4th and Inches said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

JXL said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

I'm no great fan of abortion as a practice, but you can already see the practical effects this ruling will have in places where access is heavily restricted. And the most damaging outcomes will skew, as these things always do, toward the most disadvantaged populations among us.

More than for anyone else, I'm disheartened for the thousands of children who will soon be added to the nearly half-million kids we already have in foster care -- many of whom will age out to horrific outcomes while being called a victory by politicians and the religious right.

This country doesn't have an abortion problem as much has it has an unwanted pregnancy/uncared-for child problem. And restricting abortion access will do nothing to solve that. When those who are most anti-abortion are prepared to make contraceptives available to all who want/need them and will take on the burden themselves of fostering and adopting all of the children who need stable homes in this country, I'll take the term "pro-life" more seriously. But pro-birth policies create and exacerbate as many problems as they solve.

---

So, put them down like stray dogs then.

Nope.

---

That's not my point. My point is that those of you who claim to be pro-life need to start putting your money where your mouth is.

Y'all say you care about children. Prove it.

Y'all've done a really ****ty job of proving it since Roe. I have my doubts that anything will change now.

---

In other words, you're saying you don't understand why conservative Christian's don't create organizations like this:

https://livingalternatives.org/

---

Nope. I don't understand why there are more than 117,000 kids waiting to be adopted and more than 1,000 kids aging out of foster care every year in a country with more than 200 million professing Christians.

---

You have already been informed that Christians adopt far more kids than non Christians .......contribute far more money to charities than non Christians .

Why do you choose to ignore this ?

---

I don't ignore that. I've addressed it multiple times on this thread.

First, I don't give Christians credit for doing something they should be doing. If they weren't doing more, their religion would have no functional value to society.

And second, they're still clearly not doing enough. While I appreciate every person chooses to foster or adopt -- except for the abusive *******s who put some of these kids through hell -- only a minute percentage of professing Christians have actually taken that step. And it wouldn't take many more to step up and erase this problem entirely.

If you're going to claim to care about these kids, there are ways to show it. One of the biggest is to take care of the kids already being born into adverse conditions. We've done a piss poor job of that as a country.

---

You could adopt more. Stop being so pathetic by your measure.

---

I hope to have the opportunity someday.

---

If you really cared, you would do it now. You just don't live up to your own standard. What do we call that? Hypocrisy?

---

I tell you what. Adopt a child and we'll talk. Be one of the 0.06 percent of professing Christians that needs to adopt a single child out of foster care to eliminate this problem altogether. You'll be making a significant difference.

---

we were never lucky enough to adopt any of the fosters placed with us. The system worked to return them or place with family/siblings. Hannah, Janson, Jalen, Orien, Ariana, Marissa, Michael, Haley, and Jack touched our lives and we did all we could when they were with us. We spent thousands on each of them and sent everything on with them when they were placed with family.

We donate each month to foster agencies and to agency that helps expecting Moms medical care/ baby care after born..

I accept the challenge as a Christian to do more..

---

That's awesome. I applaud you, sir. I'm sure you know and can share what a fulfilling experience it is. And I'm sorry you were never able to adopt any of your placements. My wife and I were extremely fortunate in that regard.

I'm hoping that after our kids are grown that we can foster again. Unfortunately, we're not in a position to right now.

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Here's Ross Douthat's column half-heartedly urging conservatives to take responsibility for the babies low-income women will now be forced to have.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/opinion/roe-abortion-politics.html

But the states now banning abortions, like Texas and Tennessee, are same states that never expanded Medicaid to improve healthcare access to low-income ppl.

Ross has had a bee up his butt about falling birthrates in America for months if not years. He's devoted column feet to agonizing over why more women aren't having multiple babies. For him, this "problem" is a real headscratcher! (While, as has been pointed out capably on this forum, we have thousands of kids in foster care who need loving homes but are the wrong race or too old or have other issues.)

Women in the US do not have universal access to healthcare, good, reliable, affordable childcare, paid parental leave or a living miminum wage.

