Roe V Wade overturned!!! Leaked, SCOTUS SHOULD BE IMPEACHED

[TimHauck 1,799]

8 hours ago, TheNewGirl said:

Neither one is "BETTER" than the other. 

Stop acting like you're all high and mighty because you're pro-life. 

Shame on you for thinking that giving up a child is EASY. 

JUST in CA in 2020 there were over 50k foster kids. if it's so much easier to adopt, and families are out there looking TO adopt, why are there 50k kids in CA that need homes? 

I agree with most of what you’re saying, but most people looking to adopt want newborns or infants.  There are few newborns or infants in the foster system and there’s a decent chance the ones there are were born to mothers on drugs or alcohol.  And the kids in foster care that are not newborns or infants were often abused and may have behavioral issues.

Now if there were 900k more births than expected, would the demand for adoption still be so high?  No idea.

[TheNewGirl 1,028]

12 hours ago, TimHauck said:

I agree with most of what you’re saying, but most people looking to adopt want newborns or infants.  There are few newborns or infants in the foster system and there’s a decent chance the ones there are were born to mothers on drugs or alcohol.  And the kids in foster care that are not newborns or infants were often abused and may have behavioral issues.

Now if there were 900k more births than expected, would the demand for adoption still be so high?  No idea.

Yes, that's part of my point. 

If it's not an infant or newborn, the rest of them are just left there. If these people REALLY want to adopt, go for the younger kids...or the teenagers that really need someone to love them. 

One of my BFF's has FOUR adopted kids. The first two were to severely addicted mothers, came home as babies on all kinds of medications, one had had surgery just after birth. Short time later she gets a call that birth mom #1 "had another kid" and did she want it? Of course she did. Few years later, she gets a call that birth mom #1 had a baby that's been living with grandma for 5 years and grandma passed away, did she want that 5 year old? Yes. So THREE of her adopted kids have the same mom. 

Adopting is no joke and this was over 20 years ago when she got her first child. I remember her telling me the hoops she had to jump thru and the costs, etc. 

I just wish that pro-lifers would stop acting like this is an easy solution. 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

5 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

Adopting is no joke and this was over 20 years ago when she got her first child. I remember her telling me the hoops she had to jump thru and the costs, etc. 

I just wish that pro-lifers would stop acting like this is an easy solution. 

Maybe it's a solution made difficult for a reason.  Abortion drove demand up, so industry spouted from it.  Then came regulators.  Money, money.

[Masshole 642]

Not a  good month for Massachusetts politicians.    Lizzy Warren shaking like an unhinged lunatic.    Ayanna Pressley is just a  dumb person.     Good god, how do we elect these people???

Pro tip:   If you are pro-choice and you spend your time debating about ectopic pregnancies and rape & incest pregnancies - you are just a dummy or a Kool-aid drinker.     "Hey, we have this massive political and moral issue - let's spend our time arguing about the stuff that leads to less than 1% of it!" (or not at all in the case of ectopic).    It boggles my mind how truly awful our elected representatives are.    Is there anyone who isn't terrible who will run for office?  

 

[DonS 3,067]

On 7/13/2022 at 6:23 PM, jerryskids said:

I'd be interested in your female take on the following:  I believe based on my anecdotal evidence (that is, me) that women (my wife) are more interested in the guy (me and all of the male Geeks) finishing inside of her.  Personally, I'm just as good having her jerk me onto her glorious chesticles, but again that is anecdotal.  But there is something physiological for women having that wonderful splooge inside of them. 

 

That's weird.  Yer wife absolutely BEGS me to make her face and t1ts look like a glazed donut. 

[TheNewGirl 1,028]

On 7/13/2022 at 3:23 PM, jerryskids said:

I'd be interested in your female take on the following:  I believe based on my anecdotal evidence (that is, me) that women (my wife) are more interested in the guy (me and all of the male Geeks) finishing inside of her.  Personally, I'm just as good having her jerk me onto her glorious chesticles, but again that is anecdotal.  But there is something physiological for women having that wonderful splooge inside of them. 

 

I missed this, sorry. 

