And?
SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
- HokieHam
- Posts: 26682
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 pm
- Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....
Re: SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
-
- Posts: 1479
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm
Re: SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
I’m sure you could probably find a similar acceptance rate for lobotomies during their medical use. Doesn’t make it right.
- HokieHam
- Posts: 26682
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 pm
- Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....
Re: SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
I’m sure slavery would have polled high back in the day……Mcl3 Hokie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 5:26 pmI’m sure you could probably find a similar acceptance rate for lobotomies during their medical use. Doesn’t make it right.
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
- HokieHam
- Posts: 26682
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 pm
- Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....
Re: SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
https://www.newscentermaine.com/articl ... fca63908ebVandalism of Waldo County church stirs conversation over hate crimes
After an anti-abortion sign was covered in paint, worshipers at one congregation in Palermo are calling for legal action.
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
- HokieHam
- Posts: 26682
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 pm
- Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....
Re: SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
Good stuffz
https://justthenews.com/government/cour ... -abortionsFederal appeals court blocks Biden admin bid to require ER doctors to perform abortions
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
- HokieHam
- Posts: 26682
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 pm
- Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....
Re: SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
Yup…..two sets of laws…..
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
- Major Kong
- Posts: 15765
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:35 pm
- Alma Mater: Ferrum VT ASU
- Party: Independent
- Location: Somewhere between Marion and Seven Mile Ford
Re: SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
I only post using 100% recycled electrons.
Re: SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
Biden hates the Constitution.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
- UpstateSCHokie
- Posts: 11998
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm
Re: SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
And remember, many on this board voted for this.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
-
- Posts: 18547
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm
Re: SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
Biden is an idiot, but I'm pretty sure he's not involved in the charges (if he has any idea about any of the FACE Act violations that have been charged).
And we still don't know what the sentence will be. IMO, they should be charged, maybe with a violation, but if charged with a fed offense, the sentence should be light.
In the Tennessee situation, all of them are guilty of violating the FACE Act, and all of them knew they were violating it. They should have been arrested and charged with something. None of them should be given anything close to the max sentence allowed.
The DOJ did the same thing last year with a reproductive health clinic, where some activists spray painted messages on the walls, things like "If abortions aren’t safe, neither are you". Should they be charged? Yep. With a federal offense, probably not.
And certainly not anything near the max allowed under FACE.
The FACE Act has become the FARCE Act.
- RiverguyVT
- Posts: 30321
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm
Re: SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
LOLHokieFanDC wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 7:58 pmBiden is an idiot, but I'm pretty sure he's not involved in the charges (if he has any idea about any of the FACE Act violations that have been charged).
And we still don't know what the sentence will be. IMO, they should be charged, maybe with a violation, but if charged with a fed offense, the sentence should be light.
In the Tennessee situation, all of them are guilty of violating the FACE Act, and all of them knew they were violating it. They should have been arrested and charged with something. None of them should be given anything close to the max sentence allowed.
The DOJ did the same thing last year with a reproductive health clinic, where some activists spray painted messages on the walls, things like "If abortions aren’t safe, neither are you". Should they be charged? Yep. With a federal offense, probably not.
And certainly not anything near the max allowed under FACE.
The FACE Act has become the FARCE Act.
He has nothing to do with anything that's going on.
Full on "Weekend at Bernies". The man's brain is shot.
He doesn't velcro his own shoes.
But this is what makes his admin so dangerous. He's a puppet, with unidentified and unaccountable handlers. <--that's a dangerous combo, unidentified & unaccountable, especially when coupled w/ a totalitarian mindset/goal.
And yes.
This is a perfect example of there being two sets of laws.
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
-
- Posts: 18547
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm
Re: SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
It's a perfect example of two sets of laws when the DOJ arrests both a pro-abortion group and an anti-abortion group, and charges both of them under the FACE Act, when there was no actual violence?RiverguyVT wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 3:08 amLOLHokieFanDC wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 7:58 pmBiden is an idiot, but I'm pretty sure he's not involved in the charges (if he has any idea about any of the FACE Act violations that have been charged).
And we still don't know what the sentence will be. IMO, they should be charged, maybe with a violation, but if charged with a fed offense, the sentence should be light.
In the Tennessee situation, all of them are guilty of violating the FACE Act, and all of them knew they were violating it. They should have been arrested and charged with something. None of them should be given anything close to the max sentence allowed.
The DOJ did the same thing last year with a reproductive health clinic, where some activists spray painted messages on the walls, things like "If abortions aren’t safe, neither are you". Should they be charged? Yep. With a federal offense, probably not.