This makes having children unaffordable for many people, especially those in their 20s.

In my state, we no longer have a viable public education system, so parents at all income levels must now factor in the cost of private school if they want to adequately prepare their children to succeed in life (which, IMO, is the main purpose to have children--produce productive, taxpaying,upstanding, capable, well-educated citizens who will continue to build up the country going forward--and why it doesn't make since to force teenagers, children, and rape and domestic violence victims into service as breeding stock).

Conservatives=most of you on this forum, call any any govt subsidies or programs to support these basic needs "socialism."

What repealing Roe has done is give women in states where they will cede agency over their bodies to the state govt the instant an egg is fertilized a reason to seek permanent sterilization.

Why risk pregnancy when that will mean 8 months of your state govt making all of your healthcare decisions for you when you know the men in your state govt place a significantly higher value on the fetus you carry than on your life, ability to work & support yourself & future health & wellbeing?

I have advised the young women in my family to avoid pregnancy as long as they live in a state where the government will dictate their healthcare options the instant they become pregnant. The risk that their lives won't be valued and that frightened healthcare providers won't act affirmative to deliver life-saving treatment to them is too great. I can afford to send them to California or Colorado, but emergencies such as ectopic pregnancies and pre-eclampsia are common.

At the very least, states that exert government control over women's bodies during pregnancy should also extend that control to men, mandating that any man convicted of rape have a government-required and administered vasectomy.

Texas has already got the desired result. Here's a teen mother with twins, living in a bedroom at the baby daddy's daddy's house b/c her parents kicked her out. Who has stepped up to help these kids who have kids?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/20/texas-abortion-law-teen-mom/

---

Here's a wild suggestion. Have the people that created the baby, take care of the baby. Or don't have sex.

I know, I know... It's an insane suggestion

---

You can keep saying this. It's not going to make it happen. There is no practical value whatsoever to this post.

What you're doing in effect is blaming/dooming children for having ****ty parents. There have literally always been ****ty parents, and you saying there shouldn't be isn't going to change that.

Christ speaks extensively about the church's responsibility to care for the orphan, the widow, the poor, the forgotten, etc. This board's insistence on passing that responsibility is pretty indicative of the modern American church's view on that call, and it supports the conclusion that the church has, in many ways, become more Republican than Christian.

---

Like I said, if the gov't can force people to get a jab, perhaps they should require sterilization for tax payer funded government handouts.

---

This is a good example of why the pro-life movement is often seen as hypocritical. If Justice Ginsburg wanted to abort the undesirables and we want to sterilize them, it's hard to see a lot of difference between the two. Fortunately I don't think this is the attitude of most pro-lifers.

---

Not my fault that you can't see the difference between sterilization and abortion.

---

They are both ways of "curing" poverty by culling the poor. The contempt comes across, like it or not.

4th and Inches said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

JXL said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

I'm no great fan of abortion as a practice, but you can already see the practical effects this ruling will have in places where access is heavily restricted. And the most damaging outcomes will skew, as these things always do, toward the most disadvantaged populations among us.

More than for anyone else, I'm disheartened for the thousands of children who will soon be added to the nearly half-million kids we already have in foster care -- many of whom will age out to horrific outcomes while being called a victory by politicians and the religious right.

This country doesn't have an abortion problem as much has it has an unwanted pregnancy/uncared-for child problem. And restricting abortion access will do nothing to solve that. When those who are most anti-abortion are prepared to make contraceptives available to all who want/need them and will take on the burden themselves of fostering and adopting all of the children who need stable homes in this country, I'll take the term "pro-life" more seriously. But pro-birth policies create and exacerbate as many problems as they solve.

---

So, put them down like stray dogs then.

Nope.

---

That's not my point. My point is that those of you who claim to be pro-life need to start putting your money where your mouth is.

Y'all say you care about children. Prove it.

Y'all've done a really ****ty job of proving it since Roe. I have my doubts that anything will change now.