I guess in my younger years, it mattered to an extent. Thinking back, I used condoms a lot...so it didn't matter if it was inside me or not until I really wanted to actually GET pregnant. But it wasn't something that turned me on or anything like that to know the guy would finish inside at least not that I can remember. From my perspective it was the guy that wanted to finish inside, and didn't like condoms because they "Can't feel anything" or whatever. 

Between pregnancies, I didn't want to go back on the pill, so my husband used condoms when we were also doing family planning or whatever that method is called. 

Now, I don't care where he finishes. 

[jerryskids 5,196]

16 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

I missed this, sorry. 

I guess in my younger years, it mattered to an extent. Thinking back, I used condoms a lot...so it didn't matter if it was inside me or not until I really wanted to actually GET pregnant. But it wasn't something that turned me on or anything like that to know the guy would finish inside at least not that I can remember. From my perspective it was the guy that wanted to finish inside, and didn't like condoms because they "Can't feel anything" or whatever. 

Between pregnancies, I didn't want to go back on the pill, so my husband used condoms when we were also doing family planning or whatever that method is called. 

Now, I don't care where he finishes. 

I asked because I had heard that there was something in semen which causes women to release happy hormones.

[Hawkeye21 1,853]

5 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I asked because I had heard that there was something in semen which causes women to release happy hormones.

That's just something men say to women in order to get laid.  lol

[jerryskids 5,196]

Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

That's just something men say to women in order to get laid.  lol

that and it has protein 

[TheNewGirl 1,028]

10 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I asked because I had heard that there was something in semen which causes women to release happy hormones.

Sounds like "research" a man did. 

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

It ain't real love unless she lets you drop a load in her a$$

[DonS 3,067]

2 hours ago, jerryskids said:

I asked because I had heard that there was something in semen which causes women to release happy hormones.

Must. Resist. Mom. Joke.

 

[TimHauck 1,799]

On 6/24/2022 at 6:30 PM, Mike Honcho said:

He's running the right-wing branch of the court now...stare decris means nothing now.  And ALL the justices during the confirmation said Roe was settled law, and how did that go.  

I'm just going to tag this #mikehonchoright so I can find it quickly in a couple of years when they court hears a case on Obergefell so I can quickly bump it and you can say...'gosh durn it Mike, you were right'

 

 

 

 

[MDC 5,890]

Munoz said he faced an awful predicament with a recent patient who had started to miscarry and developed a dangerous womb infection. The fetus still had signs of a heartbeat, so an immediate abortion — the usual standard of care — would have been illegal under Texas law. 

“We physically watched her get sicker and sicker and sicker” until the fetal heartbeat stopped the next day, “and then we could intervene,” he said. The patient developed complications, required surgery, lost multiple liters of blood and had to be put on a breathing machine “all because we were essentially 24 hours behind.’’

In a study published this month in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, doctors at two Texas hospitals cited the cases of 28 women less than 23 weeks pregnant who were treated for dangerous pregnancies. The doctors noted that all of the women had recommended abortions delayed by nine days because fetal heart activity was detected. Of those, nearly 60% developed severe complications — nearly double the number of complications experienced by patients in other states who had immediate therapeutic abortions. Of eight live births among the Texas cases, seven died within hours. The eighth, born at 24 weeks, had severe complications including brain bleeding, a heart defect, lung disease and intestinal and liver problems.

Link
 

Heckuva job, Trumptards. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,579]

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

 

 

the supreme court is wrong to legalize same sex marriage, the supreme court is wrong to legalize any marriage

marriage should never be a govt contract, and if it is it should be again one of those things under states rights

its not the job of the supreme court to make law

[Voltaire 4,558]

1 hour ago, MDC said:

 

 

A ) SCOTUS didn't make abortion illegal, they returned the decision of how to handle it to the states, which is a correct application of how the Constitution determines who has jurisdiction in making those decisions.

B ) This is confusion on the part of the doctor or of their immediate supervisor since they are unsure how to proceed under a new rules and guideline.  They should have gone ahead with the abortion immediately as Texas law explicitly makes abortion legal in cases like these where the health of the mother is at risk. While Texas and some other states ban abortion in the cases of rape and incest, I am unaware of any state that makes abortion illegal when the mother's life is at risk. https://texasrighttolife.com/life-of-the-mother/

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,515]

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

 

 

I see you fell for it too. 

