Rants and WTF are you talking about and Coronavirus!

[Mr Ho]

I am very certain that women will appreciate the opinion of us here who are so much into buying women for our sexual pleasure LOL!

[Mr Ho]

I agree that a right to privacy (and therefore a right to an abortion) based on "penumbral rights" supposedly deriving from the Constitution is sketchy. But, that doesn't change the fact that this is the first time in the history of American jurisprudence that a constitutional right, after having been acknowledged, was subsequently taken away. That makes this ruling uniquely controversial. There's always been controversial cases, and there will be more. But there's never been a ruling like this one. There hasn't been another one like it ever (taking a constitutional right away). Now on the other hand, and subsequent to Roe v. Wade, several other Supreme Court rulings established other constitutional rights derived from a "right to privacy". Are those rights now too in jeopardy? Many think so, especially after what Clarence Thomas said in his concurring opinion (that those too should be revisited). Justices Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett clearly lied during their confirmation hearings (surprise, surprise) regarding their commitment to the longstanding principle of stare decisis (and Roe v. Wade being settled law), and they did so while under oath. There has been some talk of holding them accountable for their lying through their teeth under oath, but I don't think that's going to go anywhere.

Brazil have the similar issue with abortion too apparently, and let not even talk about middle east etc!

[Mr Ho]

Let's look at this on the bright side guys. If there is a rolling back on a right to contraceptives as well, then the American tutes will have to start offering bareback full service! LOLOLOL! But then again, if you knock up a tute she's having your baby if you're in a red state versus a blue state. Fuck it! Too many complicated variables. I'm going to Germany or Brazil! Ha!

Well, you got those crazy Jesus people who is against condom LOL! Even Vatican is against contraceptives and even abortion till this new pope!

They are on the opposing end of my religion of stunner pussies and anal, I worship it like a holy grail LOL!

[Escape Artist]

You must really have big problem with women, to agree to return 50 years back for less women rights. US is really not a modern in mind society. Maybe next will be Black can t take trains, buses for whites and same for restaurants, looking forward for KKK back. I m pretty sure still in South.

No problem with women but I find men who try to bullshit liberal equality pussy shit to gain favor as sleezy and pathetic. Meanwhile this open minded person has no issues taking advantage of economic privilege from inheriting mommy's money and paying for prostitutes that don't actually desire him to feed his overly sized ego on an overly sized head.

According to your logic, France is more backwards than the 30 American states that have less abortion restrictions. 15 week abortion ban in France? How backwards of them! How dare you tell a woman she can't abort a baby after 14 weeks! Give me a break from your sanctimonious bullshit.

What a bunch of media sentimental driven simple minded bullshit.

[Sirioja]

Not surprised that you fell in line with the women's rights narrative aimed at the general population. Fuck, too old to be so dumb. Do better wrinkly balls.

You must really have big problem with women, to agree to return 50 years back for less women rights. US is really not a modern in mind society. Maybe next will be Black can t take trains, buses for whites and same for restaurants, looking forward for KKK back. I m pretty sure still in South.

[The Cane]

Let's look at this on the bright side guys. If there is a rolling back on a right to contraceptives as well, then the American tutes will have to start offering bareback full service! LOLOLOL! But then again, if you knock up a tute she's having your baby if you're in a red state versus a blue state. Fuck it! Too many complicated variables. I'm going to Germany or Brazil! Ha!

[Escape Artist]

I agree that a right to privacy (and therefore a right to an abortion) based on "penumbral rights" supposedly deriving from the Constitution is sketchy. But, that doesn't change the fact that this is the first time in the history of American jurisprudence that a constitutional right, after having been acknowledged, was subsequently taken away. That makes this ruling uniquely controversial. There's always been controversial cases, and there will be more. But there's never been a ruling like this one. There hasn't been another one like it ever (taking a constitutional right away). Now on the other hand, and subsequent to Roe v. Wade, several other Supreme Court rulings established other constitutional rights derived from a "right to privacy". Are those rights now too in jeopardy? Many think so, especially after what Clarence Thomas said in his concurring opinion (that those too should be revisited). Justices Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett clearly lied during their confirmation hearings (surprise, surprise) regarding their commitment to the longstanding principle of stare decisis (and Roe v. Wade being settled law), and they did so while under oath. There has been some talk of holding them accountable for their lying through their teeth under oath, but I don't think that's going to go anywhere.

Oh Clarence Thomas is hot feces for sure. And yeah, this certainly makes it concerning for other cases.

