Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individualstates there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans andthe pro-life crowds.The decision gives a rally call for theleft to take advantage ofit in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possiblylimiting a red "wave" in order to retain control of the Houseand Senate so Congress can finally act (as they should have50 years ago) and make it a law. The SCOTUS can'
Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to
overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individual
states there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans and
the pro-life crowds.
The decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage of
it in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possibly
limiting a red "wave" in order to retain control of the House
and Senate so Congress can finally act (as they should have
50 years ago) and make it a law. The SCOTUS can't overturn it
then.
Just for the record, I am pretty much pro-life, not for any
religious reasons, but because one of the definitions of life
is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.
To me that means life begins at conception and not when some
panel of scientists decide when it starts. Has nothing to do
with viability or what you call those dividing cells as they
mature IMO.
Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to
overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individual
states there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans and
the pro-life crowds.
The decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage of
it in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possibly
limiting a red "wave" in order to retain control of the House
and Senate so Congress can finally act (as they should have
50 years ago) and make it a law. The SCOTUS can't overturn it
then.
Just for the record, I am pretty much pro-life, not for any
religious reasons, but because one of the definitions of life
is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.
To me that means life begins at conception and not when some
panel of scientists decide when it starts. Has nothing to do
with viability or what you call those dividing cells as they
mature IMO.
On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:As I understand it, if Congress passed a law mandating Federal
Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to
overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individual
states there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans and
the pro-life crowds.
The decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage of
it in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possibly
limiting a red "wave" in order to retain control of the House
and Senate so Congress can finally act (as they should have
50 years ago) and make it a law. The SCOTUS can't overturn it
then.
Just for the record, I am pretty much pro-life, not for any
religious reasons, but because one of the definitions of life
is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.
To me that means life begins at conception and not when some
panel of scientists decide when it starts. Has nothing to do
with viability or what you call those dividing cells as they
mature IMO.
I think it is a fantastic ruling! Nothing to do with pro-life, but
maybe a
Supreme Court finally not ignoring the Constitution.  Where is there a
right to abortion in the Constitution? Pelosi saying the Congress should >> pass a law. Should also be ruled unconstitutional. Is a states issue.
And the case in Texas that precipitated the ruling, did not ban abortion,
but restricted it to the first 15 weeks.
jurisdiction for abortions "on demand" it *would* be a Constitutional issue and it's unlikely the Supreme Court would even hear a
challenge to it.
But they haven't. The Supreme Court of 1973 just made it up.
This court is simply doing what the founding fathers intended
the Supreme Court to do in cases like this.
Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:
Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to
overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individual
states there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans and
the pro-life crowds.
The decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage of
it in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possibly
limiting a red "wave" in order to retain control of the House
and Senate so Congress can finally act (as they should have
50 years ago) and make it a law. The SCOTUS can't overturn it
then.
Just for the record, I am pretty much pro-life, not for any
religious reasons, but because one of the definitions of life
is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.
To me that means life begins at conception and not when some
panel of scientists decide when it starts. Has nothing to do
with viability or what you call those dividing cells as they
mature IMO.
I think it is a fantastic ruling! Nothing to do with pro-life, but maybe a Supreme Court finally not ignoring the Constitution. Where is there a
right to abortion in the Constitution? Pelosi saying the Congress should pass a law. Should also be ruled unconstitutional. Is a states issue.
And the case in Texas that precipitated the ruling, did not ban abortion,
but restricted it to the first 15 weeks.
On 6/24/22 2:40 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:As I understand it, if Congress passed a law mandating Federal
Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to
overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individual
states there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans and
the pro-life crowds.
The decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage of
it in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possibly
limiting a red "wave" in order to retain control of the House
and Senate so Congress can finally act (as they should have
50 years ago) and make it a law. The SCOTUS can't overturn it
then.
Just for the record, I am pretty much pro-life, not for any
religious reasons, but because one of the definitions of life
is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.
To me that means life begins at conception and not when some
panel of scientists decide when it starts. Has nothing to do
with viability or what you call those dividing cells as they
mature IMO.
I think it is a fantastic ruling! Nothing to do with pro-life, but
maybe a
Supreme Court finally not ignoring the Constitution.  Where is there a >>> right to abortion in the Constitution? Pelosi saying the Congress
should
pass a law. Should also be ruled unconstitutional. Is a states issue. >>> And the case in Texas that precipitated the ruling, did not ban
abortion,
but restricted it to the first 15 weeks.
jurisdiction for abortions "on demand"Â it *would*Â be a
Constitutional issue and it's unlikely the Supreme Court would even
hear a
challenge to it.
But they haven't. The Supreme Court of 1973 just made it up.
This court is simply doing what the founding fathers intended
the Supreme Court to do in cases like this.
The Supreme Court majority is simply kissing the ass of the right-wing extremists that rule the GOP these days.
On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:As I understand it, if Congress passed a law mandating Federal
Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to
overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individual
states there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans and
the pro-life crowds.
The decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage of
it in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possibly
limiting a red "wave" in order to retain control of the House
and Senate so Congress can finally act (as they should have
50 years ago) and make it a law. The SCOTUS can't overturn it
then.
Just for the record, I am pretty much pro-life, not for any
religious reasons, but because one of the definitions of life
is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.
To me that means life begins at conception and not when some
panel of scientists decide when it starts. Has nothing to do
with viability or what you call those dividing cells as they
mature IMO.
I think it is a fantastic ruling! Nothing to do with pro-life, but maybe a >> Supreme Court finally not ignoring the Constitution. Where is there a
right to abortion in the Constitution? Pelosi saying the Congress should
pass a law. Should also be ruled unconstitutional. Is a states issue.
And the case in Texas that precipitated the ruling, did not ban abortion,
but restricted it to the first 15 weeks.
jurisdiction for abortions "on demand" it *would* be a Constitutional issue and it's unlikely the Supreme Court would even hear a
challenge to it.
But they haven't. The Supreme Court of 1973 just made it up.
This court is simply doing what the founding fathers intended
the Supreme Court to do in cases like this.
Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:> On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:>> Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:>>> >>> Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to>>> overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to theindividual>>> states there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans and>>> the pro-life crowds.>>> >>> The decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage of>>> it in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possibly>>> limiting a
abortion in the Constitution? Pelosi saying the Congress should>> pass a law. Should also be ruled unconstitutional. Is a states issue.>> And the case in Texas that precipitated the ruling, did not ban abortion,>> but restricted it to the first 15religious reasons, but because one of the definitions of life>>> is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.>>> To me that means life begins at conception and not when some>>> panel of scientists decide when it starts. Has nothing to do>
with viability or what you call those dividing cells as they>>> mature IMO.>>> >> >> I think it is a fantastic ruling! Nothing to do with pro-life, but maybe a>> Supreme Court finally not ignoring the Constitution. Where is there a>> right to
Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:As I understand it, if Congress passed a law mandating Federal
Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to
overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individual
states there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans and
the pro-life crowds.
The decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage of
it in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possibly
limiting a red "wave" in order to retain control of the House
and Senate so Congress can finally act (as they should have
50 years ago) and make it a law. The SCOTUS can't overturn it
then.
Just for the record, I am pretty much pro-life, not for any
religious reasons, but because one of the definitions of life
is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.
To me that means life begins at conception and not when some
panel of scientists decide when it starts. Has nothing to do
with viability or what you call those dividing cells as they
mature IMO.
I think it is a fantastic ruling! Nothing to do with pro-life, but maybe a >>> Supreme Court finally not ignoring the Constitution. Where is there a
right to abortion in the Constitution? Pelosi saying the Congress should >>> pass a law. Should also be ruled unconstitutional. Is a states issue.
And the case in Texas that precipitated the ruling, did not ban abortion, >>> but restricted it to the first 15 weeks.
jurisdiction for abortions "on demand" it *would* be a Constitutional
issue and it's unlikely the Supreme Court would even hear a
challenge to it.
But they haven't. The Supreme Court of 1973 just made it up.
This court is simply doing what the founding fathers intended
the Supreme Court to do in cases like this.
Your first part does not make sense. Why would they not hear a challenge
to a definite unconstitutional law?
On 6/24/22 6:54 PM, Bill wrote:> Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:>> On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:>>> Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:>>>>>>>> Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to>>>> overturn Roe vs Wadeand turn that issue back to the individual>>>> states there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans and>>>> the pro-life crowds.>>>>>>>> The decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage of>>>> it in the next few months leading to the
"Mr. Luddite" <nothere@noland.com> Wrote in message:rthe left to take advantage ofit in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possiblylimiting a red "wave" in order to retain control of the Houseand Senate so Congress can finally act (as they should have50 years ago) and make it a law. The SCOTUS
Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individualstates there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans andthe pro-life crowds.The decision gives a rally call for
Now the dumbocrats will have to chose between Roe and gun
grabbing. What an awful perdicament to put them in. Pass the
popcorn.
On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:As I understand it, if Congress passed a law mandating Federal
Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to
overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individual
states there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans and
the pro-life crowds.
The decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage of
it in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possibly
limiting a red "wave" in order to retain control of the House
and Senate so Congress can finally act (as they should have
50 years ago) and make it a law. The SCOTUS can't overturn it
then.
Just for the record, I am pretty much pro-life, not for any
religious reasons, but because one of the definitions of life
is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.
To me that means life begins at conception and not when some
panel of scientists decide when it starts. Has nothing to do
with viability or what you call those dividing cells as they
mature IMO.
I think it is a fantastic ruling! Nothing to do with pro-life, but maybe a >> Supreme Court finally not ignoring the Constitution. Where is there a
right to abortion in the Constitution? Pelosi saying the Congress should
pass a law. Should also be ruled unconstitutional. Is a states issue.
And the case in Texas that precipitated the ruling, did not ban abortion,
but restricted it to the first 15 weeks.
jurisdiction for abortions "on demand" it *would* be a Constitutional >issue and it's unlikely the Supreme Court would even hear a
challenge to it.
But they haven't. The Supreme Court of 1973 just made it up.
This court is simply doing what the founding fathers intended
the Supreme Court to do in cases like this.
On 6/24/22 2:40 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:As I understand it, if Congress passed a law mandating Federal
Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to
overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individual
states there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans and
the pro-life crowds.
The decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage of
it in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possibly
limiting a red "wave" in order to retain control of the House
and Senate so Congress can finally act (as they should have
50 years ago) and make it a law. The SCOTUS can't overturn it
then.
Just for the record, I am pretty much pro-life, not for any
religious reasons, but because one of the definitions of life
is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.
To me that means life begins at conception and not when some
panel of scientists decide when it starts. Has nothing to do
with viability or what you call those dividing cells as they
mature IMO.
I think it is a fantastic ruling! Nothing to do with pro-life, but
maybe a
Supreme Court finally not ignoring the Constitution.  Where is there a >>> right to abortion in the Constitution? Pelosi saying the Congress should >>> pass a law. Should also be ruled unconstitutional. Is a states issue. >>> And the case in Texas that precipitated the ruling, did not ban abortion, >>> but restricted it to the first 15 weeks.
jurisdiction for abortions "on demand" it *would* be a Constitutional >> issue and it's unlikely the Supreme Court would even hear a
challenge to it.
But they haven't. The Supreme Court of 1973 just made it up.
This court is simply doing what the founding fathers intended
the Supreme Court to do in cases like this.
The Supreme Court majority is simply kissing the ass of the right-wing >extremists that rule the GOP these days.
Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:As I understand it, if Congress passed a law mandating Federal
Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to
overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individual
states there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans and
the pro-life crowds.
The decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage of
it in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possibly
limiting a red "wave" in order to retain control of the House
and Senate so Congress can finally act (as they should have
50 years ago) and make it a law. The SCOTUS can't overturn it
then.
Just for the record, I am pretty much pro-life, not for any
religious reasons, but because one of the definitions of life
is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.
To me that means life begins at conception and not when some
panel of scientists decide when it starts. Has nothing to do
with viability or what you call those dividing cells as they
mature IMO.