---

In other words, you're saying you don't understand why conservative Christian's don't create organizations like this:

https://livingalternatives.org/

---

Nope. I don't understand why there are more than 117,000 kids waiting to be adopted and more than 1,000 kids aging out of foster care every year in a country with more than 200 million professing Christians.

---

You have already been informed that Christians adopt far more kids than non Christians .......contribute far more money to charities than non Christians .

Why do you choose to ignore this ?

---

I don't ignore that. I've addressed it multiple times on this thread.

First, I don't give Christians credit for doing something they should be doing. If they weren't doing more, their religion would have no functional value to society.

And second, they're still clearly not doing enough. While I appreciate every person chooses to foster or adopt -- except for the abusive *******s who put some of these kids through hell -- only a minute percentage of professing Christians have actually taken that step. And it wouldn't take many more to step up and erase this problem entirely.

If you're going to claim to care about these kids, there are ways to show it. One of the biggest is to take care of the kids already being born into adverse conditions. We've done a piss poor job of that as a country.

---

You could adopt more. Stop being so pathetic by your measure.

---

I hope to have the opportunity someday.

---

If you really cared, you would do it now. You just don't live up to your own standard. What do we call that? Hypocrisy?

---

I tell you what. Adopt a child and we'll talk. Be one of the 0.06 percent of professing Christians that needs to adopt a single child out of foster care to eliminate this problem altogether. You'll be making a significant difference.

---

Hannah, Janson, Jalen, Orien, Ariana, Marissa, Michael, Haley, and Jack touched our lives and we did all we could when they were with us. We spent thousands on each of them and sent everything on with them when they were placed with family.

We donate each month to foster agencies and to agency that helps expecting Moms medical care/ baby care after born..

---

You certainly got me beat .

Much respect.

Canada2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

JXL said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

I'm no great fan of abortion as a practice, but you can already see the practical effects this ruling will have in places where access is heavily restricted. And the most damaging outcomes will skew, as these things always do, toward the most disadvantaged populations among us.

More than for anyone else, I'm disheartened for the thousands of children who will soon be added to the nearly half-million kids we already have in foster care -- many of whom will age out to horrific outcomes while being called a victory by politicians and the religious right.

This country doesn't have an abortion problem as much has it has an unwanted pregnancy/uncared-for child problem. And restricting abortion access will do nothing to solve that. When those who are most anti-abortion are prepared to make contraceptives available to all who want/need them and will take on the burden themselves of fostering and adopting all of the children who need stable homes in this country, I'll take the term "pro-life" more seriously. But pro-birth policies create and exacerbate as many problems as they solve.

---

So, put them down like stray dogs then.

Nope.

---

That's not my point. My point is that those of you who claim to be pro-life need to start putting your money where your mouth is.

Y'all say you care about children. Prove it.

Y'all've done a really ****ty job of proving it since Roe. I have my doubts that anything will change now.

---

In other words, you're saying you don't understand why conservative Christian's don't create organizations like this:

https://livingalternatives.org/

---

Nope. I don't understand why there are more than 117,000 kids waiting to be adopted and more than 1,000 kids aging out of foster care every year in a country with more than 200 million professing Christians.

---

You have already been informed that Christians adopt far more kids than non Christians .......contribute far more money to charities than non Christians .

Why do you choose to ignore this ?

---

I don't ignore that. I've addressed it multiple times on this thread.

First, I don't give Christians credit for doing something they should be doing. If they weren't doing more, their religion would have no functional value to society.

And second, they're still clearly not doing enough. While I appreciate every person chooses to foster or adopt -- except for the abusive *******s who put some of these kids through hell -- only a minute percentage of professing Christians have actually taken that step. And it wouldn't take many more to step up and erase this problem entirely.

If you're going to claim to care about these kids, there are ways to show it. One of the biggest is to take care of the kids already being born into adverse conditions. We've done a piss poor job of that as a country.

---

You could adopt more. Stop being so pathetic by your measure.

---

I hope to have the opportunity someday.

