Jackson Jambalaya

It's like the almost-dead villain in a bad movie:
"Nooo! Must... keep... killing... babies....!"

Jackson Women's "Health" Organization, you've been... wait for it... aborted!

The vileness of this organization to keep demanding child sacrifice upon demand is absolutely sickening. Where in all of this murder-on-demand is personal responsibility taken into account? SCOTUS deemed that the states have the right to regulate abortion as they see fit in overturning Roe IN ADDITION to upholding Mississippi's 15 week abortion band.

Judge Halford's written order subtly nailed these people for who they are. This is not a medical facility and it does not provide medical services. It is an abortion mill. That is all they do and that is why they have to close down rather than just stop performing abortions. They do not have patients, they have customers.

"Absent relief, Mississippians will continue to be denied their rights under the Mississippi Constitution to privacy and bodily autonomy, as they are compelled by the State to endure the risks of pregnancy and bear children against their will."

6-8% of pregnancies are high risk, and most are over 40 years of age. This does not align well with the demographics for abortion services. And, 97% of abortions are for convenience. Terminating a life is not a reasonable solution for being irresponsible.

@9:49 - I’m seriously doubt that statistic is even remotely close to accurate for our state. About 40% of the state is morbidly obese. We are well below average in every health statistic. I would bet that even in women who are of child bearing age, there are far more than 6-8% that are in poor health. Your argument about ending life just depends on when life begins. Are sperm alive? Should make masturbation now be considered murder as well? We are on a slippery slope of eroding rights, not sure where it’ll end but I guarantee this won’t be the end of the Christian crusade against the personal freedoms.

I wonder if they will go after guns next? Murder is mostly forbidden in the Bible so I would thing guns would be the logical next step to protecting life. Health insurance would also be a target. Jesus was big on helping the poor, so I’m sure all these people will start trying to help the poor acquire healthcare and our current system doesn’t make that possible. Loaning money was a big no-no so I’m thinking the true Christians will try to end banking as we know it after they finish with the abortion, guns, and healthcare. We are well on our way to a return to the times of Jesus. Progress be damned, we must honor Jesus, it’s what he would want us to do.

They have been CANCELED! Bwa, ha, ha.

Jesus, would want you to repent. That will never happen with your kind, because in your opinion, you have nothing to repent of.

He, would also like for you to remove the 4x4 post from your own eye before pointing to the speck in your brother's eye.

I could go own with many more things Jesus would want you to do, but this isn't Sunday school.

When you call the murder of babies progress, your kind haven't progressed beyond savages.

Yesterday: “Absent relief, Mississippians will continue to be denied their rights under the Mississippi Constitution to privacy and bodily autonomy, as they are compelled by the State to endure the risks of pregnancy and bear children against their will."




6 months ago: “Take the vaccine or be fired, starve and die in the street, hard right wing fascist Trump nut”

Why are they closing? Dems and the media keep telling me it’s all about healthcare for women and they make it sound like there is a huge demand based on risk to expectant mothers and rape. Also where are the non-profits who have funded these types of places and procedures? They should still be supporting them since their charters are based on women’s healthcare, correct?

"I wonder if they will go after guns next?"

Why would you wonder that? The right to bear arms is plainly stated in the Constitution. I've scanned the document multiple times for the right to an abortion but have yet to find it.

If they’re available at UMC to rich kids, why can’t they be available everywhere else?

Notice how the clinic's brief uses the orwellian "birthing people" neologism throughout?

@1:46 - it’s open for interpretation and as we have seen, interpretations change based on the political party controlling the court. I guess it is foolish to think Christians actually care about saving lives, but you never know.

@1:48 - I appreciate sarcasm in all forms, but this one is a bit beyond old.

Due process clause, 14th Amendment, right to privacy - this was the basis for Roe v Wade. Messing with this precedent opens up a nasty can of worms. I will add that I never completely understand this myself until it was explained in Con D II at MS College (one of the hardest classes I’ve ever had under the best instructor I’ve ever had).

I hope Mississippi Supreme Court will deny the right to privacy for women. The Fordice decision 20 years ago was just wrong, wrong, wrong.

The baby killers wanted to kill a few more for the road (to New Mexico), and of course cash in.

10:54 I hope the MS Supreme Court deny you access to women.

@1054pm - I hope your right to privacy is epically violated in a most delightful way. Remember - if it can be removed from one area of a citizen’s life, it can be just as easily removed from many others.

This bit of constitutional law (5th A’s federal due process and 14th A’s state due process) protects a citizen from the unjustified deprivation of life, liberty (defined over years to include personal freedoms as well as the original physical freedoms) or property by the government. Or, as stated in Free Dictionary’s Legal Dictionary very detailed definition of substantive due process: The liberty interest recognized by the doctrine of substantive due process permits individuals to lead their lives free from unreasonable and arbitrary governmental impositions (a really decent read on the topic - and my textbooks are packed for moving).

@3:18pm: good riddance.

Let's pretend this isn't an abortion case...

The Chancellor based her ruling on the idea/hunch/guess the Supreme Court would not follow its previous ruling.

Is that the legal standard: "I, the Chancellor, have a precedential case, but I don't think the higher court is going to follow it, so I am not going to."

@533PM - good riddance to me…I’m only moving 5 miles up the road, sorry to disappoint if that what you were referring to. I have a thick skin, your minor league attempt was adorable. I do hope that you weren’t directing those well wishes at the loss of one of your own natural rights. If that was your intention…enjoy the grape flavoraid. *snickers*