Roe v. Wade on the verge of being overturned?

[Bryce]

On the plus side, with all this talk of women's rights, it looks like the left has defined women as some one who can or could give birth.

[Lester The Nightfly]

I'd say a fair number of the participants looked menopausal.

So are you and Matt implying that someone needs to have a first hand personal stake over an issue in order to be a valid participant in something afforded as a constitutional right?

If that's the case, the men on the Supreme Court (as well as a few folks around here) need to shut the fuck up unless they can prove they're not shooting blanks and still a player in the baby makin' game.

[bmw]

...in something afforded as a constitutional right...

You really should research that claim. Targeted residential picketing is NOT a Constitutional right.

[MotorCityRadioFreak]

...in something afforded as a constitutional right...

You really should research that claim. Targeted residential picketing is NOT a Constitutional right.

Yes, it is.

[Bryce]

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-c ... -1507.html

[bmw]

...in something afforded as a constitutional right...

You really should research that claim. Targeted residential picketing is NOT a Constitutional right.

Yes, it is.

No, it isn't.

So you suck at research as much as Lester does. Google is your friend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisby_v._Schultz

Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the ordinance by the town of Brookfield, Wisconsin, preventing protest outside of a residential home. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that the First Amendment rights to freedom of assembly and speech was not facially violated

[Bryce]

“To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community — the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms.” “We will not surrender our rights without a fight — a fight to victory!”

Shared via Twitter by Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot. Sounds rather insurectiony to me. Well, at least if SOMEONE else said it. Wonder if there will be a investigation.

[Lester The Nightfly]

...in something afforded as a constitutional right...

You really should research that claim. Targeted residential picketing is NOT a Constitutional right.

Excellent. I'll be happy to edit my comment in order to satisfy your wee pedantic feelies:

So are you and Matt implying that someone needs to have a first hand personal stake over an issue in order to be a valid participant in a protest?

If that's the case, the men on the Supreme Court (as well as a few folks around here) need to shut the fuck up unless they can prove they're not shooting blanks and still a player in the baby makin' game.

Now, care to chime in on what is essentially the same God damn question?

[bmw]

...in something afforded as a constitutional right...

You really should research that claim. Targeted residential picketing is NOT a Constitutional right.

Excellent. I'll be happy to edit my comment in order to satisfy your wee pedantic feelies:

So are you and Matt implying that someone needs to have a first hand personal stake over an issue in order to be a valid participant in a protest?

If that's the case, the men on the Supreme Court (as well as a few folks around here) need to shut the fuck up unless they can prove they're not shooting blanks and still a player in the baby makin' game.

Now, care to chime in on what is essentially the same God damn question?

Hey, at least you're admitting you were wrong. That's more than I can ever say about TC Talks.

And btw, the entire premise of your question was that of whether anyone can be a valid participant in a Constitutionally protected activity, even if they have no personal stake. Of course they can. I for example do not carry or even own a weapon, but I vehemently support others' right to do so.

But that's not what we're talking about here, now, is it? We're talking about engaging in an activity that can legally be barred by the local governing entity, the current event exercising of which arguably constitutes harassment. So my position is that NOBODY has a right to protest in the streets in front of somebody's private residence. It is my opinion that everybody has a right to a reasonable level of peace and quiet in their own home.

All of that aside, I don't think that is what MW was implying at all. He merely made in observation in response to a question asked by Matt. We can't help it you decided to get your panties in a wad over the mere making of observation, and then tightened that panty wad when I called you out for making a factually false statement as to one's alleged Constitutional right to protest.

[MotorCityRadioFreak]

“To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community — the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms.” “We will not surrender our rights without a fight — a fight to victory!”

Shared via Twitter by Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot. Sounds rather insurectiony to me. Well, at least if SOMEONE else said it. Wonder if there will be a investigation.

You're just upset that she is right. The Court will be coming for us. While I don't feel the need to start an armed insurrection, our rights are being attacked, especially in places like Floridump.

[Lester The Nightfly]

“To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community — the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms.” “We will not surrender our rights without a fight — a fight to victory!”

Shared via Twitter by Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot. Sounds rather insurectiony to me. Well, at least if SOMEONE else said it. Wonder if there will be a investigation.

If the threat of violence disturbs you, please have a word with your compatriots firebombing clinics and clinic protesters aggressively harassing and intimidating in the vilest terms possible clients entering said clinics.

When I was working at a hospital I would see these scum ranting in front of the clinic up the street. If you're troubled by public official having marches at their doorstep, drop on by a women's clinic some afternoon and watch some kid already scared shitless about the impending procedure be faced with some irrational, frothing zealots, despite the 1994 Supreme Court ruling calling for protest buffer zones, terrorizing that kid literally quivering in fear needing escorts to get past the repugnant behavior of the life-to-righters.

Makes Lightfoot's rhetoric seem pretty tame.

[Bryce]

Makes Lightfoot's rhetoric seem pretty tame.

And they say I'm the king of Whataboutism.

Lightfoot's "threat" was directed at the members of one of the co equal branches of government. Someone, well actually several here, once said that protesting a branch of government was much worse than the rioting in our major cities because it was a threat to our very democracy.

[screen glare]

The question is - in what shape should the wire coat hanger be bent? The pregnant female in her desperation to abort will face this question.

Especially those who are middle school students, high school students, or college students. Often trying to keep their pregnancy a secret. And who often don’t have their own access to the funds they would need to find and pay a qualified MD/DO, and have a chance of surviving, rather than dying of infection or blood loss.

You understand - abortion has always been an option, and will always be an option - no matter the country or status of government permission. Legal or not - DIY and assisted “back alley” abortion will always be with us. Because humans will always persevere toward the goal they are desperate to accomplish. Even if to do so means they could suffer death or harm.

Regarding ways the majority of Americans are protesting the half-a-century constitutional right to choose pregnancy termination or continuance, or considering some form of such protest, or protesting soon with their votes, all such protest is understandable. Imagine a China-style “one child government mandate” in the USA. And females who were outed as pregnant a second time were forced to undergo abortion. Those females against abortion would fight like hell doing whatever it took to accomplish their goal: not being forced to undergo an abortion. Anti-abortion females would protest like hell!

If one imagines this role reversal and the desperation to not be forced to abort - one can understand why protestors now are doing whatever it takes to preserve a female’s right to choose.

If you do not want an abortion you are free to choose that. And if you want or need an abortion you are free to choose that.

In the USA we have liberty. If you prefer a country without liberty - move there. You’re free to go.