Justice Clarence Thomas Terrifies Pro-Abortion Left With ONE Opening Question

Panzerhund

✝️ Non nisi te Domine ✝️
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»πŸ₯©πŸ₯ƒπŸ“–
Destructive Ceremonious Master

Justice Clarence Thomas has been a reliable Constitutional conservative on the Supreme Court for 30 years, but he has been known for his silence on the bench.

100 Percent Fed Up – Before Justice Scalia’s death, Thomas went 10 years without asking a question during proceedings. This week, Thomas broke his usual silence to ask a question that has pro-abortion activists livid.

” Does a mother have a right to ingest drugs and harm a pre-viable baby? Can the state bring child neglect charges against the mother? β€œ he asked. The Supreme Court is currently reviewing a Mississippi law that would ban nearly all abortions after 15 weeks. The attorney representing Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the organization attempting to overturn the law, had this to say:

β€œThat’s not what this case is about, but a woman has a right to make choices about her body.”



TRENDING: EXCLUSIVE: Forgotten Monument to Dead Orphans from Fauci's Torturous and Deadly AIDS Testing Is Located in New York State -- HEART-BREAKING PHOTOS

Clarence has expressed his frustration with the court’s refusal to take up abortion cases in the past. In 2019, he wrote a scathing opinion about the court’s refusal to hear an Alabama case banning gruesome dismemberment abortions. β€œThe notion that anything in the Constitution prevents States from passing laws prohibiting the dismembering of a living child is implausible,” Thomas wrote.

β€œThis case serves as a stark reminder that our abortion jurisprudence has spiraled out of control,” he further wrote.

Thomas has long been a target of liberal pro-abortion activists, as he is one of the most outspoken pro-life justices to ever sit on the bench.

'Justice Thomas' is trending
That's how you know they're terrified of him
β€” Jack Posobiec ✝ (@JackPosobiec) December 1, 2021

If the Supreme Court were to uphold Mississippi’s ban on abortions after 15 weeks, it would lead to abortion bans across the country. The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute estimates that 26 states would impose further restrictions on abortion or outright bans. It’s no wonder the left is terrified of Justice Thomas.
 

Panzerhund

✝️ Non nisi te Domine ✝️
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»πŸ₯©πŸ₯ƒπŸ“–
Destructive Ceremonious Master
The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute estimates that 26 states would impose further restrictions on abortion or outright bans. It’s no wonder the left is terrified of Justice Thomas.
The Guttmacher Institute?
Pro abortion?

Huh!
 

Herminator

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“
Wow that was a great question. It brings up intent. I am sure if they answered honestly his next question would be if the mother is allowed to take drugs that harm the baby so long as her intent was to harm the baby? And the answer would be a hard no again.

Looks like he is aiming straight for the how is killing a baby about a woman's body?
 

Gian

Well-known member
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»πŸ₯©πŸ₯ƒπŸ“–
Destructive Ceremonious Master
Wow that was a great question. It brings up intent. I am sure if they answered honestly his next question would be if the mother is allowed to take drugs that harm the baby so long as her intent was to harm the baby? And the answer would be a hard no again.

Looks like he is aiming straight for the how is killing a baby about a woman's body?
Yes, well said. He’s going to the root of what rights the unborn baby has, because the state definitely penalizes for drug use in pregnancy.
 

CMcGillicutty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ–
If I've said it once, I've said it six gorillian times, it's literally not their body. Imagine rambling on incessantly about "muh science," and then claiming that an unborn child, which has an entirely different DNA sequence vs its mother's, is "part of the mother's body." The same as ignoring the existence of chromosomes re:trannys I suppose.
 

Herminator

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“
Slightly off topic but is there a way to remove the baby and put it in an artificial womb?

I say that because it seems like a good business, really if you zoom out, slavery becomes an new industry there. I buy the babies and incubate them, Have them work for me…it is better than dying in the womb no?

But the real point of that controversial post is to show all the men not hip to the WQ, that women truly want the ability to kill it. To backspace their choices. Control alt delete their whorishness.
 

Scuffy

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’
Does a mother have a right to ingest drugs and harm a pre-viable baby? Can the state bring child neglect charges against the mother?
I may be just tired or missing something here but how is this a checkmate to shitlibs?

Do (((shitlibs))) even care? On paper maybe but if a gun is held to their held "her body her choice" will always trump any feelings they might have in regards to what a pregnant druggy does.
 

RickGozinya

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»
How does "my body, my choice" work for premeditated murder but not for me with deadly jew juice?πŸ€”

it's literally not their body.
Correct πŸ’―% sirπŸ‘. I'd rather them carry the baby full term and then slit the mothers throat, kosher style, and let the kid have a life
 

HeartAche

The sun illuminates a road of conquest
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’
And the best part is, he's black. Anyone who disagrees with him is a racist.
Clarence Thomas is probably presented as an Uncle Tom figure to blacks, so disagreeing with him doesn't qualify as "raycisms."
 

JR_Rustler_III

πŸ‡°πŸ‡· Gookwaffen πŸ‡―πŸ‡΅
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»
The attorney representing Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the organization attempting to overturn the law, had this to say:

β€œThat’s not what this case is about, but a woman has a right to make choices about her body.”
But that's exactly what this case is about.
 

Panzerhund

✝️ Non nisi te Domine ✝️
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»πŸ₯©πŸ₯ƒπŸ“–
Destructive Ceremonious Master

Hakkikt

Well-known member
Old World Underground
β°β˜•
The only person in a position of power who actually acts on right-wing convictions at all in the entirety of the upper echelon of the US government is the single "based black man" on the Supreme Court. Tellingly, all the other 'conservatives' on the court are cowardly flip-flops with seemingly no philosophical convictions at all.
 

GoodOlboY

Hard R Espouser
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ–
If I've said it once, I've said it six gorillian times, it's literally not their body. Imagine rambling on incessantly about "muh science," and then claiming that an unborn child, which has an entirely different DNA sequence vs its mother's, is "part of the mother's body." The same as ignoring the existence of chromosomes re:trannys I suppose.
But that's exactly what this case is about.
Case in point. I used this argument all the time ten years ago. It didn't matter. I would just get "Nuh-uh!!!!!" with some form of redirect like Clarence got.


The only person in a position of power who actually acts on right-wing convictions at all in the entirety of the upper echelon of the US government is the single "based black man" on the Supreme Court. Tellingly, all the other 'conservatives' on the court are cowardly flip-flops with seemingly no philosophical convictions at all.
Take a look at how dark that man is. A mulatto would never take the same positions as a pure blood negro.
 
Top