I think it is a fantastic ruling! Nothing to do with pro-life, but maybe a >>> Supreme Court finally not ignoring the Constitution. Where is there a
right to abortion in the Constitution? Pelosi saying the Congress should >>> pass a law. Should also be ruled unconstitutional. Is a states issue.
And the case in Texas that precipitated the ruling, did not ban abortion, >>> but restricted it to the first 15 weeks.
jurisdiction for abortions "on demand" it *would* be a Constitutional
issue and it's unlikely the Supreme Court would even hear a
challenge to it.
But they haven't. The Supreme Court of 1973 just made it up.
This court is simply doing what the founding fathers intended
the Supreme Court to do in cases like this.
Your first part does not make sense. Why would they not hear a challenge
to a definite unconstitutional law?
On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 14:40:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" <nothere@noland.com>
wrote:
On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:As I understand it, if Congress passed a law mandating Federal
Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to
overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individual
states there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans and
the pro-life crowds.
The decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage of
it in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possibly
limiting a red "wave" in order to retain control of the House
and Senate so Congress can finally act (as they should have
50 years ago) and make it a law. The SCOTUS can't overturn it
then.
Just for the record, I am pretty much pro-life, not for any
religious reasons, but because one of the definitions of life
is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.
To me that means life begins at conception and not when some
panel of scientists decide when it starts. Has nothing to do
with viability or what you call those dividing cells as they
mature IMO.
I think it is a fantastic ruling! Nothing to do with pro-life, but maybe a >>> Supreme Court finally not ignoring the Constitution. Where is there a
right to abortion in the Constitution? Pelosi saying the Congress should >>> pass a law. Should also be ruled unconstitutional. Is a states issue.
And the case in Texas that precipitated the ruling, did not ban abortion, >>> but restricted it to the first 15 weeks.
jurisdiction for abortions "on demand" it *would* be a Constitutional
issue and it's unlikely the Supreme Court would even hear a
challenge to it.
But they haven't. The Supreme Court of 1973 just made it up.
This court is simply doing what the founding fathers intended
the Supreme Court to do in cases like this.
This really just means a poor person in some bible belt states is
going to need someone to buy her a plane ticket. If they can afford
the ticket off they go.
John pointed out to me and I verified, most abortions these days are chemically induced. That is not the morning after pill.
So I suspect that will be an issue with drug dealers getting into the abortion pill business if they are willing to take the chance but the
penalty for being a Fentanyl dealer are nothing like what you get for
being a mass murderer of babies. ;)
The laws are being written that way.
On 6/24/22 6:54 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:As I understand it, if Congress passed a law mandating Federal
Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to
overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individual
states there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans and
the pro-life crowds.
The decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage of
it in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possibly
limiting a red "wave" in order to retain control of the House
and Senate so Congress can finally act (as they should have
50 years ago) and make it a law. The SCOTUS can't overturn it
then.
Just for the record, I am pretty much pro-life, not for any
religious reasons, but because one of the definitions of life
is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.
To me that means life begins at conception and not when some
panel of scientists decide when it starts. Has nothing to do
with viability or what you call those dividing cells as they
mature IMO.
I think it is a fantastic ruling! Nothing to do with pro-life, but maybe a
Supreme Court finally not ignoring the Constitution. Where is there a >>>> right to abortion in the Constitution? Pelosi saying the Congress should >>>> pass a law. Should also be ruled unconstitutional. Is a states issue. >>>> And the case in Texas that precipitated the ruling, did not ban abortion, >>>> but restricted it to the first 15 weeks.
jurisdiction for abortions "on demand" it *would* be a Constitutional >>> issue and it's unlikely the Supreme Court would even hear a
challenge to it.
But they haven't. The Supreme Court of 1973 just made it up.
This court is simply doing what the founding fathers intended
the Supreme Court to do in cases like this.
Your first part does not make sense. Why would they not hear a challenge
to a definite unconstitutional law?
The founders wanted separation of church and state. The court has shit
on that one.
<gfretwell@aol.com> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 14:40:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" <nothere@noland.com>
wrote:
On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:As I understand it, if Congress passed a law mandating Federal
Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to
overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individual
states there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans and
the pro-life crowds.
The decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage of
it in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possibly
limiting a red "wave" in order to retain control of the House
and Senate so Congress can finally act (as they should have
50 years ago) and make it a law. The SCOTUS can't overturn it
then.
Just for the record, I am pretty much pro-life, not for any
religious reasons, but because one of the definitions of life
is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.
To me that means life begins at conception and not when some
panel of scientists decide when it starts. Has nothing to do
with viability or what you call those dividing cells as they
mature IMO.
I think it is a fantastic ruling! Nothing to do with pro-life, but maybe a
Supreme Court finally not ignoring the Constitution. Where is there a >>>> right to abortion in the Constitution? Pelosi saying the Congress should >>>> pass a law. Should also be ruled unconstitutional. Is a states issue. >>>> And the case in Texas that precipitated the ruling, did not ban abortion, >>>> but restricted it to the first 15 weeks.
jurisdiction for abortions "on demand" it *would* be a Constitutional >>> issue and it's unlikely the Supreme Court would even hear a
challenge to it.
But they haven't. The Supreme Court of 1973 just made it up.
This court is simply doing what the founding fathers intended
the Supreme Court to do in cases like this.
This really just means a poor person in some bible belt states is
going to need someone to buy her a plane ticket. If they can afford
the ticket off they go.
John pointed out to me and I verified, most abortions these days are
chemically induced. That is not the morning after pill.
So I suspect that will be an issue with drug dealers getting into the
abortion pill business if they are willing to take the chance but the
penalty for being a Fentanyl dealer are nothing like what you get for
being a mass murderer of babies. ;)
The laws are being written that way.
Even the law that got R-V to SCOTUS from Texas did not ban all abortion,
only restricted it to the first 15 weeks.
On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 13:51:27 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart <me@yourservice.com> wrote:the left to take advantage ofit in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possiblylimiting a red "wave" in order to retain control of the Houseand Senate so Congress can finally act (as they should have50 years ago) and make it a law. The SCOTUS
"Mr. Luddite" <nothere@noland.com> Wrote in message:r
Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individualstates there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans andthe pro-life crowds.The decision gives a rally call for
Now the dumbocrats will have to chose between Roe and gun
grabbing. What an awful perdicament to put them in. Pass the
popcorn.
I have been saying for decades, American politics is driven my
abortion and guns.
Richard is right, the SCOTUS just threw red meat into the ring.
It will reignite the drive to pack the court.
Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:As I understand it, if Congress passed a law mandating Federal
Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to
overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individual
states there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans and
the pro-life crowds.
The decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage of
it in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possibly
limiting a red "wave" in order to retain control of the House
and Senate so Congress can finally act (as they should have
50 years ago) and make it a law. The SCOTUS can't overturn it
then.
Just for the record, I am pretty much pro-life, not for any
religious reasons, but because one of the definitions of life
is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.
To me that means life begins at conception and not when some
panel of scientists decide when it starts. Has nothing to do
with viability or what you call those dividing cells as they
mature IMO.
I think it is a fantastic ruling! Nothing to do with pro-life, but maybe a >>> Supreme Court finally not ignoring the Constitution. Where is there a
right to abortion in the Constitution? Pelosi saying the Congress should >>> pass a law. Should also be ruled unconstitutional. Is a states issue.
And the case in Texas that precipitated the ruling, did not ban abortion, >>> but restricted it to the first 15 weeks.
jurisdiction for abortions "on demand" it *would* be a Constitutional
issue and it's unlikely the Supreme Court would even hear a
challenge to it.
But they haven't. The Supreme Court of 1973 just made it up.
This court is simply doing what the founding fathers intended
the Supreme Court to do in cases like this.
Your first part does not make sense. Why would they not hear a challenge
to a definite unconstitutional law?
Keyser Söze <KeyserSöze@whitehouse.com> wrote:> On 6/24/22 6:54 PM, Bill wrote:>> Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:>>> On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:>>>> Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:>>>>> >>>>> Given just announced and expecteddecision by the Supreme Court to>>>>> overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individual>>>>> states there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans and>>>>> the pro-life crowds.>>>>> >>>>> The decision gives a rally call for the left
On 6/24/2022 8:32 PM, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:> On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 13:51:27 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart> <me@yourservice.com> wrote:> >> "Mr. Luddite" <nothere@noland.com> Wrote in message:r>>> Given just announced and expected decision by theSupreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individualstates there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans andthe pro-life crowds.The decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage ofit in the next few months
On 6/24/2022 6:54 PM, Bill wrote:> Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:>> On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:>>> Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:>>>>>>>> Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to>>>> overturn Roe vsWade and turn that issue back to the individual>>>> states there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans and>>>> the pro-life crowds.>>>>>>>> The decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage of>>>> it in the next few months leading
On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 05:38:36 -0000 (UTC), Bill<califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:><gfretwell@aol.com> wrote:>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 14:40:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" <nothere@noland.com>>> wrote:>> >>> On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:>>>> Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:>>>>> >>>>> Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to>>>>> overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individual>>>>> states there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans and>>>>> the
they>>>>> mature IMO.>>>>> >>>> >>>> I think it is a fantastic ruling! Nothing to do with pro-life, but maybe a>>>> Supreme Court finally not ignoring the Constitution. Where is there a>>>> right to abortion in the Constitution? Pelosi saying theis when a single cell divides and continues to divide.>>>>> To me that means life begins at conception and not when some>>>>> panel of scientists decide when it starts. Has nothing to do>>>>> with viability or what you call those dividing cells as
On 6/24/2022 6:54 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:As I understand it, if Congress passed a law mandating Federal
Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to
overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individual
states there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans and
the pro-life crowds.
The decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage of
it in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possibly
limiting a red "wave" in order to retain control of the House
and Senate so Congress can finally act (as they should have
50 years ago) and make it a law. The SCOTUS can't overturn it
then.
Just for the record, I am pretty much pro-life, not for any
religious reasons, but because one of the definitions of life
is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.
To me that means life begins at conception and not when some
panel of scientists decide when it starts. Has nothing to do
with viability or what you call those dividing cells as they
mature IMO.
I think it is a fantastic ruling! Nothing to do with pro-life, but maybe a
Supreme Court finally not ignoring the Constitution. Where is there a >>>> right to abortion in the Constitution? Pelosi saying the Congress should >>>> pass a law. Should also be ruled unconstitutional. Is a states issue. >>>> And the case in Texas that precipitated the ruling, did not ban abortion, >>>> but restricted it to the first 15 weeks.
jurisdiction for abortions "on demand" it *would* be a Constitutional >>> issue and it's unlikely the Supreme Court would even hear a
challenge to it.
But they haven't. The Supreme Court of 1973 just made it up.
This court is simply doing what the founding fathers intended
the Supreme Court to do in cases like this.
Your first part does not make sense. Why would they not hear a challenge
to a definite unconstitutional law?
Because if Congress passes a federal right to abortion law it would
have to be in the form of a Constitutional amendment.
On 6/24/2022 8:32 PM, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:the left to take advantage ofit in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possiblylimiting a red "wave" in order to retain control of the Houseand Senate so Congress can finally act (as they should have50 years ago) and make it a law. The SCOTUS
On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 13:51:27 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart
<me@yourservice.com> wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" <nothere@noland.com> Wrote in message:r
Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individualstates there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans andthe pro-life crowds.The decision gives a rally call for
Now the dumbocrats will have to chose between Roe and gun
grabbing. What an awful perdicament to put them in. Pass the
popcorn.
I have been saying for decades, American politics is driven my
abortion and guns.
Richard is right, the SCOTUS just threw red meat into the ring.
It will reignite the drive to pack the court.
Interestingly, Trump has expressed concerns that overturning
Roe vs Wade could have political consequences for
Republicans in the mid-terms and in 2024.
<https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-privately-called-roe-v-172306069.html>
On 6/24/2022 6:54 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:As I understand it, if Congress passed a law mandating Federal
Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to
overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individual
states there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans and
the pro-life crowds.
The decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage of
it in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possibly
limiting a red "wave" in order to retain control of the House
and Senate so Congress can finally act (as they should have
50 years ago) and make it a law. The SCOTUS can't overturn it
then.
Just for the record, I am pretty much pro-life, not for any
religious reasons, but because one of the definitions of life
is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.
To me that means life begins at conception and not when some
panel of scientists decide when it starts. Has nothing to do
with viability or what you call those dividing cells as they
mature IMO.
I think it is a fantastic ruling! Nothing to do with pro-life, but maybe a
Supreme Court finally not ignoring the Constitution. Where is there a >>>> right to abortion in the Constitution? Pelosi saying the Congress should >>>> pass a law. Should also be ruled unconstitutional. Is a states issue. >>>> And the case in Texas that precipitated the ruling, did not ban abortion, >>>> but restricted it to the first 15 weeks.
jurisdiction for abortions "on demand" it *would* be a Constitutional >>> issue and it's unlikely the Supreme Court would even hear a
challenge to it.
But they haven't. The Supreme Court of 1973 just made it up.
This court is simply doing what the founding fathers intended
the Supreme Court to do in cases like this.
Your first part does not make sense. Why would they not hear a challenge
to a definite unconstitutional law?
Because if Congress passes a federal right to abortion law it would
have to be in the form of a Constitutional amendment.
gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:rnothere@noland.com> wrote:>>>>> >>>>> Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to>>>>> overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individual>>>>> states there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans and>>>>> the
On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 05:38:36 -0000 (UTC), Bill<califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:><gfretwell@aol.com> wrote:>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 14:40:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" <nothere@noland.com>>> wrote:>> >>> On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:>>>> Mr. Luddite <
definitions of life>>>>> is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.>>>>> To me that means life begins at conception and not when some>>>>> panel of scientists decide when it starts. Has nothing to do>>>>> with viability or what you callthose dividing cells as they>>>>> mature IMO.>>>>> >>>> >>>> I think it is a fantastic ruling! Nothing to do with pro-life, but maybe a>>>> Supreme Court finally not ignoring the Constitution. Where is there a>>>> right to abortion in the Constitution?
The Supreme Court of 1973 just made it up.>>> This court is simply doing what the founding fathers intended>>> the Supreme Court to do in cases like this.>> >> This really just means a poor person in some bible belt states is>> going to need someone tobuy her a plane ticket. If they can afford>> the ticket off they go. >> >> John pointed out to me and I verified, most abortions these days are>> chemically induced. That is not the morning after pill. >> So I suspect that will be an issue with drug
Even the law that got R-V to SCOTUS from Texas did not ban all abortion,>only restricted it to the first 15 weeks.Some of the bible belt states are writing ridiculous laws.
So are some of the original 13. I'm sure there are some laws here
in the Sunshine state that don't suit your fancy.
On 6/25/22 9:36 AM, Justan Ohlphart wrote:> Bill <califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> Keyser Söze <KeyserSöze@whitehouse.com> wrote:> On 6/24/22 6:54 PM, Bill wrote:>> Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:>>> On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM,Bill wrote:>>>> Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:>>>>> >>>>> Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to>>>>> overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individual>>>>> states there may be a boomeranging problem
The Supreme Court of 1973 just made it up.>>> This court is simply doing what the founding fathers intended>>> the Supreme Court to do in cases like this.>>> >> >> Your first part does not make sense. Why would they not hear a challenge>> to a definiteAs I understand it, if Congress passed a law mandating Federal>>> jurisdiction for abortions "on demand" it *would* be a Constitutional>>> issue and it's unlikely the Supreme Court would even hear a>>> challenge to it.>>> >>> But they haven't.
On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 09:42:15 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart<me@yourservice.com> wrote:>gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 05:38:36 -0000 (UTC), Bill<califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:><gfretwell@aol.com> wrote:>> On Fri, 24Jun 2022 14:40:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" <nothere@noland.com>>> wrote:>> >>> On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:>>>> Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:>>>>> >>>>> Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to>>>>> overturn Roe vs
Just for the record, I am pretty much pro-life, not for any>>>>> religious reasons, but because one of the>definitions of life>>>>> is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.>>>>> To me that means life begins at conception and not when some>Court finally not ignoring the Constitution. Where is there a>>>> right to abortion in the Constitution? Pelosi saying the Congress should>>>> pass a law. Should also be ruled unconstitutional. Is a states issue.>>>> And the case in Texas that
panel of scientists decide when it starts. Has nothing to do>>>>> with viability or what you call those dividing cells as they>>>>> mature IMO.>>>>> >>>> >>>> I think it is a fantastic ruling! Nothing to do with pro-life, but maybe a>>>> Supreme
gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:rJun 2022 14:40:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" <nothere@noland.com>>> wrote:>> >>> On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:>>>> Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:>>>>> >>>>> Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to>>>>> overturn Roe vs
On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 09:42:15 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart<me@yourservice.com> wrote:>gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 05:38:36 -0000 (UTC), Bill<califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:><gfretwell@aol.com> wrote:>> On Fri, 24
then.>>>>> >>>>> Just for the record, I am pretty much pro-life, not for any>>>>> religious reasons, but because one of the>definitions of life>>>>> is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.>>>>> To me that means life begins at conceptionand not when some>>>>> panel of scientists decide when it starts. Has nothing to do>>>>> with viability or what you call those dividing cells as they>>>>> mature IMO.>>>>> >>>> >>>> I think it is a fantastic ruling! Nothing to do with pro-life, but
Constitutional >>> issue and it's unlikely the Supreme Court would even hear a>>> challenge to it.>>> >>> But they haven't.>The Supreme Court of 1973 just made it up.>>> This court is simply doing what the founding fathers intended>>> the Supreme Courtto do in cases like this.>> >> This really just means a poor person in some bible belt states is>> going to need someone to buy her a plane ticket. If they can afford>> the ticket off they go. >> >> John pointed out to me and I verified, most abortions
weeks.Some of the bible belt states are writing ridiculous laws.>>So are some of the original 13. I'm sure there are some laws here> in the Sunshine state that don't suit your fancy.There are plenty of laws that don't "suit my fancy" but callingformurder charges against a doctor or nurse who assists in an abortionmay be over the top. That is why I say, illegal sales of abortion pills will most likely beby the same guys who sell crack and heroin. Laws don't scare them. The question will be how
If they don't get the pill from a trusted source, they'll still be
wondering what kind of pill the drug pusher sold them. That's a
gamble with deadly consequences no matter what.
On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 13:51:27 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart<me@yourservice.com> wrote:>"Mr. Luddite" <nothere@noland.com> Wrote in message:r>> Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issueback to the individualstates there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans andthe pro-life crowds.The decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage ofit in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possiblylimiting a red "wave" in
On 6/25/2022 2:19 PM, Justan Ohlphart wrote:> gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 09:42:15 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart<me@yourservice.com> wrote:>gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 05:38:36 -0000 (UTC),Bill<califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:><gfretwell@aol.com> wrote:>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 14:40:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" <nothere@noland.com>>> wrote:>> >>> On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:>>>> Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:>>>>> >>>>> Given
On 6/24/22 6:54 PM, Bill wrote:> Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:>> On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:>>> Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:>>>>>>>> Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to>>>> overturn Roe vs Wadeand turn that issue back to the individual>>>> states there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans and>>>> the pro-life crowds.>>>>>>>> The decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage of>>>> it in the next few months leading to the
On 6/25/2022 2:19 PM, Justan Ohlphart wrote:Jun 2022 14:40:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" <nothere@noland.com>>> wrote:>> >>> On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:>>>> Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:>>>>> >>>>> Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to>>>>> overturn Roe vs
gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r
On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 09:42:15 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart<me@yourservice.com> wrote:>gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 05:38:36 -0000 (UTC), Bill<califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:><gfretwell@aol.com> wrote:>> On Fri, 24
then.>>>>> >>>>> Just for the record, I am pretty much pro-life, not for any>>>>> religious reasons, but because one of the>definitions of life>>>>> is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.>>>>> To me that means life begins at conceptionand not when some>>>>> panel of scientists decide when it starts. Has nothing to do>>>>> with viability or what you call those dividing cells as they>>>>> mature IMO.>>>>> >>>> >>>> I think it is a fantastic ruling! Nothing to do with pro-life, but
Constitutional >>> issue and it's unlikely the Supreme Court would even hear a>>> challenge to it.>>> >>> But they haven't.>The Supreme Court of 1973 just made it up.>>> This court is simply doing what the founding fathers intended>>> the Supreme Courtto do in cases like this.>> >> This really just means a poor person in some bible belt states is>> going to need someone to buy her a plane ticket. If they can afford>> the ticket off they go. >> >> John pointed out to me and I verified, most abortions
weeks.Some of the bible belt states are writing ridiculous laws.>>So are some of the original 13. I'm sure there are some laws here> in the Sunshine state that don't suit your fancy.There are plenty of laws that don't "suit my fancy" but callingformurder charges against a doctor or nurse who assists in an abortionmay be over the top. That is why I say, illegal sales of abortion pills will most likely beby the same guys who sell crack and heroin. Laws don't scare them. The question will be how
If they don't get the pill from a trusted source, they'll still be
wondering what kind of pill the drug pusher sold them. That's a
gamble with deadly consequences no matter what.
Isn't it kinda ironic that the people that get in trouble with the law
are usually those who break or ignore laws to begin with?
On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:05:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" <nothere@noland.com>Jun 2022 14:40:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" <nothere@noland.com>>> wrote:>> >>> On 6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:>>>> Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:>>>>> >>>>> Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to>>>>> overturn Roe vs
wrote:
On 6/25/2022 2:19 PM, Justan Ohlphart wrote:
gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r
On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 09:42:15 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart<me@yourservice.com> wrote:>gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 05:38:36 -0000 (UTC), Bill<califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:><gfretwell@aol.com> wrote:>> On Fri, 24
and not when some>>>>> panel of scientists decide when it starts. Has nothing to do>>>>> with viability or what you call those dividing cells as they>>>>> mature IMO.>>>>> >>>> >>>> I think it is a fantastic ruling! Nothing to do with pro-life, butthen.>>>>> >>>>> Just for the record, I am pretty much pro-life, not for any>>>>> religious reasons, but because one of the>definitions of life>>>>> is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.>>>>> To me that means life begins at conception
to do in cases like this.>> >> This really just means a poor person in some bible belt states is>> going to need someone to buy her a plane ticket. If they can afford>> the ticket off they go. >> >> John pointed out to me and I verified, most abortionsConstitutional >>> issue and it's unlikely the Supreme Court would even hear a>>> challenge to it.>>> >>> But they haven't.>The Supreme Court of 1973 just made it up.>>> This court is simply doing what the founding fathers intended>>> the Supreme Court
formurder charges against a doctor or nurse who assists in an abortionmay be over the top. That is why I say, illegal sales of abortion pills will most likely beby the same guys who sell crack and heroin. Laws don't scare them. The question will be howweeks.Some of the bible belt states are writing ridiculous laws.>>So are some of the original 13. I'm sure there are some laws here> in the Sunshine state that don't suit your fancy.There are plenty of laws that don't "suit my fancy" but calling
If they don't get the pill from a trusted source, they'll still be
wondering what kind of pill the drug pusher sold them. That's a
gamble with deadly consequences no matter what.
Isn't it kinda ironic that the people that get in trouble with the law
are usually those who break or ignore laws to begin with?
Maybe you folks should read a little about this "abortion pill"
(RU-486) This is not the morning after thing. It is the one a lady
takes when the test strip is the wrong color for 2 weeks in a row.
(week 6-7 at best). Read the Mayo Clinic description. This
"pill" is ugly shit and if the poor lady is one of a significant
number who don't miscarry and just bleed until the fetus is surgically >removed. Then you understand this is not easy.
