The Courts (not specific to either party)

[Archy1221]

10 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Do you view the morning after pill as a contraceptive or as an abortion?

I’m a heartbeat person so I guess contraceptive. 

[BigRedBuster]

26 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Did contraception get banned??

Might want to check out Thomas’s opinion on what should be looked at next. 

[Scarlet]

22 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Did contraception get banned??

You're really bad at this.

 

Remember your posts about nobody having their voting right infringed upon?  Then they were.

 

Remember your posts about it being hyperbole that exceptions would jeopardized if Roe vs Wade was overturned?  That's happening.

 

 

 

 

 

[Archy1221]

3 minutes ago, Scarlet said:

ou're really bad at this.

 

Remember your posts about nobody having their voting right infringed upon?  Then they were.

Yet they weren’t.  At some point quite making stuff up 

[Lorewarn]

28 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

What are you even talking about in the first paragraph??  If that happens where you come from, then God help ya.   

 

You said traditional marriage. What year did your idea of traditional marriage start and what does that mean?

[Scarlet]

Just now, Archy1221 said:

Yet they weren’t.  At some point quite making stuff up 

New Mexico and Texas would beg to differ.

 

Stop making things up.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Fun Fact: In 1967, Clarence Thomas' marriage would have been illegal in several states. I mean, as long as we're moving backwards..........

[Scarlet]

2 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Fun Fact: In 1967, Clarence Thomas' marriage would have been illegal in several states. I mean, as long as we're moving backwards..........

Wouldn't that be a blessing to him?  

[knapplc]

Thomas, the hypocrite married to a woman who tried to overthrow America's government, directly targets Obergefell v. Hodges and Griswold v. Connecticut, but somehow left Loving v. Virginia out of his assent.

 

But make no mistake that same-sex marriage is on the same hit list as abortion, contraception, sex education.... and porn.

 

These Justices are young, relatively speaking. They have decades to keep this up.

[teachercd]

16 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Thomas, the hypocrite married to a woman who tried to overthrow America's government, directly targets Obergefell v. Hodges and Griswold v. Connecticut, but somehow left Loving v. Virginia out of his assent.

 

But make no mistake that same-sex marriage is on the same hit list as abortion, contraception, sex education.... and porn.

 

These Justices are young, relatively speaking. They have decades to keep this up.

HEY...Come on.  

 

I think we all just need to settle the f#&% down.

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

Anti-Choicers (we need to call them what they really are) seem to be getting their way on this one.

 

To all the anti-choicers, why do you hate that people can make choices?

So does that mean pro-choicers are pro-death?  Of course not.      We've had this little tit-for-tat before.  Forget the names. The names only divide.   Most pro-lifers put the life of the baby in the womb as the first priority - that doesn't make them anti-choice.  I'm not anti-choice - that isn't my motivation.  My motivation is the preservation of the life in the womb.   Cannot the govt protect the life in the womb as well as provide for all of the woman's needs as well?  If we can fund wars overseas we can provide help to every woman who needs it while carrying that baby and have programs to assist the child after birth -   I'd like to find that rare political candidate who is pro-life in the womb and pro-life outside of the womb - who can bridge the divide between the 2 groups.  At this point I suspect that candidate would show up on the Dem side as I'm not sure when or if  the GOP will ever take the lead on domestic social/welfare issues. 

[teachercd]

3 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

So does that mean pro-choicers are pro-death?  Of course not.      We've had this little tit-for-tat before.  Forget the names. The names only divide.   Most pro-lifers put the life of the baby in the womb as the first priority - that doesn't make them anti-choice.  I'm not anti-choice - that isn't my motivation.  My motivation is the preservation of the life in the womb.   Cannot the govt protect the life in the womb as well as provide for all of the woman's needs as well?  If we can fund wars overseas we can provide help to every woman who needs it while carrying that baby and have programs to assist the child after birth -   I'd like to find that rare political candidate who is pro-life in the womb and pro-life outside of the womb - who can bridge the divide between the 2 groups.  At this point I suspect that candidate would show up on the Dem side as I'm not sure when or if  the GOP will ever take the lead on domestic social/welfare issues. 

I am fine with it being called Pro-Death.

 

Why are you not fine with it being called Anti-Choice?

 

It doesn't matter what your motivation is it only matters what it becomes.  Which as we all know, is Anti-Choice.

[JJ Husker]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

I’m a heartbeat person so I guess contraceptive. 

Well then yes, some states want to ban contraceptives as they have the morning after pill on the chopping block without RvW protections.

[ZRod]

59 minutes ago, teachercd said:

HEY...Come on.  

 

I think we all just need to settle the f#&% down.

Don't look into what the UK is doing...

[suh_fan93]

Pritzker defeated our old Republican doofus Bruce Rauner for governor after Bruce wouldn't sign off on a budget during his tenure which turned out to be the nation's longest fiscal stalemate since the Great Depression.  The Illinois House had to step in and finally override his continued budget vetoes.  Since he's been in office Illinois has finally received an overall credit upgrade after two decades of terrible credit.  He (JB) will be getting my vote for Governor or if he decides to run for the Presidency.