Pro-choicers picket Pelosi's house, claim Democrats are "complicit" in potential overhaul of Roe v. Wade

32 views
Skip to first unread message

Ubiquitous

unread,
May 11, 2022, 9:18:42 AM (5 days ago) May 11
to

The pro-choice protesters accused Pelosi of being 'complicit' in
the reversal of Roe v. Wade, mentioning the Democrats' supermajority
under Obama

A small group of pro-choice protesters picketed in front of House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco residence, condemning Pelosi and her party as
"complicit" in the potential reversal of Roe v. Wade (1973), after a leaked
Supreme Court draft opinion suggested the Court is on the verge of striking
down the abortion precedent.

"We are here because the Democratic Party and the Democrats as a whole have
been complicit in this whole thing," a female protester shouted in a
bullhorn.

She and others lined up behind a banner reading "abortion on demand and
without apology!" They also carried signs with the faces of the five
Republican-appointed Court justices who reportedly supported the draft
opinion, with the word "LIAR" over their heads.

PELOSI LAUDS PROTESTERS USING ‘RIGHTEOUS ANGER’ TO ‘MARCH AND MOBILIZE,’ AS
SUPREME COURT SET TO OVERTURN ROE

She explicitly declared her intention to pressure the Court not to go through
with the opinion.

"We are here because this draft decision is what it is, it's only a draft,
and we will protest here, in front of the leadership of the Democratic Party,
and in the streets from coast to coast, unceasingly, because we work to keep
abortion legal – legal and accessible, not rare," she said.

She criticized Democratic messaging on the issue from the 1990s, singling out
then-first lady Hillary Clinton.

"Hillary Clinton, who started the whole thing like abortion should be legal,
but rare, as if abortion is a tragedy," the protester declared. "We are here
to say abortion is a basic right, a basic human right, and without this
right, women are basically enslaved. And we will not stand for it."

She also attacked Pelosi for having said "years ago, that the Democratic
Party was focusing too much on the abortion issue." In May 2017, Pelosi said
Democrats should not make abortion a litmus-test issue for their party.

Another protester declared that a potential Supreme Court opinion striking
down Roe would be Pelosi's "legacy."

"Speaker Pelosi, this will be your legacy, 35 years of your reign of terror,"
he said. "You had a supermajority under [former President] Obama under which
this should have been your top priority. Why did you keep this on the table?
Because this is your most effective fundraising tool. That's why."

He condemned Pelosi for blaming "the Republicans" even though Democrats
currently "control all three branches of government," ostensibly referring to
the White House and both houses of Congress.

The protester condemned the potential reversal of Roe as a "blatant war on
women, and other trans – uterus-bearing individuals."

The left-wing group Ruth Sent Us had previously announced that protesters
from multiple pro-abortion groups would descend on Pelosi’s home to demand
that she "investigate the corrupt justices" and "save abortion."

Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed last week that Justice Samuel Alito's
draft opinion in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization was
genuine – although the draft dates back to February, and it does not
represent the current or final opinion of the Court. In the draft, Alito
strikes down Roe v. Wade, which struck down state laws across the country,
and allows states to again make their own laws on abortion.

In the wake of the historic leak, pro-choice protesters have targeted the
homes of Supreme Court justices, with a massive demonstration in front of
Alito's home Monday evening.

Pelosi lauded the protesters for expressing "righteous anger" in remarks on
Monday.

"While we have seen and heard extraordinary anguish in our communities, we
have been moved by how so many have channeled their righteous anger into
meaningful action: planning to march and mobilize to make their voices
heard," Pelosi said.

In the statement, she also attacked Republicans and the Supreme Court over
the expected ruling, and says that Democrats will "fight relentlessly to
enshrine Roe v. Wade as the law of the land."

Pelosi had a 100% voting record on abortion rights, according to a 2020
report from NARAL Pro-Choice America. The Senate is scheduled to vote on the
Women's Health Protection Act, a bill codifying Roe which Pelosi championed
and which the House passed in Sept. 2021. The bill failed in the Senate by a
vote of 46-48 in March, with Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., voting with
Republicans against the bill.

--
Let's go Brandon!

