We all know you are ate up with CNN media and fake liberal news claims. So why don't you provide a case in the last 50 years against any HCPC where a plaintiff claims they were tricked or lied too. And while you're there, why don't you explain why any women who wants an abortion, would even consider going to an HCPC. What services could an HCPC possibly provide them? When you have the answers to those questions (you will knowingly run from,) you let me know.
Out of their mouths... I heard religious claptrap. The fetus is not as important as the woman, contrary to their thinking.
The rights of man existed before men created the government. That is, the purpose of the government created by the people in the US Constitution is to guarantee and enforce the rights of man. The government does not grant rights, it guarantees rights that existed before 1787 when the government was created. Unless you can prove otherwise, an exhaustive listing of the rights of man is impossible. The Enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be used to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Your listing a handful of procedural rights does not mean those are all there are. Do you have a right to drive into the wilderness and camp? That right is not listed in the document. Do you have a right to start a business? It's not listed in the document, so in your world it does not exist.
The constitution is a document that governs the government. It provides a line in the sand between the government and its people. All rights provided in the constitution limits the government from intruding on the people When did you get the idea that your right to free speech means anything other than limiting the GOVERNMENTS intrusion on free speech? Which means the government can't stop you from disparaging the government. But you can be stopped from disparaging an individual or business. If you decide you have a right to say anything you want because the constitution told you so, and decide to destroy someones reputation because of your right to free speech, you will be held accountable for those damages. That is the current problem with people who don't know what the constitution is. There is not a right in the constitution that governs anything other than the government. If you want a new right to something, you have to have an amendment voted on by most states. No SCOTUS can just grant you a new right which is what they tried to do with Roe vs Wade. Where did you ever get the idea that certain rights shall not be used to deny or disparage others, means anything other than rights protecting you from the government? It only means the government can not intrude on your decisions. It doesn't magically make getting abortions a federal law. You have to have legislation passed by the electorate for that. Which is why no justice in history has ever tried to use the 9th amendment to somehow make an abortion law. It wasn't even a consideration for Roe vs Wade. Only you have decided what you think the 9th amendment means. Abortions were illegal in most states prior to Roe vs Wade for 150 years. In 1973, the Supreme Court issued a decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a fundamental "right to privacy", which protects a pregnant woman's right to an abortion. The Court also held that the right to abortion is not absolute and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life. Roe was overturned on the grounds the right to abortion was not deeply rooted in this Nation's history or tradition, it was not considered a right when the Due Process Clause was ratified in 1868, and was unknown in U.S. law until Roe vs Wade came up. So now you just automatically jump to the 9th amendment with your own definition of what it means? Before you do that, you have to know what the constitution is and what it governs. And its apparent you didn't know what the constitution governs when you made your post.
So you can't provide one single case against a CPC in the last 50 years for what you and your beloved CNN are regurgitating? Who'd a thunk Guess you can't put you money where you mouth is. No surprise here.
Yet not good enough for the majority of people you interact with on PF. You don't have a reputation you can stake a claim on. Which is why you make claims you can't back up, like finding a single case in the last 50 years to support your BS.
You did no such thing -- but what is with the term "Absolute Right" .. how is it relevant to RvW - and constitution in general ? Why would refuting such a claim matter. This discusstion is not about "Absolute Right" .. its a ridiculous term .. showing lack of understanding of the subject matter -- whomever brought it up .. The question is rights confered in a Constitutional Republic .. none of which are absolute .. exceptions to every rule .. Martial Law being one of them .. as experienced recently in so many nations - not just our own .. on account of your beloved Vax Mandate .. you favoring the ability of Gov't to force experimental vaccines that don't work well and have a significant risk of harm on folks .. a risk of harm greater than the dreaded "Omicron" .. and previous varients... My body my choice .. remember ? but no .. you wish to take that choice away on the basis of fallacious utilitarianism .. false justification for law .. as per the principles of justice in a constitutional republic . rule of law and so on.. Red wishes to violate the bodily autonomy of women .. on the basis of the same lurid justification for law .. that of whicy you are guilty as charged .. so thanks for the contribution to the slippery slope .. belief in the right of bodily autonomy - but only for things you agree with. belief in the violation of bodily autonomy .. for things you disagree with .. Just like Red. For those of us in the middle .. wanting just law .. sodomy from both ends. Once again .. appreaciate your contribution. .. The right granted by the second ammendment .. is to be able to defend oneself .. From Government .. a concept around which your mind will not wrap.