---

If you really cared, you would do it now. You just don't live up to your own standard. What do we call that? Hypocrisy?

---

I tell you what. Adopt a child and we'll talk. Be one of the 0.06 percent of professing Christians that needs to adopt a single child out of foster care to eliminate this problem altogether. You'll be making a significant difference.

---

Hannah, Janson, Jalen, Orien, Ariana, Marissa, Michael, Haley, and Jack touched our lives and we did all we could when they were with us. We spent thousands on each of them and sent everything on with them when they were placed with family.

We donate each month to foster agencies and to agency that helps expecting Moms medical care/ baby care after born..

---

You certainly got me beat .

Much respect.

---

we all serve in different ways my brother. Each has their own path to walk. Appreciate the kind words.

bear2be2 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

JXL said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

I'm no great fan of abortion as a practice, but you can already see the practical effects this ruling will have in places where access is heavily restricted. And the most damaging outcomes will skew, as these things always do, toward the most disadvantaged populations among us.

More than for anyone else, I'm disheartened for the thousands of children who will soon be added to the nearly half-million kids we already have in foster care -- many of whom will age out to horrific outcomes while being called a victory by politicians and the religious right.

This country doesn't have an abortion problem as much has it has an unwanted pregnancy/uncared-for child problem. And restricting abortion access will do nothing to solve that. When those who are most anti-abortion are prepared to make contraceptives available to all who want/need them and will take on the burden themselves of fostering and adopting all of the children who need stable homes in this country, I'll take the term "pro-life" more seriously. But pro-birth policies create and exacerbate as many problems as they solve.

---

So, put them down like stray dogs then.

Nope.

---

That's not my point. My point is that those of you who claim to be pro-life need to start putting your money where your mouth is.

Y'all say you care about children. Prove it.

Y'all've done a really ****ty job of proving it since Roe. I have my doubts that anything will change now.

---

In other words, you're saying you don't understand why conservative Christian's don't create organizations like this:

https://livingalternatives.org/

---

Nope. I don't understand why there are more than 117,000 kids waiting to be adopted and more than 1,000 kids aging out of foster care every year in a country with more than 200 million professing Christians.

---

You have already been informed that Christians adopt far more kids than non Christians .......contribute far more money to charities than non Christians .

Why do you choose to ignore this ?

---

I don't ignore that. I've addressed it multiple times on this thread.

First, I don't give Christians credit for doing something they should be doing. If they weren't doing more, their religion would have no functional value to society.

And second, they're still clearly not doing enough. While I appreciate every person chooses to foster or adopt -- except for the abusive *******s who put some of these kids through hell -- only a minute percentage of professing Christians have actually taken that step. And it wouldn't take many more to step up and erase this problem entirely.

If you're going to claim to care about these kids, there are ways to show it. One of the biggest is to take care of the kids already being born into adverse conditions. We've done a piss poor job of that as a country.

---

You could adopt more. Stop being so pathetic by your measure.

---

I hope to have the opportunity someday.

---

If you really cared, you would do it now. You just don't live up to your own standard. What do we call that? Hypocrisy?

---

I tell you what. Adopt a child and we'll talk. Be one of the 0.06 percent of professing Christians that needs to adopt a single child out of foster care to eliminate this problem altogether. You'll be making a significant difference.

---

we were never lucky enough to adopt any of the fosters placed with us. The system worked to return them or place with family/siblings. Hannah, Janson, Jalen, Orien, Ariana, Marissa, Michael, Haley, and Jack touched our lives and we did all we could when they were with us. We spent thousands on each of them and sent everything on with them when they were placed with family.

We donate each month to foster agencies and to agency that helps expecting Moms medical care/ baby care after born..

I accept the challenge as a Christian to do more..

---

That's awesome. I applaud you, sir. I'm sure you know and can share what a fulfilling experience it is. And I'm sorry you were never able to adopt any of your placements. My wife and I were extremely fortunate in that regard.

I'm hoping that after our kids are grown that we can foster again. Unfortunately, we're not in a position to right now.

