An excerpt from a forthcoming book. .....The year is 2056. What is the truth about her if she does not understand IVF? The rights under Roe v Wade are not different than what they are now. Roe v Wade has nothing to do with IVF. IVF is for fertilization of an egg with a very special process to ensure the mommy and daddy see just what they would look like together in conception without all of the Starbucks foam or Bud Light foam and dna in the mix. But, it would be nice if a politician who is being investigated with her former boss for assassination attempts could actually just tell her supporters the truth and explain this if she did actually understand it as a former Attorney General and she could not have been and to say so is a criminal offence and the utterance of a false statement. How can you promise to tell the truth if you can't read or understand what you do read? There could be an autistic kind of gift of gab that works for the half former slave and half sasquatch party; formerly the Democrats. Every Democratic party candidate since Clinton and including him is a shoplifting convict, a prostitute or a pimp or both with alias names other than the name they had at birth. This is what they offer America in some scheme to neutralize all power of their body with the body being the most essential aboriginal territory and all that they have; in essence. The people who think this way take moments of importance or moments of authority only to tell people what pains they have experienced in life while trying to navigate legal formality in the pain of their dyslexia about legal formalities. I don't know any Attorney Generals who could not explain the basics of IVF without looking it up on google and if you did look it up, wouldn't you be able to explain it? Maybe she cannot spell google and her former boss is not the Pope of America but he says so on his telephone. Abortion is about abortion and if you can read an Eye chart if a bus ticket as the attorney general you can understand that and we will never ask you hard questions like the answer to 2+7. Also Roe v Wade did not prevent states from maintaining their own policies in some regard. Roe v Wade ensured that all abortions, so called, are only allowed under certain conditions. What else would the Court have said? The current judgement by the Court only confirms that the Federal Court is not needed to address what is essentially a state issue that can help governed by the states but pursuant to the basic Federal standards governing when a public health service can authorise staff to action a termination of a pregnancy; and all states confirm the Federal law in that they are only allowed in cases involving the health of the child or the mother or if the mother was recently the victim of sexual violence. Roe gave women too much freedom ; the conservatives and Christian fundamentalists said. Now the Democrats are arguing to restore it but nothing has changed as to freedoms except now the law is monitored and maintained by states with little variations from state to state as to when an abortion is granted. You save and maintain the same freedom over what come out of your bikini, your toilet and your body but you are you too dyslexic to understand anything? It seems that the Court has freed itself and the Federal Government from the targeted incessant, unnecessary aspersions by Christian fundamentalists and also political detractors, in particular the Democrats, who have confused IVF with abortion and also wasted important campaign airtime on a DOJ issue as they that wish to diminish the success of the current Court and it's efficient use of time. Misleading people on this issue is not a reason to think you should achieve any political success; especially when you are not confident that people will vote for you while you lie to them but you promise to always tell them the truth as conceived by Jim Jones if you can lead them like this and then starve them again.....

 An excerpt from a forthcoming book.  

.....The year is 2056.    

What is the truth about her if she does not understand IVF?  

The rights under Roe v Wade are not different than what they are now. Roe v Wade has nothing to do with IVF. IVF is for fertilization of an egg with a very special process to ensure the mommy and daddy see just what they would look like together in conception without all of the Starbucks foam  or Bud Light foam and dna in the mix.  But, it would be nice if a politician who is being investigated with her former boss for assassination attempts could actually just tell her supporters the truth and explain this if she did actually understand it as a former Attorney General and she could not have been and to say so is a criminal offence and the utterance of a false statement. How can you promise to tell the truth if you can't read or understand what you do read?  There could be an autistic kind of gift of gab that works for the half former slave and half sasquatch party; formerly the Democrats. Every Democratic party candidate since Clinton and including him is a shoplifting convict, a prostitute or a pimp or both with alias names other than the name they had at birth.  This is what they offer America in some scheme to neutralize all power of their body with the body being the most essential aboriginal territory and all that they have; in essence. The people who think this way take moments of importance or moments of authority only to tell people what pains they have experienced in life while trying to navigate legal formality in the pain of their dyslexia about legal formalities.     I don't know any Attorney Generals who could not explain the basics of IVF without looking it up on google and if you did look it up, wouldn't you be able to explain it? Maybe she cannot spell google and her former boss is not the Pope of America but he says so on his telephone. 

Abortion is about abortion and if you can read an Eye chart if a bus ticket as the attorney general you can understand that and we will never ask you hard questions like the answer to 2+7. Also Roe v Wade did not prevent states from maintaining their own policies in some regard. Roe v Wade ensured that all abortions, so called, are only allowed under certain conditions. What else would the Court have said? The current judgement by the Court only confirms that the Federal Court is not needed to address what is essentially a state issue that can help governed by the states but pursuant to the basic Federal standards governing when a public health service can authorise staff to action a termination of a pregnancy; and all states confirm the Federal law in that they are only allowed in cases involving the health of the child or the mother or if the mother was recently the victim of sexual violence. Roe gave women too much freedom ; the conservatives and Christian fundamentalists said. Now the Democrats are arguing to restore it but nothing has changed as to freedoms except now the law is monitored and maintained by states with little variations from state to state as to when an abortion is granted. You save and maintain the same freedom over what come out of your bikini, your toilet and your body but you are you too dyslexic to understand anything? It seems that the Court has freed itself and the Federal Government from the targeted incessant, unnecessary aspersions by Christian fundamentalists and also political detractors, in particular the Democrats, who have confused IVF with abortion and also wasted important campaign airtime on a DOJ issue as they that wish to diminish the success of the current Court and it's efficient use of time. Misleading people on this issue is not a reason to think you should achieve any political success; especially when you are not confident that people will vote for you while you lie to them but you promise to always tell them the truth as conceived by Jim Jones if you can lead them like this and then starve them again.....