It looks like the Thomas More Society will litigate this case pro bono on behalf of the Iowa Legislature, as the Iowa State Attorney General will not defend the law.
Even though the Thomas More Society is taking this pro bono, Iowa will still have to pay all associated court costs and when the ACLU and Planned Parenthood Federation of America prevail, they will likely recover substantial attorney fees from Iowa.
shakes head
That babyâs mother is responsible for itâs death, not Israel.
Donât bring babies to riots.
No but you are definitely both the hypocrite and the troll.
Youâre flailing.
I donât think it is flailing as much as flopping. When desperate, call âtroll,â often while trolling, and hope that that ends the discussion.
Another amateur diversionist.
I canât disagree.
You came into this thread with the sole purpose of attacking me. You are both a hypocrite and a troll.
laughing emoticon
Pot. Kettle. You know the rest. These posts of yours are becoming childish.
So if one owns a hotel, the people renting their rooms are under the complete mercy of the owner? If the owners want to take the guests items from suitcase they can, right? How about take their jewel, their credit cards? Simply being inside the motherâs womb for at most 9 months, does not mean, they have control of whether the child should live or die. It doesnât mean itâs their possession. DNA says otherwise. Everything has to be within limits.
Occupy argument makes little sense. Your argument implies that the child inside the womb had some sort of choice. The child did not choose to be in a specific womb.
is that why you only comment on thread dealing politics in Texas?
Cite a post by me going nuts about a state law passed in any other state or attacking the people of the state for doing so that didnât have a direct conflict with national policy such as sanctuary policies.
Whoâs womb is it inhabiting?>
Again, simply being INSIDE of another, does not mean itâs their property.
Renting a car, house, apartment, does not mean the owner of the property has complete control over the person. I would classify executing someone counts as something extreme and unethical.
Where do you expect babies to come from? Dirt and soil? Storks? It has to start somewhere. Punishing a child simply because it was conceived the âwrong wayâ is simply madness. #1 mission of our government is to protect LIFE.
the purpose of this law is to overthrow a supreme court ruling.
Well thatâs just stupid. No law can overturn a SCOTUS ruling.
If anything itâs purpose is to make a statement and possibly to get a SCOTUS hearing eventually.
what would the purpose of a SCOTUS hearing be?
to overturn the previous one.
Will conservatives punish a woman who kills a 1 year old baby the same for a woman who kills a baby that has been in the womb for 6 weeks?
The answer right there will tell you how conservatives truly view an unborn babyâŚ
Choice is irrelevant. The human inside the woman is imposing a risk to the woman while occupying her womb and taking her resources. If she so wishes, she can expel that risk unrestricted until viability. No human has a right to take anotherâs resources and impose a risk to their health. No amount of false analogies will change that.
Didnât say it was property but she has the right to have it removed from her body if she doesnât want it in there, even if this results in its death.