---

understand, our journeys vary but come from the same place of love..

and we both love gumbo!

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Here's Ross Douthat's column half-heartedly urging conservatives to take responsibility for the babies low-income women will now be forced to have.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/opinion/roe-abortion-politics.html

But the states now banning abortions, like Texas and Tennessee, are same states that never expanded Medicaid to improve healthcare access to low-income ppl.

Ross has had a bee up his butt about falling birthrates in America for months if not years. He's devoted column feet to agonizing over why more women aren't having multiple babies. For him, this "problem" is a real headscratcher! (While, as has been pointed out capably on this forum, we have thousands of kids in foster care who need loving homes but are the wrong race or too old or have other issues.)

Women in the US do not have universal access to healthcare, good, reliable, affordable childcare, paid parental leave or a living miminum wage.

This makes having children unaffordable for many people, especially those in their 20s.

In my state, we no longer have a viable public education system, so parents at all income levels must now factor in the cost of private school if they want to adequately prepare their children to succeed in life (which, IMO, is the main purpose to have children--produce productive, taxpaying,upstanding, capable, well-educated citizens who will continue to build up the country going forward--and why it doesn't make since to force teenagers, children, and rape and domestic violence victims into service as breeding stock).

Conservatives=most of you on this forum, call any any govt subsidies or programs to support these basic needs "socialism."

What repealing Roe has done is give women in states where they will cede agency over their bodies to the state govt the instant an egg is fertilized a reason to seek permanent sterilization.

Why risk pregnancy when that will mean 8 months of your state govt making all of your healthcare decisions for you when you know the men in your state govt place a significantly higher value on the fetus you carry than on your life, ability to work & support yourself & future health & wellbeing?

I have advised the young women in my family to avoid pregnancy as long as they live in a state where the government will dictate their healthcare options the instant they become pregnant. The risk that their lives won't be valued and that frightened healthcare providers won't act affirmative to deliver life-saving treatment to them is too great. I can afford to send them to California or Colorado, but emergencies such as ectopic pregnancies and pre-eclampsia are common.

At the very least, states that exert government control over women's bodies during pregnancy should also extend that control to men, mandating that any man convicted of rape have a government-required and administered vasectomy.

Texas has already got the desired result. Here's a teen mother with twins, living in a bedroom at the baby daddy's daddy's house b/c her parents kicked her out. Who has stepped up to help these kids who have kids?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/20/texas-abortion-law-teen-mom/

---

Here's a wild suggestion. Have the people that created the baby, take care of the baby. Or don't have sex.

I know, I know... It's an insane suggestion

---

You can keep saying this. It's not going to make it happen. There is no practical value whatsoever to this post.

What you're doing in effect is blaming/dooming children for having ****ty parents. There have literally always been ****ty parents, and you saying there shouldn't be isn't going to change that.

Christ speaks extensively about the church's responsibility to care for the orphan, the widow, the poor, the forgotten, etc. This board's insistence on passing that responsibility is pretty indicative of the modern American church's view on that call, and it supports the conclusion that the church has, in many ways, become more Republican than Christian.

---

Like I said, if the gov't can force people to get a jab, perhaps they should require sterilization for tax payer funded government handouts.

---

This is a good example of why the pro-life movement is often seen as hypocritical. If Justice Ginsburg wanted to abort the undesirables and we want to sterilize them, it's hard to see a lot of difference between the two. Fortunately I don't think this is the attitude of most pro-lifers.

---

Not my fault that you can't see the difference between sterilization and abortion.

---

They are both ways of "curing" poverty by culling the poor. The contempt comes across, like it or not.

---

Yeah, sure. Okay sam.

nein51 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

nein51 said:

---

What do cops have to do with this?

Ridiculous. This constant level of "I don't like this so I'm going to resort to violence" is like a child who can't articulate what they want so they throw a fit.

These clowns need to be waffle stomped. You can't just burn **** to the ground every time something happens you don't like. They are acting as the bully. The only way to stop a bully is with force.

