By islander September 14, 2022 5:14 am Category: News (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here Rate this article (5=best, 0=poor)

Once again Hate was manipulated and fell for the Republican nonsense that they wanted to take away a woman’s constitutional right to abortion and let each state decide for itself whether a woman should have that right. They told Hate, and he believed them, that overturning RVW would be returning that decision to the people and the Federal government should stay out of it.

Now, Lindsey Graham explains what they really wanted to do and it is the very opposite of what they told Hate, and unfortunately Hate believed them which is why he defended their lie.



“In contrast, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) today announced he will introduce a national abortion ban. This is a pretty transparent attempt by the Republicans to deal with the political toxicity of the Republican-dominated Supreme Court’s overturning Roe v. Wade, a toxicity unlikely to go away while news breaks, as it did today, that the state of Texas will not publish data on maternal death until after the midterm elections, suggesting the data will be bad indeed.

When the court ended the recognition of the constitutional right to reproductive rights in June, Republicans tried to manage the backlash by saying that the decision would simply return to the states the right to decide the status of abortion within their boundaries. The idea was actually that of enslavers in the 1830s: that true democracy operated at the state level because lawmakers there were closer to their constituents and would represent them better than those at the national level, thus enabling them to dismiss national pressure against enslavement as interference in state rights.


Graham himself echoed this line. As recently as August 7, 2022, according to White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, he said, “I've been consistent. I think states should decide the issue of marriage and states should decide the issue of abortion.” *

* HCR

Cited and related links:

