Video and Audio
See other Video and Audio Articles
Title: We are the Pro-Life Generation and we will abolish abortion
Source:
Students for Life of America
URL Source: http://studentsforlife.org/
Published: Jul 3, 2018
Author: Students for Life of America
Post Date: 2018-07-03 16:51:43 by Hondo68
Keywords: Baby assassin Trump, Funds Planned Parenthood, Three times, so far
Views: 9762
Comments: 51
Our mission statement Students for Life of America exists to recruit, train, and mobilize the Pro-Life Generation to abolish abortion.
Poster Comment: The spending bill passed the Senate by a vote of 80-17 and was approved by the House, 316 to 90. Trump signed the bill into law on Friday. The deal places the president in the position of abandoning a specific promise made to his conservative base during his 2016 campaign. Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence outlined a pro-life agenda for a Trump administration. “I am committed to…Defunding Planned Parenthood as long as they continue to perform abortions, and re-allocating their funding to community health centers that provide comprehensive health for women,” Trump said in a letter to national pro-life leaders in 2016. Republicans, of course, claim to be a pro-life party, but have failed to defund Planned Parenthood, despite promises to the contrary. Terence Jeffrey, editor-in-chief at CNSNews.com, observes this is “the third spending deal President Trump has signed that funds Planned Parenthood”
Thank God that these courageous youngsters are opposing Trump's baby killing D&R establishment funded, abortion mills. 
Trump’s Spending Deal with Democrats Is Funding Planned Parenthood
The deal Trump cut with Minority Leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi – and that the Republican-led Congress passed – funds abortion giant Planned Parenthood into fiscal year 2018 with taxpayer funds from the Medicaid program and Title X family planning grants.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-3) not displayed.
.
.
.
#4. To: misterwhite (#3)
The supreme court's duty is to be honest to the constitution and abolish abortion nationwide.
Don’t count on it. I doubt the bench will ever hear the same legal argument a second time. My suggestion to all who are against abortion, don’t impregnate (or have sex) with any female that doesn’t value life... and let those that kill babies go straight to Hell. I can tell you this, if we get a few more conservative/libertarian minded justices placed on this bench over the next 6 years, and they hear a case that causes the bench to solidify a decision that doesn’t allow any state or city to ban handguns or semi auto rifles... and 8 years later some libtard bench reverses that... I’ll start the revolution myself.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
(D)uh! (D)onald Trump, the heir of Freddy Drumpf's Poodle Dawg brothel fortune, is a dialectic CARICATURE of right-wing ideology. Ya s'pose that might be why Bill and Hillary Clinton encouraged captain plastic to "play a larger role in the Republican Party"?
Meanwhile, in Reality Land: ================== This is a list of decisions of the Supr eme Court of the United States that have been explicitly overruled, in part or in whole, by a subsequent decision of the Court. It does not include decisions that have been abrogated by subsequent constitutional amendment or by subsequent amending statutes.
You mean like the "conservative" (D)rumpf appointed? The "conservative" who put his family under the purview of religious fagotry at that "church" they go to in the People's Republic of Boulder? FAIL.
More than half the country wants a baby-killing government, so shutting the government down "until" won't work. What it will do, instead, is keep the government shut down until the next election, cause a lot of economic disruption, and then hand the country over to the pro-choice majority in a Democratic landslide. The minority cannot impose its will on the entrenched majority through some political trick. It won't work. Most Republicans are not one-issue voters or legislatures. If you put the issue to a plebiscite: Should the government be shut down until abortion is abolished, perhaps 20% of the people would say yes. The rest would say no. If you put the issue to a vote test in Congress...well, that happens now, effectively, with these bills by single members about abortion that never see the light of day, because Congressmen are not single-issue legislators, and they're not going to simply throw their careers and the country away over one issue. The Supreme Court is uniquely placed to legislate against the will of the people. It did so with Roe - in 1973 the majority did not support abortion on demand. It did so with Kelo. It did so with school busing. The Supreme Court is the iinstitution that can make the country change to pro-life, against the will of the majority. Of course, if the majority were CRUSHINGLY pro-choice the court might not prevail even then. But the country is divided about 55/45 on the matter, and that's the sort of spread that would allow the Supreme Court to impose minority rule in a sustainable fashion.
