the only thing it means is that states get to decide if and when abortion is illegal. this actually protects liberals too because they cannot be stopped legally from create their state size gay communist utopia either anymore.
important information alert: cancelling roe v wade doesn't mean abortion is illegal
- 32
- 11
Top Poster of the Day:
J
Current Registered Users: 25,772
BROWSE EFFORTPOSTS SITE GUIDE DIRECTORY Emojis & Art | Info Megathreads HOLES PING GROUPSCURRENT EVENTS:
Find Rightoid Drama
500 mbux per post, no limitInvite Internet Celebs HERE!
100k mbux award possible | Four new badges availableDrama: any incident, scene, gaffe, rumor, opinion, or disagreement that is blown entirely out of proportion.
Do your part to keep our community healthy by blowing everything out of proportion and making literally everything as dramatic as possible.
Rules:
- Asking to see who saved comments/posts=1 day ban
- You must be 18 or older to view this site.
- NO RIGHTWING AGENDAPOSTING.
- Discord users will be banned on sight.
- Don't post anything illegal.
- No sexualizing minors, even as a joke. This includes cartoons.
- No doxxing.
- Using alts to game dramacoin will get you banned.
- Supporting free speech is an immediate ban.
- Absolutely NO anti-CCP sentiment.
- Absolutely NO homophobia, transphobia or furphobia.
- Absolutely NO misgendering.
- Absolutely NO antisemitism.
- Absolutely NO vaccine misinformation.
- You are encouraged to post drama you are involved in.
- You are encouraged to brigade in bad faith.
- You are encouraged to gaslight, to gatekeep, above all else, to girlboss.
- Participation implies enthusiastic consent to being mod abused by unstable alcoholic bullies.
Related subreddits:
πππ«π© π°π¨π³ ππ«π
Live commit: 58cd4ab
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Until the courts get a Fetal Personhood bill before the SCOTUS, which I would expect to happen June 2023 at the latest.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
but isn't the whole point of the actual judgement that the previous judgement was based on bad logical and legal reasoning? and has nothing in particular to do with the actual political issue itself?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
What does that have to do with a bill that would recognize personhood at conception?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
that they likely wouldn't pass any such bill and support it at the supreme court level because again, this judgement states that it's not the supreme courts business, each state can decide it for itself.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
But a bill like that doesn't need SCOTUS to support it, they just can't rule it unconstitutional, which they won't. There's widespread support for fetal personhood in red states, and their representatives will probably propose a bill like that once they have control of the legislature, which I expect they'll have in 2023.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
ok and? If the majority of voters in red states want this then what's the problem? let them suffer the consequences of their ideas.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No I mean they'll get it passed at the federal level.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
why would they get passed at the federal level? Again, the supreme court said it has nothing to do with it whether pro or against as per my understanding
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They'll get it passed at the federal level because they think a fetus is a person? Because they think allowing abortion to happen anywhere is tantamount to allowing children to be murdered?
And there's nothing the prevent that constitutionally.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context