Iowa wastes more taxpayer money


#122

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.


#123

shakes head


#124

That baby’s mother is responsible for it’s death, not Israel.

Don’t bring babies to riots.


#125

No but you are definitely both the hypocrite and the troll.


#126

You’re flailing.


#127

I don’t think it is flailing as much as flopping. When desperate, call “troll,” often while trolling, and hope that that ends the discussion.

Another amateur diversionist.


#128

I can’t disagree.


#129

You came into this thread with the sole purpose of attacking me. You are both a hypocrite and a troll.


#130

laughing emoticon


#131

Pot. Kettle. You know the rest. These posts of yours are becoming childish.


#132

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 mother’s womb for at most 9 months, does not mean, they have control of whether the child should live or die. It doesn’t mean it’s 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.


#133

is that why you only comment on thread dealing politics in Texas?


#134

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 didn’t have a direct conflict with national policy such as sanctuary policies.


#135

Who’s womb is it inhabiting?>

Again, simply being INSIDE of another, does not mean it’s 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 “wrong way” is simply madness. #1 mission of our government is to protect LIFE.


#136

the purpose of this law is to overthrow a supreme court ruling.


#137

Well that’s just stupid. No law can overturn a SCOTUS ruling.

If anything it’s purpose is to make a statement and possibly to get a SCOTUS hearing eventually.


#138

what would the purpose of a SCOTUS hearing be?
to overturn the previous one.


#139

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 baby…


#140

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 another’s resources and impose a risk to their health. No amount of false analogies will change that.


#141

Didn’t say it was property but she has the right to have it removed from her body if she doesn’t want it in there, even if this results in its death.