And certainly not anything near the max allowed under FACE.
The FACE Act has become the FARCE Act.
He has nothing to do with anything that's going on.
Full on "Weekend at Bernies". The man's brain is shot.
He doesn't velcro his own shoes.
But this is what makes his admin so dangerous. He's a puppet, with unidentified and unaccountable handlers. <--that's a dangerous combo, unidentified & unaccountable, especially when coupled w/ a totalitarian mindset/goal.
And yes.
This is a perfect example of there being two sets of laws.
How is that a perfect example???
- HokieHam
- Posts: 26682
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 pm
- Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....
Re: SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
All you had to say was your last sentence.HokieFanDC wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 7:58 pmBiden is an idiot, but I'm pretty sure he's not involved in the charges (if he has any idea about any of the FACE Act violations that have been charged).
And we still don't know what the sentence will be. IMO, they should be charged, maybe with a violation, but if charged with a fed offense, the sentence should be light.
In the Tennessee situation, all of them are guilty of violating the FACE Act, and all of them knew they were violating it. They should have been arrested and charged with something. None of them should be given anything close to the max sentence allowed.
The DOJ did the same thing last year with a reproductive health clinic, where some activists spray painted messages on the walls, things like "If abortions aren’t safe, neither are you". Should they be charged? Yep. With a federal offense, probably not.
And certainly not anything near the max allowed under FACE.
The FACE Act has become the FARCE Act.
There is a difference between just sitting and praying and vandalizing a building with threats of violence……
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
-
- Posts: 18547
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm
Re: SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
You are right that there is a difference in what the 2 groups did. You also know you're spreading a lie.HokieHam wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 2:17 pmAll you had to say was your last sentence.HokieFanDC wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 7:58 pmBiden is an idiot, but I'm pretty sure he's not involved in the charges (if he has any idea about any of the FACE Act violations that have been charged).
And we still don't know what the sentence will be. IMO, they should be charged, maybe with a violation, but if charged with a fed offense, the sentence should be light.
In the Tennessee situation, all of them are guilty of violating the FACE Act, and all of them knew they were violating it. They should have been arrested and charged with something. None of them should be given anything close to the max sentence allowed.
The DOJ did the same thing last year with a reproductive health clinic, where some activists spray painted messages on the walls, things like "If abortions aren’t safe, neither are you". Should they be charged? Yep. With a federal offense, probably not.
And certainly not anything near the max allowed under FACE.
The FACE Act has become the FARCE Act.
There is a difference between just sitting and praying and vandalizing a building with threats of violence……
They weren't just sitting and praying. They were physically blocking the entrances to health clinics and deterring people from going to their appointments.
- HokieHam
- Posts: 26682
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 pm
- Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....
Re: SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
Health clinics. That’s all you had to write………..talk about spreading a lie.HokieFanDC wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 7:51 pmYou are right that there is a difference in what the 2 groups did. You also know you're spreading a lie.HokieHam wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 2:17 pmAll you had to say was your last sentence.HokieFanDC wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 7:58 pmBiden is an idiot, but I'm pretty sure he's not involved in the charges (if he has any idea about any of the FACE Act violations that have been charged).
And we still don't know what the sentence will be. IMO, they should be charged, maybe with a violation, but if charged with a fed offense, the sentence should be light.
In the Tennessee situation, all of them are guilty of violating the FACE Act, and all of them knew they were violating it. They should have been arrested and charged with something. None of them should be given anything close to the max sentence allowed.
The DOJ did the same thing last year with a reproductive health clinic, where some activists spray painted messages on the walls, things like "If abortions aren’t safe, neither are you". Should they be charged? Yep. With a federal offense, probably not.
And certainly not anything near the max allowed under FACE.
The FACE Act has become the FARCE Act.
There is a difference between just sitting and praying and vandalizing a building with threats of violence……
They weren't just sitting and praying. They were physically blocking the entrances to health clinics and deterring people from going to their appointments.
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
-
- Posts: 18547
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm
Re: SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
It's literally called a health clinic. But, sure, abortion clinic.HokieHam wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 8:49 pmHealth clinics. That’s all you had to write………..talk about spreading a lie.HokieFanDC wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 7:51 pmYou are right that there is a difference in what the 2 groups did. You also know you're spreading a lie.HokieHam wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 2:17 pmAll you had to say was your last sentence.HokieFanDC wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 7:58 pmBiden is an idiot, but I'm pretty sure he's not involved in the charges (if he has any idea about any of the FACE Act violations that have been charged).
And we still don't know what the sentence will be. IMO, they should be charged, maybe with a violation, but if charged with a fed offense, the sentence should be light.
