Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Testing can show the presense of bugs, but not their absence. -- Dijkstra


aus+uk / aus.legal / Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?

SubjectAuthor
* WTF was Roe v Wade?Phil Allison
+* Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?Rod Speed
|`* Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?Phil Allison
| `- Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?Rod Speed
`* Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?Max
 `* Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?Rod Speed
  `* Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?Max
   +- Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?Phil Allison
   `* Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?Rod Speed
    `* Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?Max
     `* Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?Rod Speed
      `* Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?Max
       `- Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?Rod Speed

1
WTF was Roe v Wade?

<d9e9de90-da30-400e-b5f2-ef1a8a252a26n@googlegroups.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=6579&group=aus.legal#6579

  copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:112a:b0:6af:1bb9:fb91 with SMTP id p10-20020a05620a112a00b006af1bb9fb91mr18067154qkk.229.1656901786368;
Sun, 03 Jul 2022 19:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5be8:0:b0:472:f169:de89 with SMTP id
k8-20020ad45be8000000b00472f169de89mr4556518qvc.88.1656901786211; Sun, 03 Jul
2022 19:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2022 19:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=118.208.226.35; posting-account=B_tJMAoAAAAmar-1r2H3x4CMhbFEou3n
NNTP-Posting-Host: 118.208.226.35
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <d9e9de90-da30-400e-b5f2-ef1a8a252a26n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: WTF was Roe v Wade?
From: palliso...@gmail.com (Phil Allison)
Injection-Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2022 02:29:46 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 60
 by: Phil Allison - Mon, 4 Jul 2022 02:29 UTC

Hi,

One of the biggest ( biggest ?) scams in US supreme court history has been finally done away with. States now have their individual rights back.

" Jane Roe" did not exist - it was a pseudonym for the real woman to hide her identity and also her crime. Wade was the name of a Texas DA.
Jane Roe claimed she had been raped - a total fabrication in order to obtain abortion that never happened. Activist lawyers put her up to it, knowing she would be denied.

The US supreme court is where the lawyers headed next with a "test case", which they won with misleading evidence. Jane Roe had her baby and later became a staunch *anti-abortionist*.
The timing of the case coincided with new technology that made ( early stage) abortions quick and relatively safe and that an *ordinary GP* could perform cheaply in a clinic. A bonanza for the abortion industry.

After the R v W ruling, abortions soon rose to over 1 million per year in the USA - mostly for poor black women, Hispanics etc. There were no rules, girls in their early teens could walk in with cash, never speak with a doctor and answer no probing questions. Many crimes ( rape, underage sex, incest were covered up this way. Alternatives to abortion were not offered.

A group called "Planned Parenthood" dominates the US abortion business with 600 busy clinics. Some not so busy now. The founder of PP wanted to stem growth of the black population through birth control and restricted immigration. She publicly opposed abortion.

IMO:

The " right to abortion " is a legal contradiction cos it assumes the unborn has NO right to life if the mother ( but no other) wishes it dead. However, this imaginary lack of a *basic right to live* reappears like magic the moment a child IS born. Must be some kind of miracle going on.
Or is it double thinking ....

...... Phil

Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?

<op.1orktse1byq249@pvr2.lan>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=6581&group=aus.legal#6581

  copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!lilly.ping.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2022 14:16:30 +1000
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <op.1orktse1byq249@pvr2.lan>
References: <d9e9de90-da30-400e-b5f2-ef1a8a252a26n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net gWky/VW5IZNseJA7ersiygAzojz/n6KAsGNjtMZMN/lcETRwY=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wK0/7mMDoAmuENzH6zL2Kctpw90=
User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32)
 by: Rod Speed - Mon, 4 Jul 2022 04:16 UTC

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote

> One of the biggest ( biggest ?) scams in US supreme court history

That is completely silly. The other one that doesn't allow more than
one legal wife with other than moslems is a much bigger scam.

> has been finally done away with.

Until it reverses itself again, anyway.

> States now have their individual rights back.

Until the supremes reverse themselves again, anyway.

> "Jane Roe" did not exist - it was a pseudonym for the real woman to
> hide her identity and also her crime. Wade was the name of a Texas DA.
> Jane Roe claimed she had been raped - a total fabrication in order to
> obtain abortion that never happened. Activist lawyers put her up to it,
> knowing she would be denied.

> The US supreme court is where the lawyers headed next with a "test
> case", which they won with misleading evidence. Jane Roe had her baby
> and later became a staunch *anti-abortionist*.

> The timing of the case coincided with new technology that made ( early
> stage) abortions quick and relatively safe and that an *ordinary GP*
> could perform cheaply in a clinic. A bonanza for the abortion industry.

> After the R v W ruling, abortions soon rose to over 1 million per year
> in the USA

But it was never clear how many illegal abortions were happening.

> - mostly for poor black women, Hispanics etc.

Bullshit.

> There were no rules, girls in their early teens could walk in with cash,
> never speak with a doctor and answer no probing questions. Many crimes
> ( rape, underage sex, incest were covered up this way. Alternatives to
> abortion were not offered.

> A group called "Planned Parenthood" dominates the US abortion business
> with 600 busy clinics. Some not so busy now. The founder of PP wanted
> to stem growth of the black population through birth control and
> restricted immigration. She publicly opposed abortion.

> IMO:

> The " right to abortion " is a legal contradiction cos it assumes the
> unborn has NO right to life if the mother ( but no other) wishes it
> dead. However, this imaginary lack of a *basic right to live*
> reappears like magic the moment a child IS born. Must be some kind of
> miracle going on.

> Or is it double thinking ....

Just as true of the death penalty.

Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?

