results?.......FALLOUT TO FOLLOW, FUBAR NOT FAR BEHIND

Couple of caveats missing from your definitions HA, important ones. The power to do as one pleases isn't absolute, no rights are. Your ability to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose, which is to say that you may not violate my rights in the exercise of your own, at least, not in this system of government. In total anarchy, sure, but not here.

The power of choice. Interesting to see you decide to include that one, though not surprising I guess. That the rights of two lives are in conflict is a direct result of one of those individuals deciding to exercise their power of choice to willfully and voluntarily engage in an act that has the known risk of pregnancy as a result of choosing to engage in that activity. If, in exercising their power of choice, they also choose not to mitigate that risk, then they have chosen to accept that risk when they engage in said activity. Having chosen to accept that risk, it is not reasonable for them to then say they wish to undo their choice to accept that risk when such actions result in the permanent infringement of the right to life of another individual and the impact to their own rights is a temporary infringement.

Kinda like when your next door neighbor wants to have an all night party and play their music at full volume when you want to sleep. If the power to do as one pleases and to choose is absolute, then you have no basis upon which to complain about their choosing to do as they please. But our laws seek to balance the rights of the two individuals. They may, for instance, allow your neighbor to play their music as loud as they wish until its time for children to go to bed, after which time they must subjugate their right to choose to do as they please to allow you and your kids to get a good night's sleep.

Laws governing access to elective homicide are not in any material way different. They are an attempt to balance the rights of two individuals in a manner that protects the rights and liberties of both individuals to the greatest possible extent while recognizing that access to an elective homicide permanently infringes on the rights of one of the individuals, while restricting access to elective homicide is a temporary infringement on the rights of one of the individuals. Hmmm . . . permanent infringement versus temporary infringement . . . which is the most reasonable choice HA?

Very well stated, PS. However, if a person chooses to deny scientific fact and believes the unborn human isn't a human life unless the mother decides they are a human life... it's just not possible to get that person to address the unborn individual, only the individual with the power to choose.

Your last paragraph says it all, but reality is tough for some to grasp.

PrintSmith wrote: Couple of caveats missing from your definitions HA, important ones. The power to do as one pleases isn't absolute, no rights are. Your ability to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose, which is to say that you may not violate my rights in the exercise of your own, at least, not in this system of government. In total anarchy, sure, but not here.

The power of choice. Interesting to see you decide to include that one, though not surprising I guess. That the rights of two lives are in conflict is a direct result of one of those individuals deciding to exercise their power of choice to willfully and voluntarily engage in an act that has the known risk of pregnancy as a result of choosing to engage in that activity. If, in exercising their power of choice, they also choose not to mitigate that risk, then they have chosen to accept that risk when they engage in said activity. Having chosen to accept that risk, it is not reasonable for them to then say they wish to undo their choice to accept that risk when such actions result in the permanent infringement of the right to life of another individual and the impact to their own rights is a temporary infringement.

Kinda like when your next door neighbor wants to have an all night party and play their music at full volume when you want to sleep. If the power to do as one pleases and to choose is absolute, then you have no basis upon which to complain about their choosing to do as they please. But our laws seek to balance the rights of the two individuals. They may, for instance, allow your neighbor to play their music as loud as they wish until its time for children to go to bed, after which time they must subjugate their right to choose to do as they please to allow you and your kids to get a good night's sleep.

Laws governing access to elective homicide are not in any material way different. They are an attempt to balance the rights of two individuals in a manner that protects the rights and liberties of both individuals to the greatest possible extent while recognizing that access to an elective homicide permanently infringes on the rights of one of the individuals, while restricting access to elective homicide is a temporary infringement on the rights of one of the individuals. Hmmm . . . permanent infringement versus temporary infringement . . . which is the most reasonable choice HA?

[/b]

I WILL AGAIN STATE (AS MANY TIMES AS i HAVE TO)....THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS RESTRICTING CHOICE......MANDATORY PRAY IN SCHOOLS??? CESSATION OF HEART BEAT BEFORE MEDICAL AID CAN BE ADMINISTERED......I do not care how u define YOUR answer... the real and present problem for women is a zealous sect who believes THEIR plan should be imposed on another's life choices......(if my child was in school and came home with this statement.."we had to say a pray before class started")....my response would be REALLY, will let's just see what the lawyer says u have to do.AND i WOULD LITIGATE THE SCHOOL,THE COUNTY AND ALL PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN THAT DECISION.....FIRST i WOULD CONTACT THE ACLU TO ALLOW THEM 'PRESS TIME" .....U WILL NOT DICTATE MY CHOICES WITHOUT A FIGHT. (forced actions that r illegal and restrict my legal rights)

And still you persist in the propaganda of fear, doubt, and the intentional parroting of irrational talking points that have been debunked by no less than the highest court in Texas and the Supreme Court of these United States. Why you choose to hold onto such nonsense is curious to me HA. There is not a single State, regardless of how much or how little they restrict access to elective homicide, where the cessation of the heartbeat, in either the child in utero or the woman, is required before medical aid is allowed. To serially repeat that lie is evidence that your entire view of this issue is distorted and that the propaganda distributed to instill doubt and fear has been very, very, successful in shaping your views.

I have provided quotes taken from the written decisions of the court, given you the case names so that you can see for yourself that what you have been told is bovine scat, but you seem determined to believe the lies and the propaganda instead.