In the Tennessee situation, all of them are guilty of violating the FACE Act, and all of them knew they were violating it. They should have been arrested and charged with something. None of them should be given anything close to the max sentence allowed.
The DOJ did the same thing last year with a reproductive health clinic, where some activists spray painted messages on the walls, things like "If abortions aren’t safe, neither are you". Should they be charged? Yep. With a federal offense, probably not.
And certainly not anything near the max allowed under FACE.
The FACE Act has become the FARCE Act.
There is a difference between just sitting and praying and vandalizing a building with threats of violence……
They weren't just sitting and praying. They were physically blocking the entrances to health clinics and deterring people from going to their appointments.
They were blocking the entrances so people couldn't get in and out. That is why they are guilty.
- HokieHam
- Posts: 26682
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 pm
- Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....
Re: SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
Yeah. It’s in the pic. It’s easy to see. I have no problem with it. The law is completely unconstitutional and only meant to protect their sacred sacrament of abortion. It’s meant to silence political dissent. And, yeah…..it’s called a health clinic and you know why…….or damn man, I would at least hope you do.HokieFanDC wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 9:27 pmIt's literally called a health clinic. But, sure, abortion clinic.HokieHam wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 8:49 pmHealth clinics. That’s all you had to write………..talk about spreading a lie.HokieFanDC wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 7:51 pmYou are right that there is a difference in what the 2 groups did. You also know you're spreading a lie.HokieHam wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 2:17 pmAll you had to say was your last sentence.HokieFanDC wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 7:58 pmBiden is an idiot, but I'm pretty sure he's not involved in the charges (if he has any idea about any of the FACE Act violations that have been charged).
And we still don't know what the sentence will be. IMO, they should be charged, maybe with a violation, but if charged with a fed offense, the sentence should be light.
In the Tennessee situation, all of them are guilty of violating the FACE Act, and all of them knew they were violating it. They should have been arrested and charged with something. None of them should be given anything close to the max sentence allowed.
The DOJ did the same thing last year with a reproductive health clinic, where some activists spray painted messages on the walls, things like "If abortions aren’t safe, neither are you". Should they be charged? Yep. With a federal offense, probably not.
And certainly not anything near the max allowed under FACE.
The FACE Act has become the FARCE Act.
There is a difference between just sitting and praying and vandalizing a building with threats of violence……
They weren't just sitting and praying. They were physically blocking the entrances to health clinics and deterring people from going to their appointments.
They were blocking the entrances so people couldn't get in and out. That is why they are guilty.
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
-
- Posts: 18547
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm
Re: SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
HokieHam wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 12:07 amYeah. It’s in the pic. It’s easy to see. I have no problem with it. The law is completely unconstitutional and only meant to protect their sacred sacrament of abortion. It’s meant to silence political dissent. And, yeah…..it’s called a health clinic and you know why…….or damn man, I would at least hope you do.HokieFanDC wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 9:27 pmIt's literally called a health clinic. But, sure, abortion clinic.HokieHam wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 8:49 pmHealth clinics. That’s all you had to write………..talk about spreading a lie.HokieFanDC wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 7:51 pmYou are right that there is a difference in what the 2 groups did. You also know you're spreading a lie.HokieHam wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 2:17 pmAll you had to say was your last sentence.HokieFanDC wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 7:58 pm
Biden is an idiot, but I'm pretty sure he's not involved in the charges (if he has any idea about any of the FACE Act violations that have been charged).
And we still don't know what the sentence will be. IMO, they should be charged, maybe with a violation, but if charged with a fed offense, the sentence should be light.
In the Tennessee situation, all of them are guilty of violating the FACE Act, and all of them knew they were violating it. They should have been arrested and charged with something. None of them should be given anything close to the max sentence allowed.
The DOJ did the same thing last year with a reproductive health clinic, where some activists spray painted messages on the walls, things like "If abortions aren’t safe, neither are you". Should they be charged? Yep. With a federal offense, probably not.
And certainly not anything near the max allowed under FACE.
The FACE Act has become the FARCE Act.
There is a difference between just sitting and praying and vandalizing a building with threats of violence……
They weren't just sitting and praying. They were physically blocking the entrances to health clinics and deterring people from going to their appointments.
They were blocking the entrances so people couldn't get in and out. That is why they are guilty.
There are pro-abortion and anti-abortion rallies all the time where people aren't arrested and charged under the FACE Act.
You have to proactively and purposefully take action to be charged under the FACE Act. They knew what they were doing. They knew they were breaking the law. It was purposeful.
