ROE VS. WADE NO LONGER EXISTS IN TEXAS AS SUPREME COURT FAILS TO ACT,UPDATE:Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

[fonzerrillii]

After reading this law… there is a new wrinkle and I would fucking love for someone to use this..

technically since this is a civil liability it can be stopped by the automatic stay of a bankruptcy and discharged just like any of depth..

so there are ways around this..

still no way that this law stands…

but I’m just bringing another loophole in this hot mess

 

[Camille]

cool story bro. lots of anecdotal evidence.

here are facts:

This law will actually create more black babies. White chicks take morning after pill and practice birth control. They get their shots as soon as their period hits. That's the difference.

Thanks, Obama!!

Abortion rate declines to historic low, with Obamacare a likely contributor, study says

The U.S. abortion rate has hit its lowest point since the procedure became legal nationwide in 1973, according to a new study.

www.latimes.com

Access to birth control through ACA drives down abortion rate

ihpi.umich.edu

Abortion decline causes include Obamacare mandate

The number of U.S. abortions has fallen to its lowest level since the practice was legalized in 1973, a new report said Wednesday, drawing cheers and jeers from pro-life advocates.

www.washingtontimes.com

 

[Tito_Jackson]

mr. Jackson…

Are you a lawyer? I’ve been a lawyer for 14 years… I know how this shit works and the way this law reads…

The way the law reads and the way that any joe blow off the street can sue someone civilly … yes the dad can be sued. Technically the way it reads.. the woman who gets the money from the dad could possibly sue the dad for giving her the fucking money… even if she doesn’t even get an abortion. The pregnant woman could basically be her own dog the bounty hunter and the law doesn’t give an exception


why would the state ag office have anything to do with this law.. since the law itself clearly says the state and any government official is not the enforcing body of this law…


im going to repeat this…

there is no way this law is going to work… for one of the reasons that I just listed.

My point has never been about the success or lack thereof regarding the new Texas law. It was simply properly interpreting the jargon and literature.

You asked, "why would the AG have anything to do with this?" Well, logically and from prior experience and precedents, you know when people have questions they will call the local offices for answers. It is incumbent for all attorneys to familiarize themselves with the law so that they can prepare themselves for the ish show that is coming. Moreover, it is 100% important for the AGs office to fully understand what is a civil suit and what is a criminal suit regarding this law. This is why they were able to answer my questions when I called.

Here are a few points people should consider and need to know and understand.

• Abortion patients themselves, cannot be sued. That's right, the woman cannot and would never be sued. But, the father if he provides money or even a ride can be sued. This point has been glossed over or 100% incorrectly conveyed to the public. Many on BGOL have falsely stated that the mother can be sued.
• This law is not a ban on abortion. It is a restriction/ limitation. Abortion is still legal in Texas.
• Texas is not the first to place limitations on when an abortion can be performed.
• Only 7 states have zero restrictions on abortions. Most people cannot name these states.
• Only 8 states fully prohibit abortion. Most people cannot name these states.
• Roe v Wade was in 1973, the science and what was considered "viable" is based upon science from almost 50 years ago.

This is a computer from 1973. Imagine being forced to use this to make decisions in 2021.

I've always maintained the same position. I am not an advocate for abortion. I would never encourage anyone to do it. However, if the law grants you the right to abort, then you have full autonomy to exercise that right. Conversely, if you are in a place where abortion is restricted or prohibited and you violate that law, you should be prosecuted.

My biggest pushback is the lack of knowledge and understanding regarding the procedure and life itself. Additionally, this political jousting is a distraction from bigger issues and is just another ploy to divide people while preparing for the next election.

 

[fonzerrillii]

I quit…..

 

[fonzerrillii]

My point has never been about the success or lack thereof regarding the new Texas law. It was simply properly interpreting the jargon and literature.

You asked, "why would the AG have anything to do with this?" Well, logically and from prior experience and precedents, you know when people have questions they will call the local offices for answers. It is incumbent for all attorneys to familiarize themselves with the law so that they can prepare themselves for the ish show that is coming. Moreover, it is 100% important for the AGs office to fully understand what is a civil suit and what is a criminal suit regarding this law. This is why they were able to answer my questions when I called.