Pulling fables out of your ass as usual huh lizardboy.
They don't have that power. They can only decide if a law is constitutional or not. In Roe v Wade, they found that state laws against abortion violated a woman's right to privacy and were, therefore, unconstitutional. The best we can hope for from the U.S. Supreme Court is a reversal of their decision -- which would return the issue to the states When that happens, you can certainly lobby your state to ban abortion or allow it under certain conditions.
CRUSHINGLY pro-choice? Then the U.S. Supreme Court might feel safe in overturning Roe v Wade and returning the decision to the states. Nothing would change, right?
They do have that power. The Constitution demands Equal justice under the law . They're human beings whose rights are being violated. Murder is a crime you dumbass.
They're human beings, when? At conception? Heartbeat detected? First trimester? Well then, Congress would have to pass a law saying that life begins at that point and abortion is murder and is thereore illegal. Any exceptions for rape, incest, or health of the mother? And what are the penalties for the mother? The abortionist? The clinic? You put that all together and then tell me how many votes you think you can get. I'll tell you. Not enough.
It's on like a f****** liberal
No exceptions b****
No, solipsist, I am simply stating the facts as determined by the polls by all of the major research organizations. Example: 2017 Pew Research Study: "Though abortion is a divisive issue, more than half of U.S. adults take a non-absolutist position, saying that in most – but not all – cases, abortion should be legal (33%) or illegal (24%). Fewer take the position that in all cases abortion should be either legal (25%) or illegal (16%)." 25% are absolutists who say that abortion should be legal in all cases, and 33% think that abortion should be legal in most cases. That's 58% of the nation that is pro abortion. (I said 55% in my post - Pew says it's a bit more of a pro-abortion country than I said) Only 16% have my view and yours, that abortion should be illegal. Another 24% think it should be illegal in most cases. That's 40% pro-life. (I said 45% in my post, so the country is a bit less pro-life than I said.) I am a realist, living in the real world, with real data. You're a solipsist, who believes that your personal view of the way things OUGHT to be is the way things ARE. I said the way things ARE, and you accused me of pulling fables out of my ass. Actually, I was direct, honest, and telling you what the field of battle really looks like, and why - if the pro- lifers do some damn fool Pickett's Charge thing like shut down the government until abortion is illegal, that we will certainly LOSE. We will lose everything. We will not win on abortion AND we will lose the rest of government and lose everything ELSE we care about too. We are not strong enough to win this battle in a direct fight. We have too few men. We are outnumbered. Really. YOU are the one pulling ideas out of your ass. You hate abortion, therefore you manufacture in your mind some sort of non-existent majority that can overthrow it. Ok, General Lee, ok, General Pickett, you go right ahead and charge those guns at Gettysburg. And die. 100% of the time. You cannot win this fight in a head to head battle, because your side is too weak and the other side is too strong. The difference is not so lopsided that the Supreme Court could not IMPOSE a solution that the majority would not like. If they overturned Roe and outlawed abortion, the pro-abortion folks would go berserk BUT the country would continue to be governed, it would not be shut down, the economy could grow, and people could still vote for the Republicans on their pocketbooks and just blame the Supreme Court. That's how you can win. But you're a child in your thinking. You want to be RIGHT, and that means NOT using the Supreme Court to do it. Unfortunately, that means you want to be right more than you want to win. So you lose, and then you lose. And then you bitch at a realist like me, and mock me, when I tell you the way it actually IS, the actual lay of the real battlefield. Because God brought a lizard back to life in my hand and I told you about it, therefore I am to be dismissed as a liar and a spinner of fables on every other thing. While YOU blunder ahead in error after error, misjudgment after misjudgment, factual fantasy after fantasy, and what you believe in loses. So, you call me lizard-boy, if it pleases you, and I'll call you solipsist, because that's exactly what you are.
Nothing would change, right? The Supreme Court would not overturn its precedent under such circumstances.
