More winning

[*bfine32*]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/06/26/supreme-court-anti-abortion-pro-life-pregnancy-center-nifla-becerra-column/735569002/

Quote:The Supreme Court of the U.S. has issued a monumental decision preserving the fundamental constitutional liberty of free speech for all Americans. The decision in NIFLA v. Becerra is a stark rebuke to the state of California’s attempt to restrict free speech rights. The Court’s decision protects pro-life pregnancy centers and blocks attempts by the government to force citizens to repeat messages with which they fundamentally disagree.

If I'm reading this right. California State law actually mandated that Pro-life centers must display a large sign advertising state funded abortion clinic and failure to do so could result in fines and closure.

I'm glad SCOTUS saw the wisdom in this before California took the next step and made it mandatory that anyone seeking counseling at a pro-life clinic would be required to have an abortion. There is hope for the Nation.

[fredtoast]

I have no problem with this decision as long as abortion providers are not required to inform women of the options of adoption and women at abortion clinics are not forced to have an ultrasound or hear the babies heart.

Personally I think the best thing would be for both sides to be required to advise women of all options, and Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers counsel women on all options.  But it the anti-choice side are afraid to educate a woman that is there right. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-27-2018, 12:12 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I have no problem with this decision as long as abortion providers are not required to inform women of the options of adoption and women at abortion clinics are not forced to have an ultrasound or hear the babies heart.

Personally I think the best thing would be for both sides to be required to advise women of all options, and Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers counsel women on all options.  But it the anti-choice side are afraid to educate a woman that is there right. 

Well I guess we agree that one side should not be mandated to advertise for the other side. I also hope women are educated on all their options. I just guess we disagree that we should try to sway toward giving the kid a chance.

But we both can celebrate the SCOTUS ruling.

BTW, you really think an ultrasound shouldn't be required prior to an abortion?

[fredtoast]

(06-27-2018, 12:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I also hope women are educated on all their options.

Then you disagree with the pro-life group that won this ruling.

Since Planned Parenthood is Pro-Choice they advise women on adoption options and will even refer them to adoption centers.  But these anti-choice clinics in California are afraid to educate women on all of their options.

(06-27-2018, 12:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: BTW, you really think an ultrasound shouldn't be required prior to an abortion?

What possible reason could there be to force a woman to submit to a procedure she does not need?

[*bfine32*]

(06-27-2018, 12:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: 1. Then you disagree with the pro-life group that won this ruling.

2. Since Planned Parenthood is Pro-Choice they advise women on adoption options and will even refer them to adoption centers.  But these anti-choice clinics in California are afraid to educate women on all of their options.



3. What possible reason could there be to force a woman to submit to a procedure she does not need?

1. Nope I agree

2. "Anti-choice" that's cute.

3. To determine viability of the child. It means something to some.

[Dill]

(06-27-2018, 12:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Then you disagree with the pro-life group that won this ruling.

Since Planned Parenthood is Pro-Choice they advise women on adoption options and will even refer them to adoption centers.  But these anti-choice clinics in California are afraid to educate women on all of their options.

What possible reason could there be to force a woman to submit to a procedure she does not need?

LOL I'll bet Mike Pence could think of a reason. 

[treee]

Guess they're moving the signs to the public property located near the entrance of clinics then.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Pregnant woman - "I can not believe that the government is separating children from their parents"
Abortion doctor - "Your babies brains have been sucked out of its head, your abortion is all done"

[*bfine32*]

(06-27-2018, 12:53 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL I'll bet Mike Pence could think of a reason. 

Yeah, he'd probably come up with the reason, that we should determine the viability of the child. Sadly that's LOL criteria to some.

[fredtoast]

(06-27-2018, 12:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 3. To determine viability of the child. It means something to some.

Anyone who it means anything to should have one, but the question was why it should be forced on someone who doesn't want it.