There is clearly nothing unconstitutional about the law. You're not making any sense. Blocking access to any medical facility is simply wrong.
- HokieHam
- Posts: 26682
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 pm
- Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....
Re: SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
HokieFanDC wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 12:18 amHokieHam wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 12:07 amYeah. It’s in the pic. It’s easy to see. I have no problem with it. The law is completely unconstitutional and only meant to protect their sacred sacrament of abortion. It’s meant to silence political dissent. And, yeah…..it’s called a health clinic and you know why…….or damn man, I would at least hope you do.HokieFanDC wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 9:27 pmIt's literally called a health clinic. But, sure, abortion clinic.HokieHam wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 8:49 pmHealth clinics. That’s all you had to write………..talk about spreading a lie.HokieFanDC wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 7:51 pmYou are right that there is a difference in what the 2 groups did. You also know you're spreading a lie.
They weren't just sitting and praying. They were physically blocking the entrances to health clinics and deterring people from going to their appointments.
They were blocking the entrances so people couldn't get in and out. That is why they are guilty.
There are pro-abortion and anti-abortion rallies all the time where people aren't arrested and charged under the FACE Act.
You have to proactively and purposefully take action to be charged under the FACE Act. They knew what they were doing. They knew they were breaking the law. It was purposeful.
There is clearly nothing unconstitutional about the law. You're not making any sense. Blocking access to any medical facility is simply wrong.
Medical clinic. And there it is……..
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
-
- Posts: 18547
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm
Re: SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
The building where they were protesting isn't just an abortion clinic. It's a medical office complex. The abortion clinic occupies one office in the building. There were people there who came to the center, not to the abortion clinic, for ultrasounds to see how their pregnancies were progressing, and if there were any issues. Some of these people had to go home because of the protestors blocking entrances.HokieHam wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 12:55 amHokieFanDC wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 12:18 amHokieHam wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 12:07 amYeah. It’s in the pic. It’s easy to see. I have no problem with it. The law is completely unconstitutional and only meant to protect their sacred sacrament of abortion. It’s meant to silence political dissent. And, yeah…..it’s called a health clinic and you know why…….or damn man, I would at least hope you do.HokieFanDC wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 9:27 pmIt's literally called a health clinic. But, sure, abortion clinic.HokieHam wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 8:49 pmHealth clinics. That’s all you had to write………..talk about spreading a lie.HokieFanDC wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 7:51 pm
You are right that there is a difference in what the 2 groups did. You also know you're spreading a lie.
They weren't just sitting and praying. They were physically blocking the entrances to health clinics and deterring people from going to their appointments.
They were blocking the entrances so people couldn't get in and out. That is why they are guilty.
There are pro-abortion and anti-abortion rallies all the time where people aren't arrested and charged under the FACE Act.
You have to proactively and purposefully take action to be charged under the FACE Act. They knew what they were doing. They knew they were breaking the law. It was purposeful.
There is clearly nothing unconstitutional about the law. You're not making any sense. Blocking access to any medical facility is simply wrong.
Medical clinic. And there it is……..
That's the problem with them.
- HokieHam
- Posts: 26682
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 pm
- Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....
Re: SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
They’re literally sitting in front of the door to the slaughter mill……HokieFanDC wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 1:05 amThe building where they were protesting isn't just an abortion clinic. It's a medical office complex. The abortion clinic occupies one office in the building. There were people there who came to the center, not to the abortion clinic, for ultrasounds to see how their pregnancies were progressing, and if there were any issues. Some of these people had to go home because of the protestors blocking entrances.HokieHam wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 12:55 amHokieFanDC wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 12:18 amHokieHam wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 12:07 amYeah. It’s in the pic. It’s easy to see. I have no problem with it. The law is completely unconstitutional and only meant to protect their sacred sacrament of abortion. It’s meant to silence political dissent. And, yeah…..it’s called a health clinic and you know why…….or damn man, I would at least hope you do.HokieFanDC wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 9:27 pmIt's literally called a health clinic. But, sure, abortion clinic.
They were blocking the entrances so people couldn't get in and out. That is why they are guilty.
There are pro-abortion and anti-abortion rallies all the time where people aren't arrested and charged under the FACE Act.
You have to proactively and purposefully take action to be charged under the FACE Act. They knew what they were doing. They knew they were breaking the law. It was purposeful.
There is clearly nothing unconstitutional about the law. You're not making any sense. Blocking access to any medical facility is simply wrong.
Medical clinic. And there it is……..
That's the problem with them.
