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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.