BTR1701

unread,
May 11, 2022, 12:50:18 PM (4 days ago) May 11
to
In article <t5gd3d$dlr$2...@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:

> In the statement, she also attacked Republicans and the Supreme Court over
> the expected ruling, and says that Democrats will "fight relentlessly to
> enshrine Roe v. Wade as the law of the land."

Unless you amend the Constitution, it'll never be "enshrined". You pass
a statute today, that statute can be repealed the next time you're out
of the majority.

Ubiquitous

unread,
May 11, 2022, 1:50:47 PM (4 days ago) May 11
to
I'm a but rusty on this, but wouldn't Roe V Wade being overturned make that
stunt law the Dems are trying to pass automatically null and void?

BTR1701

unread,
May 11, 2022, 1:55:18 PM (4 days ago) May 11
to
In article <t5gt1i$qfi$1...@dont-email.me>,
No, Congress can still legislate with regard to abortion so long as it
can show it's within one of the enumerated powers of the federal
government in Article I, Section 8.

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
May 11, 2022, 3:10:08 PM (4 days ago) May 11
to
I take it Congress cannot explicitly declare that a civil right is an
unenumerated right under the Ninth Amendment in legislation.

I think Schumer should try to get a law based exclusively on interstate
commerce... that no state law can prohibit interstate transportation to
seek appropriate medical care. There's no way federal courts could find
that unconstitutional.

suzeeq

unread,
May 11, 2022, 3:15:11 PM (4 days ago) May 11
to
That would be a good way to go.

trotsky

unread,
May 11, 2022, 4:59:42 PM (4 days ago) May 11
to
Hm, still no mention of the lies told about settled law. Conclusion:
verbal diarrhea. You're one chickenshit anonyfuck that's for fuck sure.

trotsky

unread,
May 11, 2022, 5:09:49 PM (4 days ago) May 11
to
Holy fuck that's interesting.

The Horny Goat

unread,
May 11, 2022, 6:34:48 PM (4 days ago) May 11
to
On Wed, 11 May 2022 19:10:04 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>I think Schumer should try to get a law based exclusively on interstate
>commerce... that no state law can prohibit interstate transportation to
>seek appropriate medical care. There's no way federal courts could find
>that unconstitutional.

Since airlines, buses etc. don't ask the purpose of a trip I'm
skeptical such a law could be upheld. Since when do states generally
get to ask about the purpose of any particular trip much less
interstate trips generally?

It's not like there's a constitutional right to have the state pay to
transport you to another state after all.

While I take your point on interstate commerce, who goes interstate
for medical care? (Unless you're one of the very very few who lives on
a state line)

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
May 11, 2022, 6:41:20 PM (4 days ago) May 11
to
The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>Wed, 11 May 2022 19:10:04 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>:

>>I think Schumer should try to get a law based exclusively on interstate
>>commerce... that no state law can prohibit interstate transportation to
>>seek appropriate medical care. There's no way federal courts could find
>>that unconstitutional.

>Since airlines, buses etc. don't ask the purpose of a trip I'm
>skeptical such a law could be upheld. Since when do states generally
>get to ask about the purpose of any particular trip much less
>interstate trips generally?

Under the Texas law, someone driving the woman to the clinic is subject
to civil lawsuit.

>It's not like there's a constitutional right to have the state pay to
>transport you to another state after all.

>While I take your point on interstate commerce, who goes interstate
>for medical care? (Unless you're one of the very very few who lives on
>a state line)

A woman so desperate to have an abortion that she'd travel a great
distance to have one is the obvious example.

suzeeq

unread,
May 11, 2022, 6:50:03 PM (4 days ago) May 11
to
Many people go out of state for medical treatments. The Mayo clinic
offers services one can't often get locally. Experimental medical
treatments or procedures may be offered only by a few hospitals or clinics.

Dimensional Traveler

unread,
May 11, 2022, 7:47:34 PM (4 days ago) May 11
to
And states bordering Texas have seen a very large surge in Texas
residents showing up at their medical facilities recently....

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

A Friend

unread,
May 11, 2022, 10:28:12 PM (4 days ago) May 11
to
xIn article <t5he2b$64v$2...@dont-email.me>, Adam H. Kerman
In mid-century, some American women would travel to Europe for one.
This was often described as an ocean voyage, a vacation.