<t9trpl$um5$1@gioia.aioe.org>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=6584&group=aus.legal#6584

  copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!y5+HOOoKIMtxjCZfPYnWgA.user.46.165.242.91.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: max...@val.morgan (Max)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2022 14:54:10 +1000
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t9trpl$um5$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <d9e9de90-da30-400e-b5f2-ef1a8a252a26n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="31429"; posting-host="y5+HOOoKIMtxjCZfPYnWgA.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.11.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Max - Mon, 4 Jul 2022 04:54 UTC

On 4/07/2022 12:29 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
> Hi,
>
> One of the biggest ( biggest ?) scams in US supreme court history has been finally done away with. States now have their individual rights back.
>
> " Jane Roe" did not exist - it was a pseudonym for the real woman to hide her identity and also her crime. Wade was the name of a Texas DA.
> Jane Roe claimed she had been raped - a total fabrication in order to obtain abortion that never happened. Activist lawyers put her up to it, knowing she would be denied.
>
> The US supreme court is where the lawyers headed next with a "test case", which they won with misleading evidence. Jane Roe had her baby and later became a staunch *anti-abortionist*.
>
> The timing of the case coincided with new technology that made ( early stage) abortions quick and relatively safe and that an *ordinary GP* could perform cheaply in a clinic. A bonanza for the abortion industry.
>
> After the R v W ruling, abortions soon rose to over 1 million per year in the USA - mostly for poor black women, Hispanics etc. There were no rules, girls in their early teens could walk in with cash, never speak with a doctor and answer no probing questions. Many crimes ( rape, underage sex, incest were covered up this way. Alternatives to abortion were not offered.
>
> A group called "Planned Parenthood" dominates the US abortion business with 600 busy clinics. Some not so busy now. The founder of PP wanted to stem growth of the black population through birth control and restricted immigration. She publicly opposed abortion.
>
> IMO:
>
> The " right to abortion " is a legal contradiction cos it assumes the unborn has NO right to life if the mother ( but no other) wishes it dead. However, this imaginary lack of a *basic right to live* reappears like magic the moment a child IS born. Must be some kind of miracle going on.
> Or is it double thinking ....
>

The issue is whether there is a constitutional right to abortion in the US.

Roe vs Ward said there was a right to abortion due to the Fourteenth
Amendment, which is this:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws."

So presumably it was that a person's liberty includes the right to abortion.

Does a person's liberty include the right to abortion? How can anyone
know for sure?

Isn't any judgement on this issue just a flip of a coin, or based on the
whims of the presiding judges at the time?

Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?

<0c35813a-86f4-4534-b29a-f5a54ce9ccadn@googlegroups.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=6586&group=aus.legal#6586

  copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
X-Received: by 2002:a37:634b:0:b0:6b4:6de9:ae4b with SMTP id x72-20020a37634b000000b006b46de9ae4bmr403955qkb.293.1656912435853;
Sun, 03 Jul 2022 22:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1354:b0:31b:f063:e324 with SMTP id
w20-20020a05622a135400b0031bf063e324mr22316465qtk.435.1656912435693; Sun, 03
Jul 2022 22:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2022 22:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <op.1orktse1byq249@pvr2.lan>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=118.208.226.35; posting-account=B_tJMAoAAAAmar-1r2H3x4CMhbFEou3n
NNTP-Posting-Host: 118.208.226.35
References: <d9e9de90-da30-400e-b5f2-ef1a8a252a26n@googlegroups.com> <op.1orktse1byq249@pvr2.lan>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0c35813a-86f4-4534-b29a-f5a54ce9ccadn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?
From: palliso...@gmail.com (Phil Allison)
Injection-Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2022 05:27:15 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 2429
 by: Phil Allison - Mon, 4 Jul 2022 05:27 UTC

Rod Speed wrote:
==============
> Phil Allison
>
> > "Jane Roe" did not exist - it was a pseudonym for the real woman to
> > hide her identity and also her crime. Wade was the name of a Texas DA.
> > Jane Roe claimed she had been raped - a total fabrication in order to
> > obtain abortion that never happened. Activist lawyers put her up to it,
> > knowing she would be denied.
>
> > The US supreme court is where the lawyers headed next with a "test
> > case", which they won with misleading evidence. Jane Roe had her baby
> > and later became a staunch *anti-abortionist*.
>
> > The timing of the case coincided with new technology that made ( early
> > stage) abortions quick and relatively safe and that an *ordinary GP*
> > could perform cheaply in a clinic. A bonanza for the abortion industry.
>
> > After the R v W ruling, abortions soon rose to over 1 million per year
> > in the USA
>
> But it was never clear how many illegal abortions were happening.

** Wrong:

https://www.guttmacher.org/perspectives50/abortion-and-after-legalization

FYI:
The low death rate from illegal abortions around 1974 is the result of modern hospital care after the event.

> > - mostly for poor black women, Hispanics etc.
> Bullshit.

**Fact.

..... Phil

Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?

<op.1orsmptmbyq249@pvr2.lan>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=6589&group=aus.legal#6589

  copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!lilly.ping.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2022 17:05:03 +1000
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <op.1orsmptmbyq249@pvr2.lan>
References: <d9e9de90-da30-400e-b5f2-ef1a8a252a26n@googlegroups.com>
<t9trpl$um5$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net ZCvUGAh64+M3Wdh2nLbM/Qnv4Jfd6UqCIOwI36Zwp/XUM4B6g=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AycIxSAmHuwQ4a5PiHsoDzGy/Gk=
User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32)
 by: Rod Speed - Mon, 4 Jul 2022 07:05 UTC

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Phil Allison wrote

>> One of the biggest ( biggest ?) scams in US supreme court history
>> has been finally done away with. States now have their individual
>> rights back.

>> " Jane Roe" did not exist - it was a pseudonym for the real woman to
>> hide her identity and also her crime. Wade was the name of a Texas DA.
>> Jane Roe claimed she had been raped - a total fabrication in order to
>> obtain abortion that never happened. Activist lawyers put her up to
>> it, knowing she would be denied.

>> The US supreme court is where the lawyers headed next with a "test
>> case", which they won with misleading evidence. Jane Roe had her baby
>> and later became a staunch *anti-abortionist*.

>> The timing of the case coincided with new technology that made (
>> early stage) abortions quick and relatively safe and that an *ordinary
>> GP* could perform cheaply in a clinic. A bonanza for the abortion
>> industry.

>> After the R v W ruling, abortions soon rose to over 1 million per year
>> in the USA - mostly for poor black women, Hispanics etc. There were no
>> rules, girls in their early teens could walk in with cash, never speak
>> with a doctor and answer no probing questions. Many crimes ( rape,
>> underage sex, incest were covered up this way. Alternatives to
>> abortion were not offered.

>> A group called "Planned Parenthood" dominates the US abortion
>> business with 600 busy clinics. Some not so busy now. The founder of
>> PP wanted to stem growth of the black population through birth control
>> and restricted immigration. She publicly opposed abortion.
>> IMO:

>> The " right to abortion " is a legal contradiction cos it assumes the
>> unborn has NO right to life if the mother ( but no other) wishes it
>> dead. However, this imaginary lack of a *basic right to live*
>> reappears like magic the moment a child IS born. Must be some kind of
>> miracle going on.
>> Or is it double thinking ....