Yes. There needs to be an exception to preserve the life of the mother under dire circumstances, when all efforts to preserve both mother and baby have been exhausted. And of course, therefore, we must vastly increase our spending on orphanages and child welfare, because there will be a whole lot more poor children, in our country if we abolish abortion. And you’re right, there are not the votes to get that through the democratic process. Only about 16% of the country agrees. We need the Supreme Court to impose the rule as a constitutional interpretation, because we cannot win the point democratically. And then we have to be ready, once the court does that, for the political hellstorm to follow. We have to be ready with the really massive social spending on all of those millions of new children, most of them poor minorities, who will be born as the result. The way has to be made easy for women to offload the babies into good orphanages, etc. That might - MIGHT - be sufficient to deflect the political hellstorm long enough to survive some elections and make the new system stick. More likely, that decision would be a 21st Century Dredd Scott decision, that would hurtle us almost immediately into political civil war, which the Democrats would win easily.
Under those circumstances, of course they would. They'd know it would have no effect.
The U.S. Supreme Court does not have the power to write law. You can't even take a case directly to the U.S. Supreme Court -- it's an appellate court. Meaning, a law must first be written declaring abortion to be murder, someone has to violate that law and be arrested (to have standing), then be convicted, appeal to a circuit court, conviction affirmed, then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Who decides when life begins? A state? The U.S. Supreme Court? Who should be punished and what's a "just and fair" penalty? Can these definitions vary from state to state?
The Supreme Court has written the most important laws of the country. Abortion, gay marriage, legal segregation, then desegregation - all Supreme Court-made law. Judge-made law has always been the principle of the Common Law system. So, one can say that the Supreme Court “can’t”, but it manifestly DOES. One might say that it SHOULDN”T, but that’s a philosophical question.
Abortion wouldn't necessarily be abolished. The decision would be returned to each state as it was prior to Roe v Wade. Since each state would bear the financial burden of orphanages and child welfare, the goal would be to reduce pregnancies to begin with. An anti-abortion state might allow first-trimester abortions. Or free birth control. They could declare the "morning after" pill (Plan B) to be legal. They could make an abortion exception for the mental health of the mother. They could prosecute the father for statutory rape in underage pregnancy cases. They could cut off state aid after the first child. Or they could even offer cash assistance to a pregnant woman to go to another state to get an abortion. Just spitballin' here.
No. Those were legal decisions concerning the constitutionality of a law that was being challenged. The law, passed by some legislative body, already existed. The law was applied to some action, creating an aggrieved party, who then challeged it on constitutional grounds.
It gets to be a semantic game and a game of legal history. I can see that the principle here is very, very important to you. I suppose we could go back to the beginning of our legal system and come forward, and I would show you how our law was originally all judge made, and how statutes gradually filled in the interstices, or changed some aspect of the Common Law (which is mostly judge made, not legislature made). I would show you how statutes gradually codified the judge made law It would be an interesting drill for a legal historian. Trouble is, what happened and how we got here is rather different from the nice picturebook civics story of how our system works, and you'll dig in on the theory and insist that the theory is the reality, while I will keep saying that, no, the reality is about 75 degrees off of the theory. We will not be able to resolve the dispute, and we'll walk away irritated. So let's cut to the chase and walk away irritated without expending all of the time and effort.
They still would not, because the concept of Roe is not anathema to the majority of justices. The Supreme Court, for the most part, believes itself to have the power to be the final arbiter of what the Constitution IS. Sure, there are justices like Scalia who say "No, no, no!", but they have never yet been a majority (and with John Roberts' defection on Obamacare, it's clear that that in the clinch there are a maximum of three such justices now). Roe was correctly decided according to the bulk of the justices, and the manner in which it was decided exalts the power of the court. They would not reverse their precedent and say they were wrong unless there were five pro-life justices on the court. If there is a crushing pro-choice majority in the country, that would be reflected on the court, and the court would have no interest whatever in reversing Roe and suggesting that it didn't have the power to make a Roe-like decision. They would let Roe stand, and they would retain their power to decide new Roes. The majority of the Supreme Court have never shared your view of the civics.
According to Marbury v Madison, the bulk of the justices define correct. So your statement is superfluous.
The Rule of Five, yes. And that’s why even a court with a majority of pro-lifers on it might not vote down Roe, but a court that was majority pro-choice never would.
Well then, Congress would have to pass a law saying that life begins at that point and abortion is murder and is thereore illegal. You don't need Congress saying when life begins. We already know for a scientific fact it begins at conception.
