ADVERTISEMENT

Roe v Wade

Pirata

All American
Dec 21, 2009
4,531
2,262
113
I support the decision of the supreme Court to overturn roe v Wade.

My primary reason for doing so is the fact that it is remaining a decision back to the states.

I suspect some states will uphold the tenants of roe v Wade and that's fine.

Other states will have variations of what is and what is not legal with regard to abortions.

I am an adamant believer that our federal government has become too powerful and to involved in decisions that they were never meant to be involved with.

I live in Pennsylvania and I hope that we adopt abortion laws that achieve the proper balance between respect for the life of the unborn and the health and circumstance of the mother.

I believe that we are the United States of America for the primary reason of a common defense. I will toss in a Central banking system. Beyond that the federal government has interjected itself into too many areas where they should not be.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. This doesn't change the fact that you can get an abortion in a state that allows it. This decision simply returns the issue to each state - where the voters and legislatures of those states can decide the issue themselves. A huge victory for those of us who support less federal power and intervention.
 
According to the Ohio AG the abortion would have been allowed in Ohio. The Ohio law makes no stipulation about 6 weeks but is based on heartbeat and there are exceptions which under which the abortion could have been performed in Ohio. If the Ohio AG is correct, the whole intent of publicising this tragic story was based on a lie. The abortion doctor wanted to denigrate the Roe v Wade decision by using an apparent false statement that the girl could not have the abortion in Ohio and was forced to travel to Indiana for the abortion because she was 6 weeks and 3 days pregnant.

Reuters is still reporting that the girl was "forced" to travel out of state. I heard the Ohio AG on FOX, so all the MSM viewers / readers may not be aware.

The President's rage and the rage of all the "quick to react without the facts" talking heads was premature and misplaced. It should not have been about the "cruel" Ohio law, but about the inhuman perpetrator who they have now identified.
 
According to the Ohio AG the abortion would have been allowed in Ohio. The Ohio law makes no stipulation about 6 weeks but is based on heartbeat and there are exceptions which under which the abortion could have been performed in Ohio. If the Ohio AG is correct, the whole intent of publicising this tragic story was based on a lie. The abortion doctor wanted to denigrate the Roe v Wade decision by using an apparent false statement that the girl could not have the abortion in Ohio and was forced to travel to Indiana for the abortion because she was 6 weeks and 3 days pregnant.

Reuters is still reporting that the girl was "forced" to travel out of state. I heard the Ohio AG on FOX, so all the MSM viewers / readers may not be aware.

The President's rage and the rage of all the "quick to react without the facts" talking heads was premature and misplaced. It should not have been about the "cruel" Ohio law, but about the inhuman perpetrator who they have now identified.
The Ohio AG is a disgrace. He initially denied that this case was real in the first place. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...tates_centralized_law_enforcement_system.html
 
WAIT..... c'mon he DID NOT DENY it he called the report into question as did the Washington Post and other publications. You are really being disingenuous here.
His quote
DAVE YOST, OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL (R): "Not a whisper and we work closely with the centralized law enforcement system in Ohio. We have regular contact with prosecutors and local police and sheriffs. Not a whisper anywhere. Something even more telling, Jesse, is my office runs the state crime lab. Any case like this you are going to have a rape kit, you are going to have biological evidence, and you would be looking for DNA analysis, which we do most of the DNA Analysis in Ohio. There is no case request for analysis that looks anything like this."

What DA goes on national TV without contacting each and every county prosecutor before making these stupid comments? He is saying that since he has not heard about it, it doubtful that it exists. He is the head law enforcement person in the State of Ohio. He should know that this case exists. He goes on TV and says there is not even a whisper of it in his office. And what impression is he giving. That it does not exist.
 
Last edited:
His quote
DAVE YOST, OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL (R): "Not a whisper and we work closely with the centralized law enforcement system in Ohio. We have regular contact with prosecutors and local police and sheriffs. Not a whisper anywhere. Something even more telling, Jesse, is my office runs the state crime lab. Any case like this you are going to have a rape kit, you are going to have biological evidence, and you would be looking for DNA analysis, which we do most of the DNA Analysis in Ohio. There is no case request for analysis that looks anything like this."

What DA goes on national TV without contacting each and every county prosecutor before making these stupid comments? He is saying that since he has not heard about it, it doubtful that it exists. He is the head law enforcement person in the State of Ohio. He should know that this case exists. He goes on TV and says there is not even a whisper of it in his office. And what impression is he giving. That it does not exist.

His quote
DAVE YOST, OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL (R): "Not a whisper and we work closely with the centralized law enforcement system in Ohio. We have regular contact with prosecutors and local police and sheriffs. Not a whisper anywhere. Something even more telling, Jesse, is my office runs the state crime lab. Any case like this you are going to have a rape kit, you are going to have biological evidence, and you would be looking for DNA analysis, which we do most of the DNA Analysis in Ohio. There is no case request for analysis that looks anything like this."

