Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310344 comments on the Newsday story from Jan 22, 2008, titled Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision. In it, Newsday reports that:

Thousands of abortion opponents marched from the National Mall to the Supreme Court on Tuesday in their annual remembrance of the court's Roe v. Wade decision.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

sasssylicious

Jackson, NJ

#266346 Nov 26, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh horseshit Skanky. YOU are not affected in ANY way, shape or form. And NO businesses are forced to go against their religions. Your 'religion' and your jesus says NOTHING about providing insurance to its employees. Get a grip you dumb thing.
Sheesh. At least the stupid thing stopped bitching about her gas.
Huh? I am not affected by my religious freedoms being compromised? Really?

"""Your 'religion' and your jesus says NOTHING about providing insurance to its employees""" "

*My* Jesus? You mean the same "Jesus" that your wife and daughter have? THAT "Jesus"?

Where did I SAY THAT "MY JESUS AND MY RELIGION" says anything about providing insurance to its employees?

TIA

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#266347 Nov 26, 2012
No Relativism wrote:
U.S. Supreme Court orders review of HHS mandate
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-cour...
The provisions of ObamaCare require that businesses with more than 50 employees make contraception available with no co-pay. Owners must provide pharmaceuticals that work as abortifacients, even if doing so violates their religious beliefs.
Staver says doing so is unconstitutional under the First Amendment and the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
Legal observers expect the case will land before the Supreme Court as early as 2013.
You people are COMPLETE morons. There is not one employer in this country that is "forced" to hand out pharmaceuticals as your idiotic article claims.

In fact, if they did, they'd be arrested for drug trafficing.

ALL they're required to do - and then ONLY if they offer it at all - is give comprehensive insurance. Period. They're free to not offer insurance at all until 2014. After 2014, they can defer their employee's to medicade and paying the fine, as Hobby Lobby is threatening to do.

Or gee, here's a thought, pay their employee's a living wage that would allow them to get their OWN insurance.

Personally, I say if they'd rather pay a fine, let 'em. If they go out of business, let 'em. They may be a "religious" family, but their employee's are not necessisarily, and as a for-profit company, they MUST follow the same laws as the rest of us that run private for profit businesses.

What their employee's DO with that insurance is none of their business. The employee's are paying for it after all out of their own paychecks.

BTW child, you DO know it was already before the Supreme Court once and they upheld the law? That Roberts pretty much LIKES the law? LOL
sasssylicious

Jackson, NJ

#266348 Nov 26, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Practice your religion all you want. Nobody cares.
Its NOT your RIGHT to force your view on others. Period. INCLUDING a businesses employee's.
<quoted text>
Big deal. NOBODY'S insurance covers "alternative medicine" you dunce. Stop trying to compare apples to Ford trucks.
LOL what? Where am I forcing MY view on others?

Your brain is fried. You simply cannot comprehend ANYTHING that you read. What I am saying is that NOBODY should be FORCED to go against their personal beliefs. Geez,put your fangs away.

FYI,some insurances do in fact cover "alternative medicine". MANY forms of alternative medicine/healing is covered actually.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#266349 Nov 26, 2012
sasssylicious wrote:
<quoted text> Huh? I am not affected by my religious freedoms being compromised? Really?
Since your relgious freedoms are NOT being compromised, no you're not affected at all.
"""Your 'religion' and your jesus says NOTHING about providing insurance to its employees""" "
*My* Jesus? You mean the same "Jesus" that your wife and daughter have? THAT "Jesus"?
Uh no. My wife and child dont follow your version of "faith". Sorry. Thankfully, not many people do.
Where did I SAY THAT "MY JESUS AND MY RELIGION" says anything about providing insurance to its employees?
TIA
What is it you think is being discussed you moron? For profit employers having to provide insurance to their employees that have NOTHING to do with their employer's faith.

Your kind are claiming that its affecting your religous freedom to have to give people that dont follow your faith insurance. The FACT is nobody of your faith is being forced to provide drugs of ANY kind to ANYONE. ALL they're being forced to do is offer comprehensive insurance. What the employee's DO with that insurance is nobody's business, INCLUDING their employers.
sasssylicious

Jackson, NJ

#266350 Nov 26, 2012
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
We hold all life as sacred, yes. What has that got to do with using the proper terms? Nothing. Thanks for playing....
You support killing humans in the womb. You go against your religious beliefs.

