Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KJP

Women's Rights

Recommended Posts

Well, you know, the East Side and Portsmouth need to have the same rep, same with the rest of town needing to be Fair and balanced with Warren County.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, OldBearcat said:

Where is Cincy's Democratic Representative then? 

 

We are talking about the state legislature, regarding their passing right-wing abortion legislation. In the statehouse, most of Cincinnati's representatives are Democrats. In my district, the Democrat usually carries 80% of the vote. By comparison, in suburban/rural districts, Republicans may be "safe" but with closer to 50-60% of the vote. Whatever you may think of the US Congressional Districts map, the state maps are fairly straightforward:

 

http://www.ohiohouse.gov/members/district-map

 

http://www.ohiosenate.gov/senators/district-map

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The GOP in action....

 

Alabama is ranked:

#1 in teen pregnancy
#2 in infant mortality 
#3 in obesity
#4 in divorce rate
#5 in poverty
#5 in federal dollars dependency
#45 in education
#46 in health care

Also, #2 in porn consumption
(Mississippi is #1)

 

Meanwhile, after all, fair is fair.....

 

“Hey, if this is all about preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place, every red blooded, ammo hoarding, God fearing patriot in this state should be lined up around the block to have their weener tubes cut,” Shaw said. “If they’re not cool with someone in the government making their reproductive decisions, they should stop sticking their noses into our uteruses.”

http://www.alternativelyfacts.com/alabama-democrat-proposes-mandatory-vasectomies-until-marriage/

Edited by KJP

"Save the planet. Move to the city." -- The Downtowner podcast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cincinnati doesn't totally surprise me, but Milwaukee does. I wonder if it was a German thing?


“To an Ohio resident - wherever he lives - some other part of his state seems unreal.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2019 at 2:46 PM, Brutus_buckeye said:

Even if the justices are sympathetic to the cause, they do not take kindly to people or legislatures that openly disregard the precedent in place

 

Does that apply to justices who are only in power because of Senators who openly disregarded the precedent in place for filling Supreme Court vacancies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very interesting that the Alabama law does not protect the "humans" that are created using in vitro fertilization. During the IVF process, it is standard for multiple eggs to be fertilized and then for only one (or in some cases, a few) to be placed back into the woman. That one "human" gets lucky and gets to survive while its "brothers" and "sisters" are "murdered" by the doctor who has prevented implantation.

 

It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that they don't actually believe a fertilized egg is a human, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, taestell said:

 

Does that apply to justices who are only in power because of Senators who openly disregarded the precedent in place for filling Supreme Court vacancies?

I think people need to get over the Garland thing. Move on, it is a very tired narrative. Garland was a very qualified jurist, and politics got in the way, but that had been going on for 30+ years since the Bork nomination.  Fact is, you cant waste time on the whole Garland thing, because you don't know how it would affect the future. If Bork was on the SC, chances are Obama nominates the replacement and it gets confirmed instead of having the seat go to kennedy and have the nomination fall to Trump. The dynamic of the court would have been changed significantly over the last 40 years if Bork had actually gotten in and the court would not have been as conservative. Anyway, Move on from the Garland argument, it is overdone now.

 

To answer your question (although I know it was intended as snark), regardless how they reached the Court, the justices actually take the position seriously and respect prior precedence and past rules of the Court when creating their opinions. Outside of say Dred Scott, it is very hard to find a case that the Court will overturn on its face. The Alabama law is asking them to do that. That is why it is not really a threat. The heartbeat bills are much more of a threat because they do not actually challenge the law on its face the way the Alabama law does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...