On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 03:07:28 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:24 Jun 2022 14:40:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" <nothere@noland.com>>> wrote:>> >>> On
On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:05:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" <nothere@noland.com> >>wrote:
On 6/25/2022 2:19 PM, Justan Ohlphart wrote:
gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r
On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 09:42:15 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart<me@yourservice.com> wrote:>gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 05:38:36 -0000 (UTC), Bill<califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:><gfretwell@aol.com> wrote:>> On Fri,
law mandating Federal >>> jurisdiction for abortions "on demand" it *would*right to abortion in the Constitution? Pelosi saying the Congress should>>>> pass a law. Should also be ruled unconstitutional. Is a states issue.>>>> And the case in Texas that precipitated the ruling, did not ban abortion,>>>> but restricted it to the first 15 weeks.>>>> >>> As I understand it, if Congress passed a
Court to do in cases like this.>> >> This really just means a poor person in someConstitutional >>> issue and it's unlikely the Supreme Court would even hear a>>> challenge to it.>>> >>> But they haven't.>The Supreme Court of 1973 just made it up.>>> This court is simply doing what the founding fathers intended>>> the Supreme
If they don't get the pill from a trusted source, they'll still be
wondering what kind of pill the drug pusher sold them. That's a
gamble with deadly consequences no matter what.
Isn't it kinda ironic that the people that get in trouble with the law >>>are usually those who break or ignore laws to begin with?
Maybe you folks should read a little about this "abortion pill"
(RU-486) This is not the morning after thing. It is the one a lady
takes when the test strip is the wrong color for 2 weeks in a row.
(week 6-7 at best). Read the Mayo Clinic description. This
"pill" is ugly shit and if the poor lady is one of a significant
number who don't miscarry and just bleed until the fetus is surgically >>removed. Then you understand this is not easy.
Where is your link?
Mayo says:
"Side Effects
Drug information provided by: IBM Micromedex
Along with its needed effects, a medicine may cause some unwanted
effects. Although not all of these side effects may occur, if they do
occur they may need medical attention.
Check with your doctor immediately if any of the following side
effects occur:
Less common
Excessively heavy vaginal bleeding
unusual tiredness or weakness
Are you saying abortions are much safer?
Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to
overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individual
states there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans and
the pro-life crowds.
The decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage of
it in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possibly
limiting a red "wave" in order to retain control of the House
and Senate so Congress can finally act (as they should have
50 years ago) and make it a law. The SCOTUS can't overturn it
then.
Just for the record, I am pretty much pro-life, not for any
religious reasons, but because one of the definitions of life
is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.
To me that means life begins at conception and not when some
panel of scientists decide when it starts. Has nothing to do
with viability or what you call those dividing cells as they
mature IMO.
On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 13:51:27 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart ><me@yourservice.com> wrote:the left to take advantage ofit in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possiblylimiting a red "wave" in order to retain control of the Houseand Senate so Congress can finally act (as they should have50 years ago) and make it a law. The SCOTUS
"Mr. Luddite" <nothere@noland.com> Wrote in message:r
Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individualstates there may be a boomeranging problem for Republicans andthe pro-life crowds.The decision gives a rally call for
Now the dumbocrats will have to chose between Roe and gun
grabbing. What an awful perdicament to put them in. Pass the
popcorn.
I have been saying for decades, American politics is driven my
abortion and guns.
Richard is right, the SCOTUS just threw red meat into the ring.
It will reignite the drive to pack the court.
On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 07:28:00 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:24 Jun 2022 14:40:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" <nothere@noland.com>>> wrote:>> >>> On
On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 03:07:28 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:05:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" <nothere@noland.com> >>>wrote:
On 6/25/2022 2:19 PM, Justan Ohlphart wrote:
gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r
On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 09:42:15 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart<me@yourservice.com> wrote:>gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 05:38:36 -0000 (UTC), Bill<califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:><gfretwell@aol.com> wrote:>> On Fri,
6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:>>>> Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:>>>>> >>>>> Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to>>>>> overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individual>>>>> states there may be aboomeranging problem for Republicans and>>>>> the pro-life crowds.>>>>> >>>>> The
decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage of>>>>> it in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possibly>>>>> limiting a red "wave" in order to retain control of the House>>>>> and Senate so Congress can finally act (as theyshould have>>>>> 50 years ago) and make it a law. The SCOTUS can't overturn it>>>>>
conception and not when some>>>>> panel of scientists decide when it starts. Has nothingthen.>>>>> >>>>> Just for the record, I am pretty much pro-life, not for any>>>>> religious reasons, but because one of the>definitions of life>>>>> is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.>>>>> To me that means life begins at
to do>>>>> with viability or what you call those dividing cells as they>>>>> mature IMO.>>>>> >>>> >>>> I think it is a fantastic ruling! Nothing to do with pro-life, but maybe a>>>> Supreme Court finally not ignoring the Constitution. Where is therea law mandating Federal >>> jurisdiction for abortions "on demand" it *would* >be a
right to abortion in the Constitution? Pelosi saying the Congress >should>>>> pass a law. Should also be ruled unconstitutional. Is a states issue.>>>> And the case in Texas that precipitated the ruling, did not ban abortion,>>>> but restricted it to the first 15 weeks.>>>> >>> As I understand it, if Congress passed
Court to do in cases like this.>> >> This really just means a poor person in someConstitutional >>> issue and it's unlikely the Supreme Court would even hear a>>> challenge to it.>>> >>> But they haven't.>The Supreme Court of 1973 just made it up.>>> This court is simply doing what the founding fathers intended>>> the Supreme
bible belt states is>> going to need someone to buy her a plane ticket. If they can afford>> the ticket off they go. >> >> John pointed out to me and I verified, most abortions these days are>> chemically induced. That is not the morning after pill. >>So I suspect that will be an issue with drug dealers getting into the>> abortion
pill business if they are willing to take the chance but the>> penalty for being a Fentanyl dealer are nothing like what you get for>> being a mass murderer of babies. ;)>> The laws are being written that way. >> >> >>Even the law that got R-V toSCOTUS from Texas did not ban all abortion,>only restricted it to the first 15 >>>>weeks.Some of the bible belt states are writing ridiculous laws.>>So are some of the original 13. I'm sure there are some laws here> in the Sunshine state that don't suit your fancy.There are plenty of laws that don't "suit my fancy" but calling
the top. That is why I say, illegal sales of abortion pills will most likely beby the same guys who sell crack and heroin. Laws don't scare them. The question will be how people will deal with a chemical abortionthat goes sideways and there are nomedical people around. It is notexactly the "coat hanger" days but close. People
might be afraid to dial 9-11 lest they get charged with murder.
If they don't get the pill from a trusted source, they'll still be
wondering what kind of pill the drug pusher sold them. That's a
gamble with deadly consequences no matter what.
Isn't it kinda ironic that the people that get in trouble with the law >>>>are usually those who break or ignore laws to begin with?
Maybe you folks should read a little about this "abortion pill"
(RU-486) This is not the morning after thing. It is the one a lady
takes when the test strip is the wrong color for 2 weeks in a row.
(week 6-7 at best). Read the Mayo Clinic description. This
"pill" is ugly shit and if the poor lady is one of a significant
number who don't miscarry and just bleed until the fetus is surgically >>>removed. Then you understand this is not easy.
Where is your link?
Mayo says:
"Side Effects
Drug information provided by: IBM Micromedex
Along with its needed effects, a medicine may cause some unwanted
effects. Although not all of these side effects may occur, if they do
occur they may need medical attention.
Check with your doctor immediately if any of the following side
effects occur:
Less common
Excessively heavy vaginal bleeding
unusual tiredness or weakness
Are you saying abortions are much safer?
https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/mifepristone-oral-route/precautions/drg-20067123
***************************************
Precautions
Drug information provided by: IBM Micromedex
You must have 3 visits to your doctor's office during treatment with >Mifeprex®. It is extremely important that you attend all 3 visits.
Using Korlym™ while you are pregnant can harm your unborn baby. Use an >effective form of birth control (eg, a condom, a diaphragm, or a
cervical cap) to keep from getting pregnant during therapy and for 1
month after the last dose of this medicine. If you think you have
become pregnant while using the medicine, tell your doctor right away.
Do not use this medicine if you are also using cyclosporine (Gengraf®, >Neoral®, Sandimmune®), dihydroergotamine (D.H.E. 45®, Migranal®),
ergotamine (Ergomar®, Ergostat®), fentanyl (Sublimaze®), lovastatin >(Altocor®, Mevacor®), pimozide (Orap®), quinidine (Quinora®),
simvastatin (Zocor®), sirolimus (Rapamune®), tacrolimus (Prograf®), or
a steroid medicine (such as dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, >methylprednisolone, prednisone, Medrol®). Using these medicines
together may cause serious problems.
Check with your doctor if the vaginal bleeding becomes severe or seems
to last longer than expected (eg, soaking through two thick full-size >sanitary pads per hour for 2 consecutive hours) while using this
medicine.
You may need to have a surgical procedure to stop excessive vaginal
bleeding or to terminate a pregnancy that was not terminated with the >Mifeprex® treatment procedure. "
**********************
The scary thing is these pills will be showing up on the black market
in right to life states and women will be using them without proper
medical surveillance. Women will die.
Are you seriously saying an abortion in a non-medical venue is in any
way safe?
BTW that last line says you may still need a clinical abortion even
after taking Mifeprex. By then it is too late to take a bus to
Chicago. The woman is fighting for her life in a state where that may
not be a sufficient reason to allow an abortion even though the
Mifeprex probably killed the fetus anyway.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/doctors-save-mothers-life-exception-abortion-bans-medically/story?id=84668658
**********************************
But doctors told ABC News the language of these laws is vague and
makes it unclear what qualifies as a mother's life being in danger,
what the risk of death is, and how imminent death must be before a
provider can act.
"We've taken the Hippocratic oath to do no harm, and these types of
laws and this type of language actually do harm," Dr. Melissa Simon,
vice chair for research in the department of obstetrics and gynecology
at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago,
told ABC News. "I do not -- nor do my patients want me to -- stop what
I'm doing and think about what the judge would do: 'Will the judge
sentence me to jail if I were to perform an abortion?'"
****************************
On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 15:37:58 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:24 Jun 2022 14:40:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" <nothere@noland.com>>> wrote:>> >>> On
On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 07:28:00 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 03:07:28 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:05:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" <nothere@noland.com> >>>>wrote:
On 6/25/2022 2:19 PM, Justan Ohlphart wrote:
gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r
On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 09:42:15 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart<me@yourservice.com> wrote:>gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 05:38:36 -0000 (UTC), Bill<califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:><gfretwell@aol.com> wrote:>> On Fri,
boomeranging problem for Republicans and>>>>> the pro-life crowds.>>>>> >>>>> The6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:>>>> Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:>>>>> >>>>> Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to>>>>> overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individual>>>>> states there may be a
should have>>>>> 50 years ago) and make it a law. The SCOTUS can't overturn it>>>>>decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage of>>>>> it in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possibly>>>>> limiting a red "wave" in order to retain control of the House>>>>> and Senate so Congress can finally act (as they
conception and not when some>>>>> panel of scientists decide when it starts. Hasthen.>>>>> >>>>> Just for the record, I am pretty much pro-life, not for any>>>>> religious reasons, but because one of the>definitions of life>>>>> is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.>>>>> To me that means life begins at
there a>>>> right to abortion in the Constitution? Pelosi saying the Congress >>should>>>> pass a law. Should also be ruled unconstitutional. Is a states issue.>>>> And the case in Texas that precipitated the ruling, did not ban abortion,>>>> but restricted it to the first 15 weeks.>>>> >>> As I understand it, if Congress passedto do>>>>> with viability or what you call those dividing cells as they>>>>> mature IMO.>>>>> >>>> >>>> I think it is a fantastic ruling! Nothing to do with pro-life, but maybe a>>>> Supreme Court finally not ignoring the Constitution. Where is
Court to do in cases like this.>> >> This really just means a poor person in someConstitutional >>> issue and it's unlikely the Supreme Court would even hear a>>> challenge to it.>>> >>> But they haven't.>The Supreme Court of 1973 just made it up.>>> This court is simply doing what the founding fathers intended>>> the Supreme
So I suspect that will be an issue with drug dealers getting into the>> abortionbible belt states is>> going to need someone to buy her a plane ticket. If they can afford>> the ticket off they go. >> >> John pointed out to me and I verified, most abortions these days are>> chemically induced. That is not the morning after pill. >>
SCOTUS from Texas did not ban all abortion,>only restricted it to the first 15 >>>>>weeks.Some of the bible belt states are writing ridiculous laws.>>So are some of the original 13. I'm sure there are some laws here> in the Sunshine state that don't suit your fancy.There are plenty of laws that don't "suit my fancy" but callingpill business if they are willing to take the chance but the>> penalty for being a Fentanyl dealer are nothing like what you get for>> being a mass murderer of babies. ;)>> The laws are being written that way. >> >> >>Even the law that got R-V to
medical people around. It is notexactly the "coat hanger" days but close. Peoplethe top. That is why I say, illegal sales of abortion pills will most likely beby the same guys who sell crack and heroin. Laws don't scare them. The question will be how people will deal with a chemical abortionthat goes sideways and there are no
might be afraid to dial 9-11 lest they get charged with murder.Sounds reasonable. So what's your point?