You are the one who plays the game of words to dehumanize certain humans to further your abortion movement. It has EVERYTHING to do with it. Proper terms or not,doesn't change the meaning. For some odd reason you think that adding "being" to human changes the facts. An individual humans life is located inside the womb of his/her mother. Your attempts to dehumanize,disrespect and devalue that humans life is so anti-woman/life.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#266351 Nov 26, 2012
sasssylicious wrote:
<quoted text> LOL what? Where am I forcing MY view on others?
Your brain is fried. You simply cannot comprehend ANYTHING that you read. What I am saying is that NOBODY should be FORCED to go against their personal beliefs.
I comprehend what you said just fine idiot. You are claiming that your 'religious freedoms' are PERSONALLY being infringed upon, when they're not in any way.

Nobody is forcing you or anyone else to go against their RELIGIOUS beliefs. Not one employer is going to be forced to buy birth control for anyone. ALL they're being forced to do is what everyone else is forced to do - provide comprehensive insurance.

What happens between the doctor and his or her patient and then the insurance companies if none of the employers business.
FYI,some insurances do in fact cover "alternative medicine". MANY forms of alternative medicine/healing is covered actually.
Not according to what you just said a few minutes ago. So when were you lying, then or now?

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#266352 Nov 26, 2012
sasssylicious wrote:
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/1 1/23/canada-491-babies-born-al ive-after-failed-abortions-lef t-to-die/
*sigh*
These abortions are coded as P96.4 or ‘Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborn’.”
The question that should immediately present itself is, why has there not been 491 homicide investigations or prosecutions in connection with these deaths? Section 223(2) of the Criminal Code (the accompanying subsection to the now infamous subsection that Mr. Woodworth’s motion 312 was examining) reads “A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.” That is to say, anyone who interferes with a pregnancy such that the child dies after it is born alive due to that interference, is guilty of homicide
This the source of all the stupidity.

http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26... From skany

It has nothing to do with an abortion. it is everything that went wrong with a pregnancy.

Yep just more BS. And the blogger in question.. Oh writes for the virtual rag lifenews.. How.. Nice.. Also there is not one legitimate news source that picked this up. Yep, it is all Bullshyt. Any one surprised?

Hmm just another over the top piece f stupidity from

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#266353 Nov 26, 2012
sasssylicious wrote:
<quoted text> Taking away MY rights to my religious freedom prevents me from practicing my religion. Do you understand what that means?
Forcing an American to go against their religious beliefs affects all Americans.
ROFLMAO!

So tell me Skankdawg, how exactly is my offering insurance to my employee's, including birth control, going to affect YOU? I dont have any idea what my employee's prescriptions will be. Neither do you.

For that matter, how EXACTLY would YOU having to provide insurance to YOUR employee's who dont follow your version of faith, and you also wont have a clue what prescriptions they're getting from their doctors affect YOUR religious freedom?

Be specific.

You people are idiots.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#266354 Nov 26, 2012
sasssylicious wrote:
<quoted text> LOL what? Where am I forcing MY view on others?
You're really not very bright Skanky.

If you want to prevent people from having full and comprehensive insurance because it goes against YOUR screwed up version of faith, that's YOU wanting to force your view on others.

Ya dope.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#266355 Nov 26, 2012
sasssylicious wrote:
<quoted text> Yes,it IS a proven fact. Your own words proved it ;)
Foo,understand something here. Your attempts at personal attacks do not cover up your fibs.
No Skanky, YOU understand that you and your suck buddies pathetic attempts to dredge up the ONLY thing you THINK you have on me from OVER two years ago does nothing to deflect from your own stupidity.
So.....what's the 411 on this "girl that the Catholic hospital let die when they refused her abortion"? I'm SURE you heard ALL the details by now? Am I correct?
Sorry Skanky. You and your kind have proven you'll demean anything and anyone to achieve your agenda. Sorry, that's a dead topic where you're concerned. No pun intended.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#266356 Nov 26, 2012
sasssylicious wrote:
<quoted text> You support killing humans in the womb. You go against your religious beliefs.
You are the one who plays the game of words to dehumanize certain humans to further your abortion movement. It has EVERYTHING to do with it. Proper terms or not,doesn't change the meaning. For some odd reason you think that adding "being" to human changes the facts. An individual humans life is located inside the womb of his/her mother. Your attempts to dehumanize,disrespect and devalue that humans life is so anti-woman/life.
Completely wrong.

