Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 22:34:42 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: What's Your Favorite Government Expenditure?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <atropos-69491B.14172202042024@news.giganews.com> <a60p0j9mro42sauclhjq06j97sqhl3qc9s@4ax.com> <atropos-B94C59.15334802042024@news.giganews.com> <uuj8gt$3rick$1@dont-email.me> <uXidnTm_y4mYBpD7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> <17c2e3141fd64ad5$63110$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> <6IWdnbKgZM0ae5D7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> <17c31ee562af77e5$33225$111488$4ed50460@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-BE058B.12485504042024@news.giganews.com> <17c3306f87b52b54$124402$1768716$4ad50060@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-6CA12C.14563704042024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: moviePig <never@nothere.com>
In-Reply-To: <atropos-6CA12C.14563704042024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 75
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.bofh.team!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2024 02:34:44 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 4114
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17c341aab2887c16$51965$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 4539

On 4/4/2024 5:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <17c3306f87b52b54$124402$1768716$4ad50060@news.newsdemon.com>,
>   moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/4/2024 3:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <17c31ee562af77e5$33225$111488$4ed50460@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>    moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/3/2024 7:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 2:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 2024 at 2:46:03 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/2/24 6:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <a60p0j9mro42sauclhjq06j97sqhl3qc9s@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 14:17:57 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Just taking a little poll here. What is you guys' favorite part of
>>>>>>>>>>> the recent $1.2 trillion federal spending bill?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is it...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (1) $850,000 for a gay senior citizen home in Massachusetts; or
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why do they need a home just for gay senior citizens? There must be
>>>>>>>>>> something else going on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And why should do I, as a California resident, pay for it? If
>>>>>>>>> Massachusetts needs gay senior citizens homes, let Massachusetts pay
>>>>>>>>> for them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (2) $15,000,000 for Egyptian college tuitions; or
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (3) $400,000 for a group that helps teens hide their gender from
>>>>>>>>>>> their parents; or
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Given the way some parents act I can see this being needed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regardless of whether it's needed, why is this something the federal
>>>>>>>>> government should pay for? If it's so necessary, let the local
>>>>>>>>> community fund it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is it illegal for the Federal government to pay for it?  Is it
>>>>>>>> constitutional?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Helping troon teens deceive their parents is not one of the enumerated
>>>>>>> powers of the federal government in Article I, Section 8.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither is building highways, unless you're a mailman.
>>>>>
>>>>> The interstate highway system was originally a military project to ensure
>>>>> troops and material could be quickly moved from one part of the country
>>>>> to another. That makes constructing it a proper exercise of federal power.
>>>>
>>>> So, e.g., abortions are constitutional if the military performs them?
>>>
>>> Abortions are constitutional already, so I don't understand your
>>> question. E.g., oodles of them are performed in California every day (at
>>> taxpayer expense-- yay!).
>>
>> Abortions in Texas.
> 
> They're constitutional in Texas, too. The fact that they're illegal per
> state law, doesn't mean they're unconstitutional.
> 
> Texas can make abortions legal if they want and it won't violate the
> U.S. Constitution.

But it would seem that Texas can't outlaw *military* abortions.