Here are a few points people should consider and need to know and understand.

• Abortion patients themselves, cannot be sued. That's right, the woman cannot and would never be sued. But, the father if he provides money or even a ride can be sued. This point has been glossed over or 100% incorrectly conveyed to the public. Many on BGOL have falsely stated that the mother can be sued.
• This law is not a ban on abortion. It is a restriction/ limitation. Abortion is still legal in Texas.
• Texas is not the first to place limitations on when an abortion can be performed.
• Only 7 states have zero restrictions on abortions. Most people cannot name these states.
• Only 8 states fully prohibit abortion. Most people cannot name these states.
• Roe v Wade was in 1973, the science and what was considered "viable" is based upon science from almost 50 years ago.

This is a computer from 1973. Imagine being forced to use this to make decisions in 2021.

I've always maintained the same position. I am not an advocate for abortion. I would never encourage anyone to do it. However, if the law grants you the right to abort, then you have full autonomy to exercise that right. Conversely, if you are in a place where abortion is restricted or prohibited and you violate that law, you should be prosecuted.

My biggest pushback is the lack of knowledge and understanding regarding the procedure and life itself. Additionally, this political jousting is a distraction from bigger issues and is just another ploy to divide people while preparing for the next election.

I’m just going to say this one more time…

there is no way this law can stand….

a government can’t not delegate the enforcement of a restriction on a constitutional right to a 3rd party…..

thats the thing about this law….. the only reason that the Supreme Court didn’t issue an injunction in my mind is cause the lawsuit that is before the 5th circuit names a government official in his capacity as an official and not a private citizen…. Since the law explicitly states that a government official can not prosecute this law… there is a standing issue. Personally I think they still should have issued an injunction while the case moves through the motions… but there is no way this stands… it would completely destroy all constitutional precedent.

 

[Tito_Jackson]

I’m just going to say this one more time…

there is no way this law can stand….

a government can’t not delegate the enforcement of a restriction on a constitutional right to a 3rd party…..

thats the thing about this law….. the only reason that the Supreme Court didn’t issue an injunction in my mind is cause the lawsuit that is before the 5th circuit names a government official in his capacity as an official and not a private citizen…. Since the law explicitly states that a government official can not prosecute this law… there is a standing issue. Personally I think they still should have issued an injunction while the case moves through the motions… but there is no way this stands… it would completely destroy all constitutional precedent.

I agree, the law as written may not remain in its existing form. However, the idea of limiting and or restricting will.

You have stated a number of times that this law somehow contradicts the constitution. This is false. As a Harvard Law attorney put it: just as owning a gun is protected by the constitution, the manner in which it is exercised is still restricted. This is and always has been with abortion and the 14th amendment. This law would not as you put it, "completely destroy all constitutional precedent."

I'm going to repeat this because it is highly relevant and seems to be ignored by most when having the abortion conversation.

• This law is not a ban on abortion. It is a restriction/ limitation. Abortion is still legal in Texas.
• Texas is not the first to place limitations on when an abortion can be performed.
• Only 7 states have zero restrictions on abortions. Most people cannot name these states.
• Only 8 states fully prohibit abortion. Most people cannot name these states.

Again, Roe v Wade is 50 years old and needs to be overhauled. It's crazy, but Roe v Wade advocates for abortions up to the 3rd trimester. I am sure no one on the board supports aborting 6 month old babies.

 

[shaddyvillethug]

I don't consider it a penalty, but I've read enough BGOL comments over the years to know that the MENFOLK do. In fact they consider paying for dinner to get to know someone even a penalty and are salty about it if things don't work out for a while or they don't at least get their diq sucked. The only thing they want to spring for are condoms and I'm convinced 85% don't want to do that hence the RAWLIFE BGOL is known for.

You have gat to be a lesbian.

 

[fonzerrillii]

I agree, the law as written may not remain in its existing form. However, the idea of limiting and or restricting will.

