Anonymous ID: c6b092 June 25, 2022, 10:16 p.m. No.16523388   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3403 >>3445

>>16523346

They had two months to prepare.

Me thinks pro-abortion does not move the needle. Especially in an inflationary, high gas prices, empty shelves in the grocery store environment. Antifa doesn't have the gas money to drive around the country and light fires and throw bricks.

Anonymous ID: c6b092 June 25, 2022, 10:27 p.m. No.16523483   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3503

>>16523403

>The ones so concerned are in lib cities

See, that's the fly in the ointment.

If you live in New York City, you can get an abortion. There are no laws being proposed to stop abortion there. If you live in San Francisco, you can get an abortion. All liberal areas are still allowing abortions. Hell, even in Florida you can still get an abortion.

 

The point is, that they have no reason to protest. They can still kill their babies if they want to. Especially those who live in liberal areas. I think this is why there's no "outrage", when they sit down and think about, it, baby killing is still a possibility in the majority of the country. The only states that outright ban it are Texas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, and South Dakota. And I can see those states changing their laws to allow some abortions. Especially Texas.

Anonymous ID: c6b092 June 25, 2022, 10:44 p.m. No.16523602   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3608

>>16523404

>>16523456

>so Jane Roe said she was raped and so she couldn't be forced to deliver the baby, how did this turn into a woman's right to abort her baby for any reason at all?

 

Roe v Wade was about challenging Texas' abortion law. It had nothing to do with "Jane Roe" it had to do with if denial of a woman's ability to have an abortion by the state of Texas was illegal. Two lawyers, Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, wanted to challenge the law because, it was something to do, muh women's rights, or it was Tuesday. Who knows, only they know their true motivations for wanting to challenge the law.

 

Anywho, they started looking around for a pregnant woman because they needed someone pregnant to challenge the law. They couldn't just challenge it without having a supposed person who was wanting an abortion. They ended up finding pregnant waitress "Jane Roe" and were like, "Hey, Can you say you want an abortion, so we can make a case?" Roe was like, "sure, if you got five bucks, I'll do anything."

 

So off they went, claiming this woman, who already had two kids, wanted an abortion and the District Attorney of Dallas, Henry Wade, was preventing her from doing it. But the case wasn't about the individuals, per see, but about whether the District Attorney had the right to deny abortions at all. So that's how it became for all women, because it was the ability to deny abortion that was on trial, not Roe's particular abortion, which she never got by the way.

Anonymous ID: c6b092 June 25, 2022, 11:23 p.m. No.16523851   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3866 >>3893

>>16523824

The CIA blabbed to the new york times, they helped with the sinking of that Russian boat.

Now the CIA is blabbing to the New York Times they are running commandos in the Ukraine.

It used to be the CIA would deny, deny, deny, deny. Now they can't wait to go to the NYT and shout from the rooftops, "YOU'LL NEVER GUESS WHAT I JUST DID"

Military full of idiots. Intelligence agencies full of idiots. Idiots all around.