http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidenti...on-stakes/

Quote:Quote:

Supreme Court Strikes Down Modest Abortion Restrictions, Highlights 2016 Election Stakes

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Pro-life supporters suffered their worst defeat in many years on Monday at the U.S. Supreme Court in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, as Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with pro-abortion forces for the first time since 1992, striking down Texas’s HB2 for violating abortion rights.

HB2 is a statute requiring abortion doctors in the Lone Star State to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their abortion clinic. The state law also requires every abortion facility to meet the equipment and sanitation standards of an ambulatory surgical center.

In 1973, the Supreme Court declared in Roe v. Wade that the Constitution implicitly contains an unwritten right (called an “implied right”) to abortion. Roe suggested that this is a fundamental right, one where the constitutional requirements shift based on which trimester the pregnancy is in...

(so the Second Ammendment, crystal clear, is interpretable but there are defensible "implied" Constitutional rights?)

Quote:Quote:

...Justice Thomas also dissented separately, beginning:

Today the Court strikes down two state statutory provisions in all their applications, at the behest of abortion clinics and doctors. That decision exemplifies the Court’s troubling tendency “to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.”

Though joining the principal dissent written by Alito, Thomas explained, “I write separately to emphasize how today’s decision perpetuates the Court’s habit of applying different rules to different constitutional rights — especially the putative right to abortion.”

Noting that Casey’s undue-burden test specifically downgraded abortion from the vaunted pedestal Roe had placed it upon, rejecting Roe’s treating abortion like a fundamental right, Thomas added that today, “the majority eviscerates important features of that test to return to a regime like the one that Casey repudiated.”

“Our law is now so riddled with special exceptions for special rights that our decisions deliver neither predictability nor the promise of a judiciary bound by the rule of law,” Thomas wrote.

After a thorough analysis, quoting a 1989 law review article from his friend, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Thomas concluded his 16-page dissent:

Today’s decision will prompt some to claim victory, just as it will stiffen opponents’ will to object. But the entire Nation has lost something essential. The majority’s embrace of a jurisprudence of rights-specific exceptions and balancing tests is “a regrettable concession of defeat—an acknowledgement that we have passed the point where ‘law,’ properly speaking, has any further application.” I respectfully dissent.

Or in other words...

It's time for a great legal purge.

Purge all case law back to the founding fathers and take the time to re-interpret it for the modern era.

Consider it a bloodless revolution.

How does requiring abortion facilities to meet standards fall into the category of denying basic rights?

Quote: (06-28-2016 07:06 AM)Suits Wrote:  



How does requiring abortion facilities to meet standards fall into the category of denying basic rights?

Let them reap what they sow. If they get an infection because the clinic is not up to standards, so be it.

I feel no sympathy for women and the stupid choices they keep making.

They had a good discussion of this on infowars yesterday. I liked the quote, "without this law ice cream shops in Texas have more health regulations than abortion clinics" they also said that in the video where the decision was delivered Judge Thomas was rocking back and forth with pursed lips like he was ready to flip the fuck out.

If the supreme court is off its rocker, which it is, states should just secede from the union. Then the highest law becomes the state supreme court, not federal.

Putting women on the Supreme Court creates these problems. Feels before everything. Trump needs to pack that shitty court with 100+ justices, all fucking white males.

Sorry guys, this is just a test post. I'm getting a blocked message when I try to post on this thread.

edit: Yeah, I try to post the message and I get a full tab "Sorry, you have been blocked
You are unable to access rooshvforum.network"

Are there certain trigger words that the post might contain or something?

Quote: (06-28-2016 08:25 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Sorry guys, this is just a test post. I'm getting a blocked message when I try to post on this thread.

edit: Yeah, I try to post the message and I get a full tab "Sorry, you have been blocked
You are unable to access rooshvforum.network"

Are there certain trigger words that the post might contain or something?

yep. I had one blocked that had way too many uses of the word ISIS. I reworded and it went through.

I'm getting repeatedly-blocked from posting or private messaging too, but in a 2000 word essay, it's more trouble than it's worth figuring out what words are triggering it. If people haven't received answers from me, that's why.

Nothing looks 'triggering'. Is there a bug?

The posting system seems fucked to me. I too sometimes get blocked for no reason, and I get caught in captcha hell like 75% of the time now if I'm writing more than a few sentences with no quote blocks. So far, I haven't been able to figure out a pattern, and the captcha/block behavior seems to be half random because I've had posts that were causing me problems magically start working with no changes before.

^ Death to the Captcha thing. Sometimes I'll just close the effing browser on my already type post, just to avoid that thing. Especially on the "keep clicking until there's no more" curve ball the bastard throws at you from time to time.

^ Same here.

I've gotten into the habit of always copying anything before I post it because I usually have to go back after the Captcha and try again and it's easy to lose your message. Given my verbosity if my mind is fired up, this can mean 30 minutes of lost work.

You also have to pay close attention when you're private messaging to see if the 'Message Sent' notification appears first rather than being dumped straight back to the mailing window. That means your message didn't go through.

It seems largely-random.

About the captcha thing, what I often do when making relatively long post is:
-Copy my text when I finished typing.
-Reload the thread
-Paste the text into the Quick Reply box.
-Post Reply.

Always have backups. Copy/paste on posts is standard procedure for serious internet posting. Learn the keyboard shortcuts.

Quote: (06-28-2016 07:38 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Copy/paste on posts is standard procedure for serious internet posting. Learn the keyboard shortcuts.

I'm sure that if NTP wasn't out at sea at this very moment, he'd absolutely agree with you.

Quote: (06-28-2016 07:38 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Always have backups. Copy/paste on posts is standard procedure for serious internet posting. Learn the keyboard shortcuts.

All good and well, but when you have a reasonably well thought out reply and it keeps getting bounced there's not much you can do except waste a lot of time selectively editing and reposting the text until you find the trigger words.

Personally I think this is worth a thread on its own. (scratch that, Roosh is already on it)

Quote: (06-28-2016 11:25 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Quote: (06-28-2016 07:38 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Always have backups. Copy/paste on posts is standard procedure for serious internet posting. Learn the keyboard shortcuts.

All good and well, but when you have a reasonably well thought out reply and it keeps getting bounced there's not much you can do except waste a lot of time selectively editing and reposting the text until you find the trigger words.

You can copy your reply to clipboard, delete it so it's just a single word, press the Post Reply button and then simply paste your whole reply back by using the "Quick Edit" function. For some reason, whatever safeguards are in place that block certain characters when creating a post are not there when editing posts.

The analogy to that Texas law on abortion if something similar was done with regard to gun rights would be if a "gun control" jurisdiction required all gun shops to have four foot thick reinforced concrete walls with two inch steel lining and two armed guards posted 24/7.

Absolutely ridiculous ruling. The very same people who lobbied for legalizing abortions because it would make them "safe and rare" are now railing against the safety aspect, as if it weren't themselves in person who had gotten it legalized in 1963 under the guise of "doing the best we can to make abortion a lesser evil".



The abortion monster is totally out of control. So far we've seen:

- Abortion transformed from a "lesser evil" to a "basic human right"
- Abortion being trivialized and turned into an ordinary and even positive life event no different from going to a nice dinner
- Abortion turning into a for-profit business with variable expenses and enormous corruption instead of a small fixed item in the budget
- Abortion acquiring an extremely strong eugenics bent
- Abortion escalating into all sorts of unrelated things, such as late-term abortions, partial-birth abortions and now finally after-birth abortions

At this point, it might be the best to just drop a nuke on the whole concept and issue a total ban on abortion. No compromises, no lesser evils, no exceptions or allowances. Abortion proponents have made a mockery of it and clearly displayed that they can't be trusted to be responsible with it.

Quote: (06-29-2016 04:30 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

The analogy to that Texas law on abortion if something similar was done with regard to gun rights would be if a "gun control" jurisdiction required all gun shops to have four foot thick reinforced concrete walls with two inch steel lining and two armed guards posted 24/7.

Umm, well, not exactly:

Quote:Quote:

HB2 is a statute requiring abortion doctors in the Lone Star State to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their abortion clinic. The state law also requires every abortion facility to meet the equipment and sanitation standards of an ambulatory surgical center.

None of this is arbitrary or unreasonable. You want the physician performing the abortion to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals so that if anything goes wrong with the abortion he is able to quickly coordinate a transfer to a higher acuity setting (the hospital).

Furthermore, abortion is a minor surgery with a very real risk of complication. Why should abortion clinics be allowed to have laxer sanitation and equipment standards than other medical facilities that carry out minor surgeries? This law is not creating punitive regulations against abortion clinics: it is merely trying to remove the singular privilege abortion clinics enjoy of being able to escape any and all standards that apply to other medical facilities. What justification is there for abortion clinics being able to have laxer standards than colonoscopy suites aside from ideological "muh body" hysteria?

Your analogy falls flat.

It's kind of funny that this thread comes up. After Brexit a lot of my conservative friends were talking about Texas leaving the Union again.

It may be looking like a better and better idea soon enough.

With all that said, I am actually a proponent of abortion. In the United States at least it tends to have a slightly eugenic effect.

Source: CDC

2011 Statistics: 1.06M performed, 2 deaths.

Clearly, the process is highly dangerous and the Court decision fails to protect women.

You can just imagine the shit show the US will turn into if Clinton gets in and the court gets a leftist majority. It'll give Sweden a run for its money. This election really is going to be America's last chance to jump off the crazy train before it plunges into the ravine.

Quote: (06-29-2016 07:06 AM)static Wrote:  

Source: CDC

2011 Statistics: 1.06M performed, 2 deaths.

Clearly, the process is highly dangerous and the Court decision fails to protect women.

Good post for the other side. I really liked it actually. Being a recovering Christian (sorta joking), I was always staunch pro-life, now I'm not really sure. I tend to look at the 'extremes'. I obviously see an issue with the morning after pill, but I see a serious issue with the late-term abortion...gray area in between.

The problem in the U.S. is that we had no say in the matter. 9 un-elected guys back in 1973 decided for once and forever that abortion is a right and states can't outlaw it. Contrast this to Great Britain, where the Parliament voted on it with details like limiting it to 24 weeks and when and why to have the abortion. The subject isn't nearly as divisive as here in the U.S. because citizens voted on it (by proxy).

So even if I grant that it's a Federal issue (vs State), the fact that citizens had no say in the matter (by proxy via the law-making process), which is what should be a fairly small issue has become a foundational divide between parties.