News Astrology and Mundane Events
- Thread starter leomoon
- Start date
Oddity
Well-known member
They'd disallow it. That falls under interstate traffic.
Oddity
Well-known member
The Roe decision was based on constitutional law, not on religion. There is no argument of religion in the decision. Abortion is not an enumerated right in the Constitution, ergo, it is up to the states to handle it. That could mean state legislature, or popular vote.
IOW, it gives the decision back to the people, not the federal government. That is not a bad thing. Unless you'd prefer all laws to be decreed in DC - which would work until a regime you don't like got into power and decreed their laws.
The federal government havng less power over peoples' lives is a GOOD thing, not a bad one.
Ryan seems more likely with powerful mars on asc in rising aries and NN in 10th; Retro Jupiter is a problem, somewhat Also problematical is highly elevated lilith; moon/mercury opposition could indicate some problem with media and/or communicating his precise message (please note: I am a-political and do not hold any political agenda-my observations here are exclusively astrological)
Last edited:
leomoon
Well-known member
Telling women they MUST bear children is government intervention. IF the States wanted to bring back Slavery, then should that be the individual States decision too? IF the States want to stop women and minorities from voting should Federal govt let the States make that choice?
Didn't Abraham Lincoln want a Union of all States and fought a Civil War for it? Should we let States secede from the Union so they don't have to provide Civil Rights to all?
BTW: Federal Law HAD to integrate Schools, because States would not do the right thing, refusing integration. Remember? ? (if you know your history or perhaps were not alive in the turbulent 50s-1960s)
History of de-segregation:
LBJ sends federal troops to Alabama. After an Alabama federal judge ruled on March 18 that a third march could go ahead, President Johnson and his advisers worked quickly to find a way to ensure the safety of King and his demonstrators on their way from Selma to Montgomery. The most powerful obstacle in their way was Governor Wallace,.
www.history101.com
www.history.com
Didn't Abraham Lincoln want a Union of all States and fought a Civil War for it? Should we let States secede from the Union so they don't have to provide Civil Rights to all?
BTW: Federal Law HAD to integrate Schools, because States would not do the right thing, refusing integration. Remember? ? (if you know your history or perhaps were not alive in the turbulent 50s-1960s)
History of de-segregation:
LBJ sends federal troops to Alabama. After an Alabama federal judge ruled on March 18 that a third march could go ahead, President Johnson and his advisers worked quickly to find a way to ensure the safety of King and his demonstrators on their way from Selma to Montgomery. The most powerful obstacle in their way was Governor Wallace,.
June 11, 1963: the University of Alabama was desegregated | History 101
In one of the most historic moments in Civil Rights history, two Black students—James Hood and Vivian Malone—walked through the…
www.history101.com
Supreme Court declares desegregation busing constitutional
On April 20, 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously declares busing for the purposes of desegregation to be constitutional. The decision in Swann v.
www.history.com
Last edited:
leomoon
Well-known member
No tob known in either case or chart
sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
Oddity
Well-known member
I wasn't aware that the Court had decreed forced impregnation.Telling women they MUST bear children is government intervention. IF the States wanted to bring back Slavery, then should that be the individual States decision too? IF the States want to stop women and minorities from voting should Federal govt let the States make that choice?
Didn't Abraham Lincoln want a Union of all States and fought a Civil War for it? Should we let States secede from the Union so they don't have to provide Civil Rights to all?
BTW: Federal Law HAD to integrate Schools, because States would not do the right thing, refusing integration. Remember? ? (if you know your history or perhaps were not alive in the turbulent 50s-1960s)
History of de-segregation:
LBJ sends federal troops to Alabama. After an Alabama federal judge ruled on March 18 that a third march could go ahead, President Johnson and his advisers worked quickly to find a way to ensure the safety of King and his demonstrators on their way from Selma to Montgomery. The most powerful obstacle in their way was Governor Wallace,.
June 11, 1963: the University of Alabama was desegregated | History 101
In one of the most historic moments in Civil Rights history, two Black students—James Hood and Vivian Malone—walked through the…
leomoon
Well-known member
There used to be a song many decades ago, this statement reminds me of. One I won't "play".