You have stated a number of times that this law somehow contradicts the constitution. This is false. As a Harvard Law attorney put it: just as owning a gun is protected by the constitution, the manner in which it is exercised is still restricted. This is and always has been with abortion and the 14th amendment. This law would not as you put it, "completely destroy all constitutional precedent."

I'm going to repeat this because it is highly relevant and seems to be ignored by most when having the abortion conversation.

• This law is not a ban on abortion. It is a restriction/ limitation. Abortion is still legal in Texas.
• Texas is not the first to place limitations on when an abortion can be performed.
• Only 7 states have zero restrictions on abortions. Most people cannot name these states.
• Only 8 states fully prohibit abortion. Most people cannot name these states.

Again, Roe v Wade is 50 years old and needs to be overhauled. It's crazy, but Roe v Wade advocates for abortions up to the 3rd trimester. (Fam.... Roe v. Wade has already been overhauled... by a Conservative Majority) I am sure no one on the board supports aborting 6 month old babies.

Fam.... this is from the Supreme court... this is from their memo.

"The applicants now before us have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue. But their application also presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden. For example, federal courts enjoy the power to enjoin individuals tasked with enforcing laws, not the laws themselves. California v. Texas, 593 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 8). And it is unclear whether the named defendants in this lawsuit can or will seek to enforce the Texas law against the applicants in a manner that might permit our intervention. Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 409 (2013) (“threatened injury must be certainly impending” (citation omitted)). The State has represented that neither it nor its executive employees possess the authority to enforce the Texas law either directly or indirectly. Nor is it clear whether, under existing precedent, this Court can issue an injunction against state judges asked to decide a lawsuit under Texas’s law. See Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 163 (1908). Finally, the sole private-citizen respondent before us has filed an affidavit stating that he has no present intention to enforce the law. In light of such issues, we cannot say the applicants have met their burden to prevail in an injunction or stay application. In reaching this conclusion, we stress that we do not purport to resolve definitively any jurisdictional or substantive claim in the applicants’ lawsuit. In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts."

The Following is from Chief Justice Robert's dissent as to the Constitutionality of this law .... and remember Justice Roberts is conservative.

"The statutory scheme before the Court is not only unusual, but unprecedented. The legislature has imposed a prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks, and then essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large. The desired consequence appears to be to insulate the State from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime."

This is from Breyer and his point is the point that the Court as a whole will have to look at ... Texas’s law delegates to private individuals the power to prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion during the first stage of pregnancy. But a woman has a federal constitutional right to obtain an abortion during that first stage. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 846 (1992); (Everybody looks at Roe V Wade ... but you have to also look at Planned Parenthood.) And a “State cannot delegate . . . a veto power [over the right to obtain an abortion] which the state itself is absolutely and totally prohibited from exercising during the first trimester of pregnancy.” Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52, 69 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, we have made clear that “since the State cannot regulate or proscribe abortion during the first stage . . . the State cannot delegate authority to any particular person . . . to prevent abortion during that same period.” Ibid. The applicants persuasively argue that Texas’s law does precisely that."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf

Planned parenthood followed the test established in ROE..

The Essential test ... Based around a Person's right to Due Process under the 14 amendment.

(1) Women have the right to choose to have an abortion prior to viability and to do so without undue interference from the State; (2) the State can restrict the abortion procedure post-viability, so long as the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman's life or health; and (3) the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child.

In Planned Parenthood the Court said ..... f the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child."


Texas tried something like this again in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt .. when they placed restrictions on the delivery of abortion services which created an undue burden for women.


So this time ...... Texas is doing the Whole Woman's Health shit ... but they have delegated the enforcement of the restrictions on public citizens to try an end around on the first prong of the Roe test and they are doing this before the viability of the fetus.

Like I've said before ... this law can't stand because if it does... then a State could use this same framework to delegate shit to get around other constitutionally protected rights.




Side note...

You do know I'm a lawyer fam.

 

[fonzerrillii]

No one is pro abortion. I'm not pro abortion. I'm pro letting a woman make her own decisions.