A Friend

unread,
May 11, 2022, 10:29:30 PM (4 days ago) May 11
to
Millions of people live on or near state lines. New York City, anyone?

trotsky

unread,
May 12, 2022, 3:24:21 AM (4 days ago) May 12
to
I'm thinking a new version of the underground railroad.

The Horny Goat

unread,
May 12, 2022, 1:27:56 PM (3 days ago) May 12
to
On Wed, 11 May 2022 22:41:16 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>Wed, 11 May 2022 19:10:04 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>:
>
>>While I take your point on interstate commerce, who goes interstate
>>for medical care? (Unless you're one of the very very few who lives on
>>a state line)
>
>A woman so desperate to have an abortion that she'd travel a great
>distance to have one is the obvious example.

Lots of places in the US where interstate travel isn't a long trip -
Baltimore <-> DC, NYC <-> most anywhere other than straight north

shawn

unread,
May 12, 2022, 1:51:31 PM (3 days ago) May 12
to
On Thu, 12 May 2022 10:27:50 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Wed, 11 May 2022 22:41:16 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
><a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>>Wed, 11 May 2022 19:10:04 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>:
>>
>>>While I take your point on interstate commerce, who goes interstate
>>>for medical care? (Unless you're one of the very very few who lives on
>>>a state line)
>>
>>A woman so desperate to have an abortion that she'd travel a great
>>distance to have one is the obvious example.
>
>Lots of places in the US where interstate travel isn't a long trip -
>Baltimore <-> DC, NYC <-> most anywhere other than straight north

The thing is that most of those states that are close together are
also the states where abortions will still be allowed. It's the other
states that aren't so close together where getting an abortion may be
more of an issue. (Just look at a map of Red vs Blue states.)

moviePig

unread,
May 12, 2022, 2:19:51 PM (3 days ago) May 12
to
"Get pregnant. See the world!..."

shawn

unread,
May 12, 2022, 2:34:56 PM (3 days ago) May 12
to
On Thu, 12 May 2022 14:19:45 -0400, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>
wrote:
Imagine being pregnant in a few months, wanting an abortion, poor with
no vehicle and living in the middle of Texas. It's hundreds of miles
to get to another state that will likely also ban abortions assuming
the Supreme Court decision goes as expected.

suzeeq

unread,
May 12, 2022, 2:44:50 PM (3 days ago) May 12
to
Have you ever driven across Montana, east to west or vice versa?

BTR1701

unread,
May 12, 2022, 3:35:56 PM (3 days ago) May 12
to
In article <2nkq7hdgrcns4rleo...@4ax.com>,
Greyhound isn't all that expensive.

suzeeq

unread,
May 12, 2022, 3:38:46 PM (3 days ago) May 12
to
But takes time. What if you only have one day off work?

BTR1701

unread,
May 12, 2022, 4:07:01 PM (3 days ago) May 12
to
Oh, god, we can play what-ifs forever.


moviePig

unread,
May 12, 2022, 4:43:22 PM (3 days ago) May 12
to
What if... SCOTUS respected personal freedom from the tyranny of others'
religious convictions? You're right, too fanciful...

moviePig

unread,
May 12, 2022, 4:44:28 PM (3 days ago) May 12
to
I'm guessing those aren't very different...

moviePig

unread,
May 12, 2022, 4:49:58 PM (3 days ago) May 12
to
Isn't relatively enlightened Austin in the middle of Texas? Maybe a
clandestine oasis of sanity will spring up on its back streets.

BTR1701

unread,
May 12, 2022, 5:38:59 PM (3 days ago) May 12
to
If by enlightened, you mean the only city in Texas which allows vagrants to
break any law they like, take over public sidewalks and parks with their
encampments and garbage mountains, openly use drugs and commit lewd acts in
public, even near schools, and allows them to victimize legitimate taxpaying
citizens before dying in streets covered in their own filth, yes. Austin is
enlightened. The mayor of Austin actually came to Los Angeles to get pointers
from our own architect of failure-- Eric Garcetti-- on how to handle vagrants.
That's like having the designer of the Hindenburg host a "Best Practices with
Dirigibles" conference.


suzeeq

unread,
May 12, 2022, 5:43:28 PM (3 days ago) May 12
to
No, this is a real scenario. If a person has to take a bus into another
state it's because they have a lower income, which means they need to
take time off work. You know how large TX itself is, would take many
hours by bus from the southern or middle part of the state to get to a
border state, much less travel across a couple more states to get to a
clinic. Then they're not going to be able to just hop on the bus to go
home because an abortion is like surgery, there's a recovery period.
That's going to take several days and they likely would lose their job
for taking that much time off work.