It isn't the current courts precedent. You are just giving your very flawed opinion as if it is fact. You regularly do that which makes you dishonest and not credible. Not to mention your lunatic belief that you raise mice and cockroaches from the dead.
And the Supreme Court could so declare in drawing the line to trigger when protection of the person begins under the Constitution, thereby reversing Roe and ending all abortion in one swoop, not sending the subject back to the states for a vote. That's the only way to get it done all the way to zero. I doubt the pro-lifers on the court have the stomach for THAT. I do think Roe could be overturned and the issue thrown back to the states.
I would show you how statutes gradually codified the judge made law You would show lol. Make a YouTube video of your raising mice from the dead. You can't can you.
I can’t raise mice or lizards from the dead. God did it, once each. I was merely present.
Do you actually believe that the only precedent the Supreme Court has are those cases decided by the justices currently sitting on the bench?
When? Before the U.S. Constitution was ratified? Don't waste your time.
We? Half the people don't believe that. So how can you say "we" like you're speaking for everyone?
Not without a case before it. Could they declare that AR-15's are dangerous and therefore illegal? Out of the blue? Like tomorrow? Even with a case before it, how can the U.S. Supreme Court declare that life begins at conception? They have no powers of fact finding. Those powers reside with the legislature. This was why the Miller court remanded the case back to the district court -- they did not have the power to declare as fact whether of not the shotgun was useful to a militia. You just can't wait to give total power to the courts, can you? A judicial oligarchy seems to be your preferred form of government. Provided, of course, the judges vote your way. As soon as they don't, I expect to hear you screaming for a representative republic where elected representatives write the laws.
It’s easy to get a case.
If you don't know that you plus two is four I don't give a s*** what you f****** think comprende dumbass
Well, for starters, you'd have to find a state with a law that banned abortion because it was murder. There is one. Iowa recently passed a law that bans most abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected (about 6 weeks). That was challenged in Distict Court by Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. Litigation could take years. Assuming the District Court finds the law constitutional, I'm sure Planned Parenthood and the ACLU would appeal their ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court. Add a few more years. If the Iowa Supreme Court found the law constitutional, it could then be appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court -- assuming the U.S. Supreme Court wished to hear it. Add a few more years. And if the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case and agreed, then most abortions would be banned once a fetal heartbeat is detected. That's best case. Now, imagine if A K A Stone wrote the law. Life begins at conception. Abortion is murder. No exceptions. Getting that law passed by some state legislature would be almost impossible. Then you'd have to get all those state and federal judges to agree with you, all the way up the ladder.
No, you wouldn't have to do that at all. What you would have to do is take any abortion case, which opens the door for the Supreme Court to review its logic in Roe de novo. The Supreme Court is not bound by past precedents of the Supreme Court. It follows them out of the principle of stare decisis et non quieta movetur, but it always has the option of reviewing what it has done in the past and reversing on the grounds that it deems constitutional. It takes the rule of 5. 5 justices could take the abortion case and use it as the vehicle to review Roe. Nobody can stop them from reviewing Roe itself on any abortion case, irrespective of the topic. They could then determine that the Constitution requires due process before anybody is deprived of life - which it does - and then take judicial notice of the biological fact that life begins at conception, and simply apply the Constitution to the fact, and ban abortion outright as a matter of the Constitution. Don't pretend that they are barred from doing precisely that, if they want to. They are not, and they could. Nobody could sanction them if they did it. Like Roe when it was originally decided on the "shadow of the penumbra", or the gay rights decision, the Supreme Court can decide that the Constitution itself requires thus and so, and make whatever unique assertion that the Rule of 5 will sustain. They won't do it because the justices on the court don't believe in the argument. But if there were five who DID - say, chosen by a litmus test of loyalty standard by a President with a fixed view during a time that illness or some other factor fells several justices - if there were 5 on the court who thought that way, Roe could be overturned with a full-out ban as the result of ANY case that reviewed ANY aspect of abortion rights that have arisen under the Roe jurisprudence. What is likely to happen is that Roe will never be overturned. But if, perchance, a pro-life President gets the chance to appoint enough anti-Roe jurists as to comprise a majority of the court, Roe could be overturned. If it were, it is most likely the subject would be sent back to the states, rather than abortion bnnned outright as a human rights matter. But the Supreme Court COULD ban abortion outright on a due process argument.
