Mike Pence was pretty impressive in today's debate! He squeezed the perfect last sentences out in each category.

I thought it was pretty shameful of Kamala Harris to basically admit that Biden plans to retaliate against the American people and pack the supreme court. The dirtiest detail of it is that she tried to dodge the question; so Americans can find out after the fact.

The last question of the debate was answered especially nicely by Pence, when he said that politicians respect each other as people.

Unfortunately, Kamala didn't offer the child an answer. If that child were old enough to vote, they'd vote Pence/Trump.

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

On 7 Oct 20 23:33, Aaron Thomas said the following to All:

Mike Pence was pretty impressive in today's debate! He squeezed the perfect last sentences out in each category.

I'm afraid that the debates are turning more into an entertainment spectacle than anything to be taken seriously.

Nick

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

I'm afraid that the debates are turning more into an entertainment spectacl than anything to be taken seriously.

Aren't they always entertaining though?

I'll admit that there wasn't much to take in from the VP debate. The only thing remarkable that I noticed was that Kamala laughed almost the whole time, which makes me think that she wasn't being serious. She's never serious
about anything except for when she's throwing the book at Republicans, or at black teenagers.

I've said this a few times already, but I'll say again that Democrat voters chose poorly with Biden, and Biden chose poorly with Kamala. He's a 74 year
old man who's trying to save a sinking ship, and he's now carrying another sinking ship (Kamala) and they've both already taken in more water than they can handle.

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

On 8 Oct 20 11:42, Aaron Thomas said the following to Nick Andre:

I've said this a few times already, but I'll say again that Democrat voters chose poorly with Biden, and Biden chose poorly with Kamala. He's a 74 year

Ahh but I don't think it was the voters that chose Biden... it was the DNC that chose him. The more I see of him, the more he is just a figurehead, a placeholder for either Harris to take over or to be the willing puppet for the radical left. Didn't he already admit he would only be on for a single term?

Nick

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

Hello Aaron,

Mike Pence was pretty impressive in today's debate! He squeezed the perfect
last sentences out in each category.

Too bad I missed them, as whatever he said or may have said over
his time limit got zapped by my television set.

I thought it was pretty shameful of Kamala Harris to basically admit that
Biden plans to retaliate against the American people and pack the supreme court.

That might be what you wish she would have said. But far from what
she actually said. Had you actually watched the debate, you would have
known that.

The dirtiest detail of it is that she tried to dodge the question; so
Americans can find out after the fact.

She answered Pence's question directly and to the point. Her position
is the same as Joe Biden's. Let the American people decide. Whoever
they vote fore as president during the presidential election should
nominate the open seat on the USSC. This is in line with what every
poll has said the vast majority of the American people want. She also
cited the example shown by Abraham Lincoln, who chose to wait until
after the presidential election in 1864 to nominate a new justice.
That opening occurred just 27 days before the election.

We are already in the process of electing a president, with over
5 million Americans having already voted. Harris says she is fine
with whoever is elected to make that nomination. As are the vast
majority of the American people. Along with Joe Biden.

You want to know who is packing the Supreme Court? Republicans.
Moscow Mitch & Co. have been doing it for years. They have even
gone so far as to ditch the filibuster rule in regards to the
issue of confirming justices for the USSC. Fact of the matter is
Republicans (such as Moscow Mitch) have absolution no intention
of allowing any Democrat who has been elected President to have
his/her own choice of filling a seat on the USSC to even have
a hearing, much less a confirmation vote.

The last question of the debate was answered especially nicely by Pence,
when he said that politicians respect each other as people.

"Well, there's a classic parlor game of trying to find a little
bit of daylight between running mates. If people want to play that
game, we can look in to why an evangelical Christian like Mike Pence
wants to be on a ticket with a president caught with a porn star."
~ Pete Buttigieg, 10/8/2020

Unfortunately, Kamala didn't offer the child an answer. If that child were
old enough to vote, they'd vote Pence/Trump.

I do not believe any child would want to have anything to do
with a politician who associates himself with a self-admitted
sex predator.

--Lee

--
If we don't get it / Shut it down!

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)

Mike Pence was pretty impressive in today's debate! He squeezed the perfect last sentences out in each category.

https://youtu.be/olk3998UOSM?list=PL7dQWce1VEod_Wnlb_g9lj8F4VxCgogLA

I guess we have different ways to define impressive.

I thought it was pretty shameful of Kamala Harris to basically admit that Biden plans to retaliate against the American people and pack the supreme court.

How can she? Republicans have not (yet) passed Amy Coney Barrett into the supreme court. When/if they do then the democrats will do what they need to do.

