It's nothing new that Pelosi stammers and acts lost during press conferences. She's been doing it for years.

 

[evillawyer]

Pelosi is an obstructionist! ... but I won't sign anything into law until you stop congressional oversight.