BTR1701

unread,
May 12, 2022, 6:29:17 PM (3 days ago) May 12
to
Yes, but the law can't consider every single possible scenario that could
affect someone somewhere.

The voter ID is racist" crowd does the same thing. When you ask who these
people are who can somehow live in modern society without any kind of ID and
who can't find or get to the DMV, yet they somehow manage to meet all their
other responsibilities vis-a-vis the government, they say, "Well, what about
the blind hermit who lives in a cave in the Mojave desert? What about him?!?!?
How is he supposed to get an ID?"

> If a person has to take a bus into another
> state it's because they have a lower income, which means they need to
> take time off work. You know how large TX itself is, would take many
> hours by bus from the southern or middle part of the state to get to a
> border state, much less travel across a couple more states to get to a
> clinic. Then they're not going to be able to just hop on the bus to go
> home because an abortion is like surgery, there's a recovery period.
> That's going to take several days and they likely would lose their job
> for taking that much time off work.

Okay, so even if Roe is upheld, what about the blind hermitess who lives in a
cave in the Mojave desert and is raped by a gang of illegals while out
prospecting for gold one day? How is she supposed to get her abortion even if
Roe is in effect? I mean, if the law is supposed to take into account every
conceivable hardship someone may have in getting an abortion, then something
must be done for the blind cave-dwelling hermitesses even in states where
abortion remains legal or rights are being violated, no?


moviePig

unread,
May 12, 2022, 6:33:04 PM (3 days ago) May 12
to
Pretty sure that, to get a safe abortion, most women would willingly
endure some temporary proximity to vagrants.

trotsky

unread,
May 12, 2022, 7:25:13 PM (3 days ago) May 12
to
And the verbal diarrhea continues.

trotsky

unread,
May 12, 2022, 7:30:17 PM (3 days ago) May 12
to
WELL
ANONYSHITTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

suzeeq

unread,
May 12, 2022, 8:13:00 PM (3 days ago) May 12
to
Who would know about her except the gang of illegals?

Geeze, now you're the one playing 'what about'. But taking it to an
extreme absurdity. Ed's right, you're doing it because it's
anti-Democrat and you're all for that.

BTR1701

unread,
May 12, 2022, 8:18:48 PM (3 days ago) May 12
to
How is that relevant? Every conceivable hardship has to be accounted for,
right?

> Geeze, now you're the one playing 'what about'. But taking it to an
> extreme absurdity.

LOL! Yes, that was the point. To show how absurd that tactic is.


suzeeq

unread,
May 12, 2022, 8:34:29 PM (3 days ago) May 12
to
I didn't post an absurd idea, it will become a real life situation. For
many women.

Ubiquitous

unread,
May 13, 2022, 7:20:04 AM (3 days ago) May 13
to
lcr...@home.ca wrote:
> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>I think Schumer should try to get a law based exclusively on interstate
>>commerce... that no state law can prohibit interstate transportation to
>>seek appropriate medical care. There's no way federal courts could find
>>that unconstitutional.
>
>Since airlines, buses etc. don't ask the purpose of a trip I'm
>skeptical such a law could be upheld. Since when do states generally
>get to ask about the purpose of any particular trip much less
>interstate trips generally?
>
>It's not like there's a constitutional right to have the state pay to
>transport you to another state after all.
>
>While I take your point on interstate commerce, who goes interstate
>for medical care? (Unless you're one of the very very few who lives on
>a state line)

There are plenty of states and orgs that support abortion who will pay for
"birthing persons" to travel for an abortion. The more entrepenurial ones
might offer it as a medical vacation.

--
Let's go Brandon!