All of this right here....


A woman should have the right to make her decisions with her own body... period.

If there was a law about all men having to get snipped after their first child...

How many dudes would be in here ... talking about Pro Snipped or Not pro Snipped

The Answer is Zero

Every dude would be here in talking about.... the government can't control my body.

 

[Camille]

You have gat to be a lesbian.

Nope. Strictly Dickly.

 

[shaddyvillethug]

Nope. Strictly Dickly.

And if that nigga goes raw and makes a baby and wants to have it, but u have a different choice in mind and go to the chop shop what does that make u?

OR

that nigga goes in raw doesn’t want to have this baby but you don’t want to have a abortion and now he’s faced with a new child, Chile support and a broken family.

abortion is the biggest double standard in the universe.

how u gonna kill my future Lebron james all cos u don’t want to look fat?

foh

 

[fonzerrillii]

so every person that has been raped reports their pregnancy

most rapes aren’t even reported…

man of man… BGOL logic is fucking ridiculous..

I guess since Texas is using Pre-cog technology to eliminate All Rapists ... I guess I shouldn't have to worry about unreported rapes.

 

[mangobob79]

I guess since Texas is using Pre-cog technology to eliminate All Rapists ... I guess I shouldn't have to worry about unreported rapes.

the idiocy continues .. but folks want u to believe this was right from jump its all gonna keep cascading from here on out

 

[roblo]

I’m just going to say this one more time…

there is no way this law can stand….

a government can’t not delegate the enforcement of a restriction on a constitutional right to a 3rd party…..

thats the thing about this law….. the only reason that the Supreme Court didn’t issue an injunction in my mind is cause the lawsuit that is before the 5th circuit names a government official in his capacity as an official and not a private citizen…. Since the law explicitly states that a government official can not prosecute this law… there is a standing issue. Personally I think they still should have issued an injunction while the case moves through the motions… but there is no way this stands… it would completely destroy all constitutional precedent.

There is no constitutional right to abortion.

 

[shaddyvillethug]

Has anybody raped anybody on this site?


no?

Then why the fuck yawl keep bringing it up

@Tito_Jackson killin yawl niccas on the holiday weekend

ga damn

 

[ghoststrike]

I guess since Texas is using Pre-cog technology to eliminate All Rapists ... I guess I shouldn't have to worry about unreported rapes.

In other words, no exceptions for rape victims since they have up to 6-Weeks like everyone else:

AUSTIN (KXAN) — Texas Governor Greg Abbott weighed in on a burning question related to the state’s recently passed bill banning abortions after six weeks: what about victims of rape?
During a Tuesday press conference, Abbott said the law gives rape victims up to six weeks to get abortion and thusly “does not do that [force victims to have their assaulter’s child].”
“Let’s be clear: rape is a crime,” Abbott said. “And Texas will work tirelessly to make sure that we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them and prosecuting them and getting them off the streets.”

The clown show barker said we'll eliminate rapists by arresting them (after the fact) so there's no need for concern

Just WOW

 

[fonzerrillii]

In other words, no exceptions for rape victims:

https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/gov...ersial-texas-elections-bill-into-law-tuesday/

yeap ...

but like they say... this isn't against the women that want the abortion ..

Just the people the provide the abortion to the woman that desperately want the abortion.

How does that make any sense...

Answer..

it fucking doesnt

 

[Camille]

And if that nigga goes raw and makes a baby and wants to have it, but u have a different choice in mind and go to the chop shop what does that make u?

OR

that nigga goes in raw doesn’t want to have this baby but you don’t want to have a abortion and now he’s faced with a new child, Chile support and a broken family.

abortion is the biggest double standard in the universe.

how u gonna kill my future Lebron james all cos u don’t want to look fat?

foh

At my age, child birth is not an issue. Even when I was younger with PCOS I was told I'd need fertility drugs if I wanted to have kids, and I never got to that point, so again, not an issue. However there are women and girls I care about, some who reside in Texas, for whom I do care, and should they ever be faced with an unwanted pregnancy for whatever reason, I'd like them to have options.