The dirtiest detail of it is that she tried to dodge the question; so Americans can find out after the fact.

Americans are well aware of all the facts around the nomination.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-4
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757.2)

placeholder for either Harris to take over or to be the willing puppet for radical left. Didn't he already admit he would only be on for a single term

Everything you're saying is making sense to me. Why would the voters choose Joe? He was the quietest person at the Democrat debates.

Kamala is very secretive, and so is Joe. There is awful stuff on their agenda and they aren't gonna tell us about it, according to Joe, "until the day after the election."

I didn't know he was planning only one term, but that sounds to me like the most realistic promise that he has ever made.

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

Too bad I missed them, as whatever he said or may have said over
his time limit got zapped by my television set.

You got some kind of liberal TV set?

She answered Pence's question directly and to the point. Her position
is the same as Joe Biden's. Let the American people decide. Whoever

She didn't answer if she planned to pack the court.

poll has said the vast majority of the American people want. She also
cited the example shown by Abraham Lincoln, who chose to wait until
after the presidential election in 1864 to nominate a new justice.

Every politician tries to put on a hero badge by relating themself to Abraham Lincoln, but Lincoln didn't have to deal with liberals wanting to murder newborns.

Republicans (such as Moscow Mitch) have absolution no intention
of allowing any Democrat who has been elected President to have

I don't think that's true. A Biden nominee is not going to face much scrutiny from Republican senators. We ain't like that.

I do not believe any child would want to have anything to do
with a politician who associates himself with a self-admitted
sex predator.

Maybe they would vote Trump if we told them that Biden and Harris want to kill babies?

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

I thought it was pretty shameful of Kamala Harris to basically admit that Biden plans to retaliate against the American people and pack the supreme court.

How can she? Republicans have not (yet) passed Amy Coney Barrett into the supreme court. When/if they do then the democrats will do what they need to

I suppose there's some way to add more seats to the court, and with those new seats added, a Democrat president (or any president) can go ahead and fill them up accordingly.

Joe Biden should come out and say "I won't do that," but instead, he keeps his fans happy with the idea that maybe he will do that, but then after the election, he can throw those people's ambition down the drain.

The dirtiest detail of it is that she tried to dodge the question; so Americans can find out after the fact.

Americans are well aware of all the facts around the nomination.

Sure, but they're not aware of Biden & Harris' intentions regarding court-packing.

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

How can she? Republicans have not (yet) passed Amy Coney Barrett into the
supreme court. When/if they do then the democrats will do what they need to

I suppose there's some way to add more seats to the court, and with those new seats added, a Democrat president (or any president) can go ahead and fill them up accordingly.

That is one possibility. There is no limit to the number of judges that can sit on the supreme court. I think it would be a shame if the number had to grow because of the because republicans try to pack the supreme court with conservative justices who would kill Roe v. Wade. Amy Coney Barrett signed an ad supporting the end of the "barbaric" (her words) Roe v. wade decision.

I am pro life but I think the decision a woman makes regarding her unborn child is best made by herself in consultation with her family and doctor. Legislators are unneeded in that decision/process.

There is also the decision regarding the Trump administrations desire to kill the ACA that will be in the courts November 10. A packed conservative supreme court decision could devastate both of those cases and Americans generally for years to come.

Joe Biden should come out and say "I won't do that," but instead, he keeps his fans happy with the idea that maybe he will do that, but then after the election, he can throw those people's ambition down the drain.

Joe Biden likely does not want to increase the number of justices.

The dirtiest detail of it is that she tried to dodge the question; so
Americans can find out after the fact.

The ball is in republican hands at the moment.

Americans are well aware of all the facts around the nomination.

Sure, but they're not aware of Biden & Harris' intentions regarding court-packing.

It's not their game right now. We'll have to let the republicans do whatever it is they do and we go from there.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-4
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757.2)

I am pro life but I think the decision a woman makes regarding her unborn child is best made by herself in consultation with her family and doctor. Legislators are unneeded in that decision/process.

I used to think that way too until they started aborting babies that have already been born. Now, what used to be a condom that you could put on the next day, has turned into murder in the delivery room. A compromise would be ideal; Republicans would be happier if there was a federal restriction on how old a fetus needs to be before it's illegal to murder it.

Joe Biden likely does not want to increase the number of justices.

But now is a bad time to announce that plan?

The ball is in republican hands at the moment.

When I voted for Trump in 2016, I was confident that he would fill supreme court vacancies. If he failed to fill RBG's seat, then I'd accuse him of not doing his job.

