Republican Views About Rape

[rocks 494]

you objected to the term 'infantcide'..which partial birth abortion is. they don't share your view on killing babies. they are trying outlaw the practice in your state. move to a more infant murder friendly state.

I defined infanticide for you. Go back and read #32.

[JohnR! 5,495]

I defined infanticide for you. Go back and read #32.

In addition, the SCOTUS already ruled on abortion back in 1973.

It has been almost 40 years!

[SMOKE 1,426]

I defined infanticide for you. Go back and read #32.

you read what you posted in post #32. partial birth abortion IS infantcide.

[JohnR! 5,495]

you read what you posted in post #32. partial birth abortion IS infantcide.

Not in the United States, according to the SCOTUS.

more to read: http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/stenberg-v-carhart-legal-analysis

July 1, 2000Sending a strong message regarding the paramount importance of women's health, the United States Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart held unconstitutional Nebraska's ban on so-called "partial-birth abortion." The Court struck Nebraska's law on two independent grounds, either of which alone would have been sufficient to condemn it: (1) the ban's failure to include a health exception threatened women's health and (2) the ban's language encompasses the most common method of second-trimester abortion, placing a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking abortions and thereby imposing an "undue burden."

THE MAJORITY OPINION

The majority opinion in Stenberg, written by Justice Breyer, and joined by Justices Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, and Ginsburg, begins by reviewing certain basic principles that have guided abortion jurisprudence since Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and that were most recently reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). The Court reiterates the long-standing rule that even laws that ban abortions after the fetus is viable must contain a health exception. "[A]t a minimum," the Court therefore concludes, the Constitution requires a health exception for laws, like Nebraska's, that also regulate abortions before viability. Stenberg v. Carhart, No. 99-830, 2000 LEXIS 4484, at *29, 530 U.S.____ (2000).

[SMOKE 1,426]

Not in the United States, according to the SCOTUS.

it is. the scotus opinion will change soon too.

[JohnR! 5,495]

it is. the scotus opinion will change soon too.

Still, until they revert or change their ruling, your statement is incorrect, all the same. Furthermore there is no case before the SCOTUS that would prompt them to revisit the ruling.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Gegel

[SMOKE 1,426]

Still, until they revert or change their ruling, your statement is incorrect, all the same. Furthermore there is no case before the SCOTUS that would prompt them to revisit the ruling.

yet.

[JohnR! 5,495]

yet.

Precisely. Since there are no cases in front of the SCOTUS, yet, using infanticide and abortion interchangeably is incorrect, in the United States.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

One may discuss what the law is, or is not. One may discuss what the law should be, or should not be. Still, it is incorrect to say that the law is something that one believes it should be if, in fact, the law merely does not coincide with one's opinion.

[^_^ 5,021]

One may discuss what the law is, or is not. One may discuss what the law should be, or should not be. Still, it is incorrect to say that the law is something that one believes it should be if, in fact, the law merely does not coincide with one's opinion.

Goodness, you are so verbose!

[rocks 494]

I'm still waiting for an explanation for this weird statement.

you're not being told anything by 'the republican party'. you're gobbling up left wing propaganda designed to make you hate republicans in general. it appears to be working on you.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

One may discuss what the law is, or is not. One may discuss what the law should be, or should not be. Still, it is incorrect to say that the law is something that one believes it should be if, in fact, the law merely does not coincide with one's opinion.

Quiet, woman! We have bacon!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It worked!

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

It worked!

SILENCE! Some of us have jobs in which we can deploy that kind of obfuscatory language.

[^_^ 5,021]

My job requires me to communicate like I would with a five year old. In short sentences using short words. Managers are basically overgrown children.