What DA goes on national TV without contacting each and every county prosecutor before making these stupid comments? He is saying that since he has not heard about it, it doubtful that it exists. He is the head law enforcement person in the State of Ohio. He should know that this case exists. He goes on TV and says there is not even a whisper of it in his office. And what impression is he giving. That it does not exist.
This story gets curiouser and curiouser. Now I see that the mother of the child, when approached by a news outlet in Ohio, claimed that the one who was arrested and supposedly admitted he molested the child is not the one. There is more here to learn. One should hold opinions to oneself until all the facts are in. Too many people trying to make political hay out of a tragedy. What seems apparent is that it a child has been brutally abused. I pray she is taken care of.
 
And the ridiculousness begins of wasting resources of law enforcement on this garbage. https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-ag-says-hell-investigate-025855686.html
As usual Yahoo does not tell the whole story. As per Ohio AG, the child did NOT have to cross the state line. The pregnancy could have been terminated in Ohio considering the exceptions they have. I have not seen any left leaning news organization mention this. It is an important point in the whole story considering that the abortion activist doctor who made this public in the first place did so because the claim was that the child couldn't get the abortion in Ohio. Something is not right about this story with what we know today and it should be investigated.
 
As usual Yahoo does not tell the whole story. As per Ohio AG, the child did NOT have to cross the state line. The pregnancy could have been terminated in Ohio considering the exceptions they have. I have not seen any left leaning news organization mention this. It is an important point in the whole story considering that the abortion activist doctor who made this public in the first place did so because the claim was that the child couldn't get the abortion in Ohio. Something is not right about this story with what we know today and it should be investigated.
This is not true per current Ohio law, there is no exception for rape:

"An Ohio state law went into effect July 2019 which makes abortion illegal after the fetus heartbeat can be detected, which usually develops between five or six weeks after conception. No exceptions are made for "hard cases" such as rape, incest, or a fetus determined to possibly have down syndrome. The only "hard case" exception, according to ORC 2919.193(B), are in cases in which there is a medical emergency, defined in 2919.16(F) & (K): "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman."[8] This does not include potential bodily damage that stems from the woman's mental health."
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
This is not true per current Ohio law, there is no exception for rape:

"An Ohio state law went into effect July 2019 which makes abortion illegal after the fetus heartbeat can be detected, which usually develops between five or six weeks after conception. No exceptions are made for "hard cases" such as rape, incest, or a fetus determined to possibly have down syndrome. The only "hard case" exception, according to ORC 2919.193(B), are in cases in which there is a medical emergency, defined in 2919.16(F) & (K): "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman."[8] This does not include potential bodily damage that stems from the woman's mental health."
Well..... I defer to the Ohio AG on this one. From what he said there are exceptions. He stated that the exceptions stated could be interpreted to fit this case.I would assume it would be related to the potential substantial irreversible impairment to the 10 year old child, maybe impacting her ability to have children in the future. Sounds like a reasonable possibility. We'll never know though since the way this story has unfolded.
 
Last edited:
Well..... I defer to the Ohio AG on this one. From what he said there are exceptions. He stated that the exceptions stated could be interpreted to fit this case.I would assume it would be related to the potential substantial irreversible impairment to the 10 year old child, maybe impacting her ability to have children in the future. Sounds like a reasonable possibility. We'll never know though since the way this story has unfolded.
Sounds like he is covering his ass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Sounds like he is covering his ass.
Maybe. But on the other hand he could also be sincere in his answer. Again.... they were never faced with the question or so it seems. So we will never know what Ohio would have done. I find it hard to believe that they would have been so draconian as to turn away this child. The abortion doctor, the president and Joy Reid and all the liberal talking heads would like us to believe that. That was the whole purpose of the abortion doctor to use this as a cudgel to further the abortion agenda. I also find it hard to believe that the abortion doctor had the child's welfare in mind when she publicised it in the manner that she did.
 
Well..... I defer to the Ohio AG on this one. From what he said there are exceptions. He stated that the exceptions stated could be interpreted to fit this case.I would assume it would be related to the potential substantial irreversible impairment to the 10 year old child, maybe impacting her ability to have children in the future. Sounds like a reasonable possibility. We'll never know though since the way this story has unfolded.
You are deferring to the AG because he has been so trustworthy up to this date?
 
You are deferring to the AG because he has been so trustworthy up to this
What's your beef with him? What he says goes against the abortion agenda. Because you don't agree with him makes him "untrustworty"??? Sounds like you are making him into a straw man in this whole sordid mess.
 