If they don't get the pill from a trusted source, they'll still be >>>>>> wondering what kind of pill the drug pusher sold them. That's a
gamble with deadly consequences no matter what.
Isn't it kinda ironic that the people that get in trouble with the law >>>>>are usually those who break or ignore laws to begin with?
Maybe you folks should read a little about this "abortion pill" >>>>(RU-486) This is not the morning after thing. It is the one a lady >>>>takes when the test strip is the wrong color for 2 weeks in a row. >>>>(week 6-7 at best). Read the Mayo Clinic description. This
"pill" is ugly shit and if the poor lady is one of a significant
number who don't miscarry and just bleed until the fetus is surgically >>>>removed. Then you understand this is not easy.
Where is your link?
Mayo says:
"Side Effects
Drug information provided by: IBM Micromedex
Along with its needed effects, a medicine may cause some unwanted >>>effects. Although not all of these side effects may occur, if they do >>>occur they may need medical attention.
Check with your doctor immediately if any of the following side
effects occur:
Less common
Excessively heavy vaginal bleeding
unusual tiredness or weakness
Are you saying abortions are much safer?
https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/mifepristone-oral-route/precautions/drg-20067123
***************************************
Precautions
Drug information provided by: IBM Micromedex
You must have 3 visits to your doctor's office during treatment with >>Mifeprex®. It is extremely important that you attend all 3 visits.
Using Korlymâ„¢ while you are pregnant can harm your unborn baby. Use an >>effective form of birth control (eg, a condom, a diaphragm, or a
cervical cap) to keep from getting pregnant during therapy and for 1
month after the last dose of this medicine. If you think you have
become pregnant while using the medicine, tell your doctor right away.
Do not use this medicine if you are also using cyclosporine (Gengraf®, >>Neoral®, Sandimmune®), dihydroergotamine (D.H.E. 45®, Migranal®), >>ergotamine (Ergomar®, Ergostat®), fentanyl (Sublimaze®), lovastatin >>(Altocor®, Mevacor®), pimozide (Orap®), quinidine (Quinora®), >>simvastatin (Zocor®), sirolimus (Rapamune®), tacrolimus (Prograf®), orSounds reasonable to me. What's your point?
a steroid medicine (such as dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, >>methylprednisolone, prednisone, Medrol®). Using these medicines
together may cause serious problems.
Check with your doctor if the vaginal bleeding becomes severe or seemsi.e., an abortion.
to last longer than expected (eg, soaking through two thick full-size >>sanitary pads per hour for 2 consecutive hours) while using this
medicine.
You may need to have a surgical procedure to stop excessive vaginal >>bleeding or to terminate a pregnancy that was not terminated with the >>Mifeprex® treatment procedure. "
**********************From where do you get that? Isn't that why Planned Parenthood is
The scary thing is these pills will be showing up on the black market
in right to life states and women will be using them without proper
medical surveillance. Women will die.
supposed to exist?
Are you seriously saying an abortion in a non-medical venue is in any
way safe?
Are you fucking SERIOUSLY putting words in my mouth?
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 06:12:32 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:24 Jun 2022 14:40:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" <nothere@noland.com>>> wrote:>> >>> >On
On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 15:37:58 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 07:28:00 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 03:07:28 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:05:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" <nothere@noland.com> >>>>>wrote:
On 6/25/2022 2:19 PM, Justan Ohlphart wrote:
gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r
On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 09:42:15 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart<me@yourservice.com> wrote:>gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 05:38:36 -0000 (UTC), Bill<califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:><gfretwell@aol.com> wrote:>> On Fri,
boomeranging problem for Republicans and>>>>> the pro-life crowds.>>>>> >>>>> The6/24/2022 2:27 PM, Bill wrote:>>>> Mr. Luddite <nothere@noland.com> wrote:>>>>> >>>>> Given just announced and expected decision by the Supreme Court to>>>>> overturn Roe vs Wade and turn that issue back to the individual>>>>> states there may be a
should have>>>>> 50 years ago) and make it a law. The SCOTUS can't overturn >it>>>>>decision gives a rally call for the left to take advantage of>>>>> it in the next few months leading to the mid-terms, possibly>>>>> limiting a red "wave" in order to retain control of the House>>>>> and Senate so Congress can finally act (as they
conception and not when some>>>>> panel of scientists decide when it starts. Hasthen.>>>>> >>>>> Just for the record, I am pretty much pro-life, not for any>>>>> religious reasons, but because one of the>definitions of life>>>>> is when a single cell divides and continues to divide.>>>>> To me that means life begins at
nothingthere a>>>> right to abortion in the Constitution? Pelosi saying the Congress >>>should>>>> pass a law. Should also be ruled unconstitutional. Is a states issue.>>>> And the case in Texas that precipitated the ruling, did not ban abortion,>>>> but restricted it to the first 15 weeks.>>>> >>> As I understand it, if Congress
to do>>>>> with viability or what you call those dividing cells as they>>>>> mature IMO.>>>>> >>>> >>>> I think it is a fantastic ruling! Nothing to do with pro-life, but maybe a>>>> Supreme Court finally not ignoring the Constitution. Where is
Court to do in cases like this.>> >> This really just means a poor person in somebe a
Constitutional >>> issue and it's unlikely the Supreme Court would even hear a>>> challenge to it.>>> >>> But they haven't.>The Supreme Court of 1973 just made it up.>>> This court is simply doing what the founding fathers intended>>> the Supreme
So I suspect that will be an issue with drug dealers getting into the>> >abortionbible belt states is>> going to need someone to buy her a plane ticket. If they can afford>> the ticket off they go. >> >> John pointed out to me and I verified, most abortions these days are>> chemically induced. That is not the morning after pill. >>
SCOTUS from Texas did not ban all abortion,>only restricted it to the first 15 >>>>>>weeks.Some of the bible belt states are writing ridiculous laws.>>So are some of the original 13. I'm sure there are some laws here> in the Sunshine state that don't suit your fancy.There are plenty of laws that don't "suit my fancy" but callingpill business if they are willing to take the chance but the>> penalty for being a Fentanyl dealer are nothing like what you get for>> being a mass murderer of babies. ;)>> The laws are being written that way. >> >> >>Even the law that got R-V to
medical people around. It is notexactly the "coat hanger" days but close. Peoplethe top. That is why I say, illegal sales of abortion pills will most likely beby the same guys who sell crack and heroin. Laws don't scare them. The question will be how people will deal with a chemical abortionthat goes sideways and there are no
might be afraid to dial 9-11 lest they get charged with murder.Sounds reasonable. So what's your point?
If they don't get the pill from a trusted source, they'll still be >>>>>>> wondering what kind of pill the drug pusher sold them. That's a >>>>>>> gamble with deadly consequences no matter what.
Isn't it kinda ironic that the people that get in trouble with the law >>>>>>are usually those who break or ignore laws to begin with?
Maybe you folks should read a little about this "abortion pill" >>>>>(RU-486) This is not the morning after thing. It is the one a lady >>>>>takes when the test strip is the wrong color for 2 weeks in a row. >>>>>(week 6-7 at best). Read the Mayo Clinic description. This
"pill" is ugly shit and if the poor lady is one of a significant >>>>>number who don't miscarry and just bleed until the fetus is surgically >>>>>removed. Then you understand this is not easy.
Where is your link?
Mayo says:
"Side Effects
Drug information provided by: IBM Micromedex
Along with its needed effects, a medicine may cause some unwanted >>>>effects. Although not all of these side effects may occur, if they do >>>>occur they may need medical attention.
Check with your doctor immediately if any of the following side
effects occur:
Less common
Excessively heavy vaginal bleeding
unusual tiredness or weakness
Are you saying abortions are much safer?
https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/mifepristone-oral-route/precautions/drg-20067123
***************************************
Precautions
Drug information provided by: IBM Micromedex
You must have 3 visits to your doctor's office during treatment with >>>Mifeprex®. It is extremely important that you attend all 3 visits.
Using Korlym™ while you are pregnant can harm your unborn baby. Use an >>>effective form of birth control (eg, a condom, a diaphragm, or a
cervical cap) to keep from getting pregnant during therapy and for 1 >>>month after the last dose of this medicine. If you think you have
become pregnant while using the medicine, tell your doctor right away.
Do not use this medicine if you are also using cyclosporine (Gengraf®, >>>Neoral®, Sandimmune®), dihydroergotamine (D.H.E. 45®, Migranal®), >>>ergotamine (Ergomar®, Ergostat®), fentanyl (Sublimaze®), lovastatin >>>(Altocor®, Mevacor®), pimozide (Orap®), quinidine (Quinora®),Sounds reasonable to me. What's your point?
simvastatin (Zocor®), sirolimus (Rapamune®), tacrolimus (Prograf®), or
a steroid medicine (such as dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, >>>methylprednisolone, prednisone, Medrol®). Using these medicines
together may cause serious problems.
Check with your doctor if the vaginal bleeding becomes severe or seemsi.e., an abortion.
to last longer than expected (eg, soaking through two thick full-size >>>sanitary pads per hour for 2 consecutive hours) while using this >>>medicine.
You may need to have a surgical procedure to stop excessive vaginal >>>bleeding or to terminate a pregnancy that was not terminated with the >>>Mifeprex® treatment procedure. "
**********************From where do you get that? Isn't that why Planned Parenthood is
The scary thing is these pills will be showing up on the black market
in right to life states and women will be using them without proper >>>medical surveillance. Women will die.
supposed to exist?
Are you seriously saying an abortion in a non-medical venue is in any
way safe?
Are you fucking SERIOUSLY putting words in my mouth?
When you make things illegal, you automatically make them unsafe.
In this case NBC News is already laying out how women in the banned
states can get RU-486 in the gray market and wondering who the state
will try to prosecute if they get caught. Women will order these and
maybe 95% of them have an expected outcome but I bet a woman in a
miscarry situation from "the pill" rolling into an ER in one of those
banned states will wake up handcuffed to the bed. In Texas they can
sue the Amazon driver for at least $10,000 even if he isn't charged.
The point is there is a significant danger with this and they are
forbidding any medical people to monitor the treatment and threatening
severe consequences if you are remotely involved.
AKA another stupid drug war.
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 23:56:07 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 06:12:32 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
From where do you get that? Isn't that why Planned Parenthood is
The scary thing is these pills will be showing up on the black market >>>>in right to life states and women will be using them without proper >>>>medical surveillance. Women will die.
supposed to exist?
Are you seriously saying an abortion in a non-medical venue is in any >>>>way safe?
Are you fucking SERIOUSLY putting words in my mouth?
When you make things illegal, you automatically make them unsafe.
You failed to answer the question:
"Are you fucking SERIOUSLY putting words in my mouth?"
In this case NBC News is already laying out how women in the banned
states can get RU-486 in the gray market and wondering who the state
will try to prosecute if they get caught. Women will order these and
maybe 95% of them have an expected outcome but I bet a woman in a
miscarry situation from "the pill" rolling into an ER in one of those >>banned states will wake up handcuffed to the bed. In Texas they can
sue the Amazon driver for at least $10,000 even if he isn't charged.
