Lots of legal breakdowns in this post. Put on your lawyer hats!
##Roe v. Wade in danger, again
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case next term that could significantly weaken, if not completely overturn, Roe v. Wade. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization deals with the constitutionality of pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions, stemming from a 2018 Mississippi state law (HB 1510) that banned abortion procedures after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. A year later, the state legislature passed and Gov. Phil Bryant (R) signed into law a bill (SB 2116) banning abortion at the detection of a fetus's heartbeat, which can occur as early as 6 weeks into pregnancy.
- Jackson Women’s Health Organization (JWHO) has been the only women’s health clinic that offers abortion in the entire state of Mississippi since the only other one closed in 2006. Republicans have tried to force JWHO to close by using a variety of restrictive regulations, such as requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. For more information, read this piece about “The Last Clinic” or watch the documentary (I’m not sure where to find it, unfortunately).
Both the district court and appeals court ruled unanimously in favor of the clinic and prevented the state from enacting its abortion ban.
>“States may regulate abortion procedures prior to viability so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the woman’s right, but they may not ban abortions,” US Appeals Court Judge Patrick Higginbotham wrote in the ruling... “The law at issue is a ban. Thus, we affirm the district court’s invalidation of the law.”
>“Prohibitions on pre-viability abortions … are unconstitutional regardless of the State’s interests,” added Higginbotham, who said the ban’s “obstacle is insurmountable, not merely substantial” for women in Mississippi seeking to obtain an abortion.
The last time the Supreme Court heard a case involving abortion rights, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was alive and Chief Justice John Roberts was the swing vote. He joined the liberals in a 5-4 ruling that states may not place an “undue burden” on the right to abortion before viability ([June Medical S
... keep reading on reddit ➡Edit: I am not the original poster. OP is Burneraccount-909876. ( I left this part out. First time posting in this sub.)
I hope I can do it this way since this is so long. I am going to post the links to each story. (There are 12 parts.)
As the title says, OP made investments when she was younger that paid off rather handsomely. She doesn't say how much she has but apparently, it's quite a bit. Her and her husband provided college accounts for several nieces and nephews, gifted money to her husbands parents, his sister and her husband and possibly several others so they could pay their mortgage down and then finish paying it off themselves. They also took FIL, MIL, SIL and BIL on a fancy trip. Now however, SIL demands $35,000 for a trip of her own because "she deserves it." Fireworks, assault, lawsuits and other mayhem occur once SIL is told no.
Please read in order:
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/EntitledPeople/comments/hkff57/the_story_of_a_sil_who_demands_a_holiday/
https://www.reddit.com/r/EntitledPeople/comments/i7pi52/you_paid_for_them_you_pay_for_us/
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/EntitledPeople/comments/i89zgg/update_you_paid_for_them_you_pay_for_us/
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/EntitledPeople/comments/k9ed9b/and_more_family_came_out_of_the_woodwork/
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/EntitledPeople/comments/mw1yx3/the_aftermath_concerning_the_visit_part_1/
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/EntitledPeople/comments/myr5g2/the_aftermath_concerning_the_visit_part_2/
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/EntitledPeople/comments/nz4tyk/the_aftermath_concerning_blabbermouth_part_1/
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/EntitledPeople/comments/o6wgec/the_aftermath_concerning_blabbermouth_part_2/
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/EntitledPeople/comments/oc9xqr/are_you_kidding_me/
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/EntitledPeople/comments/oshnnu/update_on_cousin_and_lawsuit/
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/EntitledPeople/comments/p3qpb1/how_entitled_cousin_met_froufrou/
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/EntitledPeople/comments/pa1fhk/and_now_my_own_extended_family_knows_as_well/
I really feel for OP but at the same time, I'm really proud of her also. She sticks up for herself, her family and her husband stands right there beside her. Sad and uplifting with a funny part or two.
Exhibit A
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/25/biden-doj-to-sue-georgia-over-new-voting-restrictions.html
This is a product of conservatives ceding every major cultural institution. Now the media, academia, hollywood etc has made "racism" the worst crime one could commit. The word shuts down debate and allows criminals to continue being criminal.
For instance suppose Lawrence hadn't been decided yet and a statue refers to "unnatural carnal acts with mankind". The defense tries to argue that the defendants are innocent because while they committed "carnal acts with mankind" they were committing "natural carnal acts" making them not guilty of "unnatural carnal acts". The defense then seeks to ask to call forth scientists to argue in court that homosexuality has a biological basis and is therefore "natural" and since the law only prescribes penalties for the act when it is unnatural that the defendant is innocent.
Why was this strategy never tried before Lawrence (or was it?) and how would a judge react if it were tried? Would this be allowed to be argued in court at all and would it possibly work?