> The issue is whether there is a constitutional right to abortion in the
> US.

Yes.

> Roe vs Ward said there was a right to abortion due to the Fourteenth
> Amendment,

Yes.

> which is this:

> "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
> privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
> State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
> process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
> protection of the laws."

> So presumably it was that a person's liberty includes the right to
> abortion.

No, the supremes are talking about abridging the privilege of an abortion.

> Does a person's liberty include the right to abortion?

That isn't the question.

> How can anyone know for sure?

We do know that the supremes aren't talking about a right to abortion, JUST
that that PRIVILEGE can not be abridged without recourse to a court.

> Isn't any judgement on this issue just a flip of a coin,

Nope, dope.

> or based on the whims of the presiding judges at the time?

There is no judge involved with most abortions, stupid.

Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?

<op.1orsuhcqbyq249@pvr2.lan>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=6591&group=aus.legal#6591

  copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2022 17:09:43 +1000
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <op.1orsuhcqbyq249@pvr2.lan>
References: <d9e9de90-da30-400e-b5f2-ef1a8a252a26n@googlegroups.com>
<op.1orktse1byq249@pvr2.lan>
<0c35813a-86f4-4534-b29a-f5a54ce9ccadn@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net ivjXv4/7GuDi77TXo10dxwcww55B4dLVRRT0GX4E+KIubr3Wk=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pm6xd77qmPOHpZqnSbbNuldXcWQ=
User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32)
 by: Rod Speed - Mon, 4 Jul 2022 07:09 UTC

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Phil Allison wrote

>> > "Jane Roe" did not exist - it was a pseudonym for the real woman to
>> > hide her identity and also her crime. Wade was the name of a Texas DA.
>> > Jane Roe claimed she had been raped - a total fabrication in order to
>> > obtain abortion that never happened. Activist lawyers put her up to
>> it,
>> > knowing she would be denied.
>>
>> > The US supreme court is where the lawyers headed next with a "test
>> > case", which they won with misleading evidence. Jane Roe had her baby
>> > and later became a staunch *anti-abortionist*.
>>
>> > The timing of the case coincided with new technology that made ( early
>> > stage) abortions quick and relatively safe and that an *ordinary GP*
>> > could perform cheaply in a clinic. A bonanza for the abortion
>> industry.
>>
>> > After the R v W ruling, abortions soon rose to over 1 million per year
>> > in the USA
>>
>> But it was never clear how many illegal abortions were happening.

> Wrong:

Nope, dope.

> https://www.guttmacher.org/perspectives50/abortion-and-after-legalization

Just because some fool claims something...

If the illegal abortion is never known about, it can't be counted, fuckwit.

> FYI:
> The low death rate from illegal abortions around 1974is the result of
> modern hospital care after the event.

Irrelevant to your stupidity.

>> > - mostly for poor black women, Hispanics etc.

>> Bullshit.

> Fact.

Wrong, as always.

Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?

<t9u4s1$1vbk$1@gioia.aioe.org>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=6594&group=aus.legal#6594

  copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!y5+HOOoKIMtxjCZfPYnWgA.user.46.165.242.91.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: max...@val.morgan (Max)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2022 17:29:02 +1000
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t9u4s1$1vbk$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <d9e9de90-da30-400e-b5f2-ef1a8a252a26n@googlegroups.com>
<t9trpl$um5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <op.1orsmptmbyq249@pvr2.lan>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="64884"; posting-host="y5+HOOoKIMtxjCZfPYnWgA.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.11.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Max - Mon, 4 Jul 2022 07:29 UTC

On 4/07/2022 5:05 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Phil Allison wrote
>
>>>  One of the biggest ( biggest ?)  scams in  US supreme court history
>>> has been finally done away with. States now have their individual
>>> rights back.
>
>>>  " Jane Roe" did not exist  -  it was a pseudonym for the real woman
>>> to hide her identity and also her crime.  Wade was the name of a
>>> Texas DA.
>>> Jane Roe claimed she had been raped -  a total fabrication in order
>>> to obtain abortion that never happened.  Activist lawyers put her up
>>> to it, knowing she would be denied.
>
>>>  The US supreme court is where the lawyers headed next with a "test
>>> case",  which they won with misleading evidence. Jane Roe had her
>>> baby and later became a staunch *anti-abortionist*.
>
>>>   The timing of the case coincided with new technology that made (
>>> early stage) abortions quick and relatively safe and that an
>>> *ordinary GP* could perform cheaply in a clinic. A bonanza for the
>>> abortion industry.
>
>>>  After the R v W ruling, abortions soon rose to over 1 million per
>>> year in the USA - mostly for poor black women, Hispanics etc.  There
>>> were no rules, girls in their early teens could walk in with cash,
>>> never speak with a doctor and answer no probing questions.  Many
>>> crimes (  rape, underage sex, incest were covered up this way.
>>> Alternatives to abortion were not offered.
>
>>>    A group called  "Planned Parenthood" dominates the US abortion
>>> business with 600 busy clinics.  Some not so busy now. The founder of
>>> PP wanted to stem growth of the black population through birth
>>> control and restricted immigration. She publicly opposed abortion.
>>>  IMO:
>
>>>  The  " right to abortion " is a legal contradiction cos it assumes
>>> the unborn  has NO right to life if the mother ( but no other) wishes
>>> it dead.  However, this imaginary  lack of a *basic right to live*
>>> reappears like magic the moment a child  IS born.  Must be some kind
>>> of miracle going on.
>>> Or is it double thinking ....
>
>> The issue is whether there is a constitutional right to abortion in
>> the  US.
>
> Yes.
>
>> Roe vs Ward said there was a right to abortion due to the Fourteenth
>> Amendment,
>
> Yes.
>
>> which is this:
>
>> "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
>> privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
>> any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
>> due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
>> equal protection of the laws."
>
>> So presumably it was that a person's liberty includes the right to
>> abortion.
>
> No, the supremes are talking about abridging the privilege of an abortion.
>

It is actually about 'liberty', fuckwit.