---

Like the Jan 6 rioters who didn't like the counting of Electoral Votes?

---

100% yes. As soon as they started to damage stuff they should have been waffle stomped as well. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

---

They should have been arrested

---

For assembling, no? For damaging stuff, absolutely.

Out of control is out of control, political party means nothing to me.

---

You said "As soon as they started to damage stuff". They should have been arrested

Aren't we agreeing?

---

Yes. Yes we are!

---

I apologize for any damage to your reputation

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

With options like condoms, birth control and plan b…it's insane that women still have unwanted pregnancies.

It's always been hypocritical of the left to demand abortion, but have absolutely no concern over the huge lack of personal responsibility and prevention awareness of pregnancy.

---

Couples have unplanned pregnancies, not women. And birth control is not 100% effective. The idea that all women control this type of decision making is unbelievably sheltered and naive.

---

A couple could use a rubber and a female condom. That could get closer to 100%.

whiterock said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

JXL said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

I'm no great fan of abortion as a practice, but you can already see the practical effects this ruling will have in places where access is heavily restricted. And the most damaging outcomes will skew, as these things always do, toward the most disadvantaged populations among us.

More than for anyone else, I'm disheartened for the thousands of children who will soon be added to the nearly half-million kids we already have in foster care -- many of whom will age out to horrific outcomes while being called a victory by politicians and the religious right.

This country doesn't have an abortion problem as much has it has an unwanted pregnancy/uncared-for child problem. And restricting abortion access will do nothing to solve that. When those who are most anti-abortion are prepared to make contraceptives available to all who want/need them and will take on the burden themselves of fostering and adopting all of the children who need stable homes in this country, I'll take the term "pro-life" more seriously. But pro-birth policies create and exacerbate as many problems as they solve.

---

So, put them down like stray dogs then.

Nope.

---

That's not my point. My point is that those of you who claim to be pro-life need to start putting your money where your mouth is.

Y'all say you care about children. Prove it.

Y'all've done a really ****ty job of proving it since Roe. I have my doubts that anything will change now.

---

In other words, you're saying you don't understand why conservative Christian's don't create organizations like this:

https://livingalternatives.org/

---

Nope. I don't understand why there are more than 117,000 kids waiting to be adopted and more than 1,000 kids aging out of foster care every year in a country with more than 200 million professing Christians.

---

And yet my sister and BIL had to go to Guatemala to adopt two kids.

---

We're talking about two different things -- traditional infant adoption vs. foster to adopt.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During Law School Visit - 2013

Quote:

---

"My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change," Ginsburg said. She would've preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women's rights.

"Roe isn't really about the woman's choice, is it?" Ginsburg said. "It's about the doctor's freedom to practice…it wasn't woman-centered, it was physician-centered."

---

303Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Yes, the ole "let's just tell 18 year Olds about abstinence, that'll do the trick!"


The personal responsibility argument is such an insane theory, it falls apart after about 30 seconds of thinking how much personal responsibility humanity has ever had.

---

So then why do we have laws and punish people for breaking them? If you are 18 and kill someone you are held responsible. What makes a decision to engage in an activity that could lead to a child different?

---

Yes, sex and murder should be treated equally under the law, you're really onto something.

Comparing the 2 really highlights how insane it is.

---

Abortion makes the murder legal for convenience. They are radically different. Being snide and obtuse is an odd choice unless you actually believe that having a child is some kind of punishment sentence, in which case I am sorry you have such a twisted view of humanity.

You can "insert any law here" and it is the same. Actions have consequences. To suggest certain (well known) consequences should excused at the cost of a life for the convenience of the person who took the action is the height of human hubris.

---

Being pregnant when you don't want to be can indeed be a sentence of punishment. We have posters calling pregnant women whoores. Especially in the South, it is a stain upon your social appearance and status. Being pregnant outside marriage drastically limits social options, and fundamentalist parents still give their kids hell for it.