[fredtoast]

(06-27-2018, 01:56 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Pregnant woman - "I can not believe that the government is separating children from their parents"
Abortion doctor - "Your babies brains have been sucked out of its head, your abortion is all done"

Says the group who cares so much about innocent childre they want to punish them to achieve political goals.

[fredtoast]

(06-27-2018, 12:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 2. "Anti-choice" that's cute.

I don't know how you came up with "cute", but it is correct.

[jj22]

The decision is what it is. You have to respect the SCOTUS.

More winning is fine as long as you guys are fine with a Dem congress stealing a SCOTUS seat from the sitting POTUS (which we all know there will be outrage when that day comes from these same people basking in the glory of their scheme working).

Yes, winning.....

I'll make the point, even if some disagree. Any POTUS should be allowed to fill the SCOTUS seat. Regardless of party. That's Democracy, and why voting is so important. Stealing SCOTUS seats opened up a horrible can of worms for our Democracy. But what's done was done, and it will happen again (to Republicans this time), and like clockwork, you better believe there will be OUTRAGE from these same people popping corks in celebration of their scheme working to perfection this week.

[GMDino]

(06-27-2018, 09:15 AM)jj22 Wrote: The decision is what it is. You have to respect the SCOTUS.

More winning is fine as long as you guys are fine with a Dem congress stealing a SCOTUS seat from the sitting POTUS (which we all know there will be outrage when that day comes from these same people basking in the glory of their scheme working).

Yes, winning.....

No...the usual suspects will tell you that the new Justice won't have a "political" leaning at all!  At least that was their argument during the hearings about him.

And some time in the next 20 years he'll side with the "liberals" and they will cite that as proof that he is not merely a "conservative".

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 09:15 AM)jj22 Wrote: The decision is what it is. You have to respect the SCOTUS.

More winning is fine as long as you guys are fine with a Dem congress stealing a SCOTUS seat from the sitting POTUS (which we all know there will be outrage when that day comes from these same people basking in the glory of their scheme working).

Yes, winning.....

I'll make the point, even if some disagree. Any POTUS should be allowed to fill the SCOTUS seat. Regardless of party. That's Democracy, and why voting is so important. Stealing SCOTUS seats opened up a horrible can of worms for our Democracy. But what's done was done, and it will happen again (to Republicans this time), and like clockwork, you better believe there will be OUTRAGE from these same people popping corks in celebration of their scheme working to perfection this week.

If we disagreed when the Republicans did it, is it OK for us to disagree if the Dems do it? I just want to make sure of the rules beforehand.

[jj22]

Sure, but you know how this works. We see it now with Republicans fighting for private businesses to be able to refuse service but "outraged" when it happens to them. The hypocrisy is real and prevalent (and unfortunate).

[GMDino]

(06-27-2018, 09:11 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Says the group who cares so much about innocent childre they want to punish them to achieve political goals.

To be fair most do not like "children"...the actual, physical human beings.  They like "children"...the fetus that can't be seen nor needs cared for by anyone but its host body mother.  

Just like the support the SCOTUS decisions as final and absolute...except for abortion.

[*Nately120*]

(06-27-2018, 01:56 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Pregnant woman - "I can not believe that the government is separating children from their parents"
Abortion doctor - "Your babies brains have been sucked out of its head, your abortion is all done"

I'm no historian but didn't we put children in internment camps before the populace decided abortion was no big deal?

[Belsnickel]

I agree with the ruling. As said earlier, this will also apply to red states that have passed laws requiring abortion providers to provide certain information. It will also be applied to physician gag laws, like those in Florida and other states that prohibit doctors from asking patients about guns.

This is seen as a victory for the right, but the left will benefit as much, if not more, than the right with this ruling. Honestly, it is just a win for free speech.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 09:46 AM)jj22 Wrote: Sure, but you know how this works. We see it now with Republicans fighting for private businesses to be able to refuse service but "outraged" when it happens to them. The hypocrisy is real and prevalent (and unfortunate).

Again, fighting for someone's right, and agreeing with them are two different things.  Think of it like free speech.