It's called, "the name game". (i.e. we know of course when we are honest with ourselves that is, exactly what is going on and what will be the end result for millions of young tearful women today if we watch the news like I do all weekend) You know, the ones who cannot get the controversial pill now. The ones who had their appointments cancelled. THOSE young women!
No, I prefer not to play the "name game".
Shirley Ellis - The Name Game Lyrics | Lyrics.com
The Name Game Lyrics by Shirley Ellis from the The Name Game album - including song video, artist biography, translations and more: The name game. Shirley! Shirley, Shirley Bo-ber-ley, bo-na-na fanna Fo-fer-ley. fee fi mo-mer-ley, Shirley! Linco…
www.lyrics.com
david starling
Well-known member
ALLOWED it, actually, along with forced births, if access to contraception is outlawed in some States.
Oddity
Well-known member
Which states have outlawed contraceptives? Was Griswold overturned?
leomoon
Well-known member
Can anyone here imagine for a moment, their child, their grandchild having been raped, or a victim of incest at age 13 being FORCED by law made a victim a 2nd time of the STATE she lives in to carry a fetus 9 months to birth? To traumatize that child twice?
Can one even imagine such cruelty? Personally, I cannot. Yet, here it is, in the country of my birth. Medieval cruelty, torture of children by adults who are supposed to know better. Most of them claiming some type of Christian heritage on their side. Disgusting!!
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. New Living Translation “Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Matt:7:21
Matthew 18:6 "But whoever causes harm to one of these little ones, it would be better if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depths of the sea."
It may seem logical that those aged 18 to 25 are completely mature, the brain still is maturing specifically the area known as the prefrontal cortex. Changes occurring between ages 18 and 25 are essentially a continued process of brain development that started during puberty. When youre 18, youre roughly halfway through the entire stage
Unfortunately many people are exposed to things that may have a detrimental impact on the development of their brain. These include negative social influences, substance abuse, and/or prolonged levels of high stress. Although some people will have more resilient brains than others as a result of genetics, it is recommended to minimize exposure to problematic stimuli and scenarios.
ENVIRONMENTAL STRESS AND THE BRAIN -
mentalhealthdaily.com
Can one even imagine such cruelty? Personally, I cannot. Yet, here it is, in the country of my birth. Medieval cruelty, torture of children by adults who are supposed to know better. Most of them claiming some type of Christian heritage on their side. Disgusting!!
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. New Living Translation “Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Matt:7:21
Matthew 18:6 "But whoever causes harm to one of these little ones, it would be better if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depths of the sea."
It may seem logical that those aged 18 to 25 are completely mature, the brain still is maturing specifically the area known as the prefrontal cortex. Changes occurring between ages 18 and 25 are essentially a continued process of brain development that started during puberty. When youre 18, youre roughly halfway through the entire stage
Detrimental influences upon brain development
Unfortunately many people are exposed to things that may have a detrimental impact on the development of their brain. These include negative social influences, substance abuse, and/or prolonged levels of high stress. Although some people will have more resilient brains than others as a result of genetics, it is recommended to minimize exposure to problematic stimuli and scenarios.
ENVIRONMENTAL STRESS AND THE BRAIN -
At What Age Is The Brain Fully Developed? - Mental Health Daily
It is widely debated as to which age the brain is considered "fully mature" or developed. In the past, many experts believed that the brain may have been
mentalhealthdaily.com
Oddity
Well-known member
Which states have mandated this? Specifically that 13-year-old incest victims must give birth? Seriously asking. Will the offender at least be punished?
leomoon
Well-known member
JOHN EASTMAN TRUMP LAWYER - WHO COOKED UP THE SCHEME TO OVERTURN ELECTION WITH FAKE ELECTORS:
( 6/27/22) SEARCH WARRANT SERVED (COMING OUT OF DINNER IN A RESTAURANT - HE WAS FRISKED AND SERVED THE WARRANT BELOW WHILE THE ARM OF THE LAW DEMANDED HE OPEN HIS CELL PHONE WITH FACIAL RECOGNITION, (THEY DID IT FOR HIM) WHEN HE DID NOT COMPLY:
( 6/27/22) SEARCH WARRANT SERVED (COMING OUT OF DINNER IN A RESTAURANT - HE WAS FRISKED AND SERVED THE WARRANT BELOW WHILE THE ARM OF THE LAW DEMANDED HE OPEN HIS CELL PHONE WITH FACIAL RECOGNITION, (THEY DID IT FOR HIM) WHEN HE DID NOT COMPLY:
leomoon
Well-known member
This whole topic, honestly; makes me want to throw up, even looking at it:
You'll all need to do your own research on States. Look to the worse being the Red States of course , as they seem to be the sadists in this country. (their governors) - and supporters -
www.guttmacher.org
p.s. I'd start with screwball Texas first - Abbott says he is getting rid of rape this way. eliminating rape so you'll not have pregnant children and incest in Texas.