This is from the latest judgment which overturned Roe vs Wade:

"“In interpreting what is meant by the 14th Amendment’s reference to
‘liberty,’ we must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse
what that Amendment protects with our own ardent views about the liberty
that Americans should enjoy,"

>> Does a person's liberty include the right to abortion?
>
> That isn't the question.
>

Yes it is.

>> How can anyone  know for sure?
>
> We do know that the supremes aren't talking about a right to abortion, JUST
> that that PRIVILEGE can not be abridged without recourse to a court.
>

Roe v Wade made abortion a constitutional right of women. The latest
judgment took it away.

>> Isn't any judgement on this issue just a flip of a coin,
>
> Nope, dope.
>

The judgment I meant was Roe vs Wade or the recent judgment. It could
go either way. Hence why you have different judgments in 50 years.

>> or based on the  whims of the presiding judges at the time?
>
> There is no judge involved with most abortions, stupid.

Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?

<5108b46c-524a-4ce8-9a1b-bb7d3f7b033an@googlegroups.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=6597&group=aus.legal#6597

  copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:9a0c:0:b0:470:54d7:cfd5 with SMTP id p12-20020a0c9a0c000000b0047054d7cfd5mr28269042qvd.46.1656926879230;
Mon, 04 Jul 2022 02:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:5841:b0:470:4b9c:9c95 with SMTP id
ml1-20020a056214584100b004704b9c9c95mr27630188qvb.41.1656926879036; Mon, 04
Jul 2022 02:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2022 02:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t9u4s1$1vbk$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=118.208.226.35; posting-account=B_tJMAoAAAAmar-1r2H3x4CMhbFEou3n
NNTP-Posting-Host: 118.208.226.35
References: <d9e9de90-da30-400e-b5f2-ef1a8a252a26n@googlegroups.com>
<t9trpl$um5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <op.1orsmptmbyq249@pvr2.lan> <t9u4s1$1vbk$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5108b46c-524a-4ce8-9a1b-bb7d3f7b033an@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?
From: palliso...@gmail.com (Phil Allison)
Injection-Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2022 09:27:59 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 28
 by: Phil Allison - Mon, 4 Jul 2022 09:27 UTC

Max the Fucking IDIOT wrote:
=======================
>
> Roe v Wade made abortion a constitutional right of women.

** No - lefty judges simply it invented it.

100% not their job & why it was overturned.

> The judgment I meant was Roe vs Wade or the recent judgment. It could
> go either way. Hence why you have different judgments in 50 years.

** The recent judgement was about HOW the earlier one was reached and if it was legal.
It was clearly found not to be.
It was derived from a blatant scam.

" The " right to abortion " is a legal contradiction cos it assumes the unborn has
NO right to life if the mother ( but no other) wishes it dead. "

That absurd idea seem legal to you ???
How, this imaginary lack of a *basic right to live* reappears like magic the moment a
child IS born must be some kind of miracle.
Or a pseudo legal insanity.

....... Phil

Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?

<op.1orz1217byq249@pvr2.lan>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=6600&group=aus.legal#6600

  copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!lilly.ping.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2022 19:45:28 +1000
Lines: 180
Message-ID: <op.1orz1217byq249@pvr2.lan>
References: <d9e9de90-da30-400e-b5f2-ef1a8a252a26n@googlegroups.com>
<t9trpl$um5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <op.1orsmptmbyq249@pvr2.lan>
<t9u4s1$1vbk$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
X-Trace: individual.net odEG9uJqDfAmZy3KfCFzzAAFiHGty4JXAlqxLIvhTwdrPQudM=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VXNp646n6VyHbPM0QfM/gGJGRBc=
User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32)
 by: Rod Speed - Mon, 4 Jul 2022 09:45 UTC

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Phil Allison wrote

>>>> One of the biggest ( biggest ?) scams in US supreme court history
>>>> has been finally done away with. States now have their individual
>>>> rights back.
>>
>>>> " Jane Roe" did not exist - it was a pseudonym for the real woman
>>>> to hide her identity and also her crime. Wade was the name of a
>>>> Texas DA.
>>>> Jane Roe claimed she had been raped - a total fabrication in order
>>>> to obtain abortion that never happened. Activist lawyers put her up
>>>> to it, knowing she would be denied.
>>
>>>> The US supreme court is where the lawyers headed next with a "test
>>>> case", which they won with misleading evidence. Jane Roe had her
>>>> baby and later became a staunch *anti-abortionist*.
>>
>>>> The timing of the case coincided with new technology that made (
>>>> early stage) abortions quick and relatively safe and that an
>>>> *ordinary GP* could perform cheaply in a clinic. A bonanza for the
>>>> abortion industry.
>>
>>>> After the R v W ruling, abortions soon rose to over 1 million per
>>>> year in the USA - mostly for poor black women, Hispanics etc. There
>>>> were no rules, girls in their early teens could walk in with cash,
>>>> never speak with a doctor and answer no probing questions. Many
>>>> crimes ( rape, underage sex, incest were covered up this way.
>>>> Alternatives to abortion were not offered.
>>
>>>> A group called "Planned Parenthood" dominates the US abortion
>>>> business with 600 busy clinics. Some not so busy now. The founder of
>>>> PP wanted to stem growth of the black population through birth
>>>> control and restricted immigration. She publicly opposed abortion.
>>>> IMO:
>>
>>>> The " right to abortion " is a legal contradiction cos it assumes
>>>> the unborn has NO right to life if the mother ( but no other) wishes
>>>> it dead. However, this imaginary lack of a *basic right to live*
>>>> reappears like magic the moment a child IS born. Must be some kind
>>>> of miracle going on.

>>>> Or is it double thinking ....

>>> The issue is whether there is a constitutional right to abortion in
>>> the US.

>> Yes.

>>> Roe vs Ward said there was a right to abortion due to the Fourteenth
>>> Amendment,

>> Yes.

>>> which is this:

>>> "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
>>> privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
>>> any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
>>> due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
>>> equal protection of the laws."

>>> So presumably it was that a person's liberty includes the right to
>>> abortion.

>> No, the supremes are talking about abridging the privilege of an
>> abortion.

> It is actually about 'liberty', fuckwit.

Nope, dope.

> This is from the latest judgment which overturned Roe vs Wade:

That's not Roe v Wade, fuckwit.

> "“In interpreting what is meant by the 14th Amendment’s reference to
> ‘liberty,’ we must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse
> what that Amendment protects with our own ardent views about the liberty
> that Americans should enjoy,"

>>> Does a person's liberty include the right to abortion?

