Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-29-2020, 11:12 AM
OldBoldPilot OldBoldPilot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 468
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default Abortion Ruling Relevant to 2A?

The Supreme Court today struck down a Louisiana law not related to the legality of abortion itself, but on the basis that the law limited access to an otherwise legal procedure.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But it seems to me that the exact same case could be made regarding laws restricting and otherwise impeding access to the acquisition and carriage of handguns -- something that is also currently legal, based on the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, but to which many states have blocked access by implementing restrictive laws.
  #2  
Old 06-29-2020, 11:38 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 895
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yes. It can be made. But they don’t care.
  #3  
Old 06-29-2020, 12:09 PM
RobinGoodfellow's Avatar
RobinGoodfellow RobinGoodfellow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 669
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

“ OldBoldPilot
The Supreme Court today struck down a Louisiana law not related to the legality of abortion itself, but on the basis that the law limited access to an otherwise legal procedure.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But it seems to me that the exact same case could be made regarding laws restricting and otherwise impeding access to the acquisition and carriage of handguns -- something that is also currently legal, based on the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, but to which many states have blocked access by implementing restrictive laws.”

You might think that. But abortion law is special.

Perhaps if the founding fathers had had the forethought to enshrine protections for keeping and bearing arms like they did to protect abortion rights.
  #4  
Old 06-29-2020, 1:49 PM
Luieburger Luieburger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 852
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinGoodfellow View Post
Perhaps if the founding fathers had had the forethought to enshrine protections for keeping and bearing arms like they did to protect abortion rights.
The unwritten amendment - "A well regulated population being necessary for the genetic purity of a racist state, the right of the people to dissect and sell fetuses shall not be infringed."
  #5  
Old 06-29-2020, 2:05 PM
Den60's Avatar
Den60 Den60 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,315
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldBoldPilot View Post
The Supreme Court today struck down a Louisiana law not related to the legality of abortion itself, but on the basis that the law limited access to an otherwise legal procedure.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But it seems to me that the exact same case could be made regarding laws restricting and otherwise impeding access to the acquisition and carriage of handguns -- something that is also currently legal, based on the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, but to which many states have blocked access by implementing restrictive laws.
I've been saying this ever since the Texas decision.
__________________


Mojave Lever Crew Member.
  #6  
Old 06-29-2020, 2:13 PM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 320
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think the most 2A relevant information from this ruling is watching how Roberts flipped from his 2016 dissent in the TX case to now where he is voting in the majority with the liberals. He had reasoned that the 2016 TX case set precedent, therefore, even though he does not agree, he must vote to uphold the prior ruling.

I find it interesting that this case got cert, it seems as if there were 4 liberal judges that could trust Roberts to decide in their favor, despite his dissent not only 4 years earlier.

The conservative side recently showed in denying cert to that huge list of 2a cases, they do not trust Roberts to hold onto his conservative vote in Heller and uphold the precedent.

My personal belief is that Roberts is ok with the way things are, and doesn't want to give either side something that will be a groundbreaking change from the status quo.
__________________
Quote:
...Well, Mr. Dangerfield can feel better about himself now, because with Proposition 63, the Second Amendment gets even less respect than he does....
- Hon. Roger T. Benitez
  #7  
Old 06-29-2020, 2:17 PM
The War Wagon's Avatar
The War Wagon The War Wagon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: da' 'BURGH
Posts: 8,055
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldBoldPilot View Post
Abortion Ruling Relevant to 2A?

If baby Americans have no rights, I wouldn't hold out much hope for adult Americans.
__________________
  #8  
Old 06-29-2020, 2:18 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County, Idaho
Posts: 2,150
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luieburger View Post
The unwritten amendment - "A well regulated population being necessary for the genetic purity of a racist state, the right of the people to dissect and sell fetuses shall not be infringed."
Better to dissect them than let them turn into liberal democrats or worse Marxist.
  #9  
Old 06-29-2020, 2:23 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County, Idaho
Posts: 2,150
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The War Wagon View Post
If baby Americans have no rights, I wouldn't hold out much hope for adult Americans.
You have hope? We must not be looking at the same polls.
  #10  
Old 06-29-2020, 2:26 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 895
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
Better to dissect them than let them turn into liberal democrats or worse Marxist.
I think for the rioting population abortion should not be a right. It should be a requirement.
  #11  
Old 06-29-2020, 2:47 PM
natman natman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 43
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The promising thing to come out of this is Robert's explanation for his vote was that he wanted to honor stare decisis, the principle that the result in a previous similar case holds.

