100% Pure Schumann Resonance for Grounding, Stability, & Well-Being [9-hours] 🙏
https://youtu.be/wIbweADku04
bieber babies should be really special
https://youtu.be/7yMXkIAR53w
he has got the
jabaajabbadingdong face
his wife hailey (she is a Baldwin. alec is her uncle)
got
sideyefectsyees
also
they cannot talk about this, right
https://pagesix.com/2022/04/27/hailey-bieber-had-heart-surgery-after-blood-clot-caused-stroke/
Hailey Bieber Hospitalized For Blood Clot In Her Brain
Hailey Bieber had heart surgery after blood clot caused 'stroke
Hailey Bieber had heart surgery after 'scary' blood clot caused mini stroke By Emily Selleck April 27, 2022 | 6:38pm Hailey Bieber underwent heart surgery after suffering a "mini stroke"
You Vote: After overturning Roe, should SCOTUS revisit same-sex marriage, contraception rights?
Justice Clarence Thomas suggests high court reconsider past precedents on same grounds as abortion decision.
By Aaron Kliegman
Updated: June 28, 2022 - 4:08pm
In his concurring opinion backing the Supreme Court's decision last week to overturn Roe v. Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the nation's highest court should reconsider past rulings that established constitutional rights to contraception, private sexual acts, and same-sex marriage.
The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." In the 1973 Roe decision, the court cited this clause to argue there's a constitutional right to an abortion.
However, Thomas wrote, the right to abortion under that clause "is neither 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' nor 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.'"
He then pointed to three past "demonstrably erroneous decisions" by the Supreme Court that were also based on interpretations of the Due Process Clause and should be revisited. Those cases are: Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which said married couples have the right to obtain contraceptives; Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which said criminal punishment for sodomy is unconstitutional; and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which said there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," wrote Thomas. "Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous' … we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents."
Do you agree with Thomas that, in the wake of overruling Roe, the Supreme Court should now revisit key past rulings concerning contentious issues such as contraception and same-sex marriage? Or should the high court let those precedents stand for the time being? Here's your chance to weigh in:
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/you-vote-after-overturning-roe-should-scotus-revisit-same-sex-marriage?utm_source=sf&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=twjtn
https://twitter.com/JustTheNews/status/1541897243296518144
anon opines
1) Contraception will be ruled ok
2) Buggery between consenting adults will be ruled ok
3) Dyke & Fag legal issues will be a boon to estate planning lawyers & CPAs that will have to dissect these gay estates.
*Don't worry though, they'll have the time and need the work after Friday's Federal Governement Overreach ruling comes out.
faggots.
So POTUS went haywire and this is just coming out now, a year and a half later?
Riiiiiiight
Does anyone actually believe this shit? If this had really happened it would STILL be in the news 18 months later
Warning letters search link:
https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/compliance-actions-and-activities/warning-letters