One, I don't support abortion. I support the woman's RIGHT to make her own choice about HER life, which is sacred too.

Two, I'm not going against my religion. We hold ALL life sacred, not JUST human life. All life, humans, other animals, plants, etc. Holding it all as sacred does not preclude taking life, or we wouldn't be able to eat, defend ourselves, execute criminals, kill pests or take antibiotics.

And, before you start, I mean pests as in insects, so can the melodrama, I'm not referring to fetuses.

We have every right to take life under all those circumstances I mentioned, INCLUDING an embryo or fetus in the uterus if we choose not to remain pregnant.

And I've told you this all before, remember?

I've dehumanized nothing. The phrase human being is a religious/philosophical concept, and that makes it a matter of OPINION, not fact. You can call a fetus human being all you like, but you don't get to debate here as though it's fact. I will disagree every time. Deal with it.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#266357 Nov 26, 2012
No Relativism wrote:
U.S. Supreme Court orders review of HHS mandate
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-cour...
The provisions of ObamaCare require that businesses with more than 50 employees make contraception available with no co-pay. Owners must provide pharmaceuticals that work as abortifacients, even if doing so violates their religious beliefs.
Staver says doing so is unconstitutional under the First Amendment and the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
Legal observers expect the case will land before the Supreme Court as early as 2013.
Hey NR it is only procedural.

The high Court just wants a ruling so as they can then decide the case.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/supr...
"When Liberty's case was in front of the 4th Circuit, Judge Andre Davis broke with his colleagues who thought the challenge was premature. Davis said of Liberty's claims, "I would further hold that each of appellants' challenges to the act lacks merit."

The appeals court could ask the government and the college for new legal briefs to assess the effect of the Supreme Court ruling on Liberty's claims before rendering a decision."

At this point it doesn't mean anything than that.

But you fools just keep tilting at wind mills. It is after all you have left.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#266358 Nov 26, 2012
sasssylicious wrote:
<quoted text> Business owners are FORCED to go against their religion. Our religious freedoms are being taken away. Of course it is directly affecting everyone INCLUDING me.
OOHH Skanky play the fool.. No one is impinging on your rights to either your religion or being a fool. But play the martyr. It is after all you have to do here..

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#266359 Nov 26, 2012
Kenose wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it appears you don't follow your religion anyway. You'd rather your daughter be dead than your daughter have an abortion.
That whole sanctity of life just goes right out the window. Pathetic..
sasssylicious

Jackson, NJ

#266360 Nov 26, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
I comprehend what you said just fine idiot. You are claiming that your 'religious freedoms' are PERSONALLY being infringed upon, when they're not in any way.
Nobody is forcing you or anyone else to go against their RELIGIOUS beliefs. Not one employer is going to be forced to buy birth control for anyone. ALL they're being forced to do is what everyone else is forced to do - provide comprehensive insurance.
What happens between the doctor and his or her patient and then the insurance companies if none of the employers business.
<quoted text>
Not according to what you just said a few minutes ago. So when were you lying, then or now?
This is interesting coming from someone who fights for abortion rights ^^^ YOU don't have sex. YOU can't have a child of your own. Yet....YOU are fighting for the right to have an abortion. How does RvW being overturned "affect" YOU personally?

It doesn't.

Yet you wonder why an employer being FORCED to cover contraceptives and possible abortificants...which goes against his/her RIGHT to religious freedom,affects ALL of us? ESPECIALLY me who shares that belief?.

Interesting.

@@

""""" """ALL they're being forced to do is """"" "

EXACTLY. They are being FORCED.

They shouldn't have to go against their religious beliefs.

