Roe vs. Wade overturned

Chew Toy McCoy said:
Not to be crass, but this is also a serious boner killer which I’m sure is also an intended consequence of the anti-women movement. I live in a state where abortion is safe until the federal thugs shut it down, but even here I think at least in the near term people won’t be able to think about sex without also thinking ABORTION! In the same thought.
Click to expand...
For the demented this may help them with their "problem".

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1541789263917891584/

WTF?!! The penalty for rape is less than that of an abortion, AND the rapist in some places can sue for the child afterwards?

What fucking world is that?!!
 
Is this how we get a 3rd party option?

www.huffpost.com

Howard Stern May Run For President, Reveals Plan To 'Overturn All This Bulls**t'

The radio shock jock says he would set out to do just two things "to make the country fair again."
www.huffpost.com www.huffpost.com
Click to expand...
Radio icon Howard Stern said that last week’s Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade makes it more likely that he’ll run for president in 2024.

Stern, a longtime supporter of abortion rights, said he would set out to accomplish just two things.

“The problem with most presidents is they have too big of an agenda,” he said on his SiriusXM radio show on Monday, according to The Hill. “The only agenda I would have is to make the country fair again.”

He called out Donald Trump’s three Supreme Court justices for lying about accepting legal precedent during their confirmation hearings.

“It’s very hard to have a Supreme Court that’s openly lied,” he said, adding that it “undermines everything.”

He said the three were put onto the court by Trump, who lost the popular vote in the 2016 election by nearly 3 million votes.
Click to expand...

With the dems & their established centrist candidates, reps running with personalities & culture wars, is another personality enough to provide a 3rd option?

Stern also said last year that he was considering running for president ― but only if Donald Trump was the Republican nominee.
“I’ll beat his ass,” he vowed.

Stern briefly toyed with running for governor in New York in the 1990s as a Libertarian but dropped out over financial disclosure rules.
Click to expand...
 
I can't remember where I saw it, but Republicans are hoping this makes liberals move from red states that are close to turning purple......Texas.
 
Joe said:
I can't remember where I saw it, but Republicans are hoping this makes liberals move from red states that are close to turning purple......Texas.
Click to expand...

Or keep liberals from moving there. Might not be the only reason. Liberals tend to take the high cost of living with them when they migrate. They'll move on once they've established their local gentrification colonization. It's kind of their answer to the evangelical plague except they do it in yoga studios instead of churches.
 
This bullshit trend on Twitter needs to stop
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1541324088182034432/

Why did they go there?
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1541527964986253313/
anna-kendrick-gross.gif

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1541609986593259520/
😖 Sorry

Bonus:
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1541582859152015360/
 
I wish I hadn't blocked all the "Gays for Trump" on Tik Tok that were making videos about how Republicans aren't coming for gay marriage so why is everyone worried about it. Now they have overturned Roe v Wade and Clarence Thomas wants to go after gay marriage next lmao #YouGotPlayed

It's almost always white gays that are Republican. They may be gay but they're also a white man. ;)
 
Glenn Youngkin is trying to push abortion restrictions in Virginia. That is guaranteed to be highly unpopular in the state. I think this shows that Youngkin wants to run for Prez in 2024.

dcist.com

What Does The End Of Roe Mean For Abortion In Virginia?

Governor Glenn Youngkin intends to introduce a 15-week abortion ban but right now abortion is still legal in the commonwealth.
dcist.com dcist.com
 
This will not be good for republicans in the long run. Conservative women get abortions too. Many of the people out holding pro-life signs and making a big deal about this have sisters, daughters, nieces, etc. who have or will have an abortion. Many of them have probably had abortions too, but want to place their guilt on others and deny others the opportunity they were afforded. Or maybe they're like Trump - it wasn't wrong when they had abortion..

You see this time and again. Its not a handout when they receive benefits from the state or federal government. They aren't lazy minorities or immigrants. Their circumstances warrant it, they're in actual need. Unlike those liberal folks who just take handouts. It's not "killing an innocent life" when they have an abortion, its "making a hard decision in a warranted circumstance".

Ever notice how every time a tornado or flood destroys some small conservative town, all the people are out begging officials for "help"? Its not often you hear one of these folks say "I have insurance, a nest egg and knew full-well I live in a flood zone. I'm good, we've got a getaway house to stay in and a rainy day fund to dip into!"

Anyways, this will come back to bite them, Roe v. Wade will be codified back into federal law, and then the high and mighty can get back to doing what they do best, grandstanding about how sacred they view life, while their cult leader tries to get back into office to pardon the January 6 seditionists (and probably himself).
 
