homeagain wrote: TEXAS LOST it's case......ruled Unconstitutional..
I think you're a little wrong on that. It's a split ruling that gives the pro choice groups the ability to litigate in lower courts. The law still stands, for now.
There is a comment, posted below, in wsj.com. Certainly food for thought. I would like to hear the arguments of anyone who disagrees.
"Safe, Legal, and Rare" is smoke and mirrors. The questions is not whether abortion should be available for women whose pregnancies put their lives at immediate risk or are the product of rape. The question was and is whether women should have free access to abortion regardless of reason. Bandying about in the thin moral grey areas of the issue is not useful. The crux of this question is whether or not someone who engages in consensual sex and becomes pregnant should be able to terminate that pregnancy for their own personal convenience.
MY understanding...THIS article indicates...ANYTHING can be deemed "bounty hunter status" ...GUN RIGHTS,UP NEXT.....do we really want to open Pandora's box for people "ratting out"others for what they deem unacceptable? WELCOME TO WESTWORLD and MAD MAX
In that there are no significant firearm manufacturers in CA and the sale of "assault" firearms for decades according to the article this is simply political posturing by Newsom.
I don't see any problem with making blue states bluer and red states redder. Nice to have control groups so we can measure success against madness.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
Very hard to regulate Ghost guns. No serial numbers. And it is actually currently legal to make firearms for your own use. Just can't sell them to others.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.