Roberts also stated: “The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike.


This will be a good thing the next time Heller is challenged.

https://www.law.com/nationallawjourn...20200529124742
  #12  
Old 06-29-2020, 4:54 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County, Idaho
Posts: 2,150
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by natman View Post
The promising thing to come out of this is Robert's explanation for his vote was that he wanted to honor stare decisis, the principle that the result in a previous similar case holds.

Roberts also stated: “The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike.


This will be a good thing the next time Heller is challenged.

https://www.law.com/nationallawjourn...20200529124742
First you have to get the court to take a 2A case. Then you have to hope that the wind is blowing in the right direction.
  #13  
Old 06-29-2020, 6:08 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,102
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I haven't read the case or really know much about it, but I find it interesting that Roberts claim stare decisis for abortion, but DC v. Heller doesn't mean much to him.

With the 10 cases which were reject Thomas most likely knew Roberts wouldn't vote with the conservatives, just like with abortion the liberal knew he would vote with them.

stare decisis was just Roberts fake reason, he is operating entirely on politics at this point.
  #14  
Old 06-29-2020, 6:31 PM
sfarchitect's Avatar
sfarchitect sfarchitect is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 1,751
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
I haven't read the case or really know much about it. . . . stare decisis was just Roberts fake reason, he is operating entirely on politics at this point.
You were right about one thing, you clearly don't know much about this case.

This was nearly identical to a previously adjudicated Texas case, June Medical v. Russo in 2016. Wherein the Texas legislature tried to claim, any doctor offering abortion services needs to have admitting privileges to some local hospital. When, in fact, many other procedures, which are statistically much more likely to to have complications that require hospitalization than abortion does, do not require admitting privileges. SCOTUS overturned the law finding that it was merely a sub rosa, defacto ban without calling it that. Which of course, was in fact entirely the intent of the law.

Freshman Congresswoman Katie Porter put this better than I've ever heard this said;

"Women will never achieve true economic and social parity in the US until they have dominion over their own bodies."

Mic drop. . . .
__________________
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”-Voltaire

“People like to think the political spectrum in this country runs from right to left. Really, it runs from top to bottom.” -Molly Ivins

"The self righteous need my help in their struggle toward self awareness"-John Cleese

Last edited by sfarchitect; 06-29-2020 at 6:36 PM..
  #15  
Old 06-29-2020, 6:38 PM
sfarchitect's Avatar
sfarchitect sfarchitect is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 1,751
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

In 1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception and abortion, encapsulating the consensus among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:

“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: ‘If a man kills any human life he will be put to death’ (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”

The magazine Christian Life agreed, insisting, “The Bible definitely pinpoints a difference in the value of a fetus and an adult.” And the Southern Baptist Convention passed a 1971 resolution affirming abortion should be legal not only to protect the life of the mother, but to protect her emotional health as well.

In fact, as I’ve noted before (here and here), conservative Catholic activist Paul Weyrich struck out when he first tried to interest Falwell and other evangelicals in the politics of abortion, school prayer and the rise of feminism. As reported by Max Blumenthal after Falwell’s death:

“I was trying to get those people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” Weyrich recalled in an interview in the early 1990s. “What changed their mind was Jimmy Carter’s intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called*de facto*segregation.”

That’s when they suddenly got religion about politics — and got political about their religion. Dudley explains:

As evangelical leaders formed common cause with Catholics on topics like feminism and homosexuality, they began re-interpreting the Bible as teaching the Roman Catholic position on abortion.

Falwell’s first major treatment of the issue, in a 1980 book chapter called, significantly, “The Right to Life,” declared, “The Bible clearly states that life begins at conception. … (Abortion) is murder according to the Word of God.”