If you are going to want abortion to be a crime, you need to also hold the position that any man getting a woman pregnant with no plan to raise that child should be punished too, if the woman chooses abortion. I could respect that, because it's at least consistent, and treats both sexes the same.

But telling women to close their legs is simply not acceptable. Putting the entire blame and shame on women for unwanted pregnancies is unacceptable.

Takes 2 to tango.

---

You argue well against a lot of arguments I never made. Carry on.

---

It's part of a larger argument, but mostly directed at your comment about unwanted pregnancies being a punishment. That being a twisted world view. I don't disagree entirely, but if you're really not ready, it's certainly not good or fun. And I put men in there too, plenty of men about pissed their pants when the girl says she's pregnant.

Welp, that article deserves to be archived … https://t.co/9rj8yvWo64

— Laura Kaye (@NonsenseEnd) June 26, 2022

whiterock said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

JXL said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

I'm no great fan of abortion as a practice, but you can already see the practical effects this ruling will have in places where access is heavily restricted. And the most damaging outcomes will skew, as these things always do, toward the most disadvantaged populations among us.

More than for anyone else, I'm disheartened for the thousands of children who will soon be added to the nearly half-million kids we already have in foster care -- many of whom will age out to horrific outcomes while being called a victory by politicians and the religious right.

This country doesn't have an abortion problem as much has it has an unwanted pregnancy/uncared-for child problem. And restricting abortion access will do nothing to solve that. When those who are most anti-abortion are prepared to make contraceptives available to all who want/need them and will take on the burden themselves of fostering and adopting all of the children who need stable homes in this country, I'll take the term "pro-life" more seriously. But pro-birth policies create and exacerbate as many problems as they solve.

---

So, put them down like stray dogs then.

Nope.

---

That's not my point. My point is that those of you who claim to be pro-life need to start putting your money where your mouth is.

Y'all say you care about children. Prove it.

Y'all've done a really ****ty job of proving it since Roe. I have my doubts that anything will change now.

---

In other words, you're saying you don't understand why conservative Christian's don't create organizations like this:

https://livingalternatives.org/

---

Nope. I don't understand why there are more than 117,000 kids waiting to be adopted and more than 1,000 kids aging out of foster care every year in a country with more than 200 million professing Christians.

---

And yet my sister and BIL had to go to Guatemala to adopt two kids.

---

We're talking about two different things -- traditional infant adoption vs. foster to adopt.

---

So then how well connected is abortion, really, to the foster child problem? Fosters are not "unwanted babies." They tend to be kids from failing families, most often caused wholly are partly by drugs.

---

While substance abuse is a cause in a lot of child removal cases, it's not as prevalent as you might think in these cases. Just as there were many reasons that women who previously chose abortion terminated their pregnancies, there are many reasons that children are removed from their families. My daughter's birth mother was low IQ and had my daughter, her fifth child, removed the day after she was born ... In her early 20s. She wasn't on drugs or alcohol. She was just in a terribly sad, unstable situation and incapable of caring for a child. As a result all of her children were removed and adopted through foster care.

https://ncsacw.acf.hhs.gov/research/child-welfare-and-treatment-statistics.aspx#:~:text=These%20data%20indicate%20that%20the,%2C%20an%20increase%20of%2020.4%25.

And there are more outcomes than you're accounting for in any pregnancy. In addition to those who choose to give up their children for adoption as infants and those who choose to and succeed in raising their own children, there will be good number of cases where mothers hand their kids over to the state via dropoffs and others where the mothers try to raise their children and fail.

To think there won't be more foster care cases as a result of this ruling is really naive. That doesn't mean you have to champion abortion as an alternative (I don't), but it does mean that you have to accept the reality of this decision and figure out how we're going to care for the growing number if uncared-for children in this country. You can't just punt the lives of hundreds of thousands of kids. The work for the pro-life movement didn't end with Roe's reversal. It just began.

Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Let's open abortion clinics on federal lands so "people" can get abortions pic.twitter.com/W6V2SJAgGG

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 26, 2022

Cobretti said:

---

Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Let's open abortion clinics on federal lands so "people" can get abortions pic.twitter.com/W6V2SJAgGG

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 26, 2022

---

Does she actually exert energy and spend time perfecting to be this stupid?

AOC: "Not every Democrat is pro-choice...we really need to reassess if it's appropriate for them to continue to serve." pic.twitter.com/Zhj9OBUeYY

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) June 26, 2022

AOC: "This is not just a crisis of Roe, this is a crisis of our democracy. The Supreme Court has dramatically overreached it's authority. ... This is a crisis of legitimacy." pic.twitter.com/iGtrYoxShR

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) June 26, 2022

NBC's Chuck Todd tees up AOC to go after Kavanaugh and Gorsuch: "Do you think lying in a confirmation hearing is an impeachable offense?"

AOC: "I believe so." pic.twitter.com/riIWp1BOgs

— Kevin Tober (@KevinTober94) June 26, 2022

Cobretti said:

---

AOC: "This is not just a crisis of Roe, this is a crisis of our democracy. The Supreme Court has dramatically overreached it's authority. ... This is a crisis of legitimacy." pic.twitter.com/iGtrYoxShR

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) June 26, 2022

NBC's Chuck Todd tees up AOC to go after Kavanaugh and Gorsuch: "Do you think lying in a confirmation hearing is an impeachable offense?"

AOC: "I believe so." pic.twitter.com/riIWp1BOgs

— Kevin Tober (@KevinTober94) June 26, 2022

---

Such a dishonest question from Chuck Todd.

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

AOC: "This is not just a crisis of Roe, this is a crisis of our democracy. The Supreme Court has dramatically overreached it's authority. ... This is a crisis of legitimacy." pic.twitter.com/iGtrYoxShR

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) June 26, 2022

NBC's Chuck Todd tees up AOC to go after Kavanaugh and Gorsuch: "Do you think lying in a confirmation hearing is an impeachable offense?"

AOC: "I believe so." pic.twitter.com/riIWp1BOgs

— Kevin Tober (@KevinTober94) June 26, 2022

---

Such a dishonest question from Chuck Todd.

---

They'd better get it done before November. The problem will be that by trying to impeach honest Justices, they will lose even more votes.

Remember when calling things illegitimate was bad...

Donald Trump refused to say that he’d respect the results of this election.

That’s a direct threat to our democracy.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 24, 2016

New York Times just ran a column by Jamelle Bouie titled, "How to Discipline a Rogue Supreme Court." It once again calls for court packing and impeachment as a response to the Court ruling in a way that Democrats oppose...

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 26, 2022

...Liberals appear ready to dispense with judicial independence to bring our courts in line with the commands of public opinion. https://t.co/JpYpdAHNiZ

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 26, 2022

Cobretti said:

---

New York Times just ran a column by Jamelle Bouie titled, "How to Discipline a Rogue Supreme Court." It once again calls for court packing and impeachment as a response to the Court ruling in a way that Democrats oppose...

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 26, 2022

...Liberals appear ready to dispense with judicial independence to bring our courts in line with the commands of public opinion. https://t.co/JpYpdAHNiZ

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 26, 2022

---

The dangers of populism part 1,776.

Billie Joe Armstrong, lead singer for the punk rock band Green Day, said he's "renouncing his citizenship" from the United States, apparently in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. https://t.co/W5K5oFxOw6

— Newsmax (@newsmax) June 26, 2022

Cobretti said:

---

New York Times just ran a column by Jamelle Bouie titled, "How to Discipline a Rogue Supreme Court." It once again calls for court packing and impeachment as a response to the Court ruling in a way that Democrats oppose...

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 26, 2022

...Liberals appear ready to dispense with judicial independence to bring our courts in line with the commands of public opinion. https://t.co/JpYpdAHNiZ

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 26, 2022

---

good luck with that, you don't have the votes and Biden has already said that he's against court packing and removing the filibuster on Friday..