The point is there is a significant danger with this and they are >>forbidding any medical people to monitor the treatment and threatening >>severe consequences if you are remotely involved.
AKA another stupid drug war.
NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and GREG can envision all kinds of extreme scenarios.
The fact remains that contraception is available everywhere, along
with the morning after pill. Here's Tupelo again:
https://www.yellowpages.com/tupelo-ms/planned-parenthood
Note the contraception services provided at the downtown hospital:
Covered contraceptive methods
FDA-approved contraceptive methods prescribed by a woman’s doctor are >covered, including:
Barrier methods, like diaphragms and sponges
Hormonal methods, like birth control pills and vaginal rings
Implanted devices, like intrauterine devices (IUDs)
Emergency contraception, like Plan B® and ella®
Sterilization procedures
Patient education and counseling
In other words, Greg, you're blowing smoke like the worst of the
liberals!
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 07:09:56 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 23:56:07 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 06:12:32 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
From where do you get that? Isn't that why Planned Parenthood is >>>>supposed to exist?
The scary thing is these pills will be showing up on the black market >>>>>in right to life states and women will be using them without proper >>>>>medical surveillance. Women will die.
Are you seriously saying an abortion in a non-medical venue is in any >>>>>way safe?
Are you fucking SERIOUSLY putting words in my mouth?
When you make things illegal, you automatically make them unsafe.
You failed to answer the question:
"Are you fucking SERIOUSLY putting words in my mouth?"
A am seriously actually defining what you say will mean in the real
world, not that fantasy land you live in were condoms never fail,
everyone can afford birth control and teenaged girls always make good >choices.
We have created an environment where girls will be presented with
either coming up with thousands of dollars to travel out of state or
take a chance with an illegal abortion that will not be supervised by
any medical persons.
In this case NBC News is already laying out how women in the banned >>>states can get RU-486 in the gray market and wondering who the state
will try to prosecute if they get caught. Women will order these and >>>maybe 95% of them have an expected outcome but I bet a woman in a >>>miscarry situation from "the pill" rolling into an ER in one of those >>>banned states will wake up handcuffed to the bed. In Texas they can
sue the Amazon driver for at least $10,000 even if he isn't charged.
The point is there is a significant danger with this and they are >>>forbidding any medical people to monitor the treatment and threatening >>>severe consequences if you are remotely involved.
AKA another stupid drug war.
NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and GREG can envision all kinds of extreme scenarios.
The fact remains that contraception is available everywhere, along
with the morning after pill. Here's Tupelo again:
https://www.yellowpages.com/tupelo-ms/planned-parenthood
Note the contraception services provided at the downtown hospital:
Covered contraceptive methods
FDA-approved contraceptive methods prescribed by a woman’s doctor are >>covered, including:
Barrier methods, like diaphragms and sponges
Hormonal methods, like birth control pills and vaginal rings
Implanted devices, like intrauterine devices (IUDs)
Emergency contraception, like Plan B® and ella®
Sterilization procedures
Patient education and counseling
In other words, Greg, you're blowing smoke like the worst of the
liberals!
That is an old ad. Let's see how they read after a few prosecutions.
BTW do you have any experience with any of this, pre Roe or are you
just quoting the tracts you get?
I have seen what it was like in the 60s. I lived in "Souf Ese" where
there were old women who knew how to use a coat hanger.
Most of the time that came out OK too. Sometimes it didn't.
Feel Lucky?
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:02:49 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 07:09:56 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 23:56:07 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 06:12:32 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
From where do you get that? Isn't that why Planned Parenthood is >>>>>supposed to exist?
The scary thing is these pills will be showing up on the black market >>>>>>in right to life states and women will be using them without proper >>>>>>medical surveillance. Women will die.
Are you seriously saying an abortion in a non-medical venue is in any >>>>>>way safe?
Are you fucking SERIOUSLY putting words in my mouth?
When you make things illegal, you automatically make them unsafe.
You failed to answer the question:
"Are you fucking SERIOUSLY putting words in my mouth?"
A am seriously actually defining what you say will mean in the real
world, not that fantasy land you live in were condoms never fail,
everyone can afford birth control and teenaged girls always make good >>choices.
So where did I come close to saying 'an abortion in a non-medical
venue is safe?"
Greg, you're full of shit!
We have created an environment where girls will be presented with'Thousands of dollars to travel out of state?' I can fly round trip to >Seattle for about $1000.
either coming up with thousands of dollars to travel out of state or
take a chance with an illegal abortion that will not be supervised by
any medical persons.
More bullshit, Greg.
In this case NBC News is already laying out how women in the banned >>>>states can get RU-486 in the gray market and wondering who the state >>>>will try to prosecute if they get caught. Women will order these and >>>>maybe 95% of them have an expected outcome but I bet a woman in a >>>>miscarry situation from "the pill" rolling into an ER in one of those >>>>banned states will wake up handcuffed to the bed. In Texas they can
sue the Amazon driver for at least $10,000 even if he isn't charged.
The point is there is a significant danger with this and they are >>>>forbidding any medical people to monitor the treatment and threatening >>>>severe consequences if you are remotely involved.
AKA another stupid drug war.
NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and GREG can envision all kinds of extreme scenarios. >>>The fact remains that contraception is available everywhere, along
with the morning after pill. Here's Tupelo again:
https://www.yellowpages.com/tupelo-ms/planned-parenthood
Note the contraception services provided at the downtown hospital:
Covered contraceptive methods
FDA-approved contraceptive methods prescribed by a woman’s doctor are >>>covered, including:
Barrier methods, like diaphragms and sponges
Hormonal methods, like birth control pills and vaginal rings
Implanted devices, like intrauterine devices (IUDs)
Emergency contraception, like Plan B® and ella®
Sterilization procedures
Patient education and counseling
In other words, Greg, you're blowing smoke like the worst of the >>>liberals!
That is an old ad. Let's see how they read after a few prosecutions.
Prosecutions for what? Birth Control pills? Vaginal rings?
Intrauterine devices? Plan B or ella?
More bullshit, Greg.
BTW do you have any experience with any of this, pre Roe or are you
just quoting the tracts you get?
I have seen what it was like in the 60s. I lived in "Souf Ese" where
there were old women who knew how to use a coat hanger.
Most of the time that came out OK too. Sometimes it didn't.
Feel Lucky?
No one in the world could have more experience with anything than you,
so I won't go into it.
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:13:08 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:02:49 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 07:09:56 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 23:56:07 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 06:12:32 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
From where do you get that? Isn't that why Planned Parenthood is >>>>>>supposed to exist?
The scary thing is these pills will be showing up on the black market >>>>>>>in right to life states and women will be using them without proper >>>>>>>medical surveillance. Women will die.
Are you seriously saying an abortion in a non-medical venue is in any >>>>>>>way safe?
Are you fucking SERIOUSLY putting words in my mouth?
When you make things illegal, you automatically make them unsafe.
You failed to answer the question:
"Are you fucking SERIOUSLY putting words in my mouth?"
A am seriously actually defining what you say will mean in the real >>>world, not that fantasy land you live in were condoms never fail, >>>everyone can afford birth control and teenaged girls always make good >>>choices.
So where did I come close to saying 'an abortion in a non-medical
venue is safe?"
Greg, you're full of shit!
We have created an environment where girls will be presented with'Thousands of dollars to travel out of state?' I can fly round trip to >>Seattle for about $1000.
either coming up with thousands of dollars to travel out of state or
take a chance with an illegal abortion that will not be supervised by
any medical persons.
More bullshit, Greg.
Where do you stay?
I travel plenty and the air fare, even the 1st class
ticket I buy is a fraction of the cost of the whole trip. This is not
going to be a weekend turnaround for most people.
My wife was quick to point out she is an established patient with good >insurance (MC Plan G) and her OB/GYN is booking appointments about 1-2
months out. We don't all get to walk into a VA hospital and wave
retired officer credentials.
In this case NBC News is already laying out how women in the banned >>>>>states can get RU-486 in the gray market and wondering who the state >>>>>will try to prosecute if they get caught. Women will order these and >>>>>maybe 95% of them have an expected outcome but I bet a woman in a >>>>>miscarry situation from "the pill" rolling into an ER in one of those >>>>>banned states will wake up handcuffed to the bed. In Texas they can >>>>>sue the Amazon driver for at least $10,000 even if he isn't charged.
The point is there is a significant danger with this and they are >>>>>forbidding any medical people to monitor the treatment and threatening >>>>>severe consequences if you are remotely involved.
AKA another stupid drug war.
NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and GREG can envision all kinds of extreme scenarios. >>>>The fact remains that contraception is available everywhere, along
with the morning after pill. Here's Tupelo again:
https://www.yellowpages.com/tupelo-ms/planned-parenthood
Note the contraception services provided at the downtown hospital:
Covered contraceptive methods
FDA-approved contraceptive methods prescribed by a woman’s doctor are >>>>covered, including:
Barrier methods, like diaphragms and sponges
Hormonal methods, like birth control pills and vaginal rings
Implanted devices, like intrauterine devices (IUDs)
Emergency contraception, like Plan B® and ella®
Sterilization procedures
Patient education and counseling
In other words, Greg, you're blowing smoke like the worst of the >>>>liberals!
That is an old ad. Let's see how they read after a few prosecutions.
Prosecutions for what? Birth Control pills? Vaginal rings?
Intrauterine devices? Plan B or ella?
More bullshit, Greg.
Watch the legislation that is being presented or already passed and
get back to me. Thomas has already said he is ready to toss Griswald v
Conn (the decision that affirmed the right to contraception).
BTW do you have any experience with any of this, pre Roe or are you
just quoting the tracts you get?
I have seen what it was like in the 60s. I lived in "Souf Ese" where >>>there were old women who knew how to use a coat hanger.
Most of the time that came out OK too. Sometimes it didn't.
Feel Lucky?
No one in the world could have more experience with anything than you,
so I won't go into it.
John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 15:50:04 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:13:08 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:02:49 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 07:09:56 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 23:56:07 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 06:12:32 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>
You failed to answer the question:From where do you get that? Isn't that why Planned Parenthood is >>>>>>>> supposed to exist?
The scary thing is these pills will be showing up on the black market >>>>>>>>> in right to life states and women will be using them without proper >>>>>>>>> medical surveillance. Women will die.
Are you seriously saying an abortion in a non-medical venue is in any >>>>>>>>> way safe?
Are you fucking SERIOUSLY putting words in my mouth?
When you make things illegal, you automatically make them unsafe. >>>>>>
"Are you fucking SERIOUSLY putting words in my mouth?"
A am seriously actually defining what you say will mean in the real
world, not that fantasy land you live in were condoms never fail,
everyone can afford birth control and teenaged girls always make good >>>>> choices.
So where did I come close to saying 'an abortion in a non-medical
venue is safe?"
Greg, you're full of shit!
We have created an environment where girls will be presented with'Thousands of dollars to travel out of state?' I can fly round trip to >>>> Seattle for about $1000.
either coming up with thousands of dollars to travel out of state or >>>>> take a chance with an illegal abortion that will not be supervised by >>>>> any medical persons.
More bullshit, Greg.
Where do you stay?
I travel plenty and the air fare, even the 1st class
ticket I buy is a fraction of the cost of the whole trip. This is not
going to be a weekend turnaround for most people.
My wife was quick to point out she is an established patient with good
insurance (MC Plan G) and her OB/GYN is booking appointments about 1-2
months out. We don't all get to walk into a VA hospital and wave
retired officer credentials.
Are those appointments for abortions? And yes, the turnaround should
be about a weekend or less.
https://www.abortionclinics.com/how-long-does-an-abortion-take/
Of course, you'll know better than this.
