Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Men have a part- no doubt. Absentee Fathers are a disgrace. However, ultimately the woman has the baby- and it's her choice to kill it. You make some valid points, but It's very difficult to justify killing innocent babies.
No, not just a 'part' the man has 50% of the responsibility and I don't want to hear about 'irresistible urges' or in the 'throes of passion'. Keep your trousers zipped and have sex responsibly and unwanted pregnancies don't happen.
That fallacious claim of your has been addressed dozens of times in this thread
No, it hasn't.
Outpatient ambulatory surgery centers that have MALE patients have to meet state-legislated minimum medical and facilities standards, but SCOTUS has now ruled that abortion centers that perform surgical procedures on WOMEN do not have to. That's a clear violation of women's 14th Amendment right to equal protection.
Explain that.
Explain why SCOTUS has ruled that MEN retain their 14th Amendment right to equal protection, but WOMEN do not.
Actually, my opinion is scientific. Our doctors are the ones who have justified the political left's persuasion that the unborn child is not a child at all. Makes it so much easier doesn't it?
These are the doctors who cannot cure a simple virus. These are the doctors who cannot repair the most simple of human anatomy. The inner ear is a perfect example. They have no clue. The heart? Sure they can replace valves but they really don't know what makes it work or it's relationship with the brain. The brain, which is beyond any science.
And the same doctors who possibly may have sentenced the human race to much earlier deaths because of their over prescribing of antibiotics which has ushered in new strains of bacteria that we have NO antibiotics for.
These useful idiots are the ones telling you that unborn child is not a human being.
What is it like to be you, is it like being drunk all the time?
Wow, drunk all the time?
Actually, your opinion is not scientific. And you can pound sand claiming it is, but it isn't.
SCOTUS as ruled that abortion facilities do not have to meet the same sanitation standards that apply to all other surgical facilities - including those facilities where circumcisions are performed. I wonder how the feminists feel about this gender discrepancy?
SCOTUS has ruled that abortion facilities do not have to meet the same sanitation standards that apply to all other surgical facilities - including those facilities where circumcisions are performed. I wonder how the feminists feel about this gender discrepancy?
They're clearly too stupid to give a damn about the very serious consequences of eviscerating women's 14th Amendment right to equal protection in every area covered by state laws.
I cannot believe how short-sighted and foolish people are. They actually celebrate eliminating women's Constitutional rights. WTF?!?
SCOTUS as ruled that abortion facilities do not have to meet the same sanitation standards that apply to all other surgical facilities - including those facilities where circumcisions are performed. I wonder how the feminists feel about this gender discrepancy?
No, SCOTUS has ruled that clinics that provide abortions are not necessarily surgical facilities, and therefore do not have comply with the standards of surgical facilities.
And not all clinics that provide circumcisions are surgical facilities, and therefore do not have to comply with the standards of surgical facilities.
No, SCOTUS has ruled that clinics that provide abortions are not necessarily surgical facilities, and therefore do not have comply with the standards of surgical facilities.
And the clinics that DO perform surgical abortions? What are the requirements for those facilities?
Did SCOTUS preserve women's 14th Amendment right to equal protection at those facilities?
Okay, so the SCOTUS is limited to only taking actions that 3/4 of the states strongly disagree with. Their decisions still have absolute power until an Amendment can be ratified -- and needing 3/4 majority of states for it's actions to be overridden makes the Supreme Court vastly more powerful than the President or Congress. It makes them the most powerful entity in the nation by a giant margin.
It also means that for every issue with more than 25% support in favor, the Supreme Court holds ultimate and unimpeachable power. Obviously, things like abortion rights and gun rights and gay rights are issues where the Supreme Court's decisions will never be overridden. The nation is too evenly divided on these and countless other issues.
3/4 of the states requires well less than half the population.
And you can always do it the way the founding fathers did. Just start over from scratch.
"The two claims here are very closely related. They are two parts of the same bill. They both impose new requirements on abortion clinics. They are justified by the State on the same ground, protection of the safety of women seeking abortions."
SCOTUS, being familiar with the Constitution, knew very well the reference was to both the state's 10th Amendment right to govern, and their citizens' 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the [state's] laws.
And Thomas actually alluded to the majority's egregious refusal to recognize very clearly enumerated Constitutional rights in his dissent:
The Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution.
...SCOTUS, in this ruling, very clearly set the horrendous legal precedent that women no longer have the 14th Amendment right to equal protection.
Hope that's what you wanted, lefties, because THAT'S what you just got.
You claimed that Texas brought up the 14th amendment in the court case. Please show the court records to back up your claim. I read the supreme court opinion and didn't see it mentioned at all, so maybe you can show me where it is.
"IF" and only "IF" the Supreme Court had held that a person has a constitutional right to use alcohol could it be considered the same as abortion, there is a significant difference.
Gays have a constitutional right to marry even though the word "gay" is not found in the constitution, however you cannot infer from that that a person has a constitutional right to marry a goat
Well why not? Zoophiles are people too, are they not? The only limiting factor is that the animal they love and wish to marry is not able to express clear consent. That's the only sticking point I can see. Still, equal protection under the law may very well apply in this case. It absolutely applies to polygamy -- whether that's one man and ten women or one woman and ten men or ten men and ten women.
I'm very Libertarian on the issue of gay marriage and marriage of any kind. The word marriage is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. I think that governments should stay out of the matter entirely. For certain, the federal government has no business mucking around with marriage. How on earth does "interstate commerce" apply to marriage? Government involvement in marriage is just making a mess of things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
