about that. if you think that the issue is one of choice, that women should have a choice to terminate their pregnancy, that supposes that there is a point at which they have had the fair choice, opportunity to choice. and why would 15 weeks be an inappropriate line? so viability it seems to me doesn t have anything to do with choice. if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time? cecile, justice roberts doesn t believe that any women need apparently another ten weeks or more that would be granted under roe. i mean, it is so obvious, lawrence, both the disingenuousness of that statement, when they ve already let a six-week ban stay in effect in texas as i said. as we know mississippi is passing a six-week ban as well
point at which they had the fear choice. opportunity to choice. and why would 15 weeks be an inappropriate line? because availability, it seems to me, doesn t have anything to do with choice. but if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks nine time? justice roberts doesn t believe that any woman in need, apparently another ten weeks or more that would be granted under roe? it is so obvious, lawrence, both the disingenuousness of that statement when they have already left a six-week ban stay in effect in texas. as we know, mississippi is passing a six-week ban as well, as the legislature have seen. we have three justices now that are on our side, we can restrict abortion and whatever we we want to. the question is, this has been an established constitutional
take place. we re going to take a hold on it. i could argue the other side of it, let s keep our borders secure, let s let this ban stay in place. and if at some point the supreme court or were to rule, this was not constitutional in some way, and they were to undo it, i would argue what s the harm if we ve got 120-day pause? what would the harm in that be as the president s job is to keep our borders secure and keep our country safe. i think you can argue it both ways that right now, the green card issue s been clarified. the authority of the secretary of homeland security to step in. whether it s on a translator or someone else who they would feel should be allowed into the country. on an exception basis. i don t see the disruption now that the green card issue s been clarified and i d argue, let s keep the border secure. what about when we played that clap from afternoon he s making the case here, this is a
they were held much much longer because it was so dangerous to let them out. so their chances of going back are pretty high. yeah. the director of national intelligence statistics and facts say that 28.6% of the gitmo detainees were back to the battlefield to try to kill afghanis and us and others. so if let s say this travel ban, they extend the deal. six months there are reports talking about six months. what then? does the ban stay in place forever? what point they would be free to leave qatar and basically one would assume do whatever they want. absolutely. they still should be in gitmo. there s no doubt about this. too late for that. what s going to happen is if one of the guy s involved in doing something really bad and americans die, that s boy, you want to talk about chickens home to roost. i tell you. let s show their pictures once more b not as you said plain taliban fighters.