>> That isn't the question.

> Yes it is.

Nope, dope.

>>> How can anyone know for sure?
>> We do know that the supremes aren't talking about a right to abortion,
>> JUST
>> that that PRIVILEGE can not be abridged without recourse to a court.

> Roe v Wade made abortion a constitutional right of women.

Nope, just ruled that the 14th applied.

> The latest judgment took it away.

Nope, just ruled that the 14th doesn't apply.

>>> Isn't any judgement on this issue just a flip of a coin,

>> Nope, dope.

> The judgment I meant was Roe vs Wade or the recent judgment. It could
> go either way.

Nope, dope.

> Hence why you have different judgments in 50 years.

That's because the Roe v Wade judgement was bogus.

>>> or based on the whims of the presiding judges at the time?
>> There is no judge involved with most abortions, stupid.

Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?

<ta0piv$t2m$1@gioia.aioe.org>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=6607&group=aus.legal#6607

  copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!y5+HOOoKIMtxjCZfPYnWgA.user.46.165.242.91.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: max...@val.morgan (Max)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2022 17:34:51 +1000
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <ta0piv$t2m$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <d9e9de90-da30-400e-b5f2-ef1a8a252a26n@googlegroups.com>
<t9trpl$um5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <op.1orsmptmbyq249@pvr2.lan>
<t9u4s1$1vbk$1@gioia.aioe.org> <op.1orz1217byq249@pvr2.lan>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="29782"; posting-host="y5+HOOoKIMtxjCZfPYnWgA.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.11.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Max - Tue, 5 Jul 2022 07:34 UTC

On 4/07/2022 7:45 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>
>>>>>  One of the biggest ( biggest ?)  scams in  US supreme court
>>>>> history has been finally done away with. States now have their
>>>>> individual rights back.
>>>
>>>>>  " Jane Roe" did not exist  -  it was a pseudonym for the real
>>>>> woman to hide her identity and also her crime.  Wade was the name
>>>>> of a Texas DA.
>>>>> Jane Roe claimed she had been raped -  a total fabrication in order
>>>>> to obtain abortion that never happened.  Activist lawyers put her
>>>>> up to it, knowing she would be denied.
>>>
>>>>>  The US supreme court is where the lawyers headed next with a "test
>>>>> case",  which they won with misleading evidence. Jane Roe had her
>>>>> baby and later became a staunch *anti-abortionist*.
>>>
>>>>>   The timing of the case coincided with new technology that made (
>>>>> early stage) abortions quick and relatively safe and that an
>>>>> *ordinary GP* could perform cheaply in a clinic. A bonanza for the
>>>>> abortion industry.
>>>
>>>>>  After the R v W ruling, abortions soon rose to over 1 million per
>>>>> year in the USA - mostly for poor black women, Hispanics etc.
>>>>> There were no rules, girls in their early teens could walk in with
>>>>> cash, never speak with a doctor and answer no probing questions.
>>>>> Many crimes (  rape, underage sex, incest were covered up this
>>>>> way.  Alternatives to abortion were not offered.
>>>
>>>>>    A group called  "Planned Parenthood" dominates the US abortion
>>>>> business with 600 busy clinics.  Some not so busy now. The founder
>>>>> of PP wanted to stem growth of the black population through birth
>>>>> control and restricted immigration. She publicly opposed abortion.
>>>>>  IMO:
>>>
>>>>>  The  " right to abortion " is a legal contradiction cos it assumes
>>>>> the unborn  has NO right to life if the mother ( but no other)
>>>>> wishes it dead.  However, this imaginary  lack of a *basic right to
>>>>> live* reappears like magic the moment a child  IS born.  Must be
>>>>> some kind of miracle going on.
>
>>>>> Or is it double thinking ....
>
>>>> The issue is whether there is a constitutional right to abortion in
>>>> the  US.
>
>>>  Yes.
>
>>>> Roe vs Ward said there was a right to abortion due to the Fourteenth
>>>> Amendment,
>
>>>  Yes.
>
>>>> which is this:
>
>>>> "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
>>>> privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
>>>> any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
>>>> due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
>>>> the equal protection of the laws."
>
>>>> So presumably it was that a person's liberty includes the right to
>>>> abortion.
>
>>>  No, the supremes are talking about abridging the privilege of an
>>> abortion.
>

Unless you provide a quote where it mentions this your claim means nothing.

>> It is actually about 'liberty', fuckwit.
>
> Nope, dope.
>
>> This is from the latest judgment which overturned Roe vs Wade:
>
> That's not Roe v Wade, fuckwit.
>

It clearly shows that liberty is relevant to the issue.

>> "“In interpreting what is meant by the 14th Amendment’s reference to
>> ‘liberty,’ we must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse
>> what that Amendment protects with our own ardent views about the
>> liberty that Americans should enjoy,"
>
>>>> Does a person's liberty include the right to abortion?
>
>>>  That isn't the question.
>
>> Yes it is.
>
> Nope, dope.
>
>>>> How can anyone  know for sure?
>>>  We do know that the supremes aren't talking about a right to
>>> abortion, JUST
>>> that that PRIVILEGE can not be abridged without recourse to a court.
>
>> Roe v Wade made abortion a constitutional right of women.
>
> Nope, just ruled that the 14th applied.
>
>> The latest  judgment took it away.
>
> Nope, just ruled that the 14th doesn't apply.
>

The effect is that there was a right to abortion and now there isn't.
People only care about what the practical effect is.

>>>> Isn't any judgement on this issue just a flip of a coin,
>
>>>  Nope, dope.
>
>> The judgment I meant was Roe vs Wade or the recent judgment.  It could
>> go either way.
>
> Nope, dope.
>

Yes. There could be a more liberal bench in the future which could see
Roe v Ward reinstated.

>> Hence why you have different judgments in 50 years.
>
> That's because the Roe v Wade judgement was bogus.
>

Are you saying you know better than the Roe v Wade judges?

>>>> or based on the  whims of the presiding judges at the time?
>>>  There is no judge involved with most abortions, stupid.

Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?

