Comments by "possumverde" (@possumverde) on "WWLTV" channel.

  1. The clinic needs to add on the argument that the state ban would violate the 13th amendment's prohibition of "involuntary servitude" as well (which it would.) When handling suits where the father of a fetus seeks to prevent an abortion, the courts have consistently ruled that, while both parties have a stake in the matter, it's the woman who has to do the work of carrying and giving birth so she ultimately gets the final say. Since it's recognized as work, forcing a woman to do it against her will clearly violates the 13th amendment.
    33
  2. The only ones who have failed to do their jobs are the five rogue SCOTUS justices who made this unconstitutional ruling. Forcing a woman to carry and give birth against her will is a clear violation of the 13th amendment's prohibition of "involuntary servitude." In cases where the father of a fetus seeks to prevent an abortion, the courts have consistently ruled that, while both parties have a stake in the matter, since the woman has to do the work of carrying and giving birth, she gets the final say. By recognizing it as being work, the 13th amendment applies.
    5
  3. Many screenshots were included in the article that directly show SecDef Hegseth to be lying. At least he needs to go, if not all involved, for not individually confirming who was in the group chat before discussing anything important... or for just being OK with using an unsecure commercial app for a meeting to begin with.
    2
  4. They have indeed spoken...and are going to be greatly embarrassed once a challenge based on the 13th amendment's prohibition of "involuntary servitude" makes it's way before them and they have to admit their mistake...or double down and go fully rogue...which will likely not end well for them or the country. There's quite a bit of precedent where carrying and giving birth are considered "work" on the carrier's part and if it's work, then the 13th amendment prohibits forcing someone to do it. There's not really a constitutional rebuttal to be found against that particular argument.
    2
  5. For now. Once lawsuits challenging the ruling on the grounds that abortion rights are indirectly protected under the 13th amendment's prohibition of "involuntary servitude" however, SCOTUS will have to reinstate said rights as there is no constitutional rebuttal to that argument. There's even plenty of legal precedents where the courts have ruled that carrying and giving birth is work. Therefore, under the constitution, it cannot be forced. Biden could speed things up with an executive order to the Justice Department etc. to enforce the 13th's prohibition in states who ban abortions (at least up to viability.)
    1
  6. Abortion rights are indirectly protected by the 13th amendment's prohibition on "involuntary servitude." Once cases based on that argument make their way to SCOTUS or the President speeds it up by making an executive order to the Justice Department etc. to uphold the 13th's prohibition in states attempting to violate it by banning abortions, the five rogue justices will be forced to recognize the argument as legitimate and reinstate abortion rights anyway. What this judge is doing, though perfectly legal, won't matter much in the long run.
    1
  7. His personal views, like those of SCOTUS justices, don't matter. Though they might get in the way of him ending this real quick with an executive order... SCOTUS missed (perhaps intentionally) an obvious but indirect constitutional protection of abortion rights in the 13th amendment's prohibition of "involuntary servitude." There's plenty of precedent where carrying and giving birth are considered work performed by the carrier. If it's work, then the 13th amendment prohibits the government from forcing someone to do it against their will. An executive order for the Justice Department etc. to enforce the 13th amendment's prohibition in states who inact bans would force the issue rather than waiting on individual cases to make their way through the courts. There really isn't a constitutional rebuttal to be had against that argument so the five rogue-ish SCOTUS justices would either have to admit their mistake or double down and go completely rogue...the latter would likely not go well for them or the country.
    1
  8. In the long run it won't matter. SCOTUS will eventually have to reinstate abortion rights once a challenge based on the 13th amendment's prohibition of "involuntary servitude" makes it's way before them. There's quite a bit of existing legal precedent in which carrying and giving birth are considered "work" performed by the carrier and if it's work then the 13th amendment clearly prohibits forcing someone to do it against their will. Hopefully Biden's handlers will realize that soon and simply draft an executive order for the Justice Department etc. to enforce said prohibition in states who inact bans. That will fast track the challenge to SCOTUS and there isn't a constitutional rebuttal to be had against it. So they'll have to eat some crow and admit their mistake...or double down and go fully rogue...which likely wouldn't end well for them or the country.
    1