1. heathercoxrichardson.substack.com

Comments Start Below

by HatetheSwamp on September 14, 2022 5:32 am The idea was actually that of enslavers in the 1830s: that true democracy operated at the state level because lawmakers there were closer to their constituents and would represent them better than those at the national level, thus enabling them to dismiss national pressure against enslavement as interference in state rights. isle! How absolutely moronic! And, Heather claims to be a historian!! The "idea" is the TENTH AMENDMENT to the Constitution!!!!!! Can't you haters think reason at all!!!!!!? What OD and pb praised in the Dobbs decision is its punch line that abortion will be regulated by "the people and their representatives." That's what Graham is proposing. There's some question, pb thinks, if the Court is requiring this be done at the state level. But, isle. What Heather wrote, again, is idiotic! And, you fell for it! by islander on September 14, 2022 7:03 am Hate, you’ve fallen for the confederate’s ploy to use state’s rights to justify slavery, and then you say: ”Heather claims to be a historian!!” Heather is indeed a well recognized Historian with far more experience, knowledge, and understanding of American history than you. Here is a partial list of some her accomplishments: “Heather Cox Richardson is an American historian and professor of history at Boston College, where she teaches courses on the American Civil War, the Reconstruction Era, the American West, and the Plains Indians.[1] She previously taught history at MIT and the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Richardson has authored six books on history and politics. In 2014, Richardson founded a popular history website, werehistory.org. Between 2017 and 2018, she co-hosted the NPR podcast Freak Out and Carry On. Most recently, Richardson started publishing "Letters from an American", a nightly newsletter that chronicles current events in the larger context of American history." You could learn a lot from her. by islander on September 14, 2022 7:11 am Hate wrote: ”What OD and pb praised in the Dobbs decision is its punch line that abortion will be regulated by "the people and their representatives." That's what Graham is proposing.” And you fell for it. When the Republicans use the phrase “the people and their representatives” they only mean state governments, what the Republicans are failing to inform you of is that this also applies to our Federal government, which is made up of the representatives of the people (the people and their representatives). What the Graham did was fool you by speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Out of one side he told you one thing, a woman’s rights should be decided by the state not the Federal government and you believed him! Then out of the other side he negated that by proposing a Federal ban on abortion after 15 weeks. That’s exactly what we told you the Republican’s goal was. They don’t care what “the people want” no matter how often they appeal to that in order to justify what “they want”. They are just as dishonest as Trump which is why they chose him to represent them. by HatetheSwamp on September 14, 2022 7:25 am Heather's proof that possessing a Ph.D. isn't proof of anything...good, anyway. isle, The pandemic proved that Big Brother's evil is present in America, and a threat to individual liberty. pb gets it that Heather's not the first, nor only Blue MAGA progressive Swampcult commentator to attempt to run a Flea Flicker around the guarantees of individual liberty promised by the Bill of Rights. Nor will she be the last. While blood was courageously spilled in the fight for the belief that individuals possess freedoms given to them by God, Heather and people, like you, willing to believe her propaganda, want to think of our liberty as a curse. Having said that, clearly, freedoms can be abused...or used to justify evil, as the states' rights claims used to empower slavery prove. Still, get it. Defining liberty itself as evil is, itself, evil. That's what Heather's fancy footwork about the Tenth Amendment did. What Heather has written is as appalling as anything that you've posted here... ...and you fell for it...and passed it on. by HatetheSwamp on September 14, 2022 7:32 am When the Republicans use the phrase “the people and their representatives” they only mean state governments... Ahhhhhhhhhhh. Good old fashioned progressive claims to omniscience! There's nuthin like it on all of SS! You're claiming the ability to read the minds of all GOPs. Ouch! Don't go there, buddy. You're playing with fire! Some of their mental illness may seep into your otherwise untainted progressive brain. by islander on September 14, 2022 7:50 am Hate, You are now speaking out of both sides of your mouth just like Graham. You can say you are all for freedom, liberty, and rights and then try to justify removing and banning woman's rights and such things as the freedom of two adult people to marry the person they love...However...No matter how hard you try, you cannot reconcile the contradiction...it doesn’t work. You’ll only end up living in your own private world of cognitive dissonance, having to believe two contradictory things at the same time. The rest of know how dangerous your absolutist thinking can be, especially when, like you, one believes subjectivity is truth. by HatetheSwamp on September 14, 2022 7:58 am I understand that Graham's bill provides unfettered access to abortion for 3 1/2 months. No questions asked. Hain't? by oldedude on September 14, 2022 8:13 am If actually put through (which I seriously doubt) by a majority in the House, and 2/3 in the Senate, It would be struck down the same way as RvW. Don't get your panties in a knot over it. by