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

Hello Aaron,

I am pro life but I think the decision a woman makes regarding her unborn >AI>child is best made by herself in consultation with her family and doctor. >AI>Legislators are unneeded in that decision/process.

I used to think that way too until they started aborting babies that have
already been born. Now, what used to be a condom that you could put on the next day, has turned into murder in the delivery room. A compromise would
be ideal; Republicans would be happier if there was a federal restriction
on how old a fetus needs to be before it's illegal to murder it.

Okay, Doctor Aaron. First, do no harm. Forcing a pregnant girl
who has been raped to have a baby she does not want is very noble
of you. Especially since the rapist was her father or another
relative (such as her brother or crazy uncle). Who is going to
raise the child she does not want? Who is going to help the
child get over the trauma she is experiencing?

Joe Biden likely does not want to increase the number of justices.

But now is a bad time to announce that plan?

Now is the time we are electing a president. Once a president has
been elected, and inaugurated, then that president can nominate a
justice to fill the current vacancy on the USSC. See how that works?

In fact, that is exactly what he has already said he would like to
do, and plans to do.

The ball is in republican hands at the moment.

When I voted for Trump in 2016, I was confident that he would fill supreme
court vacancies. If he failed to fill RBG's seat, then I'd accuse him of
not doing his job.

It's not up to him. A president can only nominate, not appoint.

--Lee

--
Erections, That's Our Game

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)

I used to think that way too until they started aborting babies that have already been born. Now, what used to be a condom that you could put on the next day, has turned into murder in the delivery room. A compromise would be ideal; Republicans would be happier if there was a federal restriction on how old a fetus needs to be before it's illegal to murder it.

I just think the decision should be made by the woman herself in consultation with her family and doctor, not legislators/dictators.

Joe Biden likely does not want to increase the number of justices.

But now is a bad time to announce that plan?

How can they plan/do anything until the facts are in?

The ball is in republican hands at the moment.

When I voted for Trump in 2016, I was confident that he would fill supreme court vacancies. If he failed to fill RBG's seat, then I'd accuse him of not doing his job.

The supreme court is crucial to the justice system. It is very important that it is impartial if you want law and order.

Donald Trumps nominee's have been extreme right, that does not bod well for impartiality or law and order.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-4
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757.2)

On 10-08-20 22:37, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Lee Lofaso about Re: Pence-Harris Debate <=-

Republicans (such as Moscow Mitch) have absolution no intention
of allowing any Democrat who has been elected President to have

I don't think that's true. A Biden nominee is not going to face much scrutiny from Republican senators. We ain't like that.

Wrong -- It had already happened. Just go back to Moscow Mitch's
blocking of Obama's nomination -- not allowing any discussion. Then
completely reversing his announced policy in the most recent nomination
by Trump.

I do not believe any child would want to have anything to do
with a politician who associates himself with a self-admitted
sex predator.

Maybe they would vote Trump if we told them that Biden and Harris want
to kill babies?

Which is a false statement.


Dale Shipp
fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
(1:261/1466)



... Shipwrecked in Silver Spring, Maryland. 01:29:05, 10 Oct 2020
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01
* Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)

Okay, Doctor Aaron. First, do no harm. Forcing a pregnant girl
who has been raped to have a baby she does not want is very noble

In that case, it becomes a crime for 2 victims instead of one. Rules to protect children and babies is the #1 top priority for conservatives and Republicans.

Before liberals start crying about rape victims, they need to (1) put their pants back on, (2) stop fighting for rapists' rights to enter the USA illegally, and (3) stop letting rapists out of jail with ridiculous bail reform bills.

Do all that, then you can cry about some rape victim who wants an abortion.

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

I just think the decision should be made by the woman herself in consultati with her family and doctor, not legislators/dictators.

I would almost agree with you, but abortion is now tied in with infanticide in certain states. Abortion isn't as bad as infanticide. It's really the infanticide that makes conservatives angry, and that's why I feel the need for a law (or court ruling) to make it a crime to abort after a certain # of days in the womb. In Louisiana, there's a heartbeat law; no abortion allowed if the fetus has a detectable heartbeat. We need something like that for the whole country. Otherwise, we're being fat idiots allowing children to be murdered.

Liberals care more about legalizing prostitution than they do about little tiny babies who are already learning about the world they live in.

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

I would almost agree with you, but abortion is now tied in with infanticide in certain states. Abortion isn't as bad as infanticide. It's really the infanticide that makes conservatives angry, and that's why I feel the need for a law (or court ruling) to make it a crime to abort after a certain # of days in the womb. In Louisiana, there's a heartbeat law; no abortion allowed if the fetus has a detectable heartbeat. We need something like that for the whole country. Otherwise, we're being fat idiots allowing children to be murdered.