 

[shaddyvillethug]

At my age, child birth is not an issue. Even when I was younger with PCOS I was told I'd need fertility drugs if I wanted to have kids, and I never got to that point, so again, not an issue. However there are women and girls I care about, some who reside in Texas, for whom I do care, and should they ever be faced with an unwanted pregnancy for whatever reason, I'd like them to have options.

Y’all all some killers

you need jesus

 

[shaddyvillethug]

A lot of you BGOLers mamas shoulda had abortions IMO

 

[Camille]

Y’all all some killers

you need jesus

I've got Jesus. In the bible life doesn't begin until the baby takes it's first breath and their soul enters their body.

 

[shaddyvillethug]

I've got Jesus. In the bible life doesn't begin until the baby takes it's first breath and their soul enters their body.

It’s your body

not YOUR DNA

 

[Camille]

A lot of you BGOLers mamas shoulda had abortions IMO

Too late now, you're already here. Actually my mom's doctor told her she was too old to have another kid (42) and told her she needed to abort me. He made her take tests all the time and said if any of them came back abnormal, she would need to abort. She said she prayed over me daily. I'm still mentally scarred from being introduced as her "abortion". SMH

 

[fonzerrillii]

Ok.... Next question...

Since this is enforced by private citizens...

How the fuck does this get around Hipa?

Update... looks like I'm not the only one asking that question

Texas' 'Heartbeat Act' is now law. How would lawsuits work?

The so-called "Heartbeat Act" banning most abortions will be enforced civilly, rather than criminally. It allows people to sue others who help provide an abortion.

www.kvue.com

Since the mother can't be sued under this law..... Which means she will not be a part of the suit ... therefore she wont be able to agree to have her medical records under seal ... meaning Hipa will be in play.



How in the hell is the private citizen going to be able to provide documentation to prove their case against the provider of the abortion? The bill doesn't say shit about that.


it's not unusual for a physician to have to record information related to an abortion because under Roe v. Wade... the state does have an interest after viability ....

but allowing a Third party into this is fucking insane......


Also here is another fucked up part of the law..

(i) Notwithstanding any other law, a court may not award
costs or attorney's fees under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or
any other rule adopted by the supreme court under Section 22.004,
Government Code, to a defendant in an action brought under this
section.


-- so basically if someone frivolously sues you and you get the case dismissed...
You can't ask for Attorney's fee or court costs...

 

[blackpepper]

...the RAWLIFE BGOL is known for.

 

[fonzerrillii]

There is no constitutional right to abortion.

I fucking QUIT!!


If I were a doctor... and I talked about medicine

BGOL niggas would still be saying.... You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[shaddyvillethug]

Too late now, you're already here. Actually my mom's doctor told her she was too old to have another kid (42) and told her she needed to abort me. He made her take tests all the time and said if any of them came back abnormal, she would need to abort. She said she prayed over me daily. I'm still mentally scarred from being introduced as her "abortion". SMH

 

[shaddyvillethug]

Too late now, you're already here. Actually my mom's doctor told her she was too old to have another kid (42) and told her she needed to abort me. He made her take tests all the time and said if any of them came back abnormal, she would need to abort. She said she prayed over me daily. I'm still mentally scarred from being introduced as her "abortion". SMH

I came out planned

C-sextion

Mom found out. And prepared for said date.

knocked that lil shit out and went back
To
Work the same day.

Foh wit yo old ass mama

 

[roblo]

I fucking QUIT!!


If I were a doctor... and I talked about medicine

BGOL niggas would still be saying.... You don't know what you are talking about.

But it isn't. If you're a lawyer you should know this.

 

[ghoststrike]

yeap ...

but like they say... this isn't against the women that want the abortion ..

Just the people the provide the abortion to the woman that desperately want the abortion.

How does that make any sense...

Answer..

it fucking doesnt

None at all

Nothing but 11th hour desperation

 

[fonzerrillii]

There is no constitutional right to abortion.

Have you never heard of the 14th Amendment??

Do you even know how they came to the result of Roe v. Wade...

