Originally posted by no1marauderI thought you said life will go on?
He owes the right wingers one. Chuck on another Scalia clone and Roe is toast.
EDIT: He wrote this in 1990:
“We continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled,” .............. “The Supreme Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion finds no support in the text, structure or hi ...[text shortened]... lican and mainstream Republicans have been pushing for Roe to be overturned for decades.
Come to think of it, if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, I guess your right. 😛
People will be having children in the streets I tell ya!! 😲
Originally posted by utherpendragonsh76 is right, you are wrong. Deal with it.
I have no reading imediment. You showed the other night that you do, when you could not figure out what "immediately" means.
sh76 stated, "Obama has not allowed federal $$ to be spent on abortions."
Thats b.s.
And he is a big poser than you are ,in my book.
Originally posted by utherpendragonHow about I just call myself a "judge each issue and politician on its/his/her merits and ignore meaningless labels" and be done with it?
By "poser" I mean you are about as conservative as Nancy Pelosi is. But you have claimed to be a conservative.
As far as a Republican, as you claim to be, you are at most a RINO.
Just be honest about it and quit the charade.
2 edits
Incidentally, what does this thread have to do with being liberal or conservative? The issue in controversy in this thread is one of fact. Does or does not the federal government pay for abortions under President Obama? Your political outlook should (in theory) have zero impact on how you answer that question.
If the question were WHETHER the federal government should pay for abortion, then it becomes a political issue (and I'd say no, by the way). But if the question is one of fact, why do one's political leanings matter?
Originally posted by sh76So that's JEIAPOIHHM then. Dude that's a crappy acronym that takes up way too much space in my little narrow mind. Think of something snappier for me to label you with please, or I'm just gonna have to stick with RINO 🙂
How about I just call myself a "judge each issue and politician on its/his/her merits and ignore meaningless labels" and be done with it?
Originally posted by no1marauderEven if several leftist justices are replaced by Romney nominations, it could take years for a case to get to the Supreme court which might test Roe v. Wade. And given Robert's slipperiness, there are no guarantees of how such cases might go. In any case, abortion is hardly on my radar screen when considering a President.
I'm sure you meant to say a President has "NO" power to overrule Roe v. Wade but any retirement or death from the "liberal" wing in a Romney term would almost certainly lead to its overruling and then to some States (perhaps even a majority) re-criminalizing abortion. So that's a very real possibility.
Originally posted by sh76Only a lefty would check facts? 😉
Incidentally, what does this thread have to do with being liberal or conservative? The issue in controversy in this thread is one of fact. Does or does not the federal government pay for abortions under President Obama? Your political outlook should (in theory) have zero impact on how you answer that question.
If the question were WHETHER the federal govern ...[text shortened]... y no, by the way). But if the question is one of fact, why do one's political leanings matter?
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Romney has said he will appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade. When so overturned, that would open the door for the Republican religious fundamentalists in the House and Senate to push for federal legislation to outlaw abortion including in cases of rape and incest. I have always thought that one of the most biggest impacts of a President is their appointments to the Supreme Court, as well to the rest of the federal judiciary, i.e., the circuit courts and district judges. Moreover, many pro-choice people accept and even push for no federal $$ for abortion because it is good politics. Many people are fine with keeping abortion legal but don't want their tax dollars to pay for it.
Probably not. A President has now power to overrule Roe v. Wade and even Obama has not allowed federal $$ to be spent on abortions.
Originally posted by moon1969You're conjuring up ghosts. Federal legislation outlawing abortion even in cases of rape or incest is no more likely than a Martian takeover of Planet Earth.
Romney has said he will appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade. When so overturned, that would open the door for the Republican religious fundamentalists in the House and Senate to push for federal legislation to outlaw abortion including in cases of rape and incest. I have always thought that one of the most biggest impacts o ...[text shortened]... any people are fine with keeping abortion legal but don't want their tax dollars to pay for it.
Originally posted by sh76That is what was said about passing healthcare reform. Yet, it happened. The needed mix of Democrats in the House, Senate, and Oval Office.
You're conjuring up ghosts. Federal legislation outlawing abortion even in cases of rape or incest is no more likely than a Martian takeover of Planet Earth.
Despite Romney's apparent softening on abortion in his recent flip-flop to the center out of political desperation, Romney clearly stated during the primaries he would appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade, and that he would gladly sign federal legislation banning abortion.