Now when you back and listen to the conservative Justices' comments in confirmation hearings, it is now obvious that they chose their words carefully as to not directly say they would uphold but there were some misleading and implied messaging that they wouldn't overturn. Shady but doubtful to be enough to warrant perjury.

https://youtu.be/ks1skEKwlrk

[The Cane]

Controversial indeed, but keep in mind the decision to deem abortion a Constitutional right in the first place was also very controversial not just because the topic of abortion was itself controversial but also by the fact that the 4th Amendment protecting privacy rights was used as the main justification in protecting abortion. I find that justification in the first place to be quite a loosely relevant stretch.

I agree that a right to privacy (and therefore a right to an abortion) based on "penumbral rights" supposedly deriving from the Constitution is sketchy. But, that doesn't change the fact that this is the first time in the history of American jurisprudence that a constitutional right, after having been acknowledged, was subsequently taken away. That makes this ruling uniquely controversial. There's always been controversial cases, and there will be more. But there's never been a ruling like this one. There hasn't been another one like it ever (taking a constitutional right away). Now on the other hand, and subsequent to Roe v. Wade, several other Supreme Court rulings established other constitutional rights derived from a "right to privacy". Are those rights now too in jeopardy? Many think so, especially after what Clarence Thomas said in his concurring opinion (that those too should be revisited). Justices Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett clearly lied during their confirmation hearings (surprise, surprise) regarding their commitment to the longstanding principle of stare decisis (and Roe v. Wade being settled law), and they did so while under oath. There has been some talk of holding them accountable for their lying through their teeth under oath, but I don't think that's going to go anywhere.

[The Cane]

On the contrary if it is a relative granting of a right to a fetus and / or to be granted tenancy right to a fetus to not be evicted from its residence. So it can be framed as a renters rights win.

And there are numerous cases of constitutional rights being taken away. At one time it was legal to use cocaine in the USA. Coca Cola was developed by a pharmacist to help him with his opium addiction. Both the right to cocaine and opium where later taken away. The fugitive slave act of 1850 took away the right of an escaped slave to freedom in a non slave state. And there was a right to prostitution in the 1800's and early 1900's in the USA which of course was also taken away. There was also the right to bear arms by mentally disabled people dating from 1770's which was taken away in 1968.

This is a misguided rant full of misspelled words indicating that the author has no real understanding of what constitutional law consists of and how it works. Not worthy of any further consideration.

[Escape Artist]

Before daring to write this, did you ask US women what they think about this new law, when I'm fully sure most US women would agree with me about this shame in a really not modern society, when half US will forbid this women right since 50 years. After now free guns in NY to kill children when all Indians are dead since so long time, didn't Biden say another sad day? But a victory for women raper, shameful crazy Trump. But your lack of knowledge about women, about mothers who give You their life, their flesh, when they give you their children, but you seem not to know more than prostitutes and the craziest. Same sexism in Japanese society, maybe due to frustration about size. In porn, usually big size, except at Globe.

Not surprised that you fell in line with the women's rights narrative aimed at the general population. Fuck, too old to be so dumb. Do better wrinkly balls.

[Pistons]

We already have the technological means of producing babies in tanks outside of the female body. Joe Rogan, or maybe it was Lex Fridman, interviewed a well known doctor regarding this not too long ago. He ment it would be the next step in giving women more freedom, and the future of humanity where we could also select their genes through gene editing.

[Pistons]

The ruling is extremely controversial on a number of levels. One of those is that it's the first time in our nation's history that a constitutional right was taken away. As the pundits note, this isn't over yet. Not even. There's going to be a lot of state legislation and lawsuits to follow. Quite a bit of chaos. One type of legislation that I would challenge immediately would be that which restricts abortions to the first six weeks of pregnancy. Most women don't even know they're pregnant then! The states now have the ability to pass legislation on the matter within their individual borders, but that doesn't mean that they can now do whatever they want to. The constitutionality of whatever is passed can still be challenged in court. Stay tuned!

Of course it isn't over, because it doesn't go along with the depopulation agenda which has fought for abortion in the USA for over 50 years since the times of Bill Gates' dad. The chairman of Planned Parenthood. Not sure if I am for nor against it. But I am for honesty. What I am against sometimes is which countries are depopulating the fastest. These things can also be controlled. Although I know there have been plenty of failures in governance in this regard in the past.

One smart person once said that if we let women rule the world, we will run out of people. There is certainly something to that, especially if you study anthropology. Although what brings the fertility rate down the fastest is of course money from the state, so that you don't rely on your children to help you when you get old, but the state. A basic income plan would be the most effective. At the same time it is also very political incorrect to say that women in power means less children. But if you study anthropology then you see that pregnancy basically means a certain amount of time where the women are not free individuals, but reliant on the man. Subordinate of the man one could say. So feminism mean depopulation in this regard.

The depopulation agenda has kicked into overdrive now it seems too. Pride for a month (used to be just a weeked)(with the unfortunate backlashes from extremist religious people like in Oslo: Muslims in particular since they have the strictest religion), sex toys for men, articles about it on world economic forum etc etc. And all publically posted and lectured to new medical and nursing students (among others) regarding the UN (depopulation) Agenda 2030.