CNBC is lying to you.   Here is the actual interview in it's ENTIRETY instead of the 18 second soundbite they only wanted you to see and react to: 

 

 

Literally right after CNBC cuts the clip at 18 seconds Cruz starts talking about why overturning it is not a good idea and the problems it will create.

This is yet another example of how your MSM is misleading you.  The problem isn't THEM, it's YOU for not doing your due diligence.  They do this because they know guys like you will just believe anything they tell you, no questions asked.

[craftsman 1,045]

What ever happened to the person who leaked the information they shouldn't have?

[MDC 5,890]

1 minute ago, Voltaire said:

A ) SCOTUS didn't make abortion illegal, they returned the decision of how to handle it to the states, which is a correct application of how the Constitution determines who has jurisdiction in making those decisions.

B ) This is confusion on the part of the doctor or of their immediate supervisor since they are unsure how to proceed under a new rules and guideline.  They should have gone ahead with the abortion immediately as Texas law makes abortion legal in cases like these where the health of the mother is at risk. While Texas and some other states ban abortion in the cases of rape and incest, I am unaware of any state that makes abortion illegal when the mother's life is at risk. https://texasrighttolife.com/life-of-the-mother/

What SCOTUS really did was reverse its earlier decision that women have a right to get an abortion under the 14th amendment. States had already been free to heavily regulate abortion just not to effectively ban it. 

Yes medical providers are confused because the law is unclear and they don’t want to get sued or lose their medical licenses.

[Voltaire 4,558]

3 minutes ago, craftsman said:

What ever happened to the person who leaked the information they shouldn't have?

Nothing. They went undiscovered and got away with it.

[MDC 5,890]

4 minutes ago, craftsman said:

What ever happened to the person who leaked the information they shouldn't have?

Nobody ever cared about that, at all.

[craftsman 1,045]

2 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

Nothing. They went undiscovered and got away with it.

 

I wonder if the situation was reversed if they would be puttng a committee together to find that person.

[craftsman 1,045]

4 minutes ago, MDC said:

Nobody ever cared about that, at all.

It's a shame.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,631]

7 minutes ago, MDC said:

Nobody was told to care  about that, at all.

 

[MDC 5,890]

6 minutes ago, craftsman said:

It's a shame.

Why? The leak was correct. The only people who pretend to care are hack Republicans.

Whatabout the doors?  

[Voltaire 4,558]

12 minutes ago, craftsman said:

 

I wonder if the situation was reversed if they would be puttng a committee together to find that person.

This isn't really a matter for Congressional inquiry, it's internal governance of how SCOTUS operates. Chief Justice Roberts put the lady in charge of SCOTUS security and tasked her with this as well but she seems to have nothing developed. Neither of them asked for help from the FBI as far as I know, I may be wrong..

It changes the trust factor among justices and how freely they handle internal discussions and the wording for pre-released decisions.

[craftsman 1,045]

9 minutes ago, MDC said:

Why? The leak was correct. The only people who pretend to care are hack Republicans.

Whatabout the doors?  

I guess you missed the illegal intimidation tactics employeed against the supreme court justices because of it, including someone headed out to kill one of them.

That said, you made your point, it doesn't matter to you.

[MDC 5,890]

Just now, craftsman said:

I guess you the illegal intimidation tactics employeed against the supreme court justices because of it, including someone headed out to kill one of them.

That said, you made your point, it doesn't matter to you.

I don’t support threatening justices.

[craftsman 1,045]

7 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

This isn't really a matter for Congressional inquiry, it's internal governance of how SCOTUS operates. Chief Justice Roberts put the lady in charge of SCOTUS security and tasked her with this as well but she seems to have nothing developed. Neither of them asked for help from the FBI as far as I know, I may be wrong..

It changes the trust factor among justices and how freely they handle internal discussions and the wording for pre-released decisions.

I've seen overreach happen in the past, and you know darn well that if the tables were turned, the left would make this their agenda.

[Voltaire 4,558]

50 minutes ago, craftsman said:

I've seen overreach happen in the past, and you know darn well that if the tables were turned, the left would make this their agenda.