As far as a moment to pray in a public school, or any school for that matter, once again it is your own prejudice and ignorance that is being put on full display for all to see. There is nothing that requires the prayer be offered to the God of Abraham and Isaac, nothing that requires a prayer to any deity. You believe in Gaia, yes? And I'm sure you seek Gaia's guidance and wisdom in your life. A prayer is nothing more than that, is it. It is your own internal bias that creates from whole cloth a requirement that the evil "Religious Right" is dictating the prayer that is offered to give you an excuse to give voice to your intolerance. Here, too, you have swallowed down the propaganda of fear and lies without bothering to first give even a single chew of reason.

Religious conservatives have been fighting for years to get prayer back into America’s schools, and this year, the Supreme Court gave them what they wanted. In Kennedy v. Bremerton, the six conservative justices affirmed a coach’s right to offer a prayer after a football game.

But what is really astonishing is that this decision will over time prove to be less monumental than the Court’s other big religion decision this term. In Maine’s Carson v. Makin, the Court ruled 6–3 that a state could not exclude private religious schools from receiving public funding only because of their religion. In prospect, it opens up a vast new world of publicly funded religious schools—using tax money, potentially—to teach kids that dinosaurs walked with humans, that girls primarily come into this world to grow up and bear children, or that only heterosexuals deserve rights. Maine quickly passed a law to keep public money away from avowedly anti-LGBTQ schools, but legislators will only be able to play anti-discrimination whack-a-mole for so

Carson, not Kennedy, is the decision that could reshape the relationship of Church and school in America—even though prayer in school has long been the symbolic victory conservatives were intent on winning.

Adam Laats: The conservative war on education that failed

The reasons that prayer in school became the hallmark fight of this movement go back to the middle and late 20th century, when the Supreme Court decided a series of cases that conservatives thought “kicked God out of the schools.” In 1962, in Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court ruled that public schools could not require students to recite a state-written prayer. Politicians rushed to condemn the decision. Representative Frank Becker of New York called the decision “the most tragic in the history of the United States.


SO-O-O look up these cases, u want to go there,LET'S GO.....this is from the THE ATLANTIC, sub is required, but there is enough material to cut your teeth on.

Carson v Makin was properly decided. The government of The People is not allowed to promote a religion, nor is it allowed to discriminate against those who practice one. The purpose of publicly funding education is not to fund government schools, it is to educate the next generation of citizens, which a school operated by a religious institution accomplishes.

The government is funding the education of the student, not the school they attend. Fully in line with the SCOTUS decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, from 2002, where the court ruled that the use of a voucher from the State to attend a sectarian school didn't violate the Establishment Clause. In other words, this wasn't a deviation from past decisions of the court due to "Loyalty" to the current president. Something, it seems, that the Atlantic failed to inform you of in their efforts to distribute ideology in lieu of information.

Kennedy was also properly decided given that there was no requirement for any of the players, from either team, to engage in the prayer, participation was entirely voluntary and the government may not prevent a person from the free exercise of their religion, even though that is precisely what many States did during Covid.

And yes, Engel v Vitale, as well as McCollum v Board of Education were also properly decided and are still the legal precedents used.

Ball's back in your court HA . . . you've been misled yet again by ideology posing as information.

see Louisiana looking for loopholes POST....THEY TRIED BACK IN 2018...it will come back up again with the HERITAGE FOUNDATION FIRMLY IN PLACE.....THE ACLU won that case, DO U NOT SEE THE PROVERBIAL PUSHING AN AGENDA???

Pushing an agenda is what politics is all about HA, it's why we have elections, to determine which agenda to be pushed comports with the consent of the governed.

Are you at all familiar with the opinion written Chief Justice Warren Burger in the 1984 case Lynch v Donnelly in which he said, "The very chamber in which oral arguments on this case were heard is decorated with a notable and permanent -- not seasonal -- symbol of religion: Moses with the Ten Commandments. Congress has long provided chapels in the Capitol for religious worship and meditation."

In fact, the Ten Commandments are displayed as the central figure on the east pediment on the exterior of the Supreme Court building, they are carved into the bottom panel of the doors separating the hallway from the courtroom, they are engraved on the frames of the bronze gates separating the courtroom from the aisle, there is a frieze in the chamber itself depicting Moses holding the tablets, and the figures in the chambers representing the "Majesty of Government" and the "Power of Government" are on either side of tablets with the Roman numerals I-V on one and VI-X on the other.

If the tablets are a worthy subject for the building housing our Supreme Court, why would they be out of place in a public school? It's also worth noting that one of the briefs submitted when the ACLU filed multiple suits against the display of the Ten Commandments way, way back in 2001, written by David Barton and entitled, “The Ten Commandments: A Part of America’s Legal System for Almost 400 years!”, contains the following information, "In fact, the Ten Commandments are more easily found in America’s government buildings than in her religious buildings, thus demonstrating the understanding by generations of Americans from coast to coast that the Ten Commandments formed the basis of America’s civil laws."

The test applied by the Supreme Court is whether or not the display is there solely to promote religion. If there is a secular reason, such as what is found in the Georgia statues, “Encourage the study of historical documents including but not limited to those which reflect our National Motto, the Declaration of Independence, the Ten Commandments, the Constitution of the United States, and such other nationally recognized documents which contributed to the history of the State of Georgia”, no violation of the Establishment Clause exists. It's why creches are allowed in public displays at Christmas too (the actual subject of the Lynch v Donnelly case.

Certainly, the Ten Commandments may be displayed in violation of the Establishment Clause, but it is by no means a default position that their display in a public building is a violation of the Establishment Clause, which is the position you are seeking to establish here.

I WILL REITERATE...IF U ATTEMPT TO PUSH YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON ME, IN ANY WAY.....I WILL LITIGATE ALONG WITH THE ACLU.....HERITAGE FOUNDATION IS MAKING THAT MISSION IT'S
PRIMARY FOCUS..