Is infanticide really an issue?

66% of Americans are apposed to changing the Roe vs. Wade descision so that is going to be a hard sell.

Liberals care more about legalizing prostitution than they do about little tiny babies who are already learning about the world they live in.

That is not true and never has been.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-4
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757.2)

On 09 Oct 2020, Alan Ianson said the following...

The supreme court is crucial to the justice system. It is very important that it is impartial if you want law and order.

Donald Trumps nominee's have been extreme right, that does not bod well for impartiality or law and order.

Lie...

Donald Trump has been putting judges who interpret the law and constitution
as it was written, not as they want it to be. This way the courts aren't filled with judicial activist and it'll function as a co-equal branch of government.

IB Joe
AKA Joe Schweier
SysOp of Joe's BBS
-=JoesBBS.com=-

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/64)
* Origin: Joe's BBS, JoesBBS.com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTPS:80 (1:342/201)

On 10 Oct 2020, Alan Ianson said the following...

66% of Americans are apposed to changing the Roe vs. Wade descision so that is going to be a hard sell.

Not a hard sell.... Lets just say it was struck down by the Supreme Court.... it would just go back to the States... and the states can do what they want..

I don't know... Virginia can still practice infanticide and other liberal states like New York and California can go ahead and scrape all the babies
they want out of, mainly minorities, wombs... cull the herd!!!!

Other more conservative states, who's citizens do not such a lax view the killing of minority babies can do what they want.

Win Win if you ask me

IB Joe
AKA Joe Schweier
SysOp of Joe's BBS
-=JoesBBS.com=-

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/64)
* Origin: Joe's BBS, JoesBBS.com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTPS:80 (1:342/201)

Not a hard sell.... Lets just say it was struck down by the Supreme Court.... it would just go back to the States... and the states can do what they want..

Roe v Wade was a landmark and much respected case back in 1973 when it arrived and that is still the case today.

Why not leave the decision with a woman and her doctor?

I doubt states want to take on the issue of abortion and try to write laws that will not be appropriate in all situations a woman may find herself in.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-4
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757.2)

Donald Trumps nominee's have been extreme right, that does not bod well
for impartiality or law and order.

Lie...

Truth.

Donald Trump has been putting judges who interpret the law and constitution as it was written, not as they want it to be.

Kavanaugh was and Barrett is also a controversial choice.

This way the courts aren't filled with judicial activist and it'll function as a co-equal branch of government.

Barrett's view of abortion is not impartial. That could affect her ability to interpret law.

The supreme court does not govern in any way. It interprets law and renders judgements, hopefully in an impartial way.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-4
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757.2)

Is infanticide really an issue?

Infanticide is an issue in California, Virginia, and New York. These states allow the death penalty for all babies up to an including their birthday.

Babies aren't given immunity from execution until they reach 1 day old, but that's because it's only 2020; by 2030, Democrats will give parents even more time than that to decide if they really want their kids or not. Maybe we should see how they do in preschool first? If they do good, we keep em. If they do poorly, we take them to planned parenthood for what planned parenthood calls "Plan A."

66% of Americans are apposed to changing the Roe vs. Wade descision so that going to be a hard sell.

We'll see how true that statistic turns out to be on election day.

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

Jeff Bodenstein
Coffee House BBS
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux
* Origin: Coffee House BBS - bbs.coffeehousebbs.me (1:220/80)

On 10 Oct 2020, Alan Ianson said the following...

Not a hard sell.... Lets just say it was struck down by the Supreme Cour it would just go back to the States... and the states can do what they w

Roe v Wade was a landmark and much respected case back in 1973 when it arrived and that is still the case today.

What made you think I didn't know this...

Why not leave the decision with a woman and her doctor?

Women and doctors would still be making choices. Constitution restricts federal government over reach, not state.

I doubt states want to take on the issue of abortion and try to write
laws that will not be appropriate in all situations a woman may find herself in.

You don't know.... maybe they will go the way of Virginia and they'll go as
far as allowing infanticide...

I would argue that there are a lot of states that would love to tackle this issue and find a solution that would make their citizens happy.

IB Joe
AKA Joe Schweier
SysOp of Joe's BBS
-=JoesBBS.com=-

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/64)
* Origin: Joe's BBS, JoesBBS.com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTPS:80 (1:342/201)

On 10 Oct 2020, Alan Ianson said the following...

Barrett's view of abortion is not impartial. That could affect her
ability to interpret law.

Can you show me where she has ruled in favor of her personal feelings and not followed the constitution...??