I can personally only shake my head at these depop politics though. Because if they truly wanted to kick it into overdrive (which they do), then legalizing prostitution globally would be a simple way of doing that. It is not like a working girl want to loose a year of income just to have a baby. Plus it would gain more support from the angry right wing male crowds who would now finally get pussy. Easy cheap pussy where they wouldn't have to help supporting a soon to be lazy married woman for the rest of their lives.

[Escape Artist]

The ruling is extremely controversial on a number of levels. One of those is that it's the first time in our nation's history that a constitutional right was taken away. As the pundits note, this isn't over yet. Not even. There's going to be a lot of state legislation and lawsuits to follow. Quite a bit of chaos. One type of legislation that I would challenge immediately would be that which restricts abortions to the first six weeks of pregnancy. Most women don't even know they're pregnant then! The states now have the ability to pass legislation on the matter within their individual borders, but that doesn't mean that they can now do whatever they want to. The constitutionality of whatever is passed can still be challenged in court. Stay tuned!

Controversial indeed, but keep in mind the decision to deem abortion a Constitutional right in the first place was also very controversial not just because the topic of abortion was itself controversial but also by the fact that the 4th Amendment protecting privacy rights was used as the main justification in protecting abortion. I find that justification in the first place to be quite a loosely relevant stretch.

Fact is, if abortion is to be protected, then the best way is to pass legislation, not to justify with barely relevant Constitutional Amendments, if even relevant at all. That the is reason why I don't find fault in the legal reasoning of the court.

Real legislation should start now but also keep in mind that prior to Friday's repeal, the United States had some of the loosest abortion laws in the Western world, perhaps even too loose.

The US previously allowed elective abortion up to week 22 of pregnancy, much more liberal than most Nations considered more liberal, such as only 12 weeks for Germany and Canada or even 14 weeks in Romania and France.

States like California and New York will continue to have much looser regulations toward abortion than those "progressive" European nations. If people want to criticize abortion restrictions, go look at states like Texas and Louisiana, because in most of the United States (at least 28 states and an even larger majority of areas where people actually live), the reality is that we still have some of the most liberal abortion regulations in the world.

Fact is, most people still don't understand that America is a much looser collection of states than a strong central government like their own nations. Non Americans making blanket statements about American law seem to be quite ignorant to different forms of governmental structure.

So you're right, the time to pass specific legislation in the respective states is now according to the will of the culture in those states.

[Sirioja]

Apparently you watch too much popular news media and can't learn on your own but only repeat the narrative media wants you to believe.

Don't you realize that the court ruling did not make abortion illegal? It only removed federal protection and left it up to individual states to decide. Abortion is still not illegal in the United States, only in certain states that decide to make it so.

Another inferiority complex post made by a Frenchman with a US inferiority complex much like his inferiority complex of being a short little old man having to continually boast about bullshit cycling, driving, and hookering. What a joke.

Before daring to write this, did you ask US women what they think about this new law, when I'm fully sure most US women would agree with me about this shame in a really not modern society, when half US will forbid this women right since 50 years. After now free guns in NY to kill children when all Indians are dead since so long time, didn't Biden say another sad day? But a victory for women raper, shameful crazy Trump. But your lack of knowledge about women, about mothers who give You their life, their flesh, when they give you their children, but you seem not to know more than prostitutes and the craziest. Same sexism in Japanese society, maybe due to frustration about size. In porn, usually big size, except at Globe.

[DrPoon]

The ruling is extremely controversial on a number of levels. One of those is that it's the first time in our nation's history that a constitutional right was taken away. As the pundits note, this isn't over yet. Not even. There's going to be a lot of state legislation and lawsuits to follow. Quite a bit of chaos. One type of legislation that I would challenge immediately would be that which restricts abortions to the first six weeks of pregnancy. Most women don't even know they're pregnant then! The states now have the ability to pass legislation on the matter within their individual borders, but that doesn't mean that they can now do whatever they want to. The constitutionality of whatever is passed can still be challenged in court. Stay tuned!

On the contrary if it is a relative granting of a right to a fetus and / or to be granted tenancy right to a fetus to not be evicted from its residence. So it can be framed as a renters rights win.

And there are numerous cases of constitutional rights being taken away. At one time it was legal to use cocaine in the USA. Coca Cola was developed by a pharmacist to help him with his opium addiction. Both the right to cocaine and opium where later taken away. The fugitive slave act of 1850 took away the right of an escaped slave to freedom in a non slave state. And there was a right to prostitution in the 1800's and early 1900's in the USA which of course was also taken away. There was also the right to bear arms by mentally disabled people dating from 1770's which was taken away in 1968.