Ubiquitous

unread,
May 13, 2022, 7:22:04 AM (3 days ago) May 13
to
nanof...@notforg.m.a.i.l.com wrote:
> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>:

>>>>While I take your point on interstate commerce, who goes interstate
>>>>for medical care? (Unless you're one of the very very few who lives on
>>>>a state line)
>>>
>>>A woman so desperate to have an abortion that she'd travel a great
>>>distance to have one is the obvious example.
>>
>>Lots of places in the US where interstate travel isn't a long trip -
>>Baltimore <-> DC, NYC <-> most anywhere other than straight north
>
>The thing is that most of those states that are close together are
>also the states where abortions will still be allowed. It's the other
>states that aren't so close together where getting an abortion may be
>more of an issue. (Just look at a map of Red vs Blue states.)

You all are aware of something called "the morning after pill", right?

Ubiquitous

unread,
May 13, 2022, 7:24:28 AM (3 days ago) May 13
to
"Whataboutism" noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.

Ubiquitous

unread,
May 13, 2022, 7:28:44 AM (3 days ago) May 13
to
In article <t5jno1$e6ck$1...@solani.org>, su...@imbris.com wrote:
> On 5/12/2022 12:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
"Whataboutism" noted. Get back to when you have a real argument to make.

Ed Stasiak

unread,
May 13, 2022, 8:41:09 AM (3 days ago) May 13
to
> Ubiquitous
> > nanof...@notforg.m.a.i.l.com
> >
> > The thing is that most of those states that are close together are
> > also the states where abortions will still be allowed. It's the other
> > states that aren't so close together where getting an abortion may
> > be more of an issue. (Just look at a map of Red vs Blue states.)
>
> You all are aware of something called "the morning after pill", right?

Not 100% guaranteed to prevent a pregnancy but what makes you think
the anti-abortion fundies (who insist that life begins at conception) won’t
ban that also?

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
May 13, 2022, 8:57:34 AM (3 days ago) May 13
to
Fri, 13 May 2022 05:41:07 -0700, Ed Stasiak <edstas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>>Ubiquitous

>>>. . .

>>You all are aware of something called "the morning after pill", right?

>Not 100% guaranteed to prevent a pregnancy but what makes you think
>the anti-abortion fundies (who insist that life begins at conception) won=
>=E2=80=99t
>ban that also?

We've heard plenty of these types redefine medicine that prevents
pregnancy after sex as abortificants. Preventing pregnancy is not an
abortion of any kind. They're just playing word games.

A Friend

unread,
May 13, 2022, 9:00:20 AM (3 days ago) May 13
to
In article <t5lf56$341$7...@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
Lack of accessibility *is* "a real argument to make." The opposition
has been trying to make abortion services as difficult as possible to
obtain. Keeping people far away from them is one of those ways.

suzeeq

unread,
May 13, 2022, 11:59:35 AM (3 days ago) May 13
to
Yep, that's probably next on their list.

BTR1701

unread,
May 13, 2022, 1:07:48 PM (2 days ago) May 13
to
In article <01135eb9-e92d-42ae...@googlegroups.com>,
Because they won't be able to. A bunch religious nutcases in Georgia
can't ban pills nationwide and since anyone can leave Georgia and bring
them back, it'd be folly for them to even try.

BTR1701

unread,
May 13, 2022, 1:09:57 PM (2 days ago) May 13
to
In article <t5lesv$341$5...@dont-email.me>,
Yes, Newsom has already decreed that our tax dollars will be spent in
vast amounts to bring pregnant humans (can't say women-- that's bigoted)
from around the nation to California and not only pay for their
abortions, but pay for their travel, lodging and meals as well.

shawn

unread,
May 13, 2022, 2:00:42 PM (2 days ago) May 13
to
Who said anything about nationwide? They can outlaw it in their state
and then punish anyone who tries to bring it in from outside the
state.

moviePig

unread,
May 13, 2022, 2:33:33 PM (2 days ago) May 13
to
You think they can't ban "bringing them back"?

moviePig

unread,
May 13, 2022, 2:34:45 PM (2 days ago) May 13
to
(I think I'm supposed to offer you ice cream...)

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
May 13, 2022, 2:38:31 PM (2 days ago) May 13
to
Georgia cannot regulate the mails per federalism and cannot regulate
shipping per the negative commerce clause, and don't start insisting
that you've read other people saying that a state can interfere with
interstate commerce in our system of laws.