oldedude on September 14, 2022 10:36 am "Out of one side he told you one thing, a woman’s rights should be decided by the state not the Federal government and you believed him! Then out of the other side he negated that by proposing a Federal ban on abortion after 15 weeks." We're going to agree on this. Like I said in another post, if that's the ruling of SCOTUS, then you can't go back and put in what you want in the decision. If it's a state's rights issue, then it remains a state's rights issue. The SCOTUS decision was very clear about the fact this was a state's issue. Ginsburg agreed with this. That said, I'm a little disappointed in Graham if this is this case. theadvocate.com by HatetheSwamp on September 14, 2022 10:41 am What I recall from the decision is that it leaves the regulation of abortion "to the people and their representatives." I don't recall the reference being to states. But, I loooooooooove the Blue MAGAs attempting twice in this Congress to pass federal abortion legislation and then being appalled that a GOP would propose the same thing. by islander on September 14, 2022 10:50 am Hate writes: ”isle was dumping bilious hate” LoL !!! You are such a phony, Hate, and a drama queen to boot ! There wasn't any "hate" in my posts. You’re still entirely missing the point of this thread. As far as your appeal to the tenth Amendment in an attempt to somehow(?) justify Graham’s hypocrisy (What the Graham did was fool you by speaking out of both sides of his mouth). od unwittingly demonstrated my point about interpreting the Constitution, when he said that a constitutionalist is one that believes the constitution as it reads, which is what I said likened it to the claim of the Bible Believing Christians who interpret the Bible literally by asserting that the Bible is to be understood as it reads according to the “plain meaning” conveyed by its text! But none of that has anything to do with Graham's and the Republican’s claim that they support overturning RVW because decisions about women’s rights should be left up to each individual state, not the Federal government...and then turning around and proposing a Federal ban on abortions after 14 weeks. by HatetheSwamp on September 14, 2022 10:57 am isle, As far as your appeal to the tenth Amendment in an attempt to somehow(?) justify... That was not to justify. It was to identify Heather's rant as hate of the liberties guaranteed to our citizens by the Bill of Rights. A hate that you embrace. by Donna on September 14, 2022 12:09 pm I don't understand Hts's accusations of "hate". I also don't understand what all of this talk about "God-given rights" is based on, which Hts used in a post on this topic thread. I'm not a Bible scholar, but I've read the entire Bible, many parts more than once. And nowhere in it do I recall reading about any rights that God gave anyone. "God-given rights" seems to be one of those things that some people blurt out without questioning it. by islander on September 14, 2022 12:38 pm Hate, The 10th amendment is too vague, imperfect and imprecise to be interpreted in the absolute and timeless way that you interpret it. If it were, slavery would still be legal in the USA. Your interpretation was what the confederacy used to justify slavery and today it is trying to be used, not to protect our rights from being taken away by the state but to use it for that very purpose, just as the confederacy tried to use it to deny slaves their rights. "Whether the Tenth Amendment actually is, or ought to be, serving as an independent source of constitutional principles of federalism is a matter of great controversy, both on and off the Court. Do these “Tenth Amendment” cases really involve the Tenth Amendment, or do they simply interpret (or perhaps misinterpret) specific grants of federal power in light of certain principles codified in the Tenth Amendment, but present in the Constitution’s structure and design even before the Bill of Rights was ratified?The Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sandford was issued on March 6, 1857. Delivered by Chief Justice Roger Taney, this opinion declared that slaves were not citizens of the United States and could not sue in Federal courts. In addition, this decision declared that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories. The Dred Scott decision was overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution" * Our reproductive rights, our rights to to privacy, bodily autonomy, and liberty are guaranteed and protected by the 9th and14th amendments. You want to use the 10th amendment not to protect those rights, but to grant states the power to take them away. * National Constitution Center by HatetheSwamp on September 14, 2022 1:45 pm You want to use the 10th amendment not to protect those rights, but to grant states the power to take them away. Wassup, isle!!!!!? Did you eat Omniscience Granola for breakfast. pb does understand that this is a democracy...well, it ain't a democracy...that's what progressives say to lament the evil of Trump and the Ultra-MAGAs. pb understands that this is a constitutional republic and that it's, as the Court said, "The people and their representatives," who rule here. And, that the people AND THE STATES are protected from the intervention of the central government into their lives. Your side tries to pretend that that Amendment don't exist. by oldedude on September 14, 2022 1:58 pm "LoL !!! You are such a phony, Hate, and a drama queen to boot ! There wasn't any "hate" in my posts." I will say that I don't think you can honestly see the hatred you spew but are ultra-sensitive to anyone countering anything you say. Especially if that involves facts. by Donna on September 14, 2022 2:06 pm I have no idea what's given you that