Eric
Eric
Jul 21, 2017 · 2 min read

It is a little funny to look at your post history and see on one hand you will defend any SCOTUS decision as the end all be all and in others support others that were decided by the same court but you disagree with.

All do it, but the faux authority you do it with is striking. As you, in the past, point to one side of any situation while ignoring other aspects of it.

Not involving law, but the PP aspect. You are pulling out random bits with no time context. It was also illegal in many locations to discuss the topic in the first place. And even at that time the logic was outright stated through the 60’s to be increase birth control and decrease abortions.

That thought has been born out over the years, but has not stopped many religious conservatives and policy makers from going to war with the concept of birth control totally on the basis of what they think their faith says and their misunderstanding of the science in a given thing.

There are major issues in assuming anybody knows for sure what any past political or movement leader would think about a given situation. It is again like many religious conservatives in the modern movement pretty sure that Jesus would support their seeming anger towards those in poverty. It is not all of them but there are numerous quotes and polls that show that some do.

Really, the fact that the guy gets news from WND in and of itself is concerning. And just because one opposes a given SCOTUS decision does not make the view reasonable.

If this were a Dem president than the GOP finds it acceptable to go against candidates on single issues. Which seems to be a conflict. Justices should go with the law and precedent.

)
    Eric

    Written by

    Eric