Roe vs Wade

Irondequoit, NY, Us

“I don’t think that Lindsey Graham speaks for the entire Republican Party any more than Bernie Sanders or Ilhan Omar speak for the entire Democrat party.”

Lol

When’s the last time Sanders or Omar proposed legislation that got this much press?

Either you agree with what Graham is saying or you don’t. Most likely that opinion has not changed since the SC decision. What has changed is the number of people who are willing to voice their displeasure by casting their vote

The GOP owns this.

DBCooperMNVeteran
Prior Lake, MN, Us

I don’t think that Lindsey Graham speaks for the entire Republican Party any more than Bernie Sanders or Ilhan Omar speak for the entire Democrat party.

Irondequoit, NY, Us

“I really don't know why Senator Graham wants to dive head first into a hornets nest.”

Lol

The GOP so badly wanted Roe overturned since it’s inception.

Now that it’s bad for elections you don’t want to touch it?

You guys own it.

That was a kill the message not the messenger.

Graham was just the latest Republican going back on their words. For how many years it was, “Let the states decide”. Now that it’s been thrown back to the states? The GOP is proposing Federal law. It’s all about controlling.

DBCooperMNVeteran
Prior Lake, MN, Us

I really don't know why Senator Graham wants to dive head first into a hornets nest.

San Luis Obispo, CA, Us

These activist Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot.

There's going to be a lot of women voting in November to protect the right to make their own decisions.

New Orleans, LA, Us

So reading back through this thread and knowing we are on a swinger site, it seems the right-wingers in here were happy with Roe v Wade before it became a political "gotcha" moment where the gop-stacked SCOTUS ruled to overturn it and the right rejoiced, shouting "fuck the libs"! Even though I would wager just about every one of you had or paid for an abortion in your lifetime.

Then we heard a chorus of "state's rights!" ring out, saying overturning Roe didn't "ban abortion", it just let the states decide and the libs should just move to a state that allows it.

So how do you plan to spin the Lindsey Graham proposal to impose a federal abortion ban at 15 weeks?

If you are a reasonable person, you will stick with your "state's rights" argument and rebuff Graham but I have a feeling some of you are so deep into the "stick it to the libs" faction of the gop, you can't help but cheer this idiot on.

So what say you? Do right-wing swingers really want a federal abortion ban?

~Scamp

DBCooperMNVeteran
Prior Lake, MN, Us

Thank you for researching and proving my point.

You CAN get retroactive child support. You are limited as to how far back it can be collected, but it CAN be collected.

tbrmskssVeteran
San Diego, CA, Us

"Minn. Stat. 257.66 allows a court to go back two years prior to the filing of a petition in a paternity case for past child support, as well as for expenses of pregnancy and confinement, and the mother’s lost wages. The statute requires the potential support obligor to pay “all or a portion of the reasonable expenses . . ., after consideration of the relevant facts, including the relative financial means of the parents; the earning ability of each parent; . . . “. Without proper representation, the tendency will be for the Court to charge the support obligor for the full brunt of the expenses that could potentially be imposed.

A second area where support can be awarded retroactively two years prior to a motion is in those cases where a county is seeking reimbursement for public benefits paid on behalf of a minor child. County attorneys pursuing these claims will routinely request reimbursement from a potential support obligor for the maximum amount regardless of any limitations inherent in the law. If there is a current support order, the county will not be entitled to reimbursement beyond any arrears in the existing order. The county will also not be entitled to a retroactive upward modification of the prior order in an attempt to obtain reimbursement. Finally, any calculation of past support for reimbursement to the county must consider the obligor’s financial condition at the time public assistance was paid, rather than the obligor’s financial condition at the time of the motion.

Lastly, legal guardians of the children who are not receiving public assistance also can apply for retroactive support pursuant to Minn. Stat. 256.87, Subd. 5. This statute allows retroactive support “only if the person or entity has physical custody with the consent of a custodial parent, or approval of the court.” In the vast majority of cases where this statute is applied there is no prior court order. Rather, the situation usually involves a separation between parents, where one parent retains custody of the child. It is important to understand that a non?custodial parent in this situation has the potential exposure of having to pay support retroactive for two years, thereby resulting in a heavier ongoing support burden than would otherwise have been the case.

