It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Rolls Back Obama’s Birth Control Coverage Rule

page: 16
22
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

it's more like some in the pro-life are now thinking that it would be the better way to get abortion banned faster..




posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

at least now, thanks to the feminists, she can run if she found herself in a position that she has to!! at least she has the opportunity to work if an extra paycheck is needed. at least if you pass from this earth early, most of the wealth that you have accumulated will pass into her hands instead of a male guardian who might, if she lucky, provide her enough to survive on! at least there is more reliable birth control that can be accessed and you aren't finding yourself with 6, or 8, or 10, or more little hungry mouths to feed!!!



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

HOSTAGES make LOUSY companions , I am more intelligent.
Her paintings are more jovial and she would readily attack any feminists because BELIEVE it or not I am the nice one here.
NEVER wanted kids ,THE TOYS ARE MINE!
ABSTENTION you WEAK FOOLS!
USE IT ,I did
ALREADY killed by Desert Storm by about 30 things, I am poor as a result.
SHE has a nominal family that will take her after I croak soon.
My Brother and sister probably won't really care after 2 years.
edit on 11-10-2017 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-10-2017 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

I know so, you will be surprised that Rowe vs Wade will be repealed then.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: kaylaluv

I know so, you will be surprised that Rowe vs Wade will be repealed then.


Are you familiar with wire coat hangers? They make a great abortion tool (sarc) when abortions aren't done safely and legally.

No, Roe vs Wade won't be repealed.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Keep in mind, Republican's/Conservatives do not believe that a woman has a right to safe sex if she can't afford it. Men, on the other hand, are absolutely entitled to it as a basic human condition (see mandatory healthcare coverage of Viagra).



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Use contraception you purchase yourself or set up adoption. Coat hanger an unborn baby and face God when you die with blood on your hands.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



So you think repealing a law on abortion requires the unborn to be given constitutional rights?


You tell me. What possible justification can they have to make abortion illegal without justifying the protection of the unborn?



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Seriously fella, are you really that stubborn that you can't admit the folly of your argument.

If a constitutional amendment is required to repeal Rowe vs Wade, why in the hell was one not required to make a decision on Rowe vs Wade in the first place????! In Rowe vs Wade the "potentiality of human life" is specifically cited as well as the 'trimester framework' which was only negated in 1992. How could that decision possibly be made without a constitutional amendment??? 3rd trimester dos not qualify as "born".

More importantly how come abortion was illegal in most states before Roe vs Wade without a constitutional amendment???

Further, why was the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision not wrapped in a decision to amend the constitution????

Get a grip.




edit on 12/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

I actually believe that work and healthcare coverage should be completely separate entities.

Why should employment and healthcare share anything in common?

I mean ... even if you work in the healthcare industry?

wtf?



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


I don't recall a constitutional amendment being needed to find that state enacted laws refusing to allow mixed races or same sex couples to marry were unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court doesn't make laws or write constitutional amendments. They determine whether or not a law is constitutional or unconstitutional. Roe V Wade struck down an unconstitutional law.


On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Roe v. Wade. That same day, the Court also decided Doe v. Bolton. In Roe, the Court struck down a Texas abortion law. In Doe, the Court threw out the restrictions on abortion in a more liberal Georgia law.


Can you give me an example of a case that would compel SCOTUS to reverse Roe V Wade without arguing in defense of the unborn?


edit on 12-10-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

It's for others to argue the case for overturning Roe vs Wade - i happen to think it was about right. I am just pointing out your ridiculous argument that overturning it would require a change to the constitution.

The SC already DID argue the case for the unborn - In Roe vs Wade! No constitutional amendment required.

Tell me how the SC came to a decision that gave protection to the unborn in the 3rd trimester and specifically referenced the 'potentiality of human life' without a constitutional amendment. Last I checked, the 3rd trimester does not equal "born".


edit on 12/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




It's for others to argue the case for overturning Roe vs Wade - i happen to think it was about right. I am just pointing out your ridiculous argument that overturning it would require a change to the constitution.


It's not just me who thinks that. It's the GOP! A constitutional amendment, for the specific purpose of overturning Roe V Wade is part of their party platform.

SCOTUS ruled that anti-abortion laws were unconstitutional. Roe V Wade is a ruling. Someone has to present SCOTUS with a new argument that would compel them to reverse their ruling.




The SC already DID argue the case for the unborn - In Roe vs Wade! No constitutional amendment required.


No it didn't. It argued for the States interest in protecting potential life. It didn't argue that the unborn have constitutional rights.



It's for others to argue the case for overturning Roe vs Wade


No it's not. You're the one mocking me for saying it can't be done without a constitutional amendment. Since you're so sure that Roe V Wade can be overturned, with sympathetic justices, what kind of case do you think would do it?


edit on 12-10-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

You didn't explain how the SC decided to take the unborn into account in Roe vs Wade without a constitutional amendment. How come?
edit on 12/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


It didn't. It argued for the state's right to protect potential life past viability. Not that potential life had constitutional rights.




edit on 12-10-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth


It didn't. It argued for the state's right to protect potential life. Not that potential life had constitutional rights.





Correct - because it did not need to argue that potential life had constitutional rights.
It made the decision, one that stood for 20 years before the next decision. No constitutional amendment needed.
Glad we finally got there.
edit on 12/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Fowlerstoad


I actually believe that work and healthcare coverage should be completely separate entities.

Why should employment and healthcare share anything in common?


Should an employer not wish the best health for its employees, those who work for it, help keep it functioning, and help bring in revenue?

Sounds like a good business practice.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




Correct - because it did not need to argue that potential life had constitutional rights.


Potential life doesn't have constitutional rights. Only those persons born do. The states have the right to preserve potential human life after viability.

Abortion is and continues to be illegal after viability in every state. It would require a constitutional amendment to change that.


edit on 12-10-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth




Correct - because it did not need to argue that potential life had constitutional rights.


Potential life doesn't have constitutional rights. Only those persons born do. The states have the right to preserve potential human life after viability.

Abortion is and continues to be illegal after viability in every state. It would require a constitutional amendment to change that.



Jeez... after viability does not mean born.
You just canned your own argument.
Give it up man.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


No, it means that after viability a baby must be born, and then has constitutional rights, rather than be killed to save the mother. It means C-Section, instead of abortion, where the woman's life is in danger, but the fetus is healthy.

In the US the unborn do not enjoy constitutional rights. Period! If that were not true, why would Ron Paul do this?

Paul introduces bill to give unborn children constitutional rights


The presidential candidate has introduced legislation that would give unborn children equal protection under the law as part of the 14th Amendment, giving them the same rights as "born" individuals. 


Give it up UK lady!




edit on 12-10-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join