GermanSuplex said:
Ever notice how every time a tornado or flood destroys some small conservative town, all the people are out begging officials for "help"? Its not often you hear one of these folks say "I have insurance, a nest egg and knew full-well I live in a flood zone. I'm good, we've got a getaway house to stay in and a rainy day fund to dip into!"
Click to expand...

After Hurricane Harvey, the conservative people that are always shitting on others for handouts were begging for assistance because they didn't have flood insurance. The Party of Personal Responsibility folks didn't think they needed flood insurance in the Houston area that floods. lol They were all over NextDoor crying about FEMA not giving them enough to fix their homes.

But here I am, the left leaning "free loader" with flood insurance. Luckily, I didn't need it. But I'm the free loading socialist according to them.
 
GermanSuplex said:
This will not be good for republicans in the long run. Conservative women get abortions too. Many of the people out holding pro-life signs and making a big deal about this have sisters, daughters, nieces, etc. who have or will have an abortion. Many of them have probably had abortions too, but want to place their guilt on others and deny others the opportunity they were afforded. Or maybe they're like Trump - it wasn't wrong when they had abortion..

You see this time and again. Its not a handout when they receive benefits from the state or federal government. They aren't lazy minorities or immigrants. Their circumstances warrant it, they're in actual need. Unlike those liberal folks who just take handouts. It's not "killing an innocent life" when they have an abortion, its "making a hard decision in a warranted circumstance".

Ever notice how every time a tornado or flood destroys some small conservative town, all the people are out begging officials for "help"? Its not often you hear one of these folks say "I have insurance, a nest egg and knew full-well I live in a flood zone. I'm good, we've got a getaway house to stay in and a rainy day fund to dip into!"

Anyways, this will come back to bite them, Roe v. Wade will be codified back into federal law, and then the high and mighty can get back to doing what they do best, grandstanding about how sacred they view life, while their cult leader tries to get back into office to pardon the January 6 seditionists (and probably himself).
Click to expand...
“Get your government hands off my Medicare!"

Of course, most people that vote against universal healthcare ALREADY HAVE IT.

Considering that we already have healthcare provided for the elderly and the needy (the biggest consumers of healthcare), it wouldn’t be that much more expensive to give it to everybody. As far as I can tell, the only people who benefit from the current system are the insurance companies.
 
Joe said:
I wish I hadn't blocked all the "Gays for Trump" on Tik Tok that were making videos about how Republicans aren't coming for gay marriage so why is everyone worried about it. Now they have overturned Roe v Wade and Clarence Thomas wants to go after gay marriage next lmao #YouGotPlayed

It's almost always white gays that are Republican. They may be gay but they're also a white man. ;)
Click to expand...

Don't forget the Texas GOP kicking the Log Cabin Republicans to the curb and declaring homosexuality an "irregular lifestyle" or some other BS.
 
GermanSuplex said:
Don't forget the Texas GOP kicking the Log Cabin Republicans to the curb and declaring homosexuality an "irregular lifestyle" or some other BS.
Click to expand...

That can come back to bite the GOP, combined with the 2010 Citizens United decision basically saying free speech is all the ads you can buy. It's not like the Log Cabin Republicans are living in trailer parks clipping supermarket 10-for-$10 sales. The GOP wanted their money, not just their votes. Well the LC Rs do still have money and they'll be buying ads but the marginal usefulness of Trump to them is over and it's about time for them to figure on kicking Trump (or Trump-endorsed candidates) to the curb.
 
JayMysteri0 said:
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1541474958014038016/

Read that sentence again, "some women's rights outdated". "Rights outdated"? How the F-?

giphy.gif



https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540518329621921792/

Framing it that way if anything involves "railroads" being organized against your actions, historically in this country, you're probably on the wrong side of history.
Click to expand...

Just want to point out Mitch never worded it that way. It's that website twisting the words that way.

Like it or not, what Mitch said taken at face value is not wrong. Just because something is precedent doesn't mean it is right as his point about Plessy. You had the SC issue Plessy then later reaffirm it much like Roe did then followed by Casey. The difference is Brown brought evidence of how, " Separate but equal" was not in fact equal. Evidence strong enough to overturn precedence since it showed that precedence actually brought great harm.

Now nothing in the latest case from what I have seen brought that kind of evidence. It basically was, " This is a state issue and Roe was wrong" and the current SC went, "Yup!" without having any evidence necessary to overturn precedence.
 
Back
Top