The supreme court does not govern in any way. It interprets law and renders judgements, hopefully in an impartial way.

There is no constitutional amendment giving a woman the right to have an abortion. Some left-wing activist sitting on the supreme court in the 70's made it happen. The left know this and are worried that it may get over
turned someday because the decision was not founded on solid constitutional grounding.

Federal government should stay out of things, most things. Let the states
and their citizens make their way through things... Let the citizens of that state hold their elected officials accountable.

Large and intrusive federal government sucks...

IB Joe
AKA Joe Schweier
SysOp of Joe's BBS
-=JoesBBS.com=-

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/64)
* Origin: Joe's BBS, JoesBBS.com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTPS:80 (1:342/201)

Not a hard sell.... Lets just say it was struck down by the Supreme Cour >> > it would just go back to the States... and the states can do what they w >>

Roe v Wade was a landmark and much respected case back in 1973 when it
arrived and that is still the case today.

What made you think I didn't know this...

Because you tell me it won't be a hard sell.

Why not leave the decision with a woman and her doctor?

Women and doctors would still be making choices. Constitution restricts federal government over reach, not state.

Going around in circles getting nowhere.

I doubt states want to take on the issue of abortion and try to write
laws that will not be appropriate in all situations a woman may find
herself in.

You don't know.... maybe they will go the way of Virginia and they'll go as far as allowing infanticide...

Law makers getting involved will just make a mess. They'd be better off leaving well enough alone.

I would argue that there are a lot of states that would love to tackle this issue and find a solution that would make their citizens happy.

I'll wish them all the best.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-4
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757.2)

On 11 Oct 2020, Alan Ianson said the following...

Not a hard sell.... Lets just say it was struck down by the Supreme C >> > it would just go back to the States... and the states can do what the >>

Roe v Wade was a landmark and much respected case back in 1973 when it >> arrived and that is still the case today.

What made you think I didn't know this...

Because you tell me it won't be a hard sell.

It's not a hard sell.... The reason why the left wants to fill the courts
with activist judges is because the left do not want to convince the
electorate that they have good ideas. They found it easier to plant judges
in key positions so that they can legislate from the bench.

The States just need to step-up and write constitutional laws and those law makers should be held accountable by the voters...

IB Joe
AKA Joe Schweier
SysOp of Joe's BBS
-=JoesBBS.com=-

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/64)
* Origin: Joe's BBS, JoesBBS.com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTPS:80 (1:342/201)

Barrett's view of abortion is not impartial. That could affect her
ability to interpret law.

Can you show me where she has ruled in favor of her personal feelings and not followed the constitution...??

I know she signed an add that called Roe v Wade barbaric. The add was anti Roe v. Wade.

The supreme court does not govern in any way. It interprets law and
renders judgements, hopefully in an impartial way.

There is no constitutional amendment giving a woman the right to have an abortion.

Do you want one?

Some left-wing activist sitting on the supreme court in the 70's made it happen. The left know this and are worried that it may get over turned someday because the decision was not founded on solid constitutional grounding.

It was the supreme court that made that well respected ruling with 7-2 decision. No left-wing activists in that case.

If ya'll wanna go back to the abortion thing have at it, I'll watch.

The constitution doesn't care about abortion.

Federal government should stay out of things, most things.

True enough. That law keeps it out of states hands too and they may like it that way.

Let the states and their citizens make their way through things... Let the citizens of that state hold their elected officials accountable.

OK, if the states want it give it to them.

Large and intrusive federal government sucks...

Yep, laws and laws and laws suck too.

I'm not sure what will suck more, I suspect if Roe v. Wade was overturned it would suck more but there is only one way to find out.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-4
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757.2)

It's not a hard sell....

It's a very hard sell and I just wouldn't go there. If you mess with it your going to have the majority who don't want change against you.

The reason why the left wants to fill the courts with activist judges is because the left do not want to convince the electorate that they have good ideas.

The "left" does not want to convince anyone of anything. People need to explain to law makers and polititians what good ideas they should promote and what bad ideas they should demote. In a democracy the people really do have the power and can make their voices heard and politicians will listen for that reason.

They found it easier to plant judges in key positions so that they can legislate from the bench.

In 2016 Obama's nominee (8 months before the election) was not even given a hearing. In 2020 Trumps nominee is pushed threw with 40 days before the election.

Who is planting judges here?

The States just need to step-up and write constitutional laws and those law makers should be held accountable by the voters...

The current situation is a good compromise. A woman decides for herself without someone else deciding for her what is right for her whether she aborts or not.

Telling someone what is right for them because it may be right for someone else is never going to work.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-4
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757.2)