Let me just explain:

The Due process clause of the 14 Amendment prohibits deprivation of "life, liberty, or property" by the government except as authorized by law.
The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials. The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without a fair procedure. This is what the Court looks at when they decide most discrimination actions or seizures.

This is important because in Roe v. Wade... the court held ... That the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's right to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.

So yes... there's isn't a Constitutional right to an abortion ... but a Woman has a constitutional right to choose if they want to have an abortion or not. Under the right to privacy they have a right.... but the Court also held that the right isnt absolute it is weighed against the Government interest in protecting woman's health and prenatal life. Which makes sense.... Once a child becomes viable it is hence a life and is also under Constitutional protections.

 

[fonzerrillii]

But it isn't. If you're a lawyer you should know this.

and I just explained to you under the simplest and easiest way that I know how...

Here is a more technical explanation

Abortion

www.law.cornell.edu

Also do you want me to repost the memo from the supreme court ... because my quote that you used is almost word for word what Justice Breyer said in his dissent. So I'm pretty sure that a Supreme Court justice knows what's constitutional.

 

[roblo]

Have you never heard of the 14th Amendment??

Do you even know how they came to the result of Roe v. Wade...

Let me just explain:

The Due process clause of the 14 Amendment prohibits deprivation of "life, liberty, or property" by the government except as authorized by law.
The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials. The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without a fair procedure. This is what the Court looks at when they decide most discrimination actions or seizures.

This is important because in Roe v. Wade... the court held ... That the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.

So yes... there's isn't a Constitutional right to an abortion ... but a Woman has a constitutional right to choose if they want to have an abortion or not. Under the right to privacy they have a right.... but the Court also held that the right isnt not absolute it is weighed against the Government interest in protecting woman's health and prenatal life. Which makes sense.... Once a child becomes viable it is hence a life and is also under Constitutional protections.

Sounds like you agree that there is no constitutional right to abortion. It was interpreted to be so as a right to privacy under the 14th amendment but that can interpreted another way if the prevailing court so chooses.

 

[roblo]

and I just explained to you under the simplest and easiest way that I know how...

Here is a more technical explanation

Abortion

www.law.cornell.edu

Also do you want me to repost the memo from the supreme court ... because my quote that you used is almost word for word what Justice Breyer said in his dissent. So I'm pretty sure that a Supreme Court justice knows what's constitutional.

What is constitutional is subject to the judges who are on the court. Several bad things were once "constitutional" and no longer are. Depends whose sitting on the courts at the time.

 

[fonzerrillii]

Sounds like you agree that there is no constitutional right to abortion. It was interpreted to be so as a right to privacy under the 14th amendment but that can interpreted another way if the prevailing court so chooses.

What is constitutional is subject to the judges who are on the court. Several bad things were once "constitutional" and no longer are. Depends whose sitting on the courts at the time.

I don't even know why I try on here...

You do know that even Coon Ass Clarence Thomas didn't dissent to the Constitutional right to Privacy that Women have. His dissent in Planned Parenthood was based on different reasons.

The 14 Amendment is pretty clear
" No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Yes I do agree that court has been known to overrule themselves ....

But I don't see them overruling this.... they might change the viability framework but they are not going to overrule a woman's constitutional right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14 amendment and to deny a woman the right to choose what they do with their own body would have to say that the Governmental interest outweighs the persons fundamental right to "Be left alone" .....

Also .... people wouldn't want this shit overturned anyway..... Like I've repeatedly said this shit would completely fuck constitutional precedent..

In 1969 ... the Supreme court held that the right to privacy protected a person's right to own and possess porn in their home.

So let's say... the court allowed this law... then what stops a Conservative state from using the same concept to effectively ban porn.

Griswold v. Connecticut -- upheld martial privacy allowing married couples to still use contraceptives ....

I could go on and on ....

Idiots are up here.... just saying.... OH I'm pro-life without even thinking about the huge can of worms that will open up if the Court completely overrules Roe v. Wade...

Jesus christ

Fuckers have to stop being dumb and wake the fuck up.