rowevwade old writ

musica · 05-13-2007, 05:44 PM

the rvwade law has ben found illegel those that resended the first findings were life family carrier threatened and as a result was found illegle........the rvw preposed law was precedied by 3 laws then underthose there were 18 then 2laws then 3 more then the begining world writ law started out AS IS WRITTEN then the law what ever it said & AND FOR EVER SHALL BE was at the end which ment that the law could never be changed and what ever it said was the law forever sides oxytosien is not being cemed nor alcemed anywhere on earth abortion and the solitation by anyone parent doctor or anyoneelse is a cardenal and capital offence........possium

caffeinebuzzchick · 05-13-2007, 06:13 PM

AlicornsPrayer · 05-13-2007, 06:18 PM

OhDear · 05-14-2007, 08:26 AM

Need my tiara, badge and handcuffs here...

OD

vharlow · 05-14-2007, 07:42 PM

OhDear · 05-14-2007, 07:59 PM

Maybe Musica was referring to this?

Click HERE.
OD

Quote:

TIDINGS
Partial Reversal
The Supreme Court's abortion decision shows that the arguments have changed.
Ted Olsen | posted 5/14/2007 08:42AM

Criticisms of Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court's decision to allow a ban on partial-birth abortion, sound awfully familiar. But surprisingly, they're coming from the pro-choice side.

Related articles and links

When Congress passed the ban in 2003, abortion supporters complained that it ignored maternal health, including mental and emotional health. Pro-lifers replied that such an exemption would be interpreted so broadly that it would negate the ban entirely. It's the proverbial truck-sized loophole.
Now pro-choicers are complaining that Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Carhart puts too much emphasis on mental and emotional health.
"Some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow," Kennedy wrote. "It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form."
Critics attacked Kennedy as paternalistic and worried that such a concern potentially negates a woman's right to abortion entirely. If Congress can ban the partial-birth procedure in order to protect women from potential grief, anguish, and sorrow, they asked, can't it use the same logic to ban other abortions? There's that truck-sized loophole again, but now the truck is driving the other direction.
In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg similarly criticized Kennedy's ruling: "This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution—ideas that have long since been discredited."
You might expect Ginsburg to have followed this with a passionate defense of Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to privacy. But she's no fan of Roe, either. Instead, she offered a critique of Roe's logic and an alternative.
"Legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy," she said. "Rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature."
Ginsburg made this argument more than two decades ago as an appeals court judge, but it's new to the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence. Ginsburg complained that the partial-birth abortion ban "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away" not at Roe, but "at a right declared again and again by this Court—and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."
Ginsburg's dissent should remind pro-lifers that their target is not Roe, but the widespread view of children as a burdensome infringement on autonomy—a burden that can be acceptably lifted by killing the child, even as he or she emerges from the birth canal.
The strength of the partial-birth abortion ban is that it works toward changing that view. As Ginsburg correctly noted, "The law saves not a single fetus from destruction, for it targets only a method of performing abortion." But it has already changed the conversation about abortion, horrifying even the pro-Roe Kennedy with the procedure's near equivalence to infanticide. Hadley Arkes suggested in National Review what may come "once legislators get used to legislating again": government encouragement of pre-abortion sonograms, bans on gender-based and disability-based abortions, perhaps eventually a ban once the child's heart is beating.
Carhart, "a decision so narrow, so begrudging and limited, may invite a series of measures simple and unthreatening, but the kinds of measures that gather force with each move," Arkes said.
Such a strategy is often called "chipping away." But these laws are really about creating, not destroying. Ginsburg's dissent shows that Roe has few supporters left. The question is: What will replace it? Absolute personal autonomy? Or justice and mercy?

vharlow · 05-14-2007, 08:29 PM

Well, it's hard to tell, isn't it. I've had a cat that expressed himself better...

I've got a pretty old fashioned view as far as abortion goes. Life begins at conception, and bla, bla, bla. Women should worry about their autonomy before making the choice, and it is still a choice, to have sex. So, I call myself pro-choice....but it's the first choice .... not the worst.

My daughters used to disagree with me....but guess what? Time and parenthood and circumstances changed them as well. I think the tide is turning.

musica · 06-23-2007, 09:55 AM

they cant change it, in the 60s it was found that doctors were forced by threats followed thru with that didso include frodulintly incarreseraiting hosp. drs or they familys and the deaths of drs and they families to rewright the fraze (human Fetus ) in the place of premie child the law is read from the top (most reasent law to as is written &for ever shall be this also was done to Federal judges and beginning world writ law stands now and froever shall be o can anyone tell me just why (now and pro abortion rights) people r prodominetly DIKE when DIKE LAW STILL PROSIST AN D ALWAYS WILL.... LAW IS WRIT AN D FOREVER SHALL BE WE CANT CHANGE THIS so it is ........

musica · 06-23-2007, 10:02 AM

pre written by possum....Patch Girl lucca Remington sence whatever yr it was this is the end of my appointment to dike for my federal and international lawuring finding non bias i owe dike nothing and take up my freedom for myself and whats left of my family do not contact we again Catheri ward federal and international judgeW

onthefence · 06-24-2007, 12:31 AM

is possum the name of the cat?

06-24-2007, 12:31 AM		#10 (permalink)
	onthefence Beer Man Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: stuck in the middle Posts: 3,429 Country: Thanks: 99 Thanked 282 Times in 161 Posts	is possum the name of the cat? "We could not now take time for further search or consideration, our victuals being much spent, especially our beer." - William Bradford Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right..... Now offering premium membership for only $25.00!! Click here to get started.!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode