Women seeking abortions must view an ultrasound

hugo said:
Notice it was Scalia and Thomas who dissented. They dissented not because of any love for sex offenders but because of an attachment to our constitution and the concept of limited government power. Scalia and Thomas will rule similarly on Oklahomas' new law. They will be joined by the liberals for sure. It may well be a shutout 9-0.
Click to expand...

It would be a gross over reaching of power for the Federal Government to slap down the rights of the States to govern their own people. In Roe v Wade the Supreme Court ruled that the right to abortion was not absolute:

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The [410 U.S. 113, 154] Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.
Click to expand...


Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach.
Click to expand...


This law does not directly stop the ability to get an abortion, it simply reattaches the humanity segment of the abortion decision. I predict that if this does make it to the Supreme Court, they will uphold their earlier provision that each State does have a interest in defending the life of the unborn and small measures as this are reasonable.
 
Times said:
I predict that if this does make it to the Supreme Court, they will uphold their earlier provision that each State does have a interest in defending the life of the unborn and small measures as this are reasonable.
Click to expand...

I predict you are a dumbass..
 
wez said:
Times said:
I predict that if this does make it to the Supreme Court, they will uphold their earlier provision that each State does have a interest in defending the life of the unborn and small measures as this are reasonable.
Click to expand...

I predict you are a dumbass..
Click to expand...
lol, well coming from you that is a compliment Wez, being as your almost always wrong about everything you try to pass off as a fact.


Your main fault Wez is you take everything to the emotional peaks, you "feel" abortions are good and proper so everyone in the world must agree with your emotional possition or they need to be attacked for daring not to agree with you. Emotions are certainly a big part of human decisions, and that is exactly the best part of this new law. Up to now there has been a direct blocking of the emotional/feeling side of the decision to kill a child and why is that Wez?

Because a lot of people work for abortion clinics Wez, if women stopped getting abortions they would not have a job so they are more motivated to push women to kill their child than to help her make the 'right' decision with all the facts. On fact is this is her child, not a disease, not a cancer, but her child growing insider her and that basic fact is never spoken by the abortion workers because they know if the woman feels an emotional attachment, she will most likely not get an abortion and that will cost them millions of dollars every year.



Consider that in the opinion offered by the Court, they went to great lengths to consider all aspects of the abortion decision making process to include things like finiancial issues and menal health issues, their opinion clearly said that all of those issues should be considered and discussed between the patient and her "responsible physician". And yet now, these abortion advocates don't want all things to be considered, they want to control and manipulate women into killing their children.






Most people don't even know the biggest thing the Supreme Court was pointing out, their main possition was based on the older laws, they were primarily based on safety and using the old methods of abortion was very dangerious. With modern science, the abortion process had been made very safe in comparison and based on attitudes of old, the Justices did not see any real trend to protect the unborn children.........where they made a mistake in my opinion was not understanding that the relatively low concern was because of the very low attempts to abort their children. Women very rarely desired the death of their own children so on the rare time it did happen, most figured that the women who would want to kill their children were most likely doing a kindness to the child not forcing them to be raised in that situation with that woman.



Today the situation is completely different. Today, the average woman getting an abortion is using the procedure because she refused to use any form of birth control prior to sexual relations. Abortions are now a primary birth control measure, not a last ditch move because their birth control measures failed. This proposes a question never considered by the Courts where their endorsement of abortion actually "caused" women to turn to abortion more and exercise self-control less because now they had a safety net.
 
wez said:
Times said:
I predict that if this does make it to the Supreme Court, they will uphold their earlier provision that each State does have a interest in defending the life of the unborn and small measures as this are reasonable.
Click to expand...

I predict you are a dumbass..
Click to expand...


can we see some idiotbox action for the pointless/needless attack?

TJ got it... maybe wez deserves some.
 
RaE said:
wez said:
Times said:
I predict that if this does make it to the Supreme Court, they will uphold their earlier provision that each State does have a interest in defending the life of the unborn and small measures as this are reasonable.
Click to expand...

I predict you are a dumbass..
Click to expand...


can we see some idiotbox action for the pointless/needless attack?

TJ got it... maybe wez deserves some.
Click to expand...

How bout we see you shut the hell up?
 
wez said:
RaE said:
wez said:
Times said:
I predict that if this does make it to the Supreme Court, they will uphold their earlier provision that each State does have a interest in defending the life of the unborn and small measures as this are reasonable.
Click to expand...

I predict you are a dumbass..
Click to expand...


can we see some idiotbox action for the pointless/needless attack?

TJ got it... maybe wez deserves some.
Click to expand...

How bout we see you shut the hell up?
Click to expand...

how about no...
 
RaE said:
wez said:
RaE said:
wez said:
Times said:
I predict that if this does make it to the Supreme Court, they will uphold their earlier provision that each State does have a interest in defending the life of the unborn and small measures as this are reasonable.
Click to expand...

I predict you are a dumbass..
Click to expand...


can we see some idiotbox action for the pointless/needless attack?

TJ got it... maybe wez deserves some.
Click to expand...

How bout we see you shut the hell up?
Click to expand...

how about no...
Click to expand...


 
RaE said:
wez said:
Times said:
I predict that if this does make it to the Supreme Court, they will uphold their earlier provision that each State does have a interest in defending the life of the unborn and small measures as this are reasonable.
Click to expand...

I predict you are a dumbass..
Click to expand...


can we see some idiotbox action for the pointless/needless attack?

TJ got it... maybe wez deserves some.
Click to expand...
Anything done against me is good.
 
Times said:
You can't make me you Wez.
Click to expand...

I'm not you crap? Throwing what you hate is what you are and that is why you hate it in peoples faces?

Appears I already made you me..

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery ~ Charles Caleb Colton

hahahahaha...
 

Similar threads

M
GODPOD AUDIO: An American Soldier Wars for God and Country - Look,torture is criminal in Christ's Am
Replies
0
Views
29
my_brothers_brother@hotmail.com
M
R
Re: Is God for real?
Replies
0
Views
25
reefer mon
R
G
Re: * * * * * BUSH'S devaSTATE OF THE UNION EEECH KICKS ASS!! * * * * *
Replies
1
Views
43
BiSphincter'd Bush
B
Back
Top