""""" """Nobody is forcing you or anyone else to go against their RELIGIOUS beliefs""" """"" "

This is a joke,right? right?

Of COURSE they are.
No Relativism

West Lafayette, IN

#266361 Nov 26, 2012
Carbon-12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, considering that the 3/5ths compromise lent power to the slaveholders, and increased their power over the federal government I am going to say no. Free black people in the North were counted as one person, and it was not the slavers who did not want the slaves counted as the same. It served them well to be able to claim the proportion that included people they considered their property. You really don't understand the most basic thing about what you are arguing. The fact that you are siding with slavers, AND talking about dignity and respect is baffling. The farce is expanded when you accuse others of racism.
NR: Were blacks dignified and shown human respect by considering them 3/5ths of a person for the census?
Yes or no?

Johnny Carbon: I am going to say no.
__________

Next..........
HUSKER

Muscotah, KS

#266362 Nov 26, 2012
sasssylicious wrote:
<quoted text> Heyyy NR! Long time no see. Great to see you :)
Yeah, ObamaNOcare and his followers don't seem to care that doing so will infringe on peoples religious beliefs. Our religious freedoms and rights are s l o w l y but surely being taken away.
Yep, and the Bishops and other clergy are not backing down.
Thank God! On another note, went to Hobby Lobby and the clerk said Have a Merry Christmas! Not have a Happy Holiday!
sasssylicious

Jackson, NJ

#266363 Nov 26, 2012
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
This the source of all the stupidity.
http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26... From skany
It has nothing to do with an abortion. it is everything that went wrong with a pregnancy.
Yep just more BS. And the blogger in question.. Oh writes for the virtual rag lifenews.. How.. Nice.. Also there is not one legitimate news source that picked this up. Yep, it is all Bullshyt. Any one surprised?
Hmm just another over the top piece f stupidity from
These NEWBORNS were left to die after an abortion attempt. WHAT went "wrong" with these pregnancies? I'll tell you. The baby survived the pregnancy AND the attempt by the legalized hitman to kill him/her. They THEN were left to die.

AGAIN...a BORN baby was left to die.

What's wrong with this picture? Where is the outcry from the proaborts who care about the born?
HUSKER

Muscotah, KS

#266364 Nov 26, 2012
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey NR it is only procedural.
The high Court just wants a ruling so as they can then decide the case.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/supr...
"When Liberty's case was in front of the 4th Circuit, Judge Andre Davis broke with his colleagues who thought the challenge was premature. Davis said of Liberty's claims, "I would further hold that each of appellants' challenges to the act lacks merit."
The appeals court could ask the government and the college for new legal briefs to assess the effect of the Supreme Court ruling on Liberty's claims before rendering a decision."
At this point it doesn't mean anything than that.
But you fools just keep tilting at wind mills. It is after all you have left.
After they come for us, they will come for you. Think twice before you criticize.
No Relativism

West Lafayette, IN

#266365 Nov 26, 2012
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey NR it is only procedural.
The high Court just wants a ruling so as they can then decide the case.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/supr...
"When Liberty's case was in front of the 4th Circuit, Judge Andre Davis broke with his colleagues who thought the challenge was premature. Davis said of Liberty's claims, "I would further hold that each of appellants' challenges to the act lacks merit."
The appeals court could ask the government and the college for new legal briefs to assess the effect of the Supreme Court ruling on Liberty's claims before rendering a decision."
At this point it doesn't mean anything than that.
But you fools just keep tilting at wind mills. It is after all you have left.
I posted a link showing that the contraception/abortifacient/st erilization mandate will be revisited. It MAY reach the SCOTUS as soon as 2013.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jackson-Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Add a word, Drop a word (Dec '09) 3 min -Sprocket- 12,165
OBAMA is the BEST PRESIDENT EVER (Nov '10) 8 min BS Detector 19,716
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 23 min Momma T-Man 36,409
Time to go? 30 min Two Dogs 2,520
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 55 min FuMan Chu Yanks 319,383
Poll momma chamberlin biggest bust proxy handles 2 hr jimi-yank 3
Drop a Word, Add a Word (Jan '10) 3 hr _Zoey_ 10,537
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Jackson-Heights Mortgages