I provided sources—the American Medical Association, for example—and I'll stand by them. That's proof for everyone else. The indifference to the needs of the women they purport to help in favor of their personal views is a gross violation of trust.
All this to back up your BS personal attack? I took an extreme example that actually happened to point out that some limits on bearing firearms in a public space is justified. You may not like my point, but you're not entitled to limit the discussion as you see fit. What on earth are you accusing me of now? I'm opposed to limiting abortion and opposed to forcing people to get vaccinated. If you refuse a vaccination, you may have to test if you work in an old folks home. This makes no sense. Complete crap. Your vague references and unsupported claims are absurd.
What a steaming pile of denial. -- you were arguing many posts defending forced vaccination of Gov't workers. .. now backtracking - saying you can keep your job but need to take a test. Then, completely oblivious to the relationship to abortion and guns .. your fallacious utilitarian idiology .. you cry "personal attack". No one attacking you personally mate .. just your messed up ideology
Your provision is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Now that you have admitted you never spoke with a CPC counselor, (Since now your trusted source is the article you found on the internet) women don't go to a CPC for an abortion. So it makes your claim not only ridiculous, but fake. As a matter of fact, the AMA tried to sue CPCs and lost their case. Plus you haven't provided a single claim from any court in the last 50 years against any CPC by any person on the planet which makes your point idiotic. Unless you think most all women are stupid and don't know the difference between a CPC and an abortion clinic. CPCs have no reason to lie to their clients as their clients don't come if for abortions. And if you are so gullible to think that a CPC counselor would tell any woman with an IQ higher than a fence post that abortions cause cancer, then I would say you are as gullible as the article you provided. But its what you do so theres that
Not a test, but tested, and then (not now) when the variant was more deadly. I have no problem saying the limit of the workers right not to get vaccinated or tested doesn't include nursing homes, or more generally, public jobs where we in the public have no other option by to interact with the public employee. If you think my view violates your rights, so be it. Work with vulnerable patients? Get vaccinated or tested (or even both) or you're suspended. My position is we should have no law limiting abortion—treat it like other medical procedures—and leave it at that. Firearms? No automatics. Some limits on size. Some limits on who can have them. Senile? Felon? Misdemeanor violence? Some type of mental illness? Gang members? Noncitizen visitors? All should not have firearms.
You're making up stuff. I spoke to them, but not in a clinic. Exodus 20:16. What case? When? The issues? The result? I talked to them, and I believe the American Medical Association, not you. Specious. You try to talk them into continuing the pregnancy if they show doubt. Yeah, the world has ganged up on the Liars for Jesus. Feh.
Bulls***, you have never spoken to any CPC counselor. EVER Go tell it to your lefty friends. They will fall for anything. Much like you do Right, you believe pregnant women are too stupid to know the difference between a CPC and an abortion clinic. So they come to a CPC for an abortion and are duped into going full term Because CPC counselors tell them if they get an abortion they will get cancer. Like I said, you will buy into just about anything
The lies they tell are more subtle that your absurd straw man. The claim was that the incidence of breast cancer was higher in woman who abort. Says the guy with an Imaginary Friend. You try and try...
Your laws against abortion are unenforceable. SCOTUS should have decided the 14th protected women against interference in their pregnancies by government. Religious types, of course, want to continue subjugating women. You won't get away with it this time. MYOB.
1. There are no laws against abortion. Only regulations 2. There is no constitutional right to an abortion and if you think there is, then you don't know what constitutional rights are. 3. All the SCOTUS did was give the vote back to the people to decide in their own states what they want, instead of 9 appointed judges making laws.
