Democrat threats to ignore the Supreme Court abortion decision

Thistle said:
Most of the threats about ignoring the Supreme Court decision at the federal level will not work. The one that comes nearest to being plausible would be to provide abortions for military personnel on military bases in the states that otherwise prohibit it. But in order to accomplish that something would have to be done to the Hyde Amendment which states that federal dollars cannot be used to provide abortions.

More generally, do our friends on the left endorse the insurrection against this ruling of the Supreme Court? Inquiring minds would like to know…
Click to expand...
The left is opposed to insurrections until they’re not. They’re the perfect example of ?-crisy.
 
Furion said:
I have kept an eye out for stories. I saw an underling made a supporting comment about the US Supreme Court. I think francy may actually be pro abortion. But I don't follow too closely
Click to expand...
I can't say for sure, but on every other issue he's awfully far left.
 
Thistle said:
Most of the threats about ignoring the Supreme Court decision at the federal level will not work. The one that comes nearest to being plausible would be to provide abortions for military personnel on military bases in the states that otherwise prohibit it. But in order to accomplish that something would have to be done to the Hyde Amendment which states that federal dollars cannot be used to provide abortions.

More generally, do our friends on the left endorse the insurrection against this ruling of the Supreme Court? Inquiring minds would like to know…
Click to expand...
Biden appears to be trying to follow the footsteps of Andrew Jackson, a founder of the Democratic Party, in his showdown with the Supreme Court.

Jackson infamously ignored the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Cherokee tribe. He went on to expel the Cherokees in the Trail of Tears.

www.britannica.com

Worcester v. Georgia | History, Summary, & Significance

Worcester v. Georgia, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court in March 1832 held that the states did not have the right to impose regulations on Native American land. President Andrew Jackson refused to enforce the ruling, but the decision helped form the basis for most subsequent Indian law...
www.britannica.com www.britannica.com
 
Last edited:
Thistle said:
Most of the threats about ignoring the Supreme Court decision at the federal level will not work. The one that comes nearest to being plausible would be to provide abortions for military personnel on military bases in the states that otherwise prohibit it. But in order to accomplish that something would have to be done to the Hyde Amendment which states that federal dollars cannot be used to provide abortions.

More generally, do our friends on the left endorse the insurrection against this ruling of the Supreme Court? Inquiring minds would like to know…
Click to expand...
Another option would be to set up abortion clinics on Indian Reservations, which would have the added benefit of providing businesses and jobs for native Americans.
 
Thistle said:
State law governs what happens on federal land within their states. Indian reservations have a dubious argument which I don't think would prevail ultimately. But there is a specific law that says the military can do things on military bases that might violate the laws of the state in which they are domiciled. That provision does not apply to Indian reservations, and it does not apply to federal land more generally.

The traditional way of getting around it is to claim that Planned Parenthood is a organization that helps women screen for cancer. So Congress would send them $300 million every year so that they can screen for cancer which they would then spend on abortions. So, the way of getting around it is to lie.

You mean kind of like Iran Contra? That's an interesting idea. Wonder nobody ever thought of it before? Oh wait a minute…
Click to expand...
wow

You almost made it through that post without a childish, snide, troll comment.
 
vibise said:
Another option would be to set up abortion clinics on Indian Reservations, which would have the added benefit of providing businesses and jobs for native Americans.
Click to expand...
I addressed that possibility in post number 20.
 
vibise said:
Another option would be to set up abortion clinics on Indian Reservations, which would have the added benefit of providing businesses and jobs for native Americans.
Click to expand...
Abortion = economic development plan. This is a new approach.
 
Thistle said:
Most of the threats about ignoring the Supreme Court decision at the federal level will not work. The one that comes nearest to being plausible would be to provide abortions for military personnel on military bases in the states that otherwise prohibit it. But in order to accomplish that something would have to be done to the Hyde Amendment which states that federal dollars cannot be used to provide abortions.

More generally, do our friends on the left endorse the insurrection against this ruling of the Supreme Court? Inquiring minds would like to know…
Click to expand...
Inquiring minds want to know why the RW did not object when the Trump administration blatantly ignored at least two SCOTUS decisions it did not like:

The Trump administration has blatantly ignored a Supreme Court ruling telling it to stop dismantling the federal program to protect undocumented immigrants brought here as children. Now — perhaps inevitably — a federal judge says the administration is ignoring another Supreme Court ruling that extends civil rights protections to gay, lesbian and transgender Americans.

This emerging pattern of a White House simply ignoring the high court is dangerous in ways that even congressional Republicans should understand. Yet they persist in their silence.
Click to expand...

www.stltoday.com

Editorial: Once again, Trump thumbs his nose at the Supreme Court. Where does it end?

Republicans in Congress, as usual, haven’t raised a peep in opposition to this latest degradation of the constitutional separation of powers.
www.stltoday.com www.stltoday.com

So you are upset thinking that the left MIGHT ignore a SCOTUS decision, but never minded when the Trump administration actually did that? TWICE?
 
Backup said:
From my understanding there is federal land in every state that could be used for abortion clinics.

There’s certainly ways around the Hyde Amendment. Support the clinics through donations, etc.
Click to expand...
That brings new meaning to lack of understanding.

Your KKomrades are also insurrectionists and pro-deathers.
 
vibise said:
Inquiring minds want to know why the RW did not object when the Trump administration blatantly ignored at least two SCOTUS decisions it did not like:



www.stltoday.com

Editorial: Once again, Trump thumbs his nose at the Supreme Court. Where does it end?

Republicans in Congress, as usual, haven’t raised a peep in opposition to this latest degradation of the constitutional separation of powers.
www.stltoday.com www.stltoday.com

So you are upset thinking that the left MIGHT ignore a SCOTUS decision, but never minded when the Trump administration actually did that? TWICE?
Click to expand...
So it's ok for you to bomb pregnancy clinics? Threaten supreme court justices? What's the point? Other people's bad behavior justifies yours?
 
Nedsk said:
Abortion = economic development plan. This is a new approach.
Click to expand...
Medical services do provide economic opportunity. And this is not new. It seems that healthcare is the fastest growing sector in WVa, which has been sorely in need of economic revitalization.

www.wvnews.com

Healthcare and economic development goes hand in hand for the future of West Virginia

CLARKSBURG — With hospitals throughout West Virginia continuing to look at growth in the future, their role in the economy is just as important as ever for the Mountain State.
www.wvnews.com www.wvnews.com

The article states that WVU Medicine is now the top employer in the state.
 
Thistle said:
So, does defrocked mean you can no longer pronounce mass?
Click to expand...
Yes. Even when a priest decides to leave on his own accord he no longer has licit faculties. He can no longer validly function as a priest but I've known some who still try and do so separate from the church.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top