In this case NBC News is already laying out how women in the banned >>>>>>> states can get RU-486 in the gray market and wondering who the state >>>>>>> will try to prosecute if they get caught. Women will order these and >>>>>>> maybe 95% of them have an expected outcome but I bet a woman in a >>>>>>> miscarry situation from "the pill" rolling into an ER in one of those >>>>>>> banned states will wake up handcuffed to the bed. In Texas they can >>>>>>> sue the Amazon driver for at least $10,000 even if he isn't charged. >>>>>>>
The point is there is a significant danger with this and they are >>>>>>> forbidding any medical people to monitor the treatment and threatening >>>>>>> severe consequences if you are remotely involved.
AKA another stupid drug war.
NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and GREG can envision all kinds of extreme scenarios. >>>>>> The fact remains that contraception is available everywhere, along >>>>>> with the morning after pill. Here's Tupelo again:
https://www.yellowpages.com/tupelo-ms/planned-parenthood
Note the contraception services provided at the downtown hospital: >>>>>>
Covered contraceptive methods
FDA-approved contraceptive methods prescribed by a womanÂ’s doctor are >>>>>> covered, including:
Barrier methods, like diaphragms and sponges
Hormonal methods, like birth control pills and vaginal rings
Implanted devices, like intrauterine devices (IUDs)
Emergency contraception, like Plan B® and ella®
Sterilization procedures
Patient education and counseling
In other words, Greg, you're blowing smoke like the worst of the
liberals!
That is an old ad. Let's see how they read after a few prosecutions.
Prosecutions for what? Birth Control pills? Vaginal rings?
Intrauterine devices? Plan B or ella?
More bullshit, Greg.
Watch the legislation that is being presented or already passed and
get back to me. Thomas has already said he is ready to toss Griswald v
Conn (the decision that affirmed the right to contraception).
BTW do you have any experience with any of this, pre Roe or are you
just quoting the tracts you get?
I have seen what it was like in the 60s. I lived in "Souf Ese" where >>>>> there were old women who knew how to use a coat hanger.
Most of the time that came out OK too. Sometimes it didn't.
Feel Lucky?
No one in the world could have more experience with anything than you, >>>> so I won't go into it.
I have not had a lot of abortiions, so my experience, unlike yours, is
limited.
Sadly, your mother didn’t avail herself of a safe abortion and thereby save the world from the presence of a right-wing, racist hate monger.
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 15:50:04 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:13:08 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:02:49 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 07:09:56 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 23:56:07 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 06:12:32 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>
From where do you get that? Isn't that why Planned Parenthood is >>>>>>> supposed to exist?
The scary thing is these pills will be showing up on the black market >>>>>>>> in right to life states and women will be using them without proper >>>>>>>> medical surveillance. Women will die.
Are you seriously saying an abortion in a non-medical venue is in any >>>>>>>> way safe?
Are you fucking SERIOUSLY putting words in my mouth?
When you make things illegal, you automatically make them unsafe.
You failed to answer the question:
"Are you fucking SERIOUSLY putting words in my mouth?"
A am seriously actually defining what you say will mean in the real
world, not that fantasy land you live in were condoms never fail,
everyone can afford birth control and teenaged girls always make good
choices.
So where did I come close to saying 'an abortion in a non-medical
venue is safe?"
Greg, you're full of shit!
We have created an environment where girls will be presented with'Thousands of dollars to travel out of state?' I can fly round trip to
either coming up with thousands of dollars to travel out of state or
take a chance with an illegal abortion that will not be supervised by
any medical persons.
Seattle for about $1000.
More bullshit, Greg.
Where do you stay?
I travel plenty and the air fare, even the 1st class
ticket I buy is a fraction of the cost of the whole trip. This is not
going to be a weekend turnaround for most people.
My wife was quick to point out she is an established patient with good
insurance (MC Plan G) and her OB/GYN is booking appointments about 1-2
months out. We don't all get to walk into a VA hospital and wave
retired officer credentials.
Are those appointments for abortions? And yes, the turnaround should
be about a weekend or less.
https://www.abortionclinics.com/how-long-does-an-abortion-take/
Of course, you'll know better than this.
In this case NBC News is already laying out how women in the banned >>>>>> states can get RU-486 in the gray market and wondering who the state >>>>>> will try to prosecute if they get caught. Women will order these and >>>>>> maybe 95% of them have an expected outcome but I bet a woman in a
miscarry situation from "the pill" rolling into an ER in one of those >>>>>> banned states will wake up handcuffed to the bed. In Texas they can >>>>>> sue the Amazon driver for at least $10,000 even if he isn't charged. >>>>>>
The point is there is a significant danger with this and they are
forbidding any medical people to monitor the treatment and threatening >>>>>> severe consequences if you are remotely involved.
AKA another stupid drug war.
NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and GREG can envision all kinds of extreme scenarios. >>>>> The fact remains that contraception is available everywhere, along
with the morning after pill. Here's Tupelo again:
https://www.yellowpages.com/tupelo-ms/planned-parenthood
Note the contraception services provided at the downtown hospital:
Covered contraceptive methods
FDA-approved contraceptive methods prescribed by a womanÂ’s doctor are >>>>> covered, including:
Barrier methods, like diaphragms and sponges
Hormonal methods, like birth control pills and vaginal rings
Implanted devices, like intrauterine devices (IUDs)
Emergency contraception, like Plan B® and ella®
Sterilization procedures
Patient education and counseling
In other words, Greg, you're blowing smoke like the worst of the
liberals!
That is an old ad. Let's see how they read after a few prosecutions.
Prosecutions for what? Birth Control pills? Vaginal rings?
Intrauterine devices? Plan B or ella?
More bullshit, Greg.
Watch the legislation that is being presented or already passed and
get back to me. Thomas has already said he is ready to toss Griswald v
Conn (the decision that affirmed the right to contraception).
BTW do you have any experience with any of this, pre Roe or are you
just quoting the tracts you get?
I have seen what it was like in the 60s. I lived in "Souf Ese" where
there were old women who knew how to use a coat hanger.
Most of the time that came out OK too. Sometimes it didn't.
Feel Lucky?
No one in the world could have more experience with anything than you,
so I won't go into it.
I have not had a lot of abortiions, so my experience, unlike yours, is limited.
John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 15:50:04 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:13:08 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:02:49 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 07:09:56 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 23:56:07 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 06:12:32 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>
You failed to answer the question:From where do you get that? Isn't that why Planned Parenthood is >>>>>>>> supposed to exist?
The scary thing is these pills will be showing up on the black market >>>>>>>>> in right to life states and women will be using them without proper >>>>>>>>> medical surveillance. Women will die.
Are you seriously saying an abortion in a non-medical venue is in any >>>>>>>>> way safe?
Are you fucking SERIOUSLY putting words in my mouth?
When you make things illegal, you automatically make them unsafe. >>>>>>
"Are you fucking SERIOUSLY putting words in my mouth?"
A am seriously actually defining what you say will mean in the real
world, not that fantasy land you live in were condoms never fail,
everyone can afford birth control and teenaged girls always make good >>>>> choices.
So where did I come close to saying 'an abortion in a non-medical
venue is safe?"
Greg, you're full of shit!
We have created an environment where girls will be presented with'Thousands of dollars to travel out of state?' I can fly round trip to >>>> Seattle for about $1000.
either coming up with thousands of dollars to travel out of state or >>>>> take a chance with an illegal abortion that will not be supervised by >>>>> any medical persons.
More bullshit, Greg.
Where do you stay?
I travel plenty and the air fare, even the 1st class
ticket I buy is a fraction of the cost of the whole trip. This is not
going to be a weekend turnaround for most people.
My wife was quick to point out she is an established patient with good
insurance (MC Plan G) and her OB/GYN is booking appointments about 1-2
months out. We don't all get to walk into a VA hospital and wave
retired officer credentials.
Are those appointments for abortions? And yes, the turnaround should
be about a weekend or less.
https://www.abortionclinics.com/how-long-does-an-abortion-take/
Of course, you'll know better than this.
In this case NBC News is already laying out how women in the banned >>>>>>> states can get RU-486 in the gray market and wondering who the state >>>>>>> will try to prosecute if they get caught. Women will order these and >>>>>>> maybe 95% of them have an expected outcome but I bet a woman in a >>>>>>> miscarry situation from "the pill" rolling into an ER in one of those >>>>>>> banned states will wake up handcuffed to the bed. In Texas they can >>>>>>> sue the Amazon driver for at least $10,000 even if he isn't charged. >>>>>>>
The point is there is a significant danger with this and they are >>>>>>> forbidding any medical people to monitor the treatment and threatening >>>>>>> severe consequences if you are remotely involved.
AKA another stupid drug war.
NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and GREG can envision all kinds of extreme scenarios. >>>>>> The fact remains that contraception is available everywhere, along >>>>>> with the morning after pill. Here's Tupelo again:
https://www.yellowpages.com/tupelo-ms/planned-parenthood
Note the contraception services provided at the downtown hospital: >>>>>>
Covered contraceptive methods
FDA-approved contraceptive methods prescribed by a woman?s doctor are >>>>>> covered, including:
Barrier methods, like diaphragms and sponges
Hormonal methods, like birth control pills and vaginal rings
Implanted devices, like intrauterine devices (IUDs)
Emergency contraception, like Plan B® and ella®
Sterilization procedures
Patient education and counseling
In other words, Greg, you're blowing smoke like the worst of the
liberals!
That is an old ad. Let's see how they read after a few prosecutions.
Prosecutions for what? Birth Control pills? Vaginal rings?
Intrauterine devices? Plan B or ella?
More bullshit, Greg.
Watch the legislation that is being presented or already passed and
get back to me. Thomas has already said he is ready to toss Griswald v
Conn (the decision that affirmed the right to contraception).
BTW do you have any experience with any of this, pre Roe or are you
just quoting the tracts you get?
I have seen what it was like in the 60s. I lived in "Souf Ese" where >>>>> there were old women who knew how to use a coat hanger.
Most of the time that came out OK too. Sometimes it didn't.
Feel Lucky?
No one in the world could have more experience with anything than you, >>>> so I won't go into it.
I have not had a lot of abortiions, so my experience, unlike yours, is
limited.
Sadly, your mother didn’t avail herself of a safe abortion and thereby save >the world from the presence of a right-wing, racist hate monger.
"That's not a baby kicking, dear, it's just a fetus!"
On 6/30/22 5:31 PM, John H wrote:
"That's not a baby kicking, dear, it's just a fetus!"
Is that supposed to have some sort of meaning, other than demonstrating
you are no brighter than JustanAsshole?
Keyser Soze <keysersoze@whitehouse.com> wrote:
John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 15:50:04 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:13:08 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:02:49 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 07:09:56 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 23:56:07 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 06:12:32 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>
You failed to answer the question:From where do you get that? Isn't that why Planned Parenthood is >>>>>>>>> supposed to exist?
The scary thing is these pills will be showing up on the black market
in right to life states and women will be using them without proper >>>>>>>>>> medical surveillance. Women will die.
Are you seriously saying an abortion in a non-medical venue is in any
way safe?
Are you fucking SERIOUSLY putting words in my mouth?
When you make things illegal, you automatically make them unsafe. >>>>>>>
"Are you fucking SERIOUSLY putting words in my mouth?"
A am seriously actually defining what you say will mean in the real >>>>>> world, not that fantasy land you live in were condoms never fail,
everyone can afford birth control and teenaged girls always make good >>>>>> choices.
So where did I come close to saying 'an abortion in a non-medical
venue is safe?"
Greg, you're full of shit!
We have created an environment where girls will be presented with'Thousands of dollars to travel out of state?' I can fly round trip to >>>>> Seattle for about $1000.
either coming up with thousands of dollars to travel out of state or >>>>>> take a chance with an illegal abortion that will not be supervised by >>>>>> any medical persons.
More bullshit, Greg.
Where do you stay?
I travel plenty and the air fare, even the 1st class
ticket I buy is a fraction of the cost of the whole trip. This is not
going to be a weekend turnaround for most people.
My wife was quick to point out she is an established patient with good >>>> insurance (MC Plan G) and her OB/GYN is booking appointments about 1-2 >>>> months out. We don't all get to walk into a VA hospital and wave
retired officer credentials.