<op.1otusupwbyq249@pvr2.lan>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=6609&group=aus.legal#6609

  copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2022 19:47:08 +1000
Lines: 217
Message-ID: <op.1otusupwbyq249@pvr2.lan>
References: <d9e9de90-da30-400e-b5f2-ef1a8a252a26n@googlegroups.com>
<t9trpl$um5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <op.1orsmptmbyq249@pvr2.lan>
<t9u4s1$1vbk$1@gioia.aioe.org> <op.1orz1217byq249@pvr2.lan>
<ta0piv$t2m$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
X-Trace: individual.net jd1hIfJP/y4D39R21GgPYwKgr2hcuWAMyYMJCbIo9tt3/uGgU=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:laH+mXbS0hfkMNEQJDFaXAZKXP4=
User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32)
 by: Rod Speed - Tue, 5 Jul 2022 09:47 UTC

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Phil Allison wrote

>>>>>> One of the biggest ( biggest ?) scams in US supreme court
>>>>>> history has been finally done away with. States now have their
>>>>>> individual rights back.
>>>>
>>>>>> " Jane Roe" did not exist - it was a pseudonym for the real
>>>>>> woman to hide her identity and also her crime. Wade was the name
>>>>>> of a Texas DA.
>>>>>> Jane Roe claimed she had been raped - a total fabrication in order
>>>>>> to obtain abortion that never happened. Activist lawyers put her
>>>>>> up to it, knowing she would be denied.
>>>>
>>>>>> The US supreme court is where the lawyers headed next with a "test
>>>>>> case", which they won with misleading evidence. Jane Roe had her
>>>>>> baby and later became a staunch *anti-abortionist*.
>>>>
>>>>>> The timing of the case coincided with new technology that made (
>>>>>> early stage) abortions quick and relatively safe and that an
>>>>>> *ordinary GP* could perform cheaply in a clinic. A bonanza for the
>>>>>> abortion industry.
>>>>
>>>>>> After the R v W ruling, abortions soon rose to over 1 million per
>>>>>> year in the USA - mostly for poor black women, Hispanics etc.
>>>>>> There were no rules, girls in their early teens could walk in with
>>>>>> cash, never speak with a doctor and answer no probing questions.
>>>>>> Many crimes ( rape, underage sex, incest were covered up this
>>>>>> way. Alternatives to abortion were not offered.
>>>>
>>>>>> A group called "Planned Parenthood" dominates the US abortion
>>>>>> business with 600 busy clinics. Some not so busy now. The founder
>>>>>> of PP wanted to stem growth of the black population through birth
>>>>>> control and restricted immigration. She publicly opposed abortion..
>>>>>> IMO:
>>>>
>>>>>> The " right to abortion " is a legal contradiction cos it assumes
>>>>>> the unborn has NO right to life if the mother ( but no other)
>>>>>> wishes it dead. However, this imaginary lack of a *basic right to
>>>>>> live* reappears like magic the moment a child IS born. Must be
>>>>>> some kind of miracle going on.
>>
>>>>>> Or is it double thinking ....
>>
>>>>> The issue is whether there is a constitutional right to abortion in
>>>>> the US.
>>
>>>> Yes.
>>
>>>>> Roe vs Ward said there was a right to abortion due to the Fourteenth
>>>>> Amendment,
>>
>>>> Yes.
>>
>>>>> which is this:
>>
>>>>> "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
>>>>> privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
>>>>> any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
>>>>> due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
>>>>> the equal protection of the laws."
>>
>>>>> So presumably it was that a person's liberty includes the right to
>>>>> abortion.
>>
>>>> No, the supremes are talking about abridging the privilege of an
>>>> abortion.

> Unless you provide a quote where it mentions this your claim means
> nothing.

You are wrong, as always.

>>> It is actually about 'liberty', fuckwit.
>> Nope, dope.
>>
>>> This is from the latest judgment which overturned Roe vs Wade:
>> That's not Roe v Wade, fuckwit.
>>
>
> It clearly shows that liberty is relevant to the issue.

Not to Roe v Wade, fuckwit.

>>> "“In interpreting what is meant by the 14th Amendment’s reference to
>>> ‘liberty,’ we must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse
>>> what that Amendment protects with our own ardent views about the
>>> liberty that Americans should enjoy,"
>>
>>>>> Does a person's liberty include the right to abortion?
>>
>>>> That isn't the question.
>>
>>> Yes it is.
>> Nope, dope.
>>
>>>>> How can anyone know for sure?
>>>> We do know that the supremes aren't talking about a right to
>>>> abortion, JUST
>>>> that that PRIVILEGE can not be abridged without recourse to a court..
>>
>>> Roe v Wade made abortion a constitutional right of women.
>> Nope, just ruled that the 14th applied.
>>
>>> The latest judgment took it away.
>> Nope, just ruled that the 14th doesn't apply.

> The effect is that there was a right to abortion

Nope, dope.

> and now there isn't.

There never was, dope.

> People only care about what the practical effect is.

Only fools like you.

>>>>> Isn't any judgement on this issue just a flip of a coin,
>>
>>>> Nope, dope.
>>
>>> The judgment I meant was Roe vs Wade or the recent judgment. It could
>>> go either way.

>> Nope, dope.

> Yes.

Nope, dope.

> There could be a more liberal bench in the future which could see Roe v
> Ward reinstated.

That's not it could go either way, fuckwit.

>>> Hence why you have different judgments in 50 years.

>> That's because the Roe v Wade judgement was bogus.

> Are you saying you know better than the Roe v Wade judges?

Yep, that is obvious.

>>>>> or based on the whims of the presiding judges at the time?
>>>> There is no judge involved with most abortions, stupid.

Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?

