Trump's SCOTUS

[Ex-California]

p.s. Symmetry is NOT the same as "equality."

I like this

[The Conservative]

It explicitly denies the right.

"the State does not have the constitutional authority to give a third party an absolute, and possibly arbitrary, veto over the decision of the physician and his patient to terminate the patient's pregnancy, regardless of the reason for withholding the consent."

I read an explicit denial as well

Let me give you an education on parsing words here... the law states that the state itself doesn't have the right to give absolute veto over an abortion, especially since if the doctor is getting involved it may be health related...

It does not give total veto power though, hence the words possibly arbitrary the reasoning behind this phrase is to give wiggle room to said legal actions. For if the reason for the abortion is nothing but self indulgent, the father may have the ability through the court, and other legal means to halt the abortion.

For possibly arbitrary literally means: by merest chance of existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will.

The last bit is the most important.

unreasonable act of will... if the father of the fetus can prove that the "mother" is acting unreasonably, a case can be made that the abortion is self-indulgent, and in turn not justified...

If you see this ruling as a nail in the coffin, then you are seriously part of the problem.

[Ex-California]

It explicitly denies the right.

"the State does not have the constitutional authority to give a third party an absolute, and possibly arbitrary, veto over the decision of the physician and his patient to terminate the patient's pregnancy, regardless of the reason for withholding the consent."

I read an explicit denial as well

Let me give you an education on parsing words here... the law states that the state itself doesn't have the right to give absolute veto over an abortion, especially since if the doctor is getting involved it may be health related...

It does not give total veto power though, hence the words possibly arbitrary the reasoning behind this phrase is to give wiggle room to said legal actions. For if the reason for the abortion is nothing but self indulgent, the father may have the ability through the court, and other legal means to halt the abortion.

For possibly arbitrary literally means: by merest chance of existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will.

The last bit is the most important.

unreasonable act of will... if the father of the fetus can prove that the "mother" is acting unreasonably, a case can be made that the abortion is self-indulgent, and in turn not justified...

If you see this ruling as a nail in the coffin, then you are seriously part of the problem.

But you have to look at this in terms of reality. If the woman wants an abortion she is going to get one regardless of what her partner says. She's not going to wait for the slow wheels of the court system to start turning. Maybe she can get sued after the fact, but the baby will still be dead.

[The Conservative]

"the State does not have the constitutional authority to give a third party an absolute, and possibly arbitrary, veto over the decision of the physician and his patient to terminate the patient's pregnancy, regardless of the reason for withholding the consent."

I read an explicit denial as well

Let me give you an education on parsing words here... the law states that the state itself doesn't have the right to give absolute veto over an abortion, especially since if the doctor is getting involved it may be health related...

It does not give total veto power though, hence the words possibly arbitrary the reasoning behind this phrase is to give wiggle room to said legal actions. For if the reason for the abortion is nothing but self indulgent, the father may have the ability through the court, and other legal means to halt the abortion.

For possibly arbitrary literally means: by merest chance of existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will.

The last bit is the most important.

unreasonable act of will... if the father of the fetus can prove that the "mother" is acting unreasonably, a case can be made that the abortion is self-indulgent, and in turn not justified...

If you see this ruling as a nail in the coffin, then you are seriously part of the problem.

But you have to look at this in terms of reality. If the woman wants an abortion she is going to get one regardless of what her partner says. She's not going to wait for the slow wheels of the court system to start turning. Maybe she can get sued after the fact, but the baby will still be dead.

Irrelevant, the law exists, and if the law can be enforced, the doctor as well as the woman could be sued for the action.

[Speaker to Animals]

That case struck down such a law. You still did not read it.

Men have no reproductive rights in the United States. Whatever benefits women is the law now. It definitely does not benefit them for you to have control over your own fertility. They want that $$$.

Some of my Facebook feminist friends were just celebrating a new law in one state that requires you to start paying child support before a baby is even born. Rectify that with their squeals that a woman has the right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy because it's just a "lump of cells".

[C-Mag]

Some of my Facebook feminist friends were just celebrating a new law in one state that requires you to start paying child support before a baby is even born. Rectify that with their squeals that a woman has the right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy because it's just a "lump of cells".

WTF
These feminists are burning their own house down.

[Speaker to Animals]

Some of my Facebook feminist friends were just celebrating a new law in one state that requires you to start paying child support before a baby is even born. Rectify that with their squeals that a woman has the right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy because it's just a "lump of cells".

WTF
These feminists are burning their own house down.

Oh, they burned it down a long time ago. They want your house now.

[Speaker to Animals]

LOL: https://tsukesthoughts.wordpress.com/20 ... ld-resign/

[Speaker to Animals]

Guess what, kiddos.. She's too old already. She doesn't have a grasp on things any longer. Round two is coming soon..

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/04/ ... en-senate/

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she intends to be on the High Court through 2017, but is leaving open when she might step down.

In an interview with the BBC posted Thursday, the 83-year-old jurist said she'll take stock "year-by-year."

"At my age you have to take it year-by-year," Ginsburg told the BBC. "I know I'm OK this year, but what will be next year?"

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ruth-b ... id/775269/

[Zlaxer]

Guess what, kiddos.. She's too old already. She doesn't have a grasp on things any longer. Round two is coming soon..

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/04/ ... en-senate/

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she intends to be on the High Court through 2017, but is leaving open when she might step down.

In an interview with the BBC posted Thursday, the 83-year-old jurist said she'll take stock "year-by-year."

"At my age you have to take it year-by-year," Ginsburg told the BBC. "I know I'm OK this year, but what will be next year?"

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ruth-b ... id/775269/

Solutions simple dudes....don't marry a bitch.