Are those appointments for abortions? And yes, the turnaround should
be about a weekend or less.
https://www.abortionclinics.com/how-long-does-an-abortion-take/
Of course, you'll know better than this.
Prosecutions for what? Birth Control pills? Vaginal rings?
In this case NBC News is already laying out how women in the banned >>>>>>>> states can get RU-486 in the gray market and wondering who the state >>>>>>>> will try to prosecute if they get caught. Women will order these and >>>>>>>> maybe 95% of them have an expected outcome but I bet a woman in a >>>>>>>> miscarry situation from "the pill" rolling into an ER in one of those >>>>>>>> banned states will wake up handcuffed to the bed. In Texas they can >>>>>>>> sue the Amazon driver for at least $10,000 even if he isn't charged. >>>>>>>>
The point is there is a significant danger with this and they are >>>>>>>> forbidding any medical people to monitor the treatment and threatening >>>>>>>> severe consequences if you are remotely involved.
AKA another stupid drug war.
NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and GREG can envision all kinds of extreme scenarios. >>>>>>> The fact remains that contraception is available everywhere, along >>>>>>> with the morning after pill. Here's Tupelo again:
https://www.yellowpages.com/tupelo-ms/planned-parenthood
Note the contraception services provided at the downtown hospital: >>>>>>>
Covered contraceptive methods
FDA-approved contraceptive methods prescribed by a womanÂ’s doctor are >>>>>>> covered, including:
Barrier methods, like diaphragms and sponges
Hormonal methods, like birth control pills and vaginal rings
Implanted devices, like intrauterine devices (IUDs)
Emergency contraception, like Plan B® and ella®
Sterilization procedures
Patient education and counseling
In other words, Greg, you're blowing smoke like the worst of the >>>>>>> liberals!
That is an old ad. Let's see how they read after a few prosecutions. >>>>>
Intrauterine devices? Plan B or ella?
More bullshit, Greg.
Watch the legislation that is being presented or already passed and
get back to me. Thomas has already said he is ready to toss Griswald v >>>> Conn (the decision that affirmed the right to contraception).
BTW do you have any experience with any of this, pre Roe or are you >>>>>> just quoting the tracts you get?
I have seen what it was like in the 60s. I lived in "Souf Ese" where >>>>>> there were old women who knew how to use a coat hanger.
Most of the time that came out OK too. Sometimes it didn't.
Feel Lucky?
No one in the world could have more experience with anything than you, >>>>> so I won't go into it.
I have not had a lot of abortiions, so my experience, unlike yours, is
limited.
Sadly, your mother didn’t avail herself of a safe abortion and thereby save
the world from the presence of a right-wing, racist hate monger.
And your mom did not abort a societal deadbeat.
Bill <califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:
Keyser Soze <keysersoze@whitehouse.com> wrote:
John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 15:50:04 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:13:08 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:02:49 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 07:09:56 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 23:56:07 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 06:12:32 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
You failed to answer the question:From where do you get that? Isn't that why Planned Parenthood is >>>>>>>>>> supposed to exist?
The scary thing is these pills will be showing up on the black market
in right to life states and women will be using them without proper >>>>>>>>>>> medical surveillance. Women will die.
Are you seriously saying an abortion in a non-medical venue is in any
way safe?
Are you fucking SERIOUSLY putting words in my mouth?
When you make things illegal, you automatically make them unsafe. >>>>>>>>
"Are you fucking SERIOUSLY putting words in my mouth?"
A am seriously actually defining what you say will mean in the real >>>>>>> world, not that fantasy land you live in were condoms never fail, >>>>>>> everyone can afford birth control and teenaged girls always make good >>>>>>> choices.
So where did I come close to saying 'an abortion in a non-medical
venue is safe?"
Greg, you're full of shit!
We have created an environment where girls will be presented with >>>>>>> either coming up with thousands of dollars to travel out of state or >>>>>>> take a chance with an illegal abortion that will not be supervised by >>>>>>> any medical persons.'Thousands of dollars to travel out of state?' I can fly round trip to >>>>>> Seattle for about $1000.
More bullshit, Greg.
Where do you stay?
I travel plenty and the air fare, even the 1st class
ticket I buy is a fraction of the cost of the whole trip. This is not >>>>> going to be a weekend turnaround for most people.
My wife was quick to point out she is an established patient with good >>>>> insurance (MC Plan G) and her OB/GYN is booking appointments about 1-2 >>>>> months out. We don't all get to walk into a VA hospital and wave
retired officer credentials.
Are those appointments for abortions? And yes, the turnaround should
be about a weekend or less.
https://www.abortionclinics.com/how-long-does-an-abortion-take/
Of course, you'll know better than this.
Prosecutions for what? Birth Control pills? Vaginal rings?
In this case NBC News is already laying out how women in the banned >>>>>>>>> states can get RU-486 in the gray market and wondering who the state >>>>>>>>> will try to prosecute if they get caught. Women will order these and >>>>>>>>> maybe 95% of them have an expected outcome but I bet a woman in a >>>>>>>>> miscarry situation from "the pill" rolling into an ER in one of those >>>>>>>>> banned states will wake up handcuffed to the bed. In Texas they can >>>>>>>>> sue the Amazon driver for at least $10,000 even if he isn't charged. >>>>>>>>>
The point is there is a significant danger with this and they are >>>>>>>>> forbidding any medical people to monitor the treatment and threatening
severe consequences if you are remotely involved.
AKA another stupid drug war.
NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and GREG can envision all kinds of extreme scenarios. >>>>>>>> The fact remains that contraception is available everywhere, along >>>>>>>> with the morning after pill. Here's Tupelo again:
https://www.yellowpages.com/tupelo-ms/planned-parenthood
Note the contraception services provided at the downtown hospital: >>>>>>>>
Covered contraceptive methods
FDA-approved contraceptive methods prescribed by a womanÂ’s doctor are >>>>>>>> covered, including:
Barrier methods, like diaphragms and sponges
Hormonal methods, like birth control pills and vaginal rings
Implanted devices, like intrauterine devices (IUDs)
Emergency contraception, like Plan B® and ella®
Sterilization procedures
Patient education and counseling
In other words, Greg, you're blowing smoke like the worst of the >>>>>>>> liberals!
That is an old ad. Let's see how they read after a few prosecutions. >>>>>>
Intrauterine devices? Plan B or ella?
More bullshit, Greg.
Watch the legislation that is being presented or already passed and
get back to me. Thomas has already said he is ready to toss Griswald v >>>>> Conn (the decision that affirmed the right to contraception).
BTW do you have any experience with any of this, pre Roe or are you >>>>>>> just quoting the tracts you get?
I have seen what it was like in the 60s. I lived in "Souf Ese" where >>>>>>> there were old women who knew how to use a coat hanger.
Most of the time that came out OK too. Sometimes it didn't.
Feel Lucky?
No one in the world could have more experience with anything than you, >>>>>> so I won't go into it.
I have not had a lot of abortiions, so my experience, unlike yours, is >>>> limited.
Sadly, your mother didn’t avail herself of a safe abortion and thereby save
the world from the presence of a right-wing, racist hate monger.
And your mom did not abort a societal deadbeat.
Aren’t you tired of sucking Herring’s dick?
Keyser Soze <keysersoze@whitehouse.com> wrote:
Bill <califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:
Keyser Soze <keysersoze@whitehouse.com> wrote:
John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 15:50:04 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:13:08 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:02:49 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 07:09:56 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 23:56:07 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 06:12:32 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>
You failed to answer the question:From where do you get that? Isn't that why Planned Parenthood is >>>>>>>>>>> supposed to exist?
The scary thing is these pills will be showing up on the black market
in right to life states and women will be using them without proper
medical surveillance. Women will die.
Are you seriously saying an abortion in a non-medical venue is in any
way safe?
Are you fucking SERIOUSLY putting words in my mouth?
When you make things illegal, you automatically make them unsafe. >>>>>>>>>
"Are you fucking SERIOUSLY putting words in my mouth?"
A am seriously actually defining what you say will mean in the real >>>>>>>> world, not that fantasy land you live in were condoms never fail, >>>>>>>> everyone can afford birth control and teenaged girls always make good >>>>>>>> choices.
So where did I come close to saying 'an abortion in a non-medical >>>>>>> venue is safe?"
Greg, you're full of shit!
We have created an environment where girls will be presented with >>>>>>>> either coming up with thousands of dollars to travel out of state or >>>>>>>> take a chance with an illegal abortion that will not be supervised by >>>>>>>> any medical persons.'Thousands of dollars to travel out of state?' I can fly round trip to >>>>>>> Seattle for about $1000.
More bullshit, Greg.
Where do you stay?
I travel plenty and the air fare, even the 1st class
ticket I buy is a fraction of the cost of the whole trip. This is not >>>>>> going to be a weekend turnaround for most people.
My wife was quick to point out she is an established patient with good >>>>>> insurance (MC Plan G) and her OB/GYN is booking appointments about 1-2 >>>>>> months out. We don't all get to walk into a VA hospital and wave
retired officer credentials.
Are those appointments for abortions? And yes, the turnaround should >>>>> be about a weekend or less.
https://www.abortionclinics.com/how-long-does-an-abortion-take/
Of course, you'll know better than this.
Prosecutions for what? Birth Control pills? Vaginal rings?
In this case NBC News is already laying out how women in the banned >>>>>>>>>> states can get RU-486 in the gray market and wondering who the state >>>>>>>>>> will try to prosecute if they get caught. Women will order these and >>>>>>>>>> maybe 95% of them have an expected outcome but I bet a woman in a >>>>>>>>>> miscarry situation from "the pill" rolling into an ER in one of those
banned states will wake up handcuffed to the bed. In Texas they can >>>>>>>>>> sue the Amazon driver for at least $10,000 even if he isn't charged. >>>>>>>>>>
The point is there is a significant danger with this and they are >>>>>>>>>> forbidding any medical people to monitor the treatment and threatening
severe consequences if you are remotely involved.
AKA another stupid drug war.
NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and GREG can envision all kinds of extreme scenarios.
The fact remains that contraception is available everywhere, along >>>>>>>>> with the morning after pill. Here's Tupelo again:
https://www.yellowpages.com/tupelo-ms/planned-parenthood
Note the contraception services provided at the downtown hospital: >>>>>>>>>
Covered contraceptive methods
FDA-approved contraceptive methods prescribed by a woman?s doctor are >>>>>>>>> covered, including:
Barrier methods, like diaphragms and sponges
Hormonal methods, like birth control pills and vaginal rings >>>>>>>>> Implanted devices, like intrauterine devices (IUDs)
Emergency contraception, like Plan B® and ella®
Sterilization procedures
Patient education and counseling
In other words, Greg, you're blowing smoke like the worst of the >>>>>>>>> liberals!
That is an old ad. Let's see how they read after a few prosecutions. >>>>>>>
Intrauterine devices? Plan B or ella?
More bullshit, Greg.
Watch the legislation that is being presented or already passed and >>>>>> get back to me. Thomas has already said he is ready to toss Griswald v >>>>>> Conn (the decision that affirmed the right to contraception).
BTW do you have any experience with any of this, pre Roe or are you >>>>>>>> just quoting the tracts you get?
I have seen what it was like in the 60s. I lived in "Souf Ese" where >>>>>>>> there were old women who knew how to use a coat hanger.
Most of the time that came out OK too. Sometimes it didn't.
Feel Lucky?
No one in the world could have more experience with anything than you, >>>>>>> so I won't go into it.
I have not had a lot of abortiions, so my experience, unlike yours, is >>>>> limited.
Sadly, your mother didn’t avail herself of a safe abortion and thereby save
the world from the presence of a right-wing, racist hate monger.
And your mom did not abort a societal deadbeat.
Aren’t you tired of sucking Herring’s dick?
What is it that you and Donnie wallow in homosexual innuendo?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 418 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 16:41:55 |
| Calls: | 8,795 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 13,300 |
| Messages: | 5,966,725 |