BTR1701

unread,
May 13, 2022, 2:38:44 PM (2 days ago) May 13
to
In article <YvxfK.1455$j0D5...@fx09.iad>,
How would they?

BTR1701

unread,
May 13, 2022, 2:39:15 PM (2 days ago) May 13
to
In article <o47t7hp957m4r9mft...@4ax.com>,
Theoretically, but practically it would be impossible to do so.

shawn

unread,
May 13, 2022, 2:48:51 PM (2 days ago) May 13
to
I would expect there would be people who bulk buy and then try to help
out young women by providing the pills under the counter. Such people
could be found to be in possession of 'illegal contraband' and then
subject to what ever legal penalties there may be. Sure, it isn't
going to stop someone from mail ordering a single pill for their use
and then consuming it once they open their package, but then I doubt
anyone pushing for enforcement of such laws expects to do more than
keep up the public pressure against use of such pills by punishing
anyone they can.

moviePig

unread,
May 13, 2022, 3:10:09 PM (2 days ago) May 13
to
By a vote of the legislature.

BTR1701

unread,
May 13, 2022, 3:11:00 PM (2 days ago) May 13
to
In article <5r9t7hhcng93krukb...@4ax.com>,
Sure, if found in possession it could be enforced, but that's not what I
asked. I asked how they could stop people from bringing them in from
other states.

Keep in mind that state police forces do not enjoy the ability to run
border checkpoints and search vehicles the way the federal police do in
the "Constitution-free zone" at the national border. Any attempt to do
that would be patently illegal.

moviePig

unread,
May 13, 2022, 3:29:28 PM (2 days ago) May 13
to
They could make it a capital crime. (And don't pretend "they'd never".)

trotsky

unread,
May 13, 2022, 3:33:31 PM (2 days ago) May 13
to
Oh, right, like Checkpoint Charlies aren't on the GQP agenda.

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
May 13, 2022, 3:35:08 PM (2 days ago) May 13
to
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>shawn <nanof...@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 13 May 2022 11:41:05 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>On 5/13/2022 1:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

>>>>>>. . .

>>>>>Because they won't be able to. A bunch religious nutcases in Georgia
>>>>>can't ban pills nationwide and since anyone can leave Georgia and bring
>>>>>them back, it'd be folly for them to even try.

>>>>You think they can't ban "bringing them back"?

>>>How would they?

>>I would expect there would be people who bulk buy and then try to help
>>out young women by providing the pills under the counter. Such people
>>could be found to be in possession of 'illegal contraband' and then
>>subject to what ever legal penalties there may be.

>Sure, if found in possession it could be enforced, but that's not what I
>asked. I asked how they could stop people from bringing them in from
>other states.

>Keep in mind that state police forces do not enjoy the ability to run
>border checkpoints and search vehicles the way the federal police do in
>the "Constitution-free zone" at the national border. Any attempt to do
>that would be patently illegal.

Would you mind explaining that to Greg Abbott, please? He has taken
steps to slow down trade with Mexico. Texas hasn't been a republic since
1846.

trotsky

unread,
May 13, 2022, 3:37:42 PM (2 days ago) May 13
to
Not to be confused with the Oath Keepers Capitol crime.

suzeeq

unread,
May 13, 2022, 3:42:15 PM (2 days ago) May 13
to
I thought he lifted inspections at the border?

BTR1701

unread,
May 13, 2022, 3:52:46 PM (2 days ago) May 13
to
In article <nkyfK.1458$j0D5...@fx09.iad>,
LOL!

BTR1701

unread,
May 13, 2022, 3:53:51 PM (2 days ago) May 13
to
In article <g2yfK.16282$JSxf...@fx11.iad>,
Weird, 'cause we had a vote of the legislature that prohibits illegal
immigration.

And yet...

moviePig

unread,
May 13, 2022, 4:40:26 PM (2 days ago) May 13
to
My bad. Is it "settled law"?...

moviePig

unread,
May 13, 2022, 4:44:02 PM (2 days ago) May 13
to
And we have illegals running for their lives when ICE drifts by...

trotsky

unread,
May 13, 2022, 4:47:35 PM (2 days ago) May 13
to
Prove it.

BTR1701

unread,
May 13, 2022, 5:14:11 PM (2 days ago) May 13