Ted Cruz (R-TX) fear-mongers about bill codifying federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

12 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You’re in trouble, but we all are sinners.

I think you nailed it, hit one out of the park.

[Leftfield 3,376]

24 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

That’s where we are now without the bill in front of congress, so what is the need for congress to pass what is law now?  Ted Cruz is pointing out a down side of passing it.

Were you not one of the people saying Congress had years to codify Roe and there was no excuse leaving it to the whims of the Court?

[I_M4_AU 8,940]

5 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

This is an outright lie.  It is simply not happening.

Increasingly, confused girls with mental-health issues are lining up to have their breasts removed, erroneously believing my colleagues who tell them the operation will alleviate their emotional pain and allow them to emerge as their authentic selves. Girls as young as 13 are having “top surgery,” a euphemism for a bilateral mastectomy—the removal of both breasts—in order to create, as gender surgeons put it, a “masculinized” chest. “Bilateral mastectomy” sounds jarring and clinical; it’s a treatment for cancer, after all—one that women agonize over. 

https://www.city-journal.org/moral-atrocity-top-surgery

You are like KJP Biden’s spoke woman.

[I_M4_AU 8,940]

3 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Were you not one of the people saying Congress had years to codify Roe and there was no excuse leaving it to the whims of the Court?

Yes I was, but only 1 Justice mentioned looking at this and the other 5 said it wouldn’t happen.  A law suit would have to be brought up before the court could rule on something like this and then the justices would have to agree to hear that case.  Not going to happen.

[Leftfield 3,376]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes I was, but only 1 Justice mentioned looking at this and the other 5 said it wouldn’t happen.  A law suit would have to be brought up before the court could rule on something like this and then the justices would have to agree to hear that case.  Not going to happen.

As @CoffeeTigerpointed out, some of the justices were not exactly forthright with their intentions on Roe. He also pointed out that ten years ago, just about everyone thought overturning Roe would never happen. Even if you think it would never happen, why would you leave it to chance?

Fool me once...

Edited September 20, 2022 by Leftfield

[I_M4_AU 8,940]

Just now, Leftfield said:

As @CoffeeTigerpointed out, and I'd be surprised if you disagreed, some of the justices were not exactly forthright with their intentions on Roe. He also pointed out that ten years ago, just about everyone thought overturning Roe would never happen. Even if you think it would never happen, why would you leave it to chance?

Fool me once...

10 years ago the make up of the SCOTUS was much different.  The new Justices spoke of the present law on abortion was the law.  Then a new case came along and they looked at the merits of the case and made a ruling.  Laws that should be decided at the state level should remain at the state level.  Abortion is still legal, it is only at the discretion of the states.

Jackson, the new Justice, has spoken on the 2nd amendment and I am sure she will have a different view once given a case to rule on.

No one fooled anybody, if the congress passes this into law, so be it.  Standby for the law of unintended consequences.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

17 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Increasingly, confused girls with mental-health issues are lining up to have their breasts removed, erroneously believing my colleagues who tell them the operation will alleviate their emotional pain and allow them to emerge as their authentic selves. Girls as young as 13 are having “top surgery,” a euphemism for a bilateral mastectomy—the removal of both breasts—in order to create, as gender surgeons put it, a “masculinized” chest. “Bilateral mastectomy” sounds jarring and clinical; it’s a treatment for cancer, after all—one that women agonize over. 

https://www.city-journal.org/moral-atrocity-top-surgery

You are like KJP Biden’s spoke woman.

I think you should note that the article cites not one case,,, only one pediatrician who supports the idea.  Again, it's NOT happening.

[Leftfield 3,376]

19 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

10 years ago the make up of the SCOTUS was much different.  The new Justices spoke of the present law on abortion was the law.  Then a new case came along and they looked at the merits of the case and made a ruling. 

Will be useless to argue with you about this. You're clearly not going to agree that some of them misrepresented themselves.

20 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Jackson, the new Justice, has spoken on the 2nd amendment and I am sure she will have a different view once given a case to rule on.

Did she say something that you believe was a misrepresentation?

 

I'm really failing to understand why you think Congress should have acted in one instance, but not the other.

 

[I_M4_AU 8,940]

34 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Did she say something that you believe was a misrepresentation?

Yes, and she couldn’t define the term woman.  Standby for some liberal rulings.

 

[Leftfield 3,376]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes, and she couldn’t define the term woman.  Standby for some liberal rulings.

Wait, you said 2nd amendment. What were you referring to?

[I_M4_AU 8,940]

50 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I think you should note that the article cites not one case,,, only one pediatrician who supports the idea.  Again, it's NOT happening.

“I was failed by the system. I literally lost organs.”

When Chloe was 12 years old, she decided she was transgender. At 13, she came out to her parents. That same year, she was put on puberty blockers and prescribed testosterone. At 15, she underwent a double mastectomy. Less than a year later, she realized she’d made a mistake — all by the time she was 16 years old.

https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/detransitioned-teens-explain-why-they-regret-changing-genders/

The reason the article did not cite one case is HIPAA laws will not allow it without permission.  No one at that age is going to admit they had this surgery publicly.  In the above case this girl had surgery at 15.  Yes it is happening.