This is why it's easier to change the law by judicial fiat, which comes from the top, goes down the ladder, and is not subject to Congressional reversal.
What do you mean, "take any abortion case"? I don't understand what you're saying.
Huh? Look, give me an example of what you're talking about so I can understand. Any case of "judicial fiat" in any area.
Comments (45 - 51) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#5. To: A K A Stone (#4)
and abolish abortion nationwide.
#6. To: hondo68 (#0)
"conservatives" got CONNED.
#7. To: GrandIsland (#5)
"I doubt the bench will ever hear the same legal argument a second time." --Grand Idiot, Legal Suuuuuper Genius.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_Stat es_Supreme_Court_decisions
#8. To: GrandIsland (#5)
(Edited)
if we get a few more conservative/libertarian minded justices placed on this bench over the next 6 years
#9. To: hondo68 (#2)
Shut the government down until they quit killing babies. Who wants a baby killing gov anyways?
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
More than half the country wants a baby-killing government
#11. To: A K A Stone (#4)
The supreme court's duty is to be honest to the constitution and abolish abortion nationwide.
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
Of course, if the majority were CRUSHINGLY pro-choice the court might not prevail even then.
#13. To: misterwhite (#11)
#14. To: A K A Stone (#13)
The Constitution demands Equal justice under the law . They're human beings whose rights are being violated.
#15. To: misterwhite (#14)
#16. To: misterwhite (#14)
#17. To: A K A Stone (#10)
(Edited)
Pulling fables out of your ass as usual huh lizardboy.
#18. To: misterwhite (#12)
CRUSHINGLY pro-choice? Then the U.S. Supreme Court might feel safe in overturning Roe v Wade and returning the decision to the states.
#19. To: misterwhite (#14)
(Edited)
They're human beings, when? At conception?
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#18)
The Supreme Court would not overturn its precedent under such circumstances.
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#19)
We need the Supreme Court to impose the rule as a constitutional interpretation,
#22. To: misterwhite (#21)
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#19)
And of course, therefore, we must vastly increase our spending on orphanages and child welfare, because there will be a whole lot more poor children, in our country if we abolish abortion.
#24. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
all Supreme Court-made law.
#25. To: misterwhite (#24)
#26. To: misterwhite (#20)
Under those circumstances, of course they would. They'd know it would have no effect.
#27. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
Roe was correctly decided according to the bulk of the justices
#28. To: misterwhite (#27)
#29. To: misterwhite (#14)
They're human beings, when? At conception? Heartbeat detected? First trimester?
#30. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
They would not reverse their precedent
#31. To: A K A Stone (#29)
You don't need Congress saying when life begins. We already know for a scientific fact it begins at conception.
#32. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
gets to be a semantic game and a game of legal history. I can see that the principle here is very, very important to you. I suppose we could go back to the beginning of our legal system and come forward, and I would show you how our law was originally all judge made, and how statutes gradually filled in the interstices, or changed some aspect of the Common Law (which is mostly judge made, not legislature made).
#33. To: A K A Stone (#32)
#34. To: A K A Stone (#30)
It isn’t the current court’s precedent.
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
and I would show you how our law was originally all judge made
#36. To: A K A Stone (#29)
We already know for a scientific fact it begins at conception.
#37. To: Vicomte13 (#31)
And the Supreme Court could so declare
#38. To: misterwhite (#37)
#39. To: misterwhite (#36)
#40. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#38)
It’s easy to get a case
#41. To: misterwhite (#40)
Well, for starters, you'd have to find a state with a law that banned abortion because it was murder. There is one.
#42. To: misterwhite (#40)
Now, imagine if A K A Stone wrote the law. Life begins at conception. Abortion is murder. No exceptions. Getting that law passed by some state legislature would be almost impossible. Then you'd have to get all those state and federal judges to agree with you, all the way up the ladder.
#43. To: Vicomte13 (#41)
What you would have to do is take any abortion case, which opens the door for the Supreme Court to review its logic in Roe de novo.
#44. To: Vicomte13 (#42)
This is why it's easier to change the law by judicial fiat,
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]