With the megawatt power of his TV presence and mailing list, Falwell and his allies disseminated these interpretations to evangelicals across America.

Welcome to the evangelical roots of fake news!
__________________
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”-Voltaire

“People like to think the political spectrum in this country runs from right to left. Really, it runs from top to bottom.” -Molly Ivins

"The self righteous need my help in their struggle toward self awareness"-John Cleese
  #16  
Old 06-29-2020, 7:05 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,102
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfarchitect View Post
Mic drop. . . .

Uh hu ..
  #17  
Old 06-29-2020, 7:39 PM
eaglemike eaglemike is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,634
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfarchitect View Post
You were right about one thing, you clearly don't know much about this case.

This was nearly identical to a previously adjudicated Texas case, June Medical v. Russo in 2016. Wherein the Texas legislature tried to claim, any doctor offering abortion services needs to have admitting privileges to some local hospital. When, in fact, many other procedures, which are statistically much more likely to to have complications that require hospitalization than abortion does, do not require admitting privileges. SCOTUS overturned the law finding that it was merely a sub rosa, defacto ban without calling it that. Which of course, was in fact entirely the intent of the law.

Freshman Congresswoman Katie Porter put this better than I've ever heard this said;

"Women will never achieve true economic and social parity in the US until they have dominion over their own bodies."

Mic drop. . . .
Okay, now tell me again how they can charge another person for the death of a fetus? It's ok for the mother to kill the fetus, you say? Because it's not really a person? But just a part of her body? So if someone else kills it, it's just a part of her body? Or not? Or just convenient for the mother to kill her baby?
I just don't understand the "logic"........
__________________
Don't be a Jake!

It's a muzzle BRAKE, not a muzzle break. Or is your muzzle tired?
  #18  
Old 06-29-2020, 9:40 PM
SelfGovernor SelfGovernor is offline
Certified Gun Nerd
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 254
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglemike View Post
Okay, now tell me again how they can charge another person for the death of a fetus? It's ok for the mother to kill the fetus, you say? Because it's not really a person? But just a part of her body? So if someone else kills it, it's just a part of her body? Or not? Or just convenient for the mother to kill her baby?
I just don't understand the "logic"........
Nothing to do with logic, debating it is like playing chess with a pigeon...
__________________
... that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
  #19  
Old 06-29-2020, 10:52 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,685
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfarchitect View Post
...“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: ‘If a man kills any human life he will be put to death’ (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”...
You might want to be careful there. You're talking about someone's interpretation rather than what was actually said.

Leviticus...

Quote:
17 And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.

18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.

19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;

20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

21 And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.
Exodus...

Quote:
20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot...
Here is one take on it.

Here is another.

Be careful citing any particular interpretation as absolute fact in support of agenda; especially without reference to the text and its context. Put another way, it's far less "clear cut" than you are portraying.
  #20  
Old 06-30-2020, 7:05 AM
RANGER295's Avatar
RANGER295 RANGER295 is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Rural California
Posts: 3,455
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowGuy View Post
I think the most 2A relevant information from this ruling is watching how Roberts flipped from his 2016 dissent in the TX case to now where he is voting in the majority with the liberals. He had reasoned that the 2016 TX case set precedent, therefore, even though he does not agree, he must vote to uphold the prior ruling.

I find it interesting that this case got cert, it seems as if there were 4 liberal judges that could trust Roberts to decide in their favor, despite his dissent not only 4 years earlier.

The conservative side recently showed in denying cert to that huge list of 2a cases, they do not trust Roberts to hold onto his conservative vote in Heller and uphold the precedent.

My personal belief is that Roberts is ok with the way things are, and doesn't want to give either side something that will be a groundbreaking change from the status quo.
Roberts is becoming the new Kennedy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglemike View Post
Okay, now tell me again how they can charge another person for the death of a fetus? It's ok for the mother to kill the fetus, you say? Because it's not really a person? But just a part of her body? So if someone else kills it, it's just a part of her body? Or not? Or just convenient for the mother to kill her baby?
I just don't understand the "logic"........
This is something that has always bothered me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
You might want to be careful there. You're talking about someone's interpretation rather than what was actually said.