impression. I think you're being way too sensitive. by islander on September 14, 2022 2:43 pm Hate says: ”And, that the people AND THE STATES are protected from the intervention of the central government into their lives.” Literally LOL !! at that one, Hate! Our Federal government, what you call the ‘central government’ derives its power from the consent of the governed, that’s us! “We the People” ! One of it’s major responsibilities is to protect our constitutional rights from being violated or taken from us...even if, and especially, if it’s by state or local officials. That responsibility is what you call intervention by the central government. What irks you is that it prevents state officials from intervening in our most private and sacred rights, like our reproductive rights, our right to bodily autonomy, our right to choose to marry the person we love, our right to be our authentic selves etc (I’m sure you get the picture). These private matters that are none of your business, are the things you want to control by using state and local officials to do it for you. And yes, we all are well aware of your hollow professions of love for our freedoms and liberty, which can only be actualized in a democracy. And we also know how much you hate the very idea of democracy. You are not at all thrilled with the our right to chose to to vote our representatives (democracy) if "each" of us has the right to vote and each vote has equal value. by HatetheSwamp on September 14, 2022 3:33 pm "What irks you..." You are really on a roll with your delusions of omniscience today, eh, isle!!!!!? Maybe you should have that checked. Bahahahahahahahahahaha, ahhhhhhhhhhh! by islander on September 14, 2022 4:22 pm Psst, Hate, I'm going to let you in on a little secret, while I fully understand your obsession with my omniscience, I'm really no more omniscient than Eisenstein or Immanuel Kant! We can just see things a little more clearly than you. So don't worry. Be happy!! 🍻 by oldedude on September 14, 2022 5:14 pm I have no idea what's given you that impression. I think you're being way too sensitive. I realize that in the protection of your religion, you won't say anything at all to disparage anything at all that he (et al) would say. So I'm just leaving it at that. by HatetheSwamp on September 15, 2022 4:17 am The question is, isle, ARE YOU AS OMNISCIENT AS KIERKEGAARD? Bahahahahahahahahahaha, ahhhhhhhhhhh! by islander on September 15, 2022 7:03 am With regard to what I said about our relative omniscience, Kierkegaard would agree with Manny and me (the dynamic duo) and Einstein would prove it mathematicaly. by oldedude on September 15, 2022 3:30 pm "What irks you is that it prevents state officials from intervening in our most private and sacred rights, like our reproductive rights, our right to bodily autonomy, our right to choose to marry the person we love, our right to be our authentic selves etc (I’m sure you get the picture). These private matters that are none of your business, are the things you want to control by using state and local officials to do it for you." So the flip side is the Central Government (that is THE term by the way by anyone that understands governments and politics) has the power to restrict abortion, as well as mandate it in certain circumstances. by islander on September 16, 2022 4:44 am Here in the USA we have a Federal government which protects our Constitutional rights and is the correct term. It's not the same as Central government, although you can call it whatever you want. "The first type of government in America was based primarily on state government. Prior to the signing of the Constitution, America had been made up of thirteen colonies, which had been ruled by England. Following the Revolutionary War, these colonies, although they had formed a league of friendship under the Articles of Confederation, basically governed themselves. They feared a strong central government like the one they lived with under England's rule. However, it was soon discovered that this weak form of state government could not survive and so the Constitution was drafted. This time, it was decided that a government system based on federalism would be established. In other words, power is shared between the Federal and state (local) governments. The opposite of this system of government is a centralized government, such as in France and Great Britain, where the Federal Government maintains all power. Sharing power between the Federal Government and state governments allows for a nice balance between what the Federal and state governments can manage. For example, the Federal Government may set a uniform currency (money) system. Could you imagine having 50 different types of coins, each with a different value? You would need to take along a calculator to go shopping in another state. By setting up a national policy, the system is fair to everyone, and the states do not have to bear the heavy burden of regulating their currency (money)." Forced abortion is illegal in all 50 states. bensguide.gpo.gov by oldedude on September 16, 2022 5:10 am Central Government is the term in Political Science, Intelligence, Global studies, economics, etcetcetcetcetc. And yes, our Republic has less of a central government than any of the monarch states (Europe, FVEYx, etc). And yes, "at this time" mandatory abortion is not legal. It was however used by Margaret Sanger, the "Mother of Planned Parenthood." She was an avowed racist that used abortion to limit the number of blacks giving birth. You have the not so odd "assumption" that you can change the constitution to your liking, but never think what would happen if those rules were used against you. en.wikipedia.org by HatetheSwamp on September 16, 2022 5:11 am What