Anonymous ID: 1b7d32 July 27, 2022, 3:34 p.m. No.16853975   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>16853576

https://www.ft.com/content/2e667c3f-954d-49fa-8024-2c869789e32f?sharetype=gift

 

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.

https://www.ft.com/content/2e667c3f-954d-49fa-8024-2c869789e32f?sharetype=gift

 

“We are standing on the precipice of losing our democracy, and everything that everybody else cares about then goes out the window,” she says. “Look, the most important thing is to win the next election. The alternative is so frightening that whatever does not help you win should not be a priority.”

 

Q.

Anonymous ID: 1b7d32 July 27, 2022, 3:34 p.m. No.16854031   🗄️.is 🔗kun

 

Anon is not opposed to preventing conception, so I'm confused by Thomas' wanting to re-visit this.

 

I can only think that maybe it has to do with the manner of contraception. As stated earlier, dome forms of birth control justvorevent the fertilized egg from implanting, thus, basically aborting.

Once conception has occurred, then I agree with Thomas.

 

Griswold v. Connecticut

 

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects the liberty of married couples to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction. The case involved a Connecticut "Comstock law" that prohibited any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception". The court held that the statute was unconstitutional, and that its effect was "to deny disadvantaged citizens … access to medical assistance and up-to-date information in respect to proper methods of birth control". By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy", establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as "protected from governmental intrusion".

 

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

 

Q.

Anonymous ID: 1b7d32 July 27, 2022, 3:36 p.m. No.16854508   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>16853723

that's not his Dad

Invasion of mUH JUew Hill

shitting the bread

>>16854048

 

All the hang-out artists who dissed up in the past must be getting pissed, and have nowhere to go.

Likely will get worse before it gets better.

 

figures.

 

Q.

Anonymous ID: 1b7d32 July 27, 2022, 3:37 p.m. No.16854845   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>16854064

 

Oh, they are complaining a lot. They are blaming it on Biden! Saw a clip maybe on Monday where there was a black woman on saying she's being held hostage in Russia. She hasn't talked to her wife in close to 6 months. Biden is the only one who can do anything to free her. Only heard it that one time. No media has touched the Griner story since.

 

Q.