10 hours ago, knapplc said:

Women having rights is so dangerous! Must keep the women in their place!

 

 

 

Instagram and Facebook begin removing posts offering abortion pills

 

 

Facebook and Instagram have begun promptly removing posts that offer abortion pills to women who may not be able to access them following a Supreme Court decision that stripped away constitutional protections for the procedure.

 

Such social media posts ostensibly aimed to help women living in states where preexisting laws banning abortion suddenly snapped into effect on Friday. That's when the high court overruled Roe v. Wade, its 1973 decision that declared access to abortion a constitutional right.

 

Memes and status updates explaining how women could legally obtain abortion pills in the mail exploded across social platforms. Some even offered to mail the prescriptions to women living in states that now ban the procedure.

 

On Monday, an AP reporter tested how the company would respond to a similar post on Facebook, writing: "If you send me your address, I will mail you abortion pills."

The post was removed within one minute.

The Facebook account was immediately put on a "warning" status for the post, which Facebook said violated its standards on "guns, animals and other regulated goods."

 

Yet, when the AP reporter made the same exact post but swapped out the words "abortion pills" for "a gun," the post remained untouched. A post with the same exact offer to mail "weed" was also left up and not considered a violation.

 

Marijuana is illegal under federal law and it is illegal to send it through the mail.

 

Abortion pills, however, can legally be obtained through the mail after an online consultation from prescribers who have undergone certification and training.

Dispensing medicine without a license?  someone is going to get busted for trying to offer telemedicine abortions from blue states into red. 

20 hours ago, teachercd said:

Moose and Bo would have been like so many other famous duos, Cleopatra and Mark Antony, Dr. Frankenstein and his monster, Beevis and Butthead.

 

Moose would have kept the donors happy, smiling and drunk...he would have ran "interference" for Bo and he would have had his back, he would not have been hiding in his bunker.  Bo would have thrived with a "good ole boy" type AD that he could have had real talks with...

 

 

 

At LSU?  Where Bo went after blaming NU for his limitations?  I should remind the board I spent all of last decade calling a 9 win coach who cannot improve "Bo Pellini territory."   Only a couple years ago I finally admitted it was the Brian Kelly Principle.  But I never expected another family was desperate enough to adopt him.  

5 hours ago, whateveritis1224 said:

I'd like to hear what is different about the NY concealed carry law on Thursday that forced them to can it and why they are able to rule differently with Roe vs Wade in regards to states rights.

One more time; one is the Constitution, the other is not.  Now check the 10th amendment. 

5 hours ago, commando said:

pro choice doesn't mean you automatically get an abortion.   also... if i recall my bible correctly....joseph and mary were jewish.   jewish faith says the fetus doesn't have a soul until it is born so abortion isn't murder.   so if we would call them pro choice it would fit in with their religion.

Almost got me with that one.  In Judaism abortion is not a homicide.  But it is a feticide, and forbidden in some circumstances in different sects. 

4 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

Full disclosure. I met Mike Riley (and Dee) several times at the local coffee shop. They just came over and sat down with us the first time, and we had a chat about Lincoln and the weather and random stuff. You'd never have known he was the head coach of the Huskers. Dee was the sweetest woman, and Coach was super regular and personable. It's really too bad it didn't work out. He's the kind of guy you'd want running the show here.

Ours never had a 7-0 start but he was named Gerry Faust and he had the players saying Hail Mary's on the sideline.  He would have been great fit for a lot of jobs at ND, just not head football coach. 

14 hours ago, funhusker said:

Because the 2nd Amendment is federal and the 14th is state?

 

Thats curious logic.

Close.

The right to keep and bear arms is written in the Constitution.  No legal wizardry is required to know it is there.  Therefore the it is a Constitutional right that states cannot regulate out of existence. 

The right to an abortion is not there, it was inferred by ideology.  Therefore the 10th amendment reserves abortion for the states.  The Court simply corrected a ruling from 50 years ago that contradicted the clear meaning of Constitution.

13 hours ago, commando said:

It's a good thing Joseph and Mary were not pro-choice.

On 6/25/2022 at 10:36 PM, Born N Bled Red said:

Yeah, ok, if the conservative majority wasn't talking out of both sides of the collective arses on back to back days, that may be an interpretation. But one day they argued States did not have the power to address gun rights, the next day States are the only place to decide abortion rights. More cognitive dissonance and in doing so, they overturned more than 150 years of established case law. The Supreme Court was established to run on precedent. Established law informing New law and unusual legal circumstances. You want a group that will just do what they feel because they feel it, go to your local city council meeting. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the stabile that maintains the turbulence of congress and the presidency that is why they are lifetime appointments. Overturning 150 years of precedence should not happen like this. 

