Steve Benson used to be one of the most militant anti-choice cartoonists out there. He once drew a picture of a Planned Parenthood Clinic as a Nazi Death Camp. ( Over the entrance was a sign that read. ’Reich to Choose." )
Imagine putting that cowboy through the same rope trick to purchase a gun. They’d be up in arms over it. But this is just women, not a nice shiny toy, so who cares?
In response to those comments about health care for the mother during pregnancy, the conservatives fighting against abortions are not for health care, they are pro-birth. If the child is not healthy it is not a concern. Just that it is born.The clinics for women in Texas were for women’s health, which is now not available as most of the clinics are closed. Access, in many cases, is not available, and many cannot afford it as they have no health coverage because of the Texas government.
Are you talking about a babies right to die from gun fire? Or are you talking about a fetus which is not “her body” but is attached and cannot live without it? You have a very confusing and angry argument. The argument that she has the “right to choose what she does to her own body” doesn’t hold up for old white men. She does not have the right to do what they do to their body. She actually CAN put illegal drugs in her own body. That is why there is an ineffectual war on drugs. I know that old white men don’t want her to have control over her body. Or what grows in it, what she puts in it, what comes out of it, what she things, who she prays to, and how much she can make. But you are still in the party of small government right?
The fetus requires a woman to undergo massive changes and have great responsibility. Pregnancy and childbirth carry great risks. But you think a woman should just deal with it.Not to mention abortions blocked for non-viable fetuses because of stupid Catholic “laws” in Ireland and Brazil.
The U.S. Suoreme Court determines what the U.S. Constitution says and means. It does so based on what is known as judicial review—a tested and accepted bedrock principle that has been firmly in place since the early days of the Republic.
.
In this particular ase, the High Court ruled that the Texas law under review: .
1. was a complete sham;
.2. was not designed to protect women but, rather, was expressly put in place in order to make it difficult for women to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion by placing an unlawful burden on them in their effort to exercise that right; and
.3. was completely unpersuasive in its claim that the law would protect women from medical malpractice (with even the law’s proponents admitting in oral arguments that they could not point to a single example where it had supposedly done so).._____.
Read the actual decision instead of compulsively parroting anti-abortion gospel bullet points.
Focus, please. This is not about the Second Amendment. Geezus..
I directed the comment to you because it was you who asserted (and I quote):.
" . . . [T]he argument that [a woman] has the “right to choose what she does to her own body” doesn’t hold up. She does not have that right. ".
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, you are wrong. Women do, in fact, have the held-up constitutional right to abortion.
.
Read the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent strike down of unconstitutional anti-abortion laws in Texas, Wisconsin and Mississippi: “Supreme Court Spurns Abortion Restrictions in Two More States,” Reuters, 28 June 2016,http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-abortion-idUSKCN0ZE1MJ.
Read case-law history on the matter of f judicial review regarding what the U.S. Constitution means when iit comes to the High Court’s role in determining the constitutionality of acts by branches of the federal government: Marbury v. Madison, 1803
How can something that you call “oh so innocuous” be “disturbing through and through”? (unless, of course, you regard the affirmed constitutional right of women to control their bodies and their reproductive choices to be “disturbing”).
Combatcarl almost 8 years ago
Disturbing, through and through….
Simon_Jester almost 8 years ago
Steve Benson used to be one of the most militant anti-choice cartoonists out there. He once drew a picture of a Planned Parenthood Clinic as a Nazi Death Camp. ( Over the entrance was a sign that read. ’Reich to Choose." )
fjames01 almost 8 years ago
Just wondering, why do they call it pro-choice instead of pro-abortion?
Mr. Blawt almost 8 years ago
Imagine putting that cowboy through the same rope trick to purchase a gun. They’d be up in arms over it. But this is just women, not a nice shiny toy, so who cares?
Frankfreak almost 8 years ago
In response to those comments about health care for the mother during pregnancy, the conservatives fighting against abortions are not for health care, they are pro-birth. If the child is not healthy it is not a concern. Just that it is born.The clinics for women in Texas were for women’s health, which is now not available as most of the clinics are closed. Access, in many cases, is not available, and many cannot afford it as they have no health coverage because of the Texas government.
Mr. Blawt almost 8 years ago
Are you talking about a babies right to die from gun fire? Or are you talking about a fetus which is not “her body” but is attached and cannot live without it? You have a very confusing and angry argument. The argument that she has the “right to choose what she does to her own body” doesn’t hold up for old white men. She does not have the right to do what they do to their body. She actually CAN put illegal drugs in her own body. That is why there is an ineffectual war on drugs. I know that old white men don’t want her to have control over her body. Or what grows in it, what she puts in it, what comes out of it, what she things, who she prays to, and how much she can make. But you are still in the party of small government right?
Lyman Elliott Premium Member almost 8 years ago
George Carlin said it best: “If you’re pre-born you’re OK, if you’re pre-school you’re ******.”
Nantucket Premium Member almost 8 years ago
The fetus requires a woman to undergo massive changes and have great responsibility. Pregnancy and childbirth carry great risks. But you think a woman should just deal with it.Not to mention abortions blocked for non-viable fetuses because of stupid Catholic “laws” in Ireland and Brazil.
stevebenson almost 8 years ago
The U.S. Suoreme Court determines what the U.S. Constitution says and means. It does so based on what is known as judicial review—a tested and accepted bedrock principle that has been firmly in place since the early days of the Republic.
.
In this particular ase, the High Court ruled that the Texas law under review: .
1. was a complete sham;
.2. was not designed to protect women but, rather, was expressly put in place in order to make it difficult for women to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion by placing an unlawful burden on them in their effort to exercise that right; and
.3. was completely unpersuasive in its claim that the law would protect women from medical malpractice (with even the law’s proponents admitting in oral arguments that they could not point to a single example where it had supposedly done so).._____.
Read the actual decision instead of compulsively parroting anti-abortion gospel bullet points.
stevebenson almost 8 years ago
The U.S. Constitution doesn’t even address the issue of abortion, much less declare that it is murder.
.
You have no case-law precedent from the highest interpreter of the U.S. Constitution—i.e., the U.S. Supreme Court—that declares abortion to be murder.
.
You are up a creek without a legal paddle in your already-lost battle.
stevebenson almost 8 years ago
Earth to Dag:
.
Focus, please. This is not about the Second Amendment. Geezus..
I directed the comment to you because it was you who asserted (and I quote):.
" . . . [T]he argument that [a woman] has the “right to choose what she does to her own body” doesn’t hold up. She does not have that right. ".
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, you are wrong. Women do, in fact, have the held-up constitutional right to abortion.
.
Read the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent strike down of unconstitutional anti-abortion laws in Texas, Wisconsin and Mississippi: “Supreme Court Spurns Abortion Restrictions in Two More States,” Reuters, 28 June 2016,http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-abortion-idUSKCN0ZE1MJ.
Read case-law history on the matter of f judicial review regarding what the U.S. Constitution means when iit comes to the High Court’s role in determining the constitutionality of acts by branches of the federal government: Marbury v. Madison, 1803
.
Read Roe v. Wade.
.
Read, period.
stevebenson almost 8 years ago
How can something that you call “oh so innocuous” be “disturbing through and through”? (unless, of course, you regard the affirmed constitutional right of women to control their bodies and their reproductive choices to be “disturbing”).