Occasionally a county will bring a motion seeking reimbursement of public assistance and add to the motion a request for an award of retroactive support to the custodial parent for the period of time before public assistance was being provided. There are several defenses to this type of proceeding, not the least of which is the fact that Minnesota courts will only allow custodial parents to seek retroactive support pursuant to this statute in the context of a marital dissolution proceeding (as opposed to a reimbursement proceeding). In addition, these types of motions brought by the county attorney’s office are usually prosecuted by the county attorney on behalf of the county, not the custodial parent, and therefore the court will not have jurisdiction to award retroactive support to the custodial parent."

tbrmskssVeteran
San Diego, CA, Us

Just a guy talking out his ass.

Irondequoit, NY, Us

“I don’t need a statute. I have experience working with the system.”

So you’re a deadbeat dad? Lol. Just kidding. I will apologize in advance.

Irondequoit, NY, Us

Minnesota Law:

Allowed to go back two years. That includes expenses related to the pregnancy.

So if a baby is six months old and one of the parents sues for support. They can go back the full six months.

If child is five years old and mom sues for support and expenses related to the pregnancy. Support can go back two years. Not allowed to go after pregnancy expenses.

DBCooperMNVeteran
Prior Lake, MN, Us

I don’t need a statute. I have experience working with the system.

TallMark45Veteran
Tempe, AZ, Us

Republicans voted against marriage, now show me the proof..

tbrmskssVeteran
San Diego, CA, Us

Everybody knows a guy.

I'm telling you that's not what the law says.

If you know different, cite the statute and I'll investigate.

DBCooperMNVeteran
Prior Lake, MN, Us

Ummmmm, actually you can. I personally know a guy it happened to.

tbrmskssVeteran
San Diego, CA, Us

I dont think that is correct. Kinda.

You can retroactively modify child support, but only back to the time you file the motion.

But, for example, if you wait until the child is 5, you can not file for child support and get it all the way back to birth...

tbrmskssVeteran
San Diego, CA, Us

I'll have to look that up...

DBCooperMNVeteran
Prior Lake, MN, Us

"The non-custodial parent is not responsible for child support unless and until the custodial parent goes to court to hold them responsible...

There is no such thing as retroactive child support..."

Maybe not where you live, but it is alive and working here.

tbrmskssVeteran
San Diego, CA, Us

Mis fire. Mea culpa.

Windermere, FL, Us

"Cashier should be fired."

The easy way around this is to make it clear in the hiring process that you as an employee are expected to provide customers with anything the store sells.

If your religious faith or other personal convictions prevents you from selling bacon, condoms, or whatever to anyone, find another job.

One of my sisters in law is a life-long vegetarian, but for reasons that bewilder me, she worked in a butcher shop for almost 10 years. She reportedly never had any conflicts with anyone. I would think only a complete idiot would get a job at a butcher shop if they were against selling meat to people, unless they were simply trying to start a fight.

Windermere, FL, Us

"A bill (not yet law) in North Carolina will make it legal to murder a pregnant woman if you find out that she intends to get an abortion."

You got suckered in on this one. A few things make this not quite as spectacular as it seems. Thanks to a viral Instagram post, the version above is making the rounds.

  • it was introduced in February of 2021 and did not advance beyond the introduction. Only 4 other legislators signed on to it and the sponsor isn't even running for re-election. It has no chance of becoming law.
  • it would have classified abortion as capital murder thus punishable by the state via execution.
  • it would NOT have made intention of an abortion capital murder thus punishable by the state via execution.
  • it would NOT have made it legal for a non-state actor to murder anyone for intending to or actually having had an abortion.

You're usually pretty good at fact-checking outrageous stuff, but you flubbed this one.

tbrmskssVeteran
San Diego, CA, Us

Cashier should be fired.

ro_ri54Veteran
Sterling Heights, MI

No Sex For You!
A shopper at a Wisconsin Walgreens was denied condoms at the checkout lane by a religious cashier who apparently didn't approve of the customer having protected sex. Should religious employees be able to deny service on a faith-based basis?