[I_M4_AU 8,940]

31 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Wait, you said 2nd amendment. What were you referring to?

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) started off the three-days of marathon questioning of Judge Jackson getting to the heart of the matter.

“Do you believe the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right?” Sen. Grassley asked.

Judge Jackson answered, “Senator, the Supreme Court has established that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right.”

Sen. Grassley pressed further asking the judge to describe how she would decide what a fundamental right is under the Constitution. Judge Jackson pointed to Court precedent that serves as a guide for how justices would discern fundamental rights. She added that those precedents set the standards for determining if rights are fundamental, including the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause as it applies to liberty and personal autonomy.

“That’s the tradition of the Court for determining if something is fundamental in that way,” she added.

Later, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) pressed the question to Judge Jackson again, particularly when it came to whether local governments can enforce subjective standards in order to actually bear arms outside the home. Judge Jackson demurred, indicating that question is pending a decision before the Supreme Court. That question is at the heart of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, that challenges New York’s “may issue” policy of requiring law-abiding citizens to show “good reason” to obtain a concealed carry permit.

“The Second Amendment, that right to keep and bear arms, is enumerated in the text of the Constitution,” Sen. Blackburn said. “So, the question would be ‘why should it have to have an extra burden?’”

Judge Jackson held firm that it would be improper for her to offer an answer to a case yet undecided.

The Reload’s Stephen Gutowski rightly noted that the question goes beyond those posed by NYSRPA v. Bruen. “Several states also require licensing for buying handguns, and Hawaii requires them for shotgun and rifle purchases as well,” Gutowski wrote. “The Court may hear numerous gun permitting cases in the years ahead, and Jackson’s view of how far Second Amendment protections extend may play a significant role.”

Judge Jackson closed the question with this answer.

“Current Supreme Court precedent says that under the Second Amendment there is an individual, fundamental right to keep and bear arms in the home,” she said.

That answer was curious, and wrong. Tom Knighton of Bearing Arms pointed out that the final three words – “in the home” – isn’t a qualifier for the Second Amendment. Knighton correctly wrote that Heller addressed Dick Heller’s challenge to Washington, D.C.’s laws that prohibited him from keeping a firearm in his home, but there is no mention of that restriction in the text of the Second Amendment. And Heller explains in detail that “bear” means to carry arms outside the home for lawful purposes.

https://www.nssf.org/articles/judge-jackson-affirms-second-amendment-rights-but-questions-linger/

She answered like the 3 Justices did about abortion in that the law is the law.  In her last exchange where she didn’t want to address a pending case she let slip the added burden of *in the home* which is not in the 2nd amendment and the SCOTUS struck down earlier this year (after the hearings) in NY

I wouldn’t trust her rulings on 2nd amendment rights, but I also won’t say she lied under oath.  

[icanthearyou 4,468]

5 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

“I was failed by the system. I literally lost organs.”

When Chloe was 12 years old, she decided she was transgender. At 13, she came out to her parents. That same year, she was put on puberty blockers and prescribed testosterone. At 15, she underwent a double mastectomy. Less than a year later, she realized she’d made a mistake — all by the time she was 16 years old.

https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/detransitioned-teens-explain-why-they-regret-changing-genders/

The reason the article did not cite one case is HIPAA laws will not allow it without permission.  No one at that age is going to admit they had this surgery publicly.  In the above case this girl had surgery at 15.  Yes it is happening.

Nice try but,,, not in this country.  STOP with the lies and deception.

[I_M4_AU 8,940]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

Nice try but,,, not in this country.  STOP with the lies and deception.

I see, you are now qualifying the question.  Don’t the girls in UK matter?  I think Jesus cares about those girls.

The UK has been mutilating teens longer than the US.  More stories will occur as time goes on.

If you google Gender Affirming Surgery you can see top surgery is done at an early age. 

Here are WPATH’s new guidelines:

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health said hormones could be started at age 14, two years earlier than the group’s previous advice, and some surgeries done at age 15 or 17, a year or so earlier than previous guidance. The group acknowledged potential risks but said it is unethical and harmful to withhold early treatment.

https://apnews.com/article/gender-transition-treatment-guidelines-9dbe54f670a3a0f5f2831c2bf14f9bbb

Most US hospitals follow the WPATH guidelines, but keep on believing its not happening in the US.

[homersapien 12,239]

On 9/20/2022 at 2:42 PM, I_M4_AU said:

10 years ago the make up of the SCOTUS was much different.  The new Justices spoke of the present law on abortion was the law.  Then a new case came along and they looked at the merits of the case and made a ruling.  Laws that should be decided at the state level should remain at the state level.  Abortion is still legal, it is only at the discretion of the states.

