Or because most people who go into politics as Republicans happen to be White and male. What a grave sin that is, I know. If only this sort of thinking was applied to the NBA. “Where are the 5’9 Jewish people in the NBA? Clearly this is evidence of some subconscious bias or discrimination.”
Being 5'9" is a major hindrance in the NBA. Are you saying not being white or not being male is a major hindrance in Republican politics?
Read the Decision! The lower court should not have been involved at all. https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1457645/230994pc.pdf
No, it’s not and that’s not my point. My point is Democrats treat “racism” and “bigotry” as this “god of the gaps.” “There’s a disparity? We don’t know the explanation for it? Must be racism or bigotry from the old White devil.” Can’t possibly be that life is messy, and the only way you typically actually get completely proportional racial diversity is by inserting race as a conscious consideration. Democrats try to and they still fail. Republicans don’t, and the results are predictably messy. Here you are whining about age and race in the Republican legislature, yet you helped put a senile old White man in the White House who cut deals with actual segregationists and eulogized a former KKK member in Robert Byrd.
But they are involved, and have been involved, and have halted doctor's decisions to abort. Do you deny this truth? Do you deny Glick died, Zurokawski is now infertile, and Cox left the state before a similar fate befell upon her? And tell me, please, just how reading the law and the decision would have prevented any of this from happening! Or from happening again in the future.
If he's good enough for roughly 90% of Black voters, he's good enough for me. And the competition was Trump, so it wasn't a hard choice.
It is also worth mentioning that “White people,” more specifically “straight white men,” are the only group that can never play the diversity card. And they’re widely condemned by race hustlers as racist or bigoted. You get an all-Black space, no diversity problem. You get an all-female space, no diversity problem. You get a space exclusively comprised of gay White guys, no diversity problem. You get an all straight White male space, and not only is there a diversity problem, but that diversity problem is the result of a prejudice of some kind. And that double standard is why people who don’t subscribe to this kind of thinking shouldn’t take these same race hustlers seriously. Some people actually mean “diversity” when they say “diversity.” But a whole lot of people on the progressive side of the aisle only care about “diversity” as some political punchline to be used only when convenient, or a term masking anti-straight-white-male sentiment.
What percentage of Black voters would be good enough for you? What if White voters elect a Black legislator? What if Black Republicans support a White legislator? You’re looking at your desired conclusion, then building a standard by working your way backwards. That is the precise opposite way of how you should make ethical judgments.
For a while the only Black Justice on the Supreme Court was Clarence Thomas. And a whole lot of you loathe him. Coincidence?
I mean. I do, but you don’t have to listen to me. And I don’t have to listen to you. It appears we’re at an impasse.
They were not involved because of the mothers long term health or life was in jeopardy. They were involved because people wanted to use abortion to kill a child. Read the Law! Read the Decision!
So the courts didn't eventually rule against Cox and her doctor's petition to abort? And her doctor wanted to abort because Cox was highly likely to be in a position to have her life threatened. The court ruled against the doctor because at the time of the petition, Cox's life wasn't threatened. But had Cox's pregnancy got to that point, then there was a very good chance she'd end up infertile, like Zurakowski, or worse, dead, like Glick. To avoid these potential fate, Cox went out of state. Now, put yourself in Cox's situation. You are devastated, because you wanted the child. But now, that's never going to happen. And if you remain pregnant, the risk to your life is significant. Again, 60% of women who end up in sepsis don't make it. Your choice, as dictated by the courts, is wait and pray you never go into sepsis. Or go out of state and get care. What do you do? Now say you go out of state to ensure you life is saved, and you can have children in the future. You meet someone like you, who would say you killed your child for convenience! How rude and full of crap would you think you were! You didn't kill your child for convenience. You aborted to ensure your life was healthy, and that you could have children in the future. And the baby you aborted? It wasn't ever going to have a healthy life, and highly likely would pass within a week of birth, if not before. Now, ask yourself, could Cox have avoided her fate had she simply read the law and decision? What about Zarkowski? Glick? All they had to do was read? Explain it!
Her doctor did not need to go to court if her life was in danger. You know this. Read the Law! Read the Decision!
This is about legally killing for convenience. Not the Mothers Health. @AzCatFan do you support the legal killing of a child via abortion for any reason? If not. What exceptions do you support. This should answer everything…
"Read the Law!" you say. What law, some random law you selected? Is it like those calendars with a new word for each day? It is absolutely hysterical you are still imploring people to read laws that you can't even correctly identify. You so much remind me of the sovereign citizens that try to represent themselves in court Absolutely convinced that you know more than people who are much better educated, significantly brighter and who are trained in the law.