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
-
- Posts: 18547
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm
Re: SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
Yep. Got it. So you agree they violated the law.HokieHam wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 3:33 pmThey’re literally sitting in front of the door to the slaughter mill……HokieFanDC wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 1:05 amThe building where they were protesting isn't just an abortion clinic. It's a medical office complex. The abortion clinic occupies one office in the building. There were people there who came to the center, not to the abortion clinic, for ultrasounds to see how their pregnancies were progressing, and if there were any issues. Some of these people had to go home because of the protestors blocking entrances.HokieHam wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 12:55 amHokieFanDC wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 12:18 amHokieHam wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 12:07 amYeah. It’s in the pic. It’s easy to see. I have no problem with it. The law is completely unconstitutional and only meant to protect their sacred sacrament of abortion. It’s meant to silence political dissent. And, yeah…..it’s called a health clinic and you know why…….or damn man, I would at least hope you do.HokieFanDC wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 9:27 pm
It's literally called a health clinic. But, sure, abortion clinic.
They were blocking the entrances so people couldn't get in and out. That is why they are guilty.
There are pro-abortion and anti-abortion rallies all the time where people aren't arrested and charged under the FACE Act.
You have to proactively and purposefully take action to be charged under the FACE Act. They knew what they were doing. They knew they were breaking the law. It was purposeful.
There is clearly nothing unconstitutional about the law. You're not making any sense. Blocking access to any medical facility is simply wrong.
Medical clinic. And there it is……..
That's the problem with them.
- RiverguyVT
- Posts: 30321
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm
Re: SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
2 sets of laws
Pray by an abortion clinic? Off to Alcatraz!
Block a highway, bridge or city street on behalf of humus? Nothing.
Pray by an abortion clinic? Off to Alcatraz!
Block a highway, bridge or city street on behalf of humus? Nothing.
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
- HokieHam
- Posts: 26682
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 pm
- Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....
Re: SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
An unconstitutional law, as I’ve said.HokieFanDC wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 5:57 pmYep. Got it. So you agree they violated the law.HokieHam wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 3:33 pmThey’re literally sitting in front of the door to the slaughter mill……HokieFanDC wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 1:05 amThe building where they were protesting isn't just an abortion clinic. It's a medical office complex. The abortion clinic occupies one office in the building. There were people there who came to the center, not to the abortion clinic, for ultrasounds to see how their pregnancies were progressing, and if there were any issues. Some of these people had to go home because of the protestors blocking entrances.HokieHam wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 12:55 amHokieFanDC wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 12:18 amHokieHam wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 12:07 am
Yeah. It’s in the pic. It’s easy to see. I have no problem with it. The law is completely unconstitutional and only meant to protect their sacred sacrament of abortion. It’s meant to silence political dissent. And, yeah…..it’s called a health clinic and you know why…….or damn man, I would at least hope you do.
There are pro-abortion and anti-abortion rallies all the time where people aren't arrested and charged under the FACE Act.
You have to proactively and purposefully take action to be charged under the FACE Act. They knew what they were doing. They knew they were breaking the law. It was purposeful.
There is clearly nothing unconstitutional about the law. You're not making any sense. Blocking access to any medical facility is simply wrong.
Medical clinic. And there it is……..
That's the problem with them.
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
-
- Posts: 18547
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm
Re: SCOTUS set to overturn Roe v Wade……and of course
Yeh,, you said it was unconstitutional. No offense, I'll take the stance of the legal experts in Congress, the Supreme Court, US Courts of Appeals, and Federal courts who rejected attempts at having it ruled unconstitutional.HokieHam wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 8:21 pmAn unconstitutional law, as I’ve said.HokieFanDC wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 5:57 pmYep. Got it. So you agree they violated the law.HokieHam wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 3:33 pmThey’re literally sitting in front of the door to the slaughter mill……HokieFanDC wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 1:05 amThe building where they were protesting isn't just an abortion clinic. It's a medical office complex. The abortion clinic occupies one office in the building. There were people there who came to the center, not to the abortion clinic, for ultrasounds to see how their pregnancies were progressing, and if there were any issues. Some of these people had to go home because of the protestors blocking entrances.HokieHam wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 12:55 amHokieFanDC wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 12:18 am
There are pro-abortion and anti-abortion rallies all the time where people aren't arrested and charged under the FACE Act.
You have to proactively and purposefully take action to be charged under the FACE Act. They knew what they were doing. They knew they were breaking the law. It was purposeful.
There is clearly nothing unconstitutional about the law. You're not making any sense. Blocking access to any medical facility is simply wrong.
Medical clinic. And there it is……..
That's the problem with them.