<ta2npc$gnk$1@gioia.aioe.org>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=6612&group=aus.legal#6612

  copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!y5+HOOoKIMtxjCZfPYnWgA.user.46.165.242.91.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: max...@val.morgan (Max)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2022 11:16:26 +1000
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <ta2npc$gnk$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <d9e9de90-da30-400e-b5f2-ef1a8a252a26n@googlegroups.com>
<t9trpl$um5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <op.1orsmptmbyq249@pvr2.lan>
<t9u4s1$1vbk$1@gioia.aioe.org> <op.1orz1217byq249@pvr2.lan>
<ta0piv$t2m$1@gioia.aioe.org> <op.1otusupwbyq249@pvr2.lan>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="17140"; posting-host="y5+HOOoKIMtxjCZfPYnWgA.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.11.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Max - Wed, 6 Jul 2022 01:16 UTC

On 5/07/2022 7:47 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>
>>>>>>>  One of the biggest ( biggest ?)  scams in  US supreme court
>>>>>>> history has been finally done away with. States now have their
>>>>>>> individual rights back.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  " Jane Roe" did not exist  -  it was a pseudonym for the real
>>>>>>> woman to hide her identity and also her crime.  Wade was the name
>>>>>>> of a Texas DA.
>>>>>>> Jane Roe claimed she had been raped -  a total fabrication in
>>>>>>> order to obtain abortion that never happened.  Activist lawyers
>>>>>>> put her up to it, knowing she would be denied.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  The US supreme court is where the lawyers headed next with a
>>>>>>> "test case",  which they won with misleading evidence. Jane Roe
>>>>>>> had her baby and later became a staunch *anti-abortionist*.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>   The timing of the case coincided with new technology that made
>>>>>>> ( early stage) abortions quick and relatively safe and that an
>>>>>>> *ordinary GP* could perform cheaply in a clinic. A bonanza for
>>>>>>> the abortion industry.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  After the R v W ruling, abortions soon rose to over 1 million
>>>>>>> per year in the USA - mostly for poor black women, Hispanics
>>>>>>> etc.  There were no rules, girls in their early teens could walk
>>>>>>> in with cash, never speak with a doctor and answer no probing
>>>>>>> questions.  Many crimes (  rape, underage sex, incest were
>>>>>>> covered up this way.  Alternatives to abortion were not offered.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>    A group called  "Planned Parenthood" dominates the US abortion
>>>>>>> business with 600 busy clinics.  Some not so busy now. The
>>>>>>> founder of PP wanted to stem growth of the black population
>>>>>>> through birth control and restricted immigration. She publicly
>>>>>>> opposed abortion.
>>>>>>>  IMO:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  The  " right to abortion " is a legal contradiction cos it
>>>>>>> assumes the unborn  has NO right to life if the mother ( but no
>>>>>>> other) wishes it dead.  However, this imaginary  lack of a *basic
>>>>>>> right to live* reappears like magic the moment a child  IS born.
>>>>>>> Must be some kind of miracle going on.
>>>
>>>>>>> Or is it double thinking ....
>>>
>>>>>> The issue is whether there is a constitutional right to abortion
>>>>>> in the  US.
>>>
>>>>>  Yes.
>>>
>>>>>> Roe vs Ward said there was a right to abortion due to the
>>>>>> Fourteenth Amendment,
>>>
>>>>>  Yes.
>>>
>>>>>> which is this:
>>>
>>>>>> "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
>>>>>> privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
>>>>>> shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
>>>>>> without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
>>>>>> jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
>>>
>>>>>> So presumably it was that a person's liberty includes the right to
>>>>>> abortion.
>>>
>>>>>  No, the supremes are talking about abridging the privilege of an
>>>>> abortion.
>
>> Unless you provide a quote where it mentions this your claim means
>> nothing.
>
> You are wrong, as always.
>

Nope, dope. You provide a cite to support your claim or no one cares.
Everything I have seen online supports what I have said.

>>>> It is actually about 'liberty', fuckwit.
>>>  Nope, dope.
>>>
>>>> This is from the latest judgment which overturned Roe vs Wade:
>>>  That's not Roe v Wade, fuckwit.
>>>
>>
>> It clearly shows that liberty is relevant to the issue.
>
> Not to Roe v Wade, fuckwit.
>

"the Court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in
most instances violated a woman’s constitutional right of privacy, which
it found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“…nor shall any state deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”)."
https://www.britannica.com/event/Roe-v-Wade

So there we have it:

It says it's the "liberty guarantee". So you are done like a dinner.

>>>> "“In interpreting what is meant by the 14th Amendment’s reference to
>>>> ‘liberty,’ we must guard against the natural human tendency to
>>>> confuse what that Amendment protects with our own ardent views about
>>>> the liberty that Americans should enjoy,"
>>>
>>>>>> Does a person's liberty include the right to abortion?
>>>
>>>>>  That isn't the question.
>>>
>>>> Yes it is.
>>>  Nope, dope.
>>>
>>>>>> How can anyone  know for sure?
>>>>>  We do know that the supremes aren't talking about a right to
>>>>> abortion, JUST
>>>>> that that PRIVILEGE can not be abridged without recourse to a court.
>>>
>>>> Roe v Wade made abortion a constitutional right of women.
>>>  Nope, just ruled that the 14th applied.
>>>
>>>> The latest  judgment took it away.
>>>  Nope, just ruled that the 14th doesn't apply.
>
>> The effect is that there was a right to abortion
>
> Nope, dope.
>

See above

>> and now there isn't.
>
> There never was, dope.
>

See above

>> People only care about what the practical effect is.
>
> Only fools like you.
>

And everyone else.

>>>>>> Isn't any judgement on this issue just a flip of a coin,
>>>
>>>>>  Nope, dope.
>>>
>>>> The judgment I meant was Roe vs Wade or the recent judgment.  It
>>>> could go either way.
>
>>>  Nope, dope.
>
>> Yes.
>
> Nope, dope.
>
>> There could be a more liberal bench in the future which could see Roe
>> v Ward reinstated.
>
> That's not it could go either way, fuckwit.
>
>>>> Hence why you have different judgments in 50 years.
>
>>>  That's because the Roe v Wade judgement was bogus.
>
>> Are you saying you know better than the Roe v Wade judges?
>
> Yep, that is obvious.
>

How do you know your intepretation of the constitution is correct?

There are different intepretations and a more liberal bench in the
future might go back to Roe v Wade.

>>>>>> or based on the  whims of the presiding judges at the time?
>>>>>  There is no judge involved with most abortions, stupid.

Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?

<op.1ou55kzxbyq249@pvr2.lan>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=6616&group=aus.legal#6616

  copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!lilly.ping.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2022 12:49:58 +1000
Lines: 284
Message-ID: <op.1ou55kzxbyq249@pvr2.lan>
References: <d9e9de90-da30-400e-b5f2-ef1a8a252a26n@googlegroups.com>
<t9trpl$um5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <op.1orsmptmbyq249@pvr2.lan>
<t9u4s1$1vbk$1@gioia.aioe.org> <op.1orz1217byq249@pvr2.lan>
<ta0piv$t2m$1@gioia.aioe.org> <op.1otusupwbyq249@pvr2.lan>
<ta2npc$gnk$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
X-Trace: individual.net WKVoDDepcmK8A2ZxFC/44Ah+I6qiXO1HusEowBVZ0BjBieHbc=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nxCCcPL+eHdAktYhXNDf21x/LhE=
User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32)
 by: Rod Speed - Wed, 6 Jul 2022 02:49 UTC

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>> Phil Allison wrote

>>>>>>>> One of the biggest ( biggest ?) scams in US supreme court
>>>>>>>> history has been finally done away with. States now have their
>>>>>>>> individual rights back.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> " Jane Roe" did not exist - it was a pseudonym for the real
>>>>>>>> woman to hide her identity and also her crime. Wade was the name
>>>>>>>> of a Texas DA.
>>>>>>>> Jane Roe claimed she had been raped - a total fabrication in
>>>>>>>> order to obtain abortion that never happened. Activist lawyers
>>>>>>>> put her up to it, knowing she would be denied.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The US supreme court is where the lawyers headed next with a
>>>>>>>> "test case", which they won with misleading evidence. Jane Roe
>>>>>>>> had her baby and later became a staunch *anti-abortionist*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The timing of the case coincided with new technology that made
>>>>>>>> ( early stage) abortions quick and relatively safe and that an
>>>>>>>> *ordinary GP* could perform cheaply in a clinic. A bonanza for
>>>>>>>> the abortion industry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After the R v W ruling, abortions soon rose to over 1 million
>>>>>>>> per year in the USA - mostly for poor black women, Hispanics
>>>>>>>> etc. There were no rules, girls in their early teens could walk
>>>>>>>> in with cash, never speak with a doctor and answer no probing
>>>>>>>> questions. Many crimes ( rape, underage sex, incest were
>>>>>>>> covered up this way. Alternatives to abortion were not offered..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A group called "Planned Parenthood" dominates the US abortion
>>>>>>>> business with 600 busy clinics. Some not so busy now. The
>>>>>>>> founder of PP wanted to stem growth of the black population
>>>>>>>> through birth control and restricted immigration. She publicly
>>>>>>>> opposed abortion.
>>>>>>>> IMO:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The " right to abortion " is a legal contradiction cos it
>>>>>>>> assumes the unborn has NO right to life if the mother ( but no
>>>>>>>> other) wishes it dead. However, this imaginary lack of a *basic
>>>>>>>> right to live* reappears like magic the moment a child IS born..
>>>>>>>> Must be some kind of miracle going on.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or is it double thinking ....
>>>>
>>>>>>> The issue is whether there is a constitutional right to abortion
>>>>>>> in the US.
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Roe vs Ward said there was a right to abortion due to the
>>>>>>> Fourteenth Amendment,
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>>>> which is this:
>>>>
>>>>>>> "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
>>>>>>> privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
>>>>>>> shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
>>>>>>> without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
>>>>>>> jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
>>>>
>>>>>>> So presumably it was that a person's liberty includes the right to
>>>>>>> abortion.
>>>>
>>>>>> No, the supremes are talking about abridging the privilege of an
>>>>>> abortion.
>>
>>> Unless you provide a quote where it mentions this your claim means
>>> nothing.

>> You are wrong, as always.

> Nope

Fraid so.

> You provide a cite to support your claim

Just did, dope.

> or no one cares.

You don't get to spew for everyone, fuckwit.

> Everything I have seen online supports what I have said.

Just because some fool claims something online...

>>>>> It is actually about 'liberty', fuckwit.
>>>> Nope, dope.
>>>>
>>>>> This is from the latest judgment which overturned Roe vs Wade:
>>>> That's not Roe v Wade, fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It clearly shows that liberty is relevant to the issue.
>> Not to Roe v Wade, fuckwit.
>>
>
> "the Court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in
> most instances violated a woman’s constitutional right of privacy, which
> it found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process
> clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“…nor shall any state deprive any
> person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”)."
> https://www.britannica.com/event/Roe-v-Wade

Just because some shit rag claims something...

> So there we have it:

Nope, dope.

> It says it's the "liberty guarantee".

Just because some shit rag claims something...

> So you are done like a dinner.

Can't even manage its own lines...

>>>>> "“In interpreting what is meant by the 14th Amendment’s reference to
>>>>> ‘liberty,’ we must guard against the natural human tendency to
>>>>> confuse what that Amendment protects with our own ardent views about
>>>>> the liberty that Americans should enjoy,"
>>>>
>>>>>>> Does a person's liberty include the right to abortion?
>>>>
>>>>>> That isn't the question.
>>>>
>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>> Nope, dope.
>>>>
>>>>>>> How can anyone know for sure?
>>>>>> We do know that the supremes aren't talking about a right to
>>>>>> abortion, JUST
>>>>>> that that PRIVILEGE can not be abridged without recourse to a court.
>>>>
>>>>> Roe v Wade made abortion a constitutional right of women.
>>>> Nope, just ruled that the 14th applied.
>>>>
>>>>> The latest judgment took it away.
>>>> Nope, just ruled that the 14th doesn't apply.
>>
>>> The effect is that there was a right to abortion

>> Nope, dope.

> See above

Useless, as always with your shit.

>>> and now there isn't.

>> There never was, dope.

> See above

Useless, as always with your shit.

>>> People only care about what the practical effect is.

>> Only fools like you.

> And everyone else.

You don't get to spew for everyone, fuckwit.

>>>>>>> Isn't any judgement on this issue just a flip of a coin,
>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, dope.
>>>>
>>>>> The judgment I meant was Roe vs Wade or the recent judgment. It
>>>>> could go either way.
>>
>>>> Nope, dope.
>>
>>> Yes.
>> Nope, dope.
>>
>>> There could be a more liberal bench in the future which could see Roe
>>> v Ward reinstated.
>> That's not it could go either way, fuckwit.
>>
>>>>> Hence why you have different judgments in 50 years.
>>
>>>> That's because the Roe v Wade judgement was bogus.
>>
>>> Are you saying you know better than the Roe v Wade judges?
>> Yep, that is obvious.

> How do you know your intepretation of the constitution is correct?

I am always right about everythikng, fuckwit child.

> There are different intepretations and a more liberalbench in the
> future might go back to Roe v Wade.

And if it did it would be just as wrong as the original Roe v Wade.


Click here to read the complete article

aus+uk / aus.legal / Re: WTF was Roe v Wade?

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.81
clearnet tor