scares me about this, isle, is that you depend on quotes like these and don't seem to know this stuff. Who was teaching you Social Studies in Jr Hi? This time, it was decided that a government system based on federalism would be established. In other words, power is shared between the Federal and state (local) governments. The opposite of this system of government is a centralized government, such as in France and Great Britain, where the Federal Government maintains all power. This is correct in an abstract sense. But, isle, why don't you know our own history? The US Federal Constitution would never have been ratified...except several states demanded that a Bill of Rights be presented to Amendment the American form of federalism... ...in favor, first, of the rights of individuals and, second, the power of the states. What you want to ignore...probably don't even understand...is that our Federal Constitution would NEVER have been ratified without the promise of the Bill of Rights to protect individuals from the intrusion of the federal government into their lives and, especially, and the Tenth Amendment to preserve state authority from federal bullying. by islander on September 16, 2022 5:55 am I will often quote an important part of an article that clearly explains the point I am making, and I will then provide the link to the site so that the reader can read the whole article if they want to. After that if the reader wants to discuss it or further or disagrees, that’s fine with me. by HatetheSwamp on September 16, 2022 6:33 am Good'nuff, isle. Your quote is perfectly accurate...theoretically...in general. But, it doesn't describe American federalism. The soul of American federalism is captured in the Bill of Rights. Nine of the original 13 states would NEVER have ratified apart from the guarantee, of the writers of the Constitution, that there would be a Bill of Rights to assure that the central government be restricted from intruding into individual liberty and state authority. It's the freedom of the individual and the authority of the states that you in the Blue MAGA Swampcult want to pretend away. More than anything else, individual liberty and state authority are what the antiSwamp stands for. The Constitution is on our side. Period! by islander on September 16, 2022 6:40 am "at this time" mandatory abortion is not legal. It was however used by Margaret Sanger," 2 questions... Did Margaret Sanger ever force a woman to have an abortion? Would it have been legal if she did? by islander on September 16, 2022 7:13 am "The Constitution is on our side" And it's the duty of Federal government to protect our Constitutional rights from being abused or taken away even by State and local governments. And, as I'm sure you are aware, ALL our rights are not specifically enumerated in The Bill Of Rights. What you have been arguing in favor of is using the state and local governments in order to "take away" our most private and sacred rights, like our reproductive rights, our right to bodily autonomy, our right to choose to marry the person we love, our right to be our authentic selves etc. Protecting our rights is not what you call it, "bullying". by HatetheSwamp on September 16, 2022 7:24 am What you have been arguing in favor of is using the state and local governments in order to "take away" our most private and sacred rights... When has pb come even close to that? Protecting our rights is not what you call it, "bullying". The most clear and obvious examples of the sort of bullying pb's referring to is the Covid mandates, etc. that the feds continued to inflicted against individual liberty when it was becoming clear that that was not "following the science." by islander on September 16, 2022 8:38 am Hate wrote: When has pb come even close to that?" When you and yours fought to overturn RVW (you took away women's reproductive rights), fought gay marriage, gay rights, etc, you fought to deny Americans their rights just as surely as those state and local authorities that fought to deny black Americans their rights., It was the Federal government that stepped in and protected the rights of those Americans as is its duty. As far as mask mandates go: The mask mandates most people didn’t like were mandated by various state and local officials and differed from state to state, not the federal government mandates which dealt with interstate travel and Federal employees (most Americans favored those). And contrary to what you think the mandates (both state and federal) were “following the science" and, whether you like it or not, saved the lives of many Americans. by HatetheSwamp on September 16, 2022 8:46 am Bottom line, isle, You despise, to your core, "government of the people, by the people and for the people." by Donna on September 16, 2022 9:17 am A predictively stupid response to what islander posted. Roe guaranteed access to abortion for all Americans. It protected Americans from state-level extremism. by oldedude on September 16, 2022 10:57 am Lead, that's very selective. If it does the religion well, he's for it. If it doesn't, they hate it. by HatetheSwamp on September 16, 2022 12:01 pm But, Donna. Roe is, always was, unconstitutional. by oldedude on September 16, 2022 2:25 pm It was unconstitutional (as Ginsburg said) ONLY because it's an edict from the federal government. Granted, I think it had many merits being there. That said, under our constitution, it needs to go to the states. I think it created many more problems than it fixed by getting it changed. This is one of those times when the liberals are attempting to circumvent the constitution. Except the dims are starting works in each state to ensure their laws are what you want. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page