www.huffpost.com
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) defended his state’s six-week abortion ban on Tuesday, dismissing concerns that it does not provide exceptions for pregnancies that result from rape or incest.
You'll all need to do your own research on States. Look to the worse being the Red States of course , as they seem to be the sadists in this country. (their governors) - and supporters -
State Bans on Abortion Throughout Pregnancy
p.s. I'd start with screwball Texas first - Abbott says he is getting rid of rape this way. eliminating rape so you'll not have pregnant children and incest in Texas.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Promises To 'Eliminate All Rapists'
Abbott defended Texas' six-week abortion ban, which does not provide exceptions for pregnancies that result from rape or incest.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) defended his state’s six-week abortion ban on Tuesday, dismissing concerns that it does not provide exceptions for pregnancies that result from rape or incest.
david starling
Well-known member
Not yet.
david starling
Well-known member
Odds, this goes beyond the debatable claim that any rights not SPECIFICALLY listed in the Constitution are automatically to be left up to individual States.
But, now, this Court majority is interpreting the Second Amendment as if the first part, "A well regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free State....", doesn't even matter. Meaning, individual States have the RIGHT to pass laws concerning the regulation of the bearing of arms in their own State. This CLEARLY IS a States' right, which this Court majority is attempting to abolish.
But, now, this Court majority is interpreting the Second Amendment as if the first part, "A well regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free State....", doesn't even matter. Meaning, individual States have the RIGHT to pass laws concerning the regulation of the bearing of arms in their own State. This CLEARLY IS a States' right, which this Court majority is attempting to abolish.
Oddity
Well-known member
No. The right to bear arms is a constitutional right. Probably also a right in many states, but even if it isn't in some, you have the right to own and bear arms in the US.
The well-regulated militia (e.g., well-provisioned) needs to be there in case the federal government goes overboard - so you can fight tyranny. The founding fathers were intimately familiar with government corruption and overreach. Things haven't changed much on that front.
Regulated then meant provisioned and capable, not rule-bound, the way we'd define it today. It doesn't have to be formal, it's people that can and will defend their city/state.
You should have a gun (I know, I know!), but...things are getting crazy out there.
The well-regulated militia (e.g., well-provisioned) needs to be there in case the federal government goes overboard - so you can fight tyranny. The founding fathers were intimately familiar with government corruption and overreach. Things haven't changed much on that front.
Regulated then meant provisioned and capable, not rule-bound, the way we'd define it today. It doesn't have to be formal, it's people that can and will defend their city/state.
You should have a gun (I know, I know!), but...things are getting crazy out there.
david starling
Well-known member
The "right to bear arms" is to be "well regulated" by each State. Says so, right in the Amendment. Did someone cross that out with a felt pen?
david starling
Well-known member
It was to fight the British, and hostile Indigenous tribes, which were a real threat at the time, not the U.S. military or the State's own militia.
"Regulated" in English has meant "following rules" since the 16th Century.
Personally, I feel a State's citizens would have more security WITHOUT a bunch of homicidal maniacs legally carrying concealed firearms.
"Regulated" in English has meant "following rules" since the 16th Century.
Personally, I feel a State's citizens would have more security WITHOUT a bunch of homicidal maniacs legally carrying concealed firearms.
david starling
Well-known member
Do the Supreme Court majority Justices really feel more secure knowing that homicidal maniacs angry over their abortion ruling are walking around in their own neighborhoods carrying concealed firearms? Probably not. But, they do have tight security and secret service protection the rest of us lack.