20 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

And they made the Ds talk about states rights one day and totalitarian feds the next 

 

Do you know why one right goes to the states and the other is adjudicated in Washington?

HE doesn't want to answer.  

There is a very simple reason why the Court held that States can abolish the right to an abortion but they cannot for the right to keep and bear arms. 

11 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

That's pretty funny, Joe.  Honestly. 

 

The first time I read it I thought you meant it as a rallying cry:  a new wave of judicial activism could overturn this grotesque Alito/Thomas over-reach. But you were probably coming at it from the other direction. 

 

Let's start by making Puerto Rico a state and having Biden appoint a tenth and eleventh Supreme Court justice. Fair enough?

What would that accomplish after President Trump Jr makes Orange County into a state with the blessing to #15 Justice Kimberly Guilfoyle?

4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Ummm….there are instances of moms killing  their babies after holding them in their arms. 

Are we going to let them dictate policy?

5 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I don't.

Let him answer. 

6 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

But one day they argued States did not have the power to address gun rights, the next day States are the only place to decide abortion rights.

And they made the Ds talk about states rights one day and totalitarian feds the next 

Do you know why one right goes to the states and the other is adjudicated in Washington?

1 hour ago, TGHusker said:

The Bold: True.  Roe V Wade was judicial activism to its fullest extent.  The current court reacted in a like wise manner.  Or did they just go back to the constitution?  In some ways we have an Orwellian thing going on here.  The court threw the whole issue back to the states and the people of the state (state legislatures and governors being the people's representatives) to decide.  The court honored the 10th amendment - rights not expressly given to the federal govt are given to the states to decide.  They did not hold that the 14th amendment was intended to address this issue. It seems that the court in 1973 took this right away from the people(each state) and by judicial overreach made a decision that was not in their constitutional wheelhouse to make.  But now we hear that this conservative court is an activist court when they turn back to the constitution to give back to the people (via the state reps) the power that was meant for the states to have.   There is an olive branch to the Pro-choice group however:  they can harness the will of the people and their representatives by working on a constitutional amendment or other federal legislation that could have similar affect if that is possible (I'm not a constitutional scholar so  just my gut feeling that there are remedies).  Of course a future court of more liberal justices can correct what is perceived to be an error by this court.   This remedy can all start with the 2022 mid-term elections.  Let's see what happens.

 

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

I know you hate choice, that is fine, what other choices do you hate?

Are you guys both hacking each other's account?

3 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

To a stupid question.  Of course that should be the answer.   He really thinks someone is gonna research SCOTUS confirmation hearings from 150 years ago  I will leave that up to him.   Along with figuring out and knowing what settled law and Precedent actually mean.  

There is nothing to research.  They did not hold hearings as we know them today for SCOTUS nominations until the second half of the 20th century.  The only things congress needed ot review was: Is this man qualified?  Would he take a bribe. That is because for the first part of judicial history everyone was an 'originalist' before we needed that word to distinguish them from the progressives.  Reading law to figure out what the authors meant was called lawyering, it was not one school of thought. 

16 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

Lets be honest here. This has absolutely nothing to do with unborn babies. This has 100% to do with the economy. In order to function and further enrich the wealthy, the American economy needs a poor workforce to provide labor. USA's birthrate has been declining for decades. Leading to a shortage of cheap American labor, thaT currently  defines America. Further more, there are fewer Americans to buy the product produced by said cheap labor. 

 

The solution, instead of embracing immigration, they force poor  American women to repopulate the cheap American workforce in order to maintain and enrich wealth.

If true is that sustainable?  Say: a country does not have a birthrate that can sustain its population.  So it relies on immigrants from different countries speaking different languages.  

6 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Simple sequence of events:

 

1. Conservatives on court lied to Senate and entire country stating Roe was settled law and thus safe to get confirmed.

 

2. They summarily overturn it with no accountability.

 

3. Thomas explicitly states we should revisit the cases guaranteeing a right to gay marriage and contraception and outlawing sodomy laws.

 

In no way, shape or form is any of the concern melodramatic. People are correctly concerned about the rights these clowns have out and out told us they want to go after next.

5 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

You may be surprised at what else was settled law and Precedent before getting overruled.  

If Christopher Hitchens hadn't drank himself to death and was alive today he would say, that which was created by judicial activism can be abolished by judicial activism.  And please let me out of this coffin

4 hours ago, funhusker said:

Who defined what a woman was today?

Well that was a fringe benefit today.  Today we didn't hear any of the usual suspects telling us that men could be birthing persons. Come to think of it, nothing they said today matched with what they had just told us. 

• Women must have control over their body; but can't refuse a vaccine that doesn't work.
• Structural racism is a major reality in America; except the disproportionate killing of black babies. 
• Something about CHOICE; but don't choose to buy a gun. 
• The law changes over time; except precedent is sacred. 
• There was an insurrection against our democracy;;  now burn it all down.  

FOX just reported live from Chicago:  What's remarkable about this protest is that it has been all women.  I don't think more than 5% of the people here are men.

[behind him you can see that most of the marchers are men].

20 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Yes, it’s called “dilation and curattege” It may surprise you that “abortion” means aborting a pregnancy and women can be “pregnant” with dead fetuses.  

Well that's nice semantics, except no one is using the word that way.  you should really spell it out when you know most readers are thinking of something else. 

19 minutes ago, funhusker said:

And I did say I actually understood your “constitutional” question.  I’m beyond that.  I’m in states need to craft law mode here. Try and keep up!

So that's a "No. the US Constitution did not have an invisible right to an abortion [in the first trimester]" ? 

Well you ignored the question so I am entitled to ignore yours.  Nonetheless I am confused by your miscarriage scenario.  Are you calling it an 'abortion' when the baby was unintentionally killed and now must be surgically removed from the womb? 

7 minutes ago, funhusker said:

What if we approached the discussion as making execution of the fetus, with carrier approval, a punishment for rape and/or incest?  Would that get the “law and order” folks stiff in their whitey tighties?

 

What if the fetus was dead as in a miscarriage?  Would you be okay with the abortion of a dead fetus?

 

What about people donating fertilized eggs to CREATE life?  How are clinics supposed to handle the “low probability” or non viable embryos?

 

This goes way beyond 18 year olds not wanting to miss college because they got pregnant at prom.

Lol, No, So?, N/A, so, so, so?

Now did you actually think the US Constitution contained an invisible right to abortion in the first trimester?

5 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

Fooooor sure. Which is a hilarious response. I disagree with Nike and Disney’s ridiculous political pandering, but I still give them my money too often.

I don't mind it if I have an actual choice and they don't oppress their own employees.  It is a problem when the company is so big (Disney) that it is more of a feudal kingdom than a business. 

10 minutes ago, funhusker said:

If you can’t see the difference between managing your own body and owning an object, you got issues.

If you think 'managing your own body' requires killing someone else.

6 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Are you an Anti-Choicer too?  Why do you hate choice?  

1 minute ago, Scarlet said:

The irony on a day individual liberty got butt raped.

Question I am posing on other fora,   would you support a state law that required a woman to demonstrate good cause before it might issue her an abortion permit?

17 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Now that Roe v Wade is overturned and the “mission accomplished”, why would a “Christian” not vote to promote healthcare and reduce gun violence?

 

 

The same reason an atheist wouldn't vote to limit government and protect individual liberty?

5 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Oh.  So “Christian” voters truly are all talk and about appearances.  I guess I just hoped for better.

huh?

Oh @funhusker  I forgot to add that I am here because my Facebook friends are utterly uninterested in today''s decision.  There is only some tweet embeds from the usual suspects of people who politard all day long.  Part of this is because 'the leaker' inoculated America to the news.  I imagine it would be quite different if this dropped out of blue. 

So while it will head the ticket at D fundraisers, I don't think anyone will change his vote because of this. 

On 5/23/2022 at 5:05 PM, Archy1221 said:

Killing other humans has always been a mortal sin as long as I’ve known.  
 

From the bishop’s stance it’s seems see the above.

 

I don’t know.  Maybe you can provide insight to how the Church feels about that.  I’ve never been taught.

It is a different analysis. The Catholic Church permits the death penalty when it is necessary.  A common example is where there are no reasonably stable prisons to protect the people from the criminal.  So Catholic death penalty supporters say they are making a policy choice.  That jurisprudence does not really apply to abortion.  

32 minutes ago, funhusker said:

I just had a thought about todays ruling.

 

Could this actually backfire on Republicans?  Like really badly?

 

The issue of abortion is actually going to matter now; it’s no longer an empty “pro choice” vs “pro life”.  Politicians will have to develop actual policy that voters like.

 

 

 

Am I crazy?

1. I doubt it. I am actually hoping the Ds run on the abortion platform and alienate the abuelas. 

2. Good thing the 5th amendment actually is in the Constitution.  

On 6/21/2022 at 5:24 AM, BigRedBuster said:

 

Well they should have been Jihadists fighting Americans.

41 minutes ago, commando said:

this is gruesome...be warned if you choose to watch this.  it looks like special effects from a predator movie.    feel free to move if needed mods.  this just seems to need to be in this thread.  

 

 

Is that professionally edited replete with a soundtrack?