Leviticus...



Exodus...



Here is one take on it.

Here is another.

Be careful citing any particular interpretation as absolute fact in support of agenda; especially without reference to the text and its context. Put another way, it's far less "clear cut" than you are portraying.
I hate it when people use scripture to back their argument or justify behavior yet take it out of context. When I first read the above mentioned passage I found it disturbing in terms of my personal beliefs. Part of the problem we have is the translation. There are a multitude of words that were used in the original text that do not exist today each with a different meaning. A good example of this is "love" for which there were I believe five Greek and Hebrew words used originally in the Bible. All are all in modern translation are simply "love" but they loose the original contextual meaning.

In this case, if you look at the original word used describe the delivered baby, it was a word that was used many times through out the Bible to describe live babies. It was never used to describe a dead baby or a misarrange. On the other hand, there is another word that was originally used to describe a miscarried or stillborn baby in the original Bible.

When read in the original language and looking at the context of the original words individually, it appears that the passage is saying if the baby is born live (possibly premature) the man shall be fined yet if harm comes to the mother or the baby it shall be eye for eye.

Another passage that is often misused is Ephesians 5:22-24. I had a serious GF for about 5 years. In her family and her church the husband had dictator like power that they based on this verse. It was taken out of context when they ignore the previous verse that says to submit to each other or the following verses that talk about how the husband is to treat the wife. We ultimately ended up breaking up mostly over religious differences... both Christian denominations but with drastically different theological backgrounds.

People do the same thing with the Constitution. Kind of how they argue the "well regulated militia" is the National Guard.

I probably should not have posted this because it is contributing to being off the original topic which this thread has derailed. I do agree with the OP for the record but I do not think they will apply the same. I also am kind of afraid to bring a 2nd Amendment case to SCOTUS right now. This is why it is so important that Trump win again so we can replace RBG.
__________________
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
~Ben Franklin

159

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."

- Mark Twain

Si vis pacem, para bellum

  #21  
Old 06-30-2020, 7:21 AM
rogerv723 rogerv723 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 39
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfarchitect View Post
In 1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception and abortion, encapsulating the consensus among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:

“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: ‘If a man kills any human life he will be put to death’ (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”

The magazine Christian Life agreed, insisting, “The Bible definitely pinpoints a difference in the value of a fetus and an adult.” And the Southern Baptist Convention passed a 1971 resolution affirming abortion should be legal not only to protect the life of the mother, but to protect her emotional health as well.

In fact, as I’ve noted before (here and here), conservative Catholic activist Paul Weyrich struck out when he first tried to interest Falwell and other evangelicals in the politics of abortion, school prayer and the rise of feminism. As reported by Max Blumenthal after Falwell’s death:

“I was trying to get those people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” Weyrich recalled in an interview in the early 1990s. “What changed their mind was Jimmy Carter’s intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called*de facto*segregation.”

That’s when they suddenly got religion about politics — and got political about their religion. Dudley explains:

As evangelical leaders formed common cause with Catholics on topics like feminism and homosexuality, they began re-interpreting the Bible as teaching the Roman Catholic position on abortion.

Falwell’s first major treatment of the issue, in a 1980 book chapter called, significantly, “The Right to Life,” declared, “The Bible clearly states that life begins at conception. … (Abortion) is murder according to the Word of God.”

With the megawatt power of his TV presence and mailing list, Falwell and his allies disseminated these interpretations to evangelicals across America.

Welcome to the evangelical roots of fake news!

Well to be fair the Exodus scripture that was quoted was misused. Biblical teaching, has and will always be that abortion is murder. There are always those who will use God’s word for their own benefit, twist scripture to make it seem like their sin isn’t actually sin. Nevertheless, we as mankind are sinners, in need of a Savior. I’m not sure what you believe to be honest, but I hope that you’ll look at things from God’s perspective with the heart and mind of God, then maybe you’ll see why Jesus came and died for our sins.
  #22  
Old 06-30-2020, 7:34 AM
kelvin232 kelvin232 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 798
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Imaginary friend posts aside, the actual ruling is actually not helpful. If you read the opinions you will see that the case was decided specifically on the issue of it being settled law and that while one of the justices disagrees with the outcome of that case, AND ruled against it originally, he is forced to vote with the majority due to precedent. Meaning established decisions are entrenched deep, even if the judges voting disagree with the outcome of the presiding case.
  #23  
Old 06-30-2020, 9:06 AM
ja308's Avatar
ja308 ja308 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 10,785
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yes the ruling is very applicable to RKBA as it shows the snapper head, communist, revolution has a 5-4 advantage . These 5 have no more respect for unborn life or even the mothers safety, than they do for 2A rights! They are atheist, communist, revolutionaries that want a disarmed American population.

Considering America' s birth certificate, The Declaration of Independence affirms the first right endowed by the creator is life, it should follow that protecting the unborn should be a function of government. In fact if you read past the 1st paragraph the Declaration states the purpose of government!

BTW Independence Day will soon be here and the JA household will begin the celebration by reading the Declaration of Independence.

Does anyone else read the Declaration ?
__________________
"Both socialism & communism require a commitment to the use of force. You cannot decide what to do with the other guy’s money unless you are committed to use force to take that money from him..."
Rick Kelo
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.

"Liars Make The Best Promises " Pierce Brown.

Last edited by ja308; 06-30-2020 at 9:15 AM..
  #24  
Old 06-30-2020, 9:12 AM
Den60's Avatar
Den60 Den60 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,315
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfarchitect View Post
You were right about one thing, you clearly don't know much about this case.

This was nearly identical to a previously adjudicated Texas case, June Medical v. Russo in 2016. Wherein the Texas legislature tried to claim, any doctor offering abortion services needs to have admitting privileges to some local hospital. When, in fact, many other procedures, which are statistically much more likely to to have complications that require hospitalization than abortion does, do not require admitting privileges. SCOTUS overturned the law finding that it was merely a sub rosa, defacto ban without calling it that. Which of course, was in fact entirely the intent of the law.

Freshman Congresswoman Katie Porter put this better than I've ever heard this said;

"Women will never achieve true economic and social parity in the US until they have dominion over their own bodies."

Mic drop. . . .
In a hundred years or so, when abortions are no longer necessary, just remember that you and your ilk will be viewed with the same disdain, or worse, as slave owners are viewed today.
__________________


Mojave Lever Crew Member.
  #25  
Old 07-01-2020, 7:33 AM
ja308's Avatar
ja308 ja308 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 10,785
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Den60 View Post
In a hundred years or so, when abortions are no longer necessary, just remember that you and your ilk will be viewed with the same disdain, or worse, as slave owners are viewed today.
Naw he and his ilk will just change the history of what they believed and blame the pro-life advocate for supporting black genocide!

Being a lying,uniformed, ignorant, corrupt, cheat, is what it means to be a democrat ! Oh and the sycophantic media in connection with government schools will lead the false narrative.

Think Im being harsh? Re-read the post of this basement dweller again!
__________________
"Both socialism & communism require a commitment to the use of force. You cannot decide what to do with the other guy’s money unless you are committed to use force to take that money from him..."
Rick Kelo
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.

"Liars Make The Best Promises " Pierce Brown.
  #26  
Old 07-01-2020, 7:52 AM
Timthetwin's Avatar
Timthetwin Timthetwin is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: CA
Posts: 523
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

What are we coming to, when you optimistically use a case furthering the murder of infants, to hopefully look to acquire more guns.
  #27  
Old 07-01-2020, 7:54 AM
RANGER295's Avatar
RANGER295 RANGER295 is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Rural California
Posts: 3,455
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

This thread has spiraled way off topic. It is time for it to die. If you want to keep debating abortion, take it to the OT.
__________________
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
~Ben Franklin

159

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."

- Mark Twain

Si vis pacem, para bellum


Last edited by RANGER295; 07-01-2020 at 7:58 AM..
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:27 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2020, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical