The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
> people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
> by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
> Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
> constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
> to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

==
I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-4, waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> > The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
> > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
> > by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
> > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
> > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
> > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.
> ===
>
> I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.

"They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work."

Yet it happens repeatedly, and some of the most egregious examples have been in the last few years. And you should be careful about painting everyone with that one brush you've recently armed yourself with. For example, I'm labelled and are considered a conservative. However, I believe that the government should not be in the marriage business, but rather just the civil union business, which after all is all they are concerned with anyway. If two "its" want to enter a civil contract, let them. But staying true to separation of church and state, if a church refuses to perform a wedding ceremony or a bakery reuses to make a cake for them, so be it. Abortion should be legal through the 1st trimester for anyone. After that, only in rape and incest cases or if medically necessary. After all, it is killing a human, and should have limits.

I think you'd be surprised at how large a majority would present itself to support these types of compromises and solutions if the rhetoric would subside and the discussions could take place. Unfortunately, the liberal MSM won't allow that, as they (and others) make their money on keeping the pot stirred. Also, keep in mind that the so-called minority only appears that way because many, if not most, of the people in your perceived "minority" just don't go to the state capitol or SC steps to demonstrate. The vast majority of them are too busy holding down jobs, raising families, and doing the work that runs this country. When they do speak up, they are either ignored or labelled by the media and elite liberals as racists, xenophobic, misogynistic, etc. There's that pesky minority imposing their opinions and beliefs on us all again.

"345...@gmail.com" <3452471@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-4, waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com wrote:> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: > > The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the > > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not > > by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about). > > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the > > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back > > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.> === > > I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want
to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work."They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work."Yet it happens repeatedly, and some of the most egregious examples have been in the last few years. And you should be careful about painting everyone with that one brush you've recently armed yourself with. For example, I'm labelled and are considered a conservative. However, I believe that the government should not be in the marriage business, but rather just the civil union business, which after all is all they are concerned with anyway. If two "its" want to enter a civil contract, let them. But staying true to separation of church and state, if a church refuses to perform a wedding ceremony or a bakery reuses to make a cake for them, so be it. Abortion should be legal through the 1st trimester for anyone. After that, only in rape and incest cases or if medically necessary. After all, it
is killing a human, and should have limits.I think you'd be surprised at how large a majority would present itself to support these types of compromises and solutions if the rhetoric would subside and the discussions could take place. Unfortunately, the liberal MSM won't allow that, as they (and others) make their money on keeping the pot stirred. Also, keep in mind that the so-called minority only appears that way because many, if not most, of the people in your perceived "minority" just don't go to the state capitol or SC steps to demonstrate. The vast majority of them are too busy holding down jobs, raising families, and doing the work that runs this country. When they do speak up, they are either ignored or labelled by the media and elite liberals as racists, xenophobic, misogynistic, etc. There's that pesky minority imposing their opinions and beliefs on us all again.

I say put Roe and Wade on tbe back burner till after mid terms and
address the crisises created by the executive branch.
--

----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT),
"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
>> people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
>> by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
>> Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
>> constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
>> to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.
>
>===
>
>I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.

The problem is the SCOTUS is not supposed to do what is popular, it is
supposed to follow the constitution. You have to go no farther than
National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43
(1977) to see that. Popular opinion is not supposed to enter into it
thus protests are inappropriate, (As much so as protesting the
certification of the election). I did see they are doing more crowd
control.

Scalia pointed out 20+ years ago, Roe was decided based, in part, on
a right that does not exist in the constitution. (privacy). I am
pretty much off the grid right now so I haven't had time to read the
leaked document, nor have I heard a lot about it other than the
hysteria but I wouldn't be surprised if that is not part of it.,

On Sun, 8 May 2022 21:54:28 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart
<me@yourservice.com> wrote:

>"345...@gmail.com" <3452471@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-4, waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com wrote:> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: > > The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the > > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not > > by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about). > > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the > > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back > > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.> === > > I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade
ended
>up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work."They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work."Yet it happens repeatedly, and some of the most egregious examples have been in the last few years. And you should be careful about painting everyone with that one brush you've recently armed yourself with. For example, I'm labelled and are considered a conservative. However, I believe that the government should not be in the marriage business, but rather just the civil union business, which after
all
>is all they are concerned with anyway. If two "its" want to enter a civil contract, let them. But staying true to separation of church and state, if a church refuses to perform a wedding ceremony or a bakery reuses to make a cake for them, so be it. Abortion should be legal through the 1st trimester for anyone. After that, only in rape and incest cases or if medically necessary. After all, it is killing a human, and should have limits.I think you'd be surprised at how large a majority would present itself to support these types of compromises and solutions if the rhetoric would subside and the discussions could take place. Unfortunately, the liberal MSM won't allow that, as they (and others) make their money on keeping the pot stirred. Also, keep in mind that the so-called minority only appears that way because many, if not most, of the people in your perceived "minority" just don't go to the state capitol or SC steps to demonstrate. The vast majority of them are too busy
>holding down jobs, raising families, and doing the work that runs this country. When they do speak up, they are either ignored or labelled by the media and elite liberals as racists, xenophobic, misogynistic, etc. There's that pesky minority imposing their opinions and beliefs on us all again.
>
>I say put Roe and Wade on tbe back burner till after mid terms and
> address the crisises created by the executive branch.
>

Without Roe and Guns there are no hot button issues either party want
to talk about. That is why Trump has been made such a lightning rod.
They need a shiny object so we will ignore the financial problems and
the upcoming war. We hadn't screwed with the Japs as much as we have
the Russians when they bombed Pearl Harbor.

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:54:30 PM UTC-4, Justan Ohlphart wrote:
> "345...@gmail.com" <345...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
> > On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-4, waynebatr...@hotmail.com wrote:> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: > > The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the > > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not > > by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about). > > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the > > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back > > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.> === > > I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work."They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work."Yet it happens repeatedly, and some of the most egregious examples have been in the last few years. And you should be careful about painting everyone with that one brush you've recently armed yourself with. For example, I'm labelled and are considered a conservative. However, I believe that the government should not be in the marriage business, but rather just the civil union business, which after all is all they are concerned with anyway. If two "its" want to enter a civil contract, let them. But staying true to separation of church and state, if a church refuses to perform a wedding ceremony or a bakery reuses to make a cake for them, so be it. Abortion should be legal through the 1st trimester for anyone. After that, only in rape and incest cases or if medically necessary. After all, it is killing a human, and should have limits.I think you'd be surprised at how large a majority would present itself to support these types of compromises and solutions if the rhetoric would subside and the discussions could take place.. Unfortunately, the liberal MSM won't allow that, as they (and others) make their money on keeping the pot stirred. Also, keep in mind that the so-called minority only appears that way because many, if not most, of the people in your perceived "minority" just don't go to the state capitol or SC steps to demonstrate. The vast majority of them are too busy holding down jobs, raising families, and doing the work that runs this country. When they do speak up, they are either ignored or labelled by the media and elite liberals as racists, xenophobic, misogynistic, etc. There's that pesky minority imposing their opinions and beliefs on us all again.
>
> I say put Roe and Wade on tbe back burner till after mid terms and
> address the crisises created by the executive branch.

The leaked document had no timeline for action that I'm aware of. The leak was done to accomplish exactly what's happening now... to give the Dems something to rally around and to take the focus off their complete failures during Biden's failed time in office. Of course, the Dems are also now saying that the leak isn't even worth investigating, that nothing was wrong with what happened. They, and the media pushing this, have no shame.

gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r
> On Sun, 8 May 2022 21:54:28 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart<me@yourservice.com> wrote:>"345...@gmail.com" <3452471@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-4, waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com wrote:> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: > > The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the > > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not > > by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about). > > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the > > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back > > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.> === > > I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wadeended>up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made i
t the law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work."They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work."Yet it happens repeatedly, and some of the most egregious examples have been in the last few years. And you should be careful about painting everyone with that one brush you've recently armed yourself with. For example, I'm labelled and are considered a conservative. However, I believe that the government should not be in the marriage business, but rather just the civil union business, which afterall>is all they are concerned with anyway. If two "its" want to enter a civil contract, let them. But staying true to separation of church and state, if a church refuses to perform a wedding ceremony or a bakery reuses to make a cake for them, so be it. Abort
ion should be legal through the 1st trimester for anyone. After that, only in rape and incest cases or if medically necessary. After all, it is killing a human, and should have limits.I think you'd be surprised at how large a majority would present itself to support these types of compromises and solutions if the rhetoric would subside and the discussions could take place. Unfortunately, the liberal MSM won't allow that, as they (and others) make their money on keeping the pot stirred. Also, keep in mind that the so-called minority only appears that way because many, if not most, of the people in your perceived "minority" just don't go to the state capitol or SC steps to demonstrate. The vast majority of them are too busy>holding down jobs, raising families, and doing the work that runs this country. When they do speak up, they are either ignored or labelled by the media and elite liberals as racists, xenophobic, misogynistic, etc. There's that pesky minority imposing their opinions and beliefs on us all again.>>I say put Roe and Wade on tbe back burner till after mid terms and> address the crisises created by the executive branch.> Without Roe and Guns there are no hot bu
tton issues either party wantto talk about. That is why Trump has been made such a lightning rod.They need a shiny object so we will ignore the financial problems andthe upcoming war. We hadn't screwed with the Japs as much as we havethe Russians when they bombed Pearl Harbor.

The Repubs better want to talk about Afghanastan, oil, the
southern border, economy, inflation, Ukraine, packing the S C,
first amendment, second amendment, states rights. These aren't
hot button issues. They're explosive. And Biden,et all, lit the
fuse on all of em. Congress needs to get back to work doing what
we pay them for.
--

----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com>
Wrote in message:r
> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not > by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about). > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.===I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They
are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.

What about those mobs camping out in front of Supreme Justices.
Thats a riot waiting to happen. Not to mention they are currently
breaking the law. Is that how democracy is suppose to work? If
you are a democrat you'd probably answer yes. Sacky says that
Biden aproves of them rioting peacefully. What say
you?
--

----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

On Wed, 11 May 2022 11:14:42 -0400 (EDT), justan <me@here.com> wrote:

>"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com>
> Wrote in message:r
>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not > by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about). > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.===I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a
>"legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.
>
> What about those mobs camping out in front of Supreme Justices.
> Thats a riot waiting to happen. Not to mention they are currently
> breaking the law. Is that how democracy is suppose to work? If
> you are a democrat you'd probably answer yes. Sacky says that
> Biden aproves of them rioting peacefully. What say
> you?

The SCOTUS is not supposed to be influenced by public opinion or
protests. They are only there to enforce what is written in the
constitution. Elected officials are the ones who represent popular
opinion. They are the ones who have the power to rewrite laws and even
change the constitution to what public opinion demands.

On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 12:27:26 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2022 11:14:42 -0400 (EDT), justan <m...@here.com> wrote:
>
> >"waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com>
> > Wrote in message:r
> >> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not > by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about). > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.===I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a
> >"legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight.. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.
> >
> > What about those mobs camping out in front of Supreme Justices.
> > Thats a riot waiting to happen. Not to mention they are currently
> > breaking the law. Is that how democracy is suppose to work? If
> > you are a democrat you'd probably answer yes. Sacky says that
> > Biden aproves of them rioting peacefully. What say
> > you?
> The SCOTUS is not supposed to be influenced by public opinion or
> protests. They are only there to enforce what is written in the
> constitution. Elected officials are the ones who represent popular
> opinion. They are the ones who have the power to rewrite laws and even
> change the constitution to what public opinion demands.

==
I don't disagree but the fact is that much of what appears before the SCOTUS is not directly addressed in the constitution, amendments or federal law, and consequently requires legal interpretation. Of course that's where political opinions and personal beliefs enter into it.

gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r
> On Wed, 11 May 2022 11:14:42 -0400 (EDT), justan <me@here.com> wrote:>"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com>> Wrote in message:r>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not > by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about). > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.===I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a>"legal precedent" which has traditionally carrie
d a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work. >> What about those mobs camping out in front of Supreme Justices.> Thats a riot waiting to happen. Not to mention they are currently> breaking the law. Is that how democracy is suppose to work? If> you are a democrat you'd probably answer yes. Sacky says that> Biden aproves of them rioting peacefully. What say> you?The SCOTUS is not supposed to be influenced by public opinion orprotests. They are only there to enforce what is written in theconstitution. Elected officials are the ones who represent popularopinion. They are the ones who have the power to rewrite laws and evenchange the constitution to what public opinion demands.

I think you meant to say interpet rather than enforce. It looks
like the majority opinion is that the states should decide
whether abortion is criminal or not. I don't know what all the
fuss is about. The tenth ammendment pretty much clearly guided
the majority to the right conclusion.
--

----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

On Fri, 13 May 2022 11:13:24 -0700 (PDT),
"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 12:27:26 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 May 2022 11:14:42 -0400 (EDT), justan <m...@here.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com>
>> > Wrote in message:r
>> >> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not > by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about). > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.===I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a
>> >"legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.
>> >
>> > What about those mobs camping out in front of Supreme Justices.
>> > Thats a riot waiting to happen. Not to mention they are currently
>> > breaking the law. Is that how democracy is suppose to work? If
>> > you are a democrat you'd probably answer yes. Sacky says that
>> > Biden aproves of them rioting peacefully. What say
>> > you?
>> The SCOTUS is not supposed to be influenced by public opinion or
>> protests. They are only there to enforce what is written in the
>> constitution. Elected officials are the ones who represent popular
>> opinion. They are the ones who have the power to rewrite laws and even
>> change the constitution to what public opinion demands.
>
>===
>
>I don't disagree but the fact is that much of what appears before the SCOTUS is not directly addressed in the constitution, amendments or federal law, and consequently requires legal interpretation. Of course that's where political opinions and personal beliefs enter into it.

The answer to that is simple. If the SCOTUS can not find a power
enumerated in the constitution it is an issue to be decided by state
and local legislatures.
That may rub federalists the wrong way but it is what the 10th
amendment says.

On Sun, 08 May 2022 13:36:41 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
>people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
>by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
>Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
>constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
>to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

Does the viable infant get a choice?

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
kicking, right?

On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT),
"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
>> people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
>> by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
>> Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
>> constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
>> to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.
>
>===
>
>I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.

Like killing babies?

Does the viable infant get a choice?

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
kicking, right?

On Sun, 8 May 2022 15:26:53 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
<3452471@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-4, waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>> > The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
>> > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
>> > by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
>> > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
>> > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
>> > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.
>> ===
>>
>> I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.
>
>"They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work."
>
>Yet it happens repeatedly, and some of the most egregious examples have been in the last few years. And you should be careful about painting everyone with that one brush you've recently armed yourself with. For example, I'm labelled and are considered a conservative. However, I believe that the government should not be in the marriage business, but rather just the civil union business, which after all is all they are concerned with anyway. If two "its" want to enter a civil contract, let them. But staying true to separation of church and state, if a church refuses to perform a wedding ceremony or a bakery reuses to make a cake for them, so be it. Abortion should be legal through the 1st trimester for anyone. After that, only in rape and incest cases or if medically necessary. After all, it is killing a human, and should have limits.
>
>I think you'd be surprised at how large a majority would present itself to support these types of compromises and solutions if the rhetoric would subside and the discussions could take place. Unfortunately, the liberal MSM won't allow that, as they (and others) make their money on keeping the pot stirred. Also, keep in mind that the so-called minority only appears that way because many, if not most, of the people in your perceived "minority" just don't go to the state capitol or SC steps to demonstrate. The vast majority of them are too busy holding down jobs, raising families, and doing the work that runs this country. When they do speak up, they are either ignored or labelled by the media and elite liberals as racists, xenophobic, misogynistic, etc. There's that pesky minority imposing their opinions and beliefs on us all again.

Personally, I think a victim of either rape or incest should know so
well before three months afterwards. Any rape victim should be
screaming for the 'morning after' pill as should any incest victim. If
72 hours have passed, then the abortion pill is an alternative.

There is no reason a rape or incest victim doesn't realize they're
pregnant within a month or two. Pregnancy tests are free at any
planned parenthood office.

On Fri, 13 May 2022 15:20:52 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Fri, 13 May 2022 11:13:24 -0700 (PDT),
>"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 12:27:26 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 May 2022 11:14:42 -0400 (EDT), justan <m...@here.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >"waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com>
>>> > Wrote in message:r
>>> >> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not > by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about). > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.===I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a
>>> >"legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.
>>> >
>>> > What about those mobs camping out in front of Supreme Justices.
>>> > Thats a riot waiting to happen. Not to mention they are currently
>>> > breaking the law. Is that how democracy is suppose to work? If
>>> > you are a democrat you'd probably answer yes. Sacky says that
>>> > Biden aproves of them rioting peacefully. What say
>>> > you?
>>> The SCOTUS is not supposed to be influenced by public opinion or
>>> protests. They are only there to enforce what is written in the
>>> constitution. Elected officials are the ones who represent popular
>>> opinion. They are the ones who have the power to rewrite laws and even
>>> change the constitution to what public opinion demands.
>>
>>===
>>
>>I don't disagree but the fact is that much of what appears before the SCOTUS is not directly addressed in the constitution, amendments or federal law, and consequently requires legal interpretation. Of course that's where political opinions and personal beliefs enter into it.
>
>The answer to that is simple. If the SCOTUS can not find a power
>enumerated in the constitution it is an issue to be decided by state
>and local legislatures.
>That may rub federalists the wrong way but it is what the 10th
>amendment says.

Exactly.

On Wed, 11 May 2022 11:14:42 -0400 (EDT), justan <me@here.com> wrote:

>"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com>
> Wrote in message:r
>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not > by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about). > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.===I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a
>"legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.
>
> What about those mobs camping out in front of Supreme Justices.
> Thats a riot waiting to happen. Not to mention they are currently
> breaking the law. Is that how democracy is suppose to work? If
> you are a democrat you'd probably answer yes. Sacky says that
> Biden aproves of them rioting peacefully. What say
> you?

Liberals don't riot. They peacefully protest, as is demonstrated by
this peaceful protest in Minneapolis:

https://cy4ad5.c2.acecdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/IMG_20200528_115243.jpg

John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2022 13:36:41 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
>> people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
>> by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
>> Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
>> constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
>> to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.
>
> Does the viable infant get a choice?
>
> It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
> kicking, right?
>

I think abortion should be legal in first trimester. Otherwise we are
back to dangerous back alley surgery. If late term abortion is legal, then
why is killing the baby a year after coming out illegal? I’d the baby is
minutes from emerging, and can be legally killed, makes killing you your
kid semi legal. ???

John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT),
> "waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
>>> people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
>>> by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
>>> Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
>>> constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
>>> to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.
>>
>> ===
>>
>> I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over
>> the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states.
>> Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were
>> added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by
>> congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest
>> those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade
>> ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the
>> law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has
>> traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who
>> want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very
>> sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to
>> impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of
>> how democracy is supposed to work.
>
> Like killing babies?
>
> Does the viable infant get a choice?
>
> It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
> kicking, right?
>

Your argument is for a viable baby. Not viable in the first trimester.
Most any abortion these days is an admission of failure. What with all the
birth control methods available.

On Mon, 16 May 2022 12:45:02 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 08 May 2022 13:36:41 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>>The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
>>people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
>>by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
>>Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
>>constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
>>to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.
>
>Does the viable infant get a choice?
>
>It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
>kicking, right?

Are you willing to pay for all of the kids the mother (maybe a teen)
can't afford?
I suppose you do tho, with welfare, cost of crime and the prison
system.
In reality we are really just talking about poor people. Rich folks
have never had a problem ending a pregnancy and they never will.

Poor people have abortions, rich women just have a tragic miscarriage.

On Mon, 16 May 2022 13:07:11 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 8 May 2022 15:26:53 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
><3452471@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-4, waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>> > The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
>>> > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
>>> > by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
>>> > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
>>> > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
>>> > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.
>>> ===
>>>
>>> I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.
>>
>>"They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work."
>>
>>Yet it happens repeatedly, and some of the most egregious examples have been in the last few years. And you should be careful about painting everyone with that one brush you've recently armed yourself with. For example, I'm labelled and are considered a conservative. However, I believe that the government should not be in the marriage business, but rather just the civil union business, which after all is all they are concerned with anyway. If two "its" want to enter a civil contract, let them. But staying true to separation of church and state, if a church refuses to perform a wedding ceremony or a bakery reuses to make a cake for them, so be it. Abortion should be legal through the 1st trimester for anyone. After that, only in rape and incest cases or if medically necessary. After all, it is killing a human, and should have limits.
>>
>>I think you'd be surprised at how large a majority would present itself to support these types of compromises and solutions if the rhetoric would subside and the discussions could take place. Unfortunately, the liberal MSM won't allow that, as they (and others) make their money on keeping the pot stirred. Also, keep in mind that the so-called minority only appears that way because many, if not most, of the people in your perceived "minority" just don't go to the state capitol or SC steps to demonstrate. The vast majority of them are too busy holding down jobs, raising families, and doing the work that runs this country. When they do speak up, they are either ignored or labelled by the media and elite liberals as racists, xenophobic, misogynistic, etc. There's that pesky minority imposing their opinions and beliefs on us all again.
>
>Personally, I think a victim of either rape or incest should know so
>well before three months afterwards. Any rape victim should be
>screaming for the 'morning after' pill as should any incest victim. If
>72 hours have passed, then the abortion pill is an alternative.
>
>There is no reason a rape or incest victim doesn't realize they're
>pregnant within a month or two. Pregnancy tests are free at any
>planned parenthood office.

Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast
rule when it is OK to kill a baby?
BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are
telling us they provide a valuable service.
It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.

On Mon, 16 May 2022 13:08:58 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 13 May 2022 15:20:52 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 13 May 2022 11:13:24 -0700 (PDT),
>>"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 12:27:26 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 May 2022 11:14:42 -0400 (EDT), justan <m...@here.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >"waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com>
>>>> > Wrote in message:r
>>>> >> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not > by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about). > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.===I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a
>>>> >"legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.
>>>> >
>>>> > What about those mobs camping out in front of Supreme Justices.
>>>> > Thats a riot waiting to happen. Not to mention they are currently
>>>> > breaking the law. Is that how democracy is suppose to work? If
>>>> > you are a democrat you'd probably answer yes. Sacky says that
>>>> > Biden aproves of them rioting peacefully. What say
>>>> > you?
>>>> The SCOTUS is not supposed to be influenced by public opinion or
>>>> protests. They are only there to enforce what is written in the
>>>> constitution. Elected officials are the ones who represent popular
>>>> opinion. They are the ones who have the power to rewrite laws and even
>>>> change the constitution to what public opinion demands.
>>>
>>>===
>>>
>>>I don't disagree but the fact is that much of what appears before the SCOTUS is not directly addressed in the constitution, amendments or federal law, and consequently requires legal interpretation. Of course that's where political opinions and personal beliefs enter into it.
>>
>>The answer to that is simple. If the SCOTUS can not find a power
>>enumerated in the constitution it is an issue to be decided by state
>>and local legislatures.
>>That may rub federalists the wrong way but it is what the 10th
>>amendment says.
>
>Exactly.

As far as I am concerned that is a separate issue from abortion and
could chip away at lots of abusive attacks on the 10th amendment. I
would start with the federal drug war and GCA68. Then we could start
looking at the Corps of Engineers and the alphabet agencies Nixon
established. The feds can write model legislation the states can adopt
but there is a very limited amount of power the constitution gives
them to enforce those laws if they don't involve rights conveyed in
the 14th amendment or interstate activity. A situation wholly confined
to a single state is not the fed's business.

On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:15:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
<califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:

>John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT),
>> "waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>>> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
>>>> people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
>>>> by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
>>>> Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
>>>> constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
>>>> to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.
>>>
>>> ===
>>>
>>> I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over
>>> the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states.
>>> Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were
>>> added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by
>>> congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest
>>> those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade
>>> ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the
>>> law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has
>>> traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who
>>> want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very
>>> sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to
>>> impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of
>>> how democracy is supposed to work.
>>
>> Like killing babies?
>>
>> Does the viable infant get a choice?
>>
>> It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
>> kicking, right?
>>
>
>Your argument is for a viable baby. Not viable in the first trimester.
>Most any abortion these days is an admission of failure. What with all the
>birth control methods available.

These late term abortions are so rare the opponents can't usually cite
a case but they want folks to think that is the norm.

On Mon, 16 May 2022 22:51:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Mon, 16 May 2022 12:45:02 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 08 May 2022 13:36:41 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
>>>people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
>>>by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
>>>Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
>>>constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
>>>to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.
>>
>>Does the viable infant get a choice?
>>
>>It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
>>kicking, right?
>
>
>Are you willing to pay for all of the kids the mother (maybe a teen)
>can't afford?
>I suppose you do tho, with welfare, cost of crime and the prison
>system.
>In reality we are really just talking about poor people. Rich folks
>have never had a problem ending a pregnancy and they never will.
>
>Poor people have abortions, rich women just have a tragic miscarriage.

Perhaps if it weren't so lucrative, there'd be fewer babies born to
teens.

The 'morning after' or 'abortion' pills are not secret. I expect those
poor kids learn about them in fourth grade.

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
kicking, right?