Jackson, the new Justice, has spoken on the 2nd amendment and I am sure she will have a different view once given a case to rule on.

No one fooled anybody, if the congress passes this into law, so be it.  Standby for the law of unintended consequences.

What BS.

Roe v. Wade was based on a fundamental right that is universal - that is, enjoyed by everyone who is an American citizen - the right to privacy.

None of the facts have changed, other than the introduction of 6 judges who reject the fundamental right to privacy. 

That's exactly why the right for any two people to get married is at direct risk.

Whatever happened to the conservative value of limited government???

 

Edited September 21, 2022 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 8,940]

46 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What BS.

Roe v. Wade was based on a fundamental right that is universal - that is, enjoyed by everyone who is an American citizen - the right to privacy.

None of the facts have changed, other than the introduction of 6 judges who reject the fundamental right to privacy. 

That's exactly why the right for any two people to get married is at direct risk.

Whatever happened to the conservative value of limited government???

 

The right to privacy has been in the Constitution since its conception and it took 200+ years for some liberal interpretation to take the right to abortion away from the states to a federal law.  That is the SCOTUS taking the law making function of the Congress away from them for the popular opinion of the masses.  That is not how it is supposed to work.  The recent decision corrected that.

The conservative values are still holding strong, they are now at the state level where they are supposed to be.

[homersapien 12,239]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

The right to privacy has been in the Constitution since its conception and it took 200+ years for some liberal interpretation to take the right to abortion away from the states to a federal law.  That is the SCOTUS taking the law making function of the Congress away from them for the popular opinion of the masses.  That is not how it is supposed to work.  The recent decision corrected that.

The conservative values are still holding strong, they are now at the state level where they are supposed to be.

That's the exact same argument made against civil rights legislation.

"States Rights" trump universal human rights.

At least you're forthright about where you want to take us: back to the future.

[I_M4_AU 8,940]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

That's the exact same argument made against civil rights legislation.

"States Rights" trump universal human rights.

At least you're forthright about where you want to take us: back to the future.

As I recall civil rights legislation was passed by congress in 1964 and is upheld by the courts.  Am I misremembering?

[homersapien 12,239]

22 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

As I recall civil rights legislation was passed by congress in 1964 and is upheld by the courts.  Am I misremembering?

Obviously, I was referring to the arguments made by opponents of that legislation, giving their reason for opposing it. 

(Hint: Note the first sentence of my post which says: "That's the exact same argument made against civil rights legislation."

So you aren't "misremembering", you aren't reading with comprehension. There's really no excuse for that.  It's a simple declarative sentence.

Edited September 22, 2022 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 8,940]

23 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Obviously, I was referring to the arguments made by opponents of that legislation, giving their reason for opposing it. 

(Hint: Note the first sentence of my post which says: "That's the exact same argument made against civil rights legislation."

So you aren't "misremembering", you aren't reading with comprehension. There's really no excuse for that.  It's a simple declarative sentence.

Well, this is how it is supposed to work.  Congress making the laws, not the SCOTUS.  We need to get back to that.  I’m sure you would agree.

[homersapien 12,239]

21 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Well, this is how it is supposed to work.  Congress making the laws, not the SCOTUS.  We need to get back to that.  I’m sure you would agree.

No, I am content to stick to the subject, which was your characterization of states rights and universal national rights regarding abortion. I made a valid analogy drawing from our history.

Stop obfuscating.

Edited September 22, 2022 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 8,940]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

No, I am content to stick to the subject, which was your characterization of states rights and universal national rights.

Stop obfuscating.

To be clear, you would like the SCOTUS ruling on cases to make laws and not the Congress?

[homersapien 12,239]

8 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

To be clear, you would like the SCOTUS ruling on cases to make laws and not the Congress?

To be clear - I would like the SCOTUS to respect previous rulings that are based on universal (national) rights, such as the universal right of privacy as guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

I don't think the right of privacy is any more subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the states than basic civil rights are.

[I_M4_AU 8,940]

17 hours ago, homersapien said:

To be clear - I would like the SCOTUS to respect previous rulings that are based on universal (national) rights, such as the universal right of privacy as guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

I don't think the right of privacy is any more subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the states than basic civil rights are.

How did abortion get into the 14th amendment if it wasn’t an interpretation from the court?  It certainly isn’t spelled out in the amendment.  The court just righted that wrong.   Why do you think it is so difficult for the left to attack the right to bear arms?  The 2nd amendment is clear on that and no court has been able to interpret it differently.

[I_M4_AU 8,940]

On 9/20/2022 at 9:05 PM, icanthearyou said:

Nice try but,,, not in this country.  STOP with the lies and deception.

Here you go Ihcy, this isn from Vanderbilt University Medical talking about top surgery to 16 & 17 yo girls. 

 

Vanderbilt is under investigation now for their practices.  Don’t tell me it doesn’t happen when you hear this doctor admitting they do.  This is just one medical center and it happens all over if the follow the WPATH guidelines.