Of course. The bad guys control the media, big tech, and the other two branches of government (as well as Hollywood, the global corporations, and the Universities) so the seven hands are constantly washing each other.

 

 

[TimHauck 1,799]

5 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I see you fell for it too. 

CNBC is lying to you.   Here is the actual interview in it's ENTIRETY instead of the 18 second soundbite they only wanted you to see and react to: 

 

 

Literally right after CNBC cuts the clip at 18 seconds Cruz starts talking about why overturning it is not a good idea and the problems it will create.

This is yet another example of how your MSM is misleading you.  The problem isn't THEM, it's YOU for not doing your due diligence.  They do this because they know guys like you will just believe anything they tell you, no questions asked.

Lol you act like both sides don’t use short clips without showing the full context…

But honestly I don’t think the full clip really changes anything here.  In the short clip he said he didn’t agree with the Supreme Court decision.  He never said he was against (or for for that matter) gay marriage.

The main discussion earlier in this thread centered on the fact that overturning Roe and “sending it back to the states” opens the door for the Supreme Court to do the same with other decisions such as Obergefell.   The issue isn’t whether or not Ted Cruz is against gay marriage.  It’s if the decision gets overturned then there are politicians that are that would likely try to ban it.

[craftsman 1,045]

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Lol you act like both sides don’t use short clips without showing the full context…

But honestly I don’t think the full clip really changes anything here.  In the short clip he said he didn’t agree with the Supreme Court decision.  He never said he was against (or for for that matter) gay marriage.

The main discussion earlier in this thread centered on the fact that overturning Roe and “sending it back to the states” opens the door for the Supreme Court to do the same with other decisions such as Obergefell.   The issue isn’t whether or not Ted Cruz is against gay marriage.  It’s if the decision gets overturned then there are politicians that are that would likely try to ban it.

So?

[TimHauck 1,799]

1 hour ago, craftsman said:

So?

Setting the country back 10+ years in civil rights is awesome!

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

9 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Setting the country back 10+ years in civil rights is awesome!

So?

[TimmySmith 2,782]

10 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

So?

30 might be better. 

[TimHauck 1,799]

remember when the GC claimed they weren't anti-gay?  good times

[TBayXXXVII 2,116]

21 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

the supreme court is wrong to legalize same sex marriage, the supreme court is wrong to legalize any marriage

marriage should never be a govt contract, and if it is it should be again one of those things under states rights

its not the job of the supreme court to make law

Agree completely.  It's always funny how liberals say we need a new constitution, yet when SCOTUS rules on something... based on the constitution, they're ok with it and hate when Republican's bring it up.

As you said, if we have a separation of church and state, "marriage" is a church issue and should never have been under the federal governmental purview.

[TBayXXXVII 2,116]

Remember when "centrists" weren't hard leftists?  Good times.

[TBayXXXVII 2,116]

15 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Lol you act like both sides don’t use short clips without showing the full context…

But honestly I don’t think the full clip really changes anything here.  In the short clip he said he didn’t agree with the Supreme Court decision.  He never said he was against (or for for that matter) gay marriage.

The main discussion earlier in this thread centered on the fact that overturning Roe and “sending it back to the states” opens the door for the Supreme Court to do the same with other decisions such as Obergefell.   The issue isn’t whether or not Ted Cruz is against gay marriage.  It’s if the decision gets overturned then there are politicians that are that would likely try to ban it.

Yeah, I believe that's called states rights.  I wonder where they came up with that.  

[Baker Boy 1,485]

15 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Lol you act like both sides don’t use short clips without showing the full context…

But honestly I don’t think the full clip really changes anything here.  In the short clip he said he didn’t agree with the Supreme Court decision.  He never said he was against (or for for that matter) gay marriage.

The main discussion earlier in this thread centered on the fact that overturning Roe and “sending it back to the states” opens the door for the Supreme Court to do the same with other decisions such as Obergefell.   The issue isn’t whether or not Ted Cruz is against gay marriage.  It’s if the decision gets overturned then there are politicians that are that would likely try to ban it.

Congress can codify these decisions any time they want, I wonder why they don’t.