What's your beef with him? What he says goes against the abortion agenda. Because you don't agree with him makes him "untrustworty"??? Sounds like you are making him into a straw man in this whole sordid mess.
He’s an AG who is decided to say that there is no evidence that a 10 yr old girl was raped. This is the height of irresponsibly of the top law enforcement officer in the state. It has nothing to do with an issue. It’s about how bad he is doing his job.
 
He’s an AG who is decided to say that there is no evidence that a 10 yr old girl was raped. This is the height of irresponsibly of the top law enforcement officer in the state. It has nothing to do with an issue. It’s about how bad he is doing his job.
Do you know who reported the rape and to whom was it reported and when was it reported? And what was done with the information once it was reported? Unless we have that time line it is irresponsible to label anyone as "untrustworthy". There may be more than one in this case. Additionally, what were the circumstances that led the mother to Indiana.

From what I've read / seen in the news, the mother, when interviewed by Telemundo through a closed door, stated that the 27 year old confessed rapist with whom the mother shared a living space, was not the person. She said her daughter was fine and I believe the mother said that she did not report a rape. I am assuming that the abortion doctor reported the rape and she was the one who identified the rapist as a teenager, maybe 17 years old. There are a lot of things that need to come to light here.
 
Do you know who reported the rape and to whom was it reported and when was it reported? And what was done with the information once it was reported? Unless we have that time line it is irresponsible to label anyone as "untrustworthy". There may be more than one in this case. Additionally, what were the circumstances that led the mother to Indiana.

From what I've read / seen in the news, the mother, when interviewed by Telemundo through a closed door, stated that the 27 year old confessed rapist with whom the mother shared a living space, was not the person. She said her daughter was fine and I believe the mother said that she did not report a rape. I am assuming that the abortion doctor reported the rape and she was the one who identified the rapist as a teenager, maybe 17 years old. There are a lot of things that need to come to light here.
How hard is this to understand. You are the AG. You get this question about a high profile case. You go and find out. Not make baseless claims. It’s not difficult and as someone who has done this, it’s absolutely irresponsible. He called into question the truthfulness of a 10 yr old instead of checking out the facts.
 
... and maybe he was stating what he knew at the time....I think I laid out some reasonable arguments.......you are convinced of what you are convinced of....... I'm through with this.
 
I seriously doubt this is true as Walgreens would be losing over half their business in prostest.
 
did 96% of republicans vote to ban contraceptives today? so much for prevention hah. just a really awful group of people and people they apparently represent. anything to keep people poor and child broke i guess. would literally die before voting dem.

like what are we doing here? why is this even being voted on? i thought roe v wade wasnt going to cause GOP to attempt to infringe any farther. absued this needs to be protected
 
did 96% of republicans vote to ban contraceptives today? so much for prevention hah. just a really awful group of people and people they apparently represent. anything to keep people poor and child broke i guess. would literally die before voting dem.

like what are we doing here? why is this even being voted on? i thought roe v wade wasnt going to cause GOP to attempt to infringe any farther. absued this needs to be protected
Because the SCOTUS ruling was giving responsibility back to the states. Why would you vote to codify a law on a National level rather than have the states decide what is best for them?
 
Because the SCOTUS ruling was giving responsibility back to the states. Why would you vote to codify a law on a National level rather than have the states decide what is best for them?
because alot of those states would have slavery if they could.

but regardless, 96% voted against. abortion i can understand the argument. this? nah. its actually dangerous.

whats next, voting against 911 victim relief, or amber alert resources?!? oh wait!
 
because alot of those states would have slavery if they could.

but regardless, 96% voted against. abortion i can understand the argument. this? nah. its actually dangerous.

whats next, voting against 911 victim relief, or amber alert resources?!? oh wait!
No you clearly don’t understand.
 
Please enlighten us with your legal wisdom.
Because the SCOTUS ruling was giving responsibility back to the states. Why would you vote to codify a law on a National level rather than have the states decide what is best for them?
 
Because the SCOTUS ruling was giving responsibility back to the states. Why would you vote to codify a law on a National level rather than have the states decide what is best for them?

The Ex-United States of America.
 
I can't find any articles about the Ex-United States of America.

Right, because suggesting that individual states should decide who gets access to birth control goes against the whole concept of us being United.
 
Right, because suggesting that individual states should decide who gets access to birth control goes against the whole concept of us being United.
Or maybe voting yes to codify a quick knee-jerk response to the Supreme Court decision didn’t seem like a good idea. This legislation is DOA in the Senate anyway.
 
Yeesh 96% against birth control. I guess the old pull out method will have to do. Just dont be as quick as Pitino!
 
  • Like
Reactions: SHUSA
Or maybe voting yes to codify a quick knee-jerk response to the Supreme Court decision didn’t seem like a good idea.

lol... What a joke. The position by the court has been that it is up to congress to codify things that are not already laid out or it goes to the states to decide. Congress is trying to establish the law so that doesn't happen with contraception. Exactly what they should be doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT