Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > can.politics > #660934 > unrolled thread

Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court

Back to article view | Back to can.politics

Contents

  Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court 51st State <beyond@hope.com> - 2025-04-25 11:26 +0200
    Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-25 08:58 -0700
      Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court slothe <slothe@netcom.com> - 2025-04-25 17:21 +0000
        Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-04-25 13:44 -0400
          Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-04-25 19:34 +0000
            Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court "P. Coonan" <nospam@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-26 18:03 +0000
            Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-04-26 15:21 -0400
              Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2025-04-26 19:53 +0000
                Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-04-26 16:06 -0400
                  Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2025-04-26 20:14 +0000
                    Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court Tyler Coop <tcoop@uraniumone.com> - 2025-04-26 20:24 +0000
                      Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2025-04-27 01:25 +0000
                        Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court Rudy Canoza <rudy.c@kone.net> - 2025-04-27 03:54 -0400
                          Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2025-04-27 12:00 +0000
                        Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court Tyler Coop <tcoop@uraniumone.com> - 2025-04-28 03:11 +0000
                    Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-04-26 16:38 -0400
                      Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2025-04-27 01:25 +0000
                        Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-04-27 07:40 -0400
                          Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2025-04-27 12:01 +0000
                            Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court Rudy Canoza <rudy.c@kone.net> - 2025-04-27 09:51 -0400
                            Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-04-27 14:53 -0400
                              Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court Rudy Canoza <rudy.c@kone.net> - 2025-04-27 16:04 -0400
                                Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-04-27 16:08 -0400
                                  Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2025-04-27 23:29 +0000
                                  Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court Rudy Canoza <rudy.c@kone.net> - 2025-04-28 12:33 -0400
                                    Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-04-29 10:31 -0400
                                      Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court Rudy Canoza <rudy.c@kone.net> - 2025-04-29 13:02 -0400
                                        Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-04-29 13:21 -0400
                                          Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court Rudy Canoza <rudy.c@kone.net> - 2025-04-29 14:12 -0400
                                            Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-04-29 15:06 -0400
                                Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2025-04-27 23:29 +0000
                                  Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court Rudy Canoza <rudy.c@kone.net> - 2025-04-28 12:34 -0400
                Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court Tyler Coop <tcoop@uraniumone.com> - 2025-04-26 20:17 +0000
                  Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2025-04-27 01:24 +0000
                    Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court Tyler Coop <tcoop@uraniumone.com> - 2025-04-28 03:03 +0000
                      Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-04-27 23:10 -0400
                        Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court Tyler Coop <tcoop@uraniumone.com> - 2025-04-28 03:18 +0000
                          Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-04-27 23:57 -0400
                      Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2025-04-28 05:19 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#660934 — Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court

The Court of Appeal says OHIP must cover surgery for a resident seeking to 
have a vagina constructed while leaving penis intact

Ontario's top court has ruled the province must cover the cost of an out-
of-country, penis-sparing vaginoplasty for a 'transgender and non-binary 
resident'ť who wishes to have both female and male genitalia.

In a unanimous decision released this week, a three-judge panel of the 
Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed a lower court's ruling ordering the 
Ontario Health Insurance Plan to pay for the patient, identified as K.S. 
in court records, to undergo the novel phallus-sparing surgery at a Texas 
clinic.

The latest ruling is the third unanimous decision in K.S.'s favour.

'K.S. is pleased with the Court of Appeal's decision, which is now the 
third unanimous ruling confirming that her gender affirming surgery is 
covered under Ontario's Health Insurance Act and its regulation,' K.S.'s 
lawyer, John McIntyre, said in an email to National Post.

The legal battle between K.S., whose sex at birth was male, dates to 2022, 
when the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) refused a funding request 
for surgery to construct a vagina while sparing the penis, a procedure 
this is not available in Ontario, or anywhere else in Canada.

OHIP argued that, because the vaginoplasty would not be accompanied by a 
penectomy, the procedure isn't one specifically listed in OHIP's Schedule 
of Benefits and therefore shouldn't be publicly funded. OHIP also argued 
that the requested surgery is considered experimental in Ontario and, 
thus, also ineligible for coverage.

K.S. appealed to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board, which 
overturned OHIP's refusal, arguing that 'vaginoplasty' should be covered, 
whether a penectomy, a separate procedure included on the list of publicly 
funded sex-reassignment surgeries, is performed or not.

OHIP appealed that decision to the Divisional Court but lost again after 
the panel dismissed the province's appeal and declared the surgery, which 
leaves intact a functioning penis, an insured service.

The province's latest appeal was heard on Nov. 26. The three-judge appeal 
court panel rejected OHIP's arguments that the proposed surgery isn't an 
insured service because it won't be accompanied by removal of the penis ' 
a penectomy 'neither recommended by K.S.'s health professionals nor 
desired by K.S.,' according to the court's written decision.

K.S., who is in her early 30s, 'has experienced significant gender 
dysphoria since her teenage years, as well as physical, mental and 
economic hardships to transition her gender expression to align with her 
gender identity,' the court said.

K.S.'s doctor submitted a request to OHIP for prior funding approval for 
the surgical creation of a vaginal cavity and external vulva. The request 
made it clear that K.S. wasn't seeking a penectomy.

In a letter accompanying the request, her doctor said that because K.S. is 
'not completely on the 'feminine' end of the spectrum' it was important 
for her to have a vagina while maintaining her penis, adding that the 
Crane Center for Transgender Surgery in Austin, Tx.,'has an excellent 
reputation' for gender-affirming surgery, 'and especially with these more 
complicated procedures.'

The appeal court ruled that the divisional court did not err in holding 
that the requested vaginoplasty is listed in the Schedule of Benefits, 
with or without an accompanying penectomy.

'The existence of different techniques to perform a vaginoplasty does not 
affect this conclusion,' the appeal court's written decision reads. 'It 
was open to the drafters of the Schedule of Benefits to describe each 
specifically listed service in broad or narrow terms.

'Here the description chosen, vaginoplasty,' is broad enough to encompass 
different techniques,' the court said.

'As the (Health Services Appeal and Review) Board put it, a vaginoplasty 
without a penectomy is an insured service because it is still a 
vaginoplasty, a specifically listed service.'

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health's standards of 
care, the appeal court added, also 'expressly refers to 'penile preserving 
vaginoplasty' as a surgical option for some non-binary people and also 
note that vaginoplasty 'may include retention of penis and/or testicle.''

Ontario has until June 23, 2025, to seek leave to the Supreme Court of 
Canada.  

'As this matter is within the appeal period, it would be inappropriate to 
comment further,h said a spokesperson for Ontario's Ministry of the 
Attorney General.

In dismissing OHIP's appeal, the court ordered Ontario to pay K.S. $23,250 
in costs.

Gender-affirming surgeries at the Texas clinic range from US$10,000 to 
$70,000, depending on the procedures performed.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ohip-coverage-penis-sparing-
vaginoplasty

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#660976

On 4/25/25 02:26, 51st State wrote:
> The Court of Appeal says OHIP must cover surgery for a resident seeking to
> have a vagina constructed while leaving penis intact
> 
> Ontario's top court has ruled the province must cover the cost of an out-
> of-country, penis-sparing vaginoplasty for a 'transgender and non-binary
> resident'ť who wishes to have both female and male genitalia.
> 
> In a unanimous decision released this week, a three-judge panel of the
> Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed a lower court's ruling ordering the
> Ontario Health Insurance Plan to pay for the patient, identified as K.S.
> in court records, to undergo the novel phallus-sparing surgery at a Texas
> clinic.
> 
> The latest ruling is the third unanimous decision in K.S.'s favour.
> 
> 'K.S. is pleased with the Court of Appeal's decision, which is now the
> third unanimous ruling confirming that her gender affirming surgery is
> covered under Ontario's Health Insurance Act and its regulation,' K.S.'s
> lawyer, John McIntyre, said in an email to National Post.
> 
> The legal battle between K.S., whose sex at birth was male, dates to 2022,
> when the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) refused a funding request
> for surgery to construct a vagina while sparing the penis, a procedure
> this is not available in Ontario, or anywhere else in Canada.
> 
> OHIP argued that, because the vaginoplasty would not be accompanied by a
> penectomy, the procedure isn't one specifically listed in OHIP's Schedule
> of Benefits and therefore shouldn't be publicly funded. OHIP also argued
> that the requested surgery is considered experimental in Ontario and,
> thus, also ineligible for coverage.
> 
> K.S. appealed to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board, which
> overturned OHIP's refusal, arguing that 'vaginoplasty' should be covered,
> whether a penectomy, a separate procedure included on the list of publicly
> funded sex-reassignment surgeries, is performed or not.
> 
> OHIP appealed that decision to the Divisional Court but lost again after
> the panel dismissed the province's appeal and declared the surgery, which
> leaves intact a functioning penis, an insured service.
> 
> The province's latest appeal was heard on Nov. 26. The three-judge appeal
> court panel rejected OHIP's arguments that the proposed surgery isn't an
> insured service because it won't be accompanied by removal of the penis '
> a penectomy 'neither recommended by K.S.'s health professionals nor
> desired by K.S.,' according to the court's written decision.
> 
Simply amazing!
I want it all!
I want it both ways!
And I want all of you to pay for it!
---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.

> K.S., who is in her early 30s, 'has experienced significant gender
> dysphoria since her teenage years, as well as physical, mental and
> economic hardships to transition her gender expression to align with her
> gender identity,' the court said.
> 
> K.S.'s doctor submitted a request to OHIP for prior funding approval for
> the surgical creation of a vaginal cavity and external vulva. The request
> made it clear that K.S. wasn't seeking a penectomy.
> 
> In a letter accompanying the request, her doctor said that because K.S. is
> 'not completely on the 'feminine' end of the spectrum' it was important
> for her to have a vagina while maintaining her penis, adding that the
> Crane Center for Transgender Surgery in Austin, Tx.,'has an excellent
> reputation' for gender-affirming surgery, 'and especially with these more
> complicated procedures.'
> 
> The appeal court ruled that the divisional court did not err in holding
> that the requested vaginoplasty is listed in the Schedule of Benefits,
> with or without an accompanying penectomy.
> 
> 'The existence of different techniques to perform a vaginoplasty does not
> affect this conclusion,' the appeal court's written decision reads. 'It
> was open to the drafters of the Schedule of Benefits to describe each
> specifically listed service in broad or narrow terms.
> 
> 'Here the description chosen, vaginoplasty,' is broad enough to encompass
> different techniques,' the court said.
> 
> 'As the (Health Services Appeal and Review) Board put it, a vaginoplasty
> without a penectomy is an insured service because it is still a
> vaginoplasty, a specifically listed service.'
> 
> The World Professional Association for Transgender Health's standards of
> care, the appeal court added, also 'expressly refers to 'penile preserving
> vaginoplasty' as a surgical option for some non-binary people and also
> note that vaginoplasty 'may include retention of penis and/or testicle.''
> 
> Ontario has until June 23, 2025, to seek leave to the Supreme Court of
> Canada.
> 
> 'As this matter is within the appeal period, it would be inappropriate to
> comment further,h said a spokesperson for Ontario's Ministry of the
> Attorney General.
> 
> In dismissing OHIP's appeal, the court ordered Ontario to pay K.S. $23,250
> in costs.
> 
> Gender-affirming surgeries at the Texas clinic range from US$10,000 to
> $70,000, depending on the procedures performed.
> 
> https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ohip-coverage-penis-sparing-
> vaginoplasty
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660977

On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> posted some
news:qiOOP.2639593$OrR5.2009332@fx18.iad: 

> On 4/25/25 02:26, 51st State wrote:
>> The Court of Appeal says OHIP must cover surgery for a resident
>> seeking to have a vagina constructed while leaving penis intact
>> 
>> Ontario's top court has ruled the province must cover the cost of an
>> out- of-country, penis-sparing vaginoplasty for a 'transgender and
>> non-binary resident'ť who wishes to have both female and male
>> genitalia. 
>> 
>> In a unanimous decision released this week, a three-judge panel of
>> the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed a lower court's ruling ordering
>> the Ontario Health Insurance Plan to pay for the patient, identified
>> as K.S. in court records, to undergo the novel phallus-sparing
>> surgery at a Texas clinic.
>> 
>> The latest ruling is the third unanimous decision in K.S.'s favour.
>> 
>> 'K.S. is pleased with the Court of Appeal's decision, which is now
>> the third unanimous ruling confirming that her gender affirming
>> surgery is covered under Ontario's Health Insurance Act and its
>> regulation,' K.S.'s lawyer, John McIntyre, said in an email to
>> National Post. 
>> 
>> The legal battle between K.S., whose sex at birth was male, dates to
>> 2022, when the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) refused a funding
>> request for surgery to construct a vagina while sparing the penis, a
>> procedure this is not available in Ontario, or anywhere else in
>> Canada. 
>> 
>> OHIP argued that, because the vaginoplasty would not be accompanied
>> by a penectomy, the procedure isn't one specifically listed in OHIP's
>> Schedule of Benefits and therefore shouldn't be publicly funded. OHIP
>> also argued that the requested surgery is considered experimental in
>> Ontario and, thus, also ineligible for coverage.
>> 
>> K.S. appealed to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board, which
>> overturned OHIP's refusal, arguing that 'vaginoplasty' should be
>> covered, whether a penectomy, a separate procedure included on the
>> list of publicly funded sex-reassignment surgeries, is performed or
>> not. 
>> 
>> OHIP appealed that decision to the Divisional Court but lost again
>> after the panel dismissed the province's appeal and declared the
>> surgery, which leaves intact a functioning penis, an insured service.
>> 
>> The province's latest appeal was heard on Nov. 26. The three-judge
>> appeal court panel rejected OHIP's arguments that the proposed
>> surgery isn't an insured service because it won't be accompanied by
>> removal of the penis ' a penectomy 'neither recommended by K.S.'s
>> health professionals nor desired by K.S.,' according to the court's
>> written decision. 
>> 
> Simply amazing!
> I want it all!
> I want it both ways!
> And I want all of you to pay for it!
> ---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.

That's ridiculous.  

>> K.S., who is in her early 30s, 'has experienced significant gender
>> dysphoria since her teenage years, as well as physical, mental and
>> economic hardships to transition her gender expression to align with
>> her gender identity,' the court said.
>> 
>> K.S.'s doctor submitted a request to OHIP for prior funding approval
>> for the surgical creation of a vaginal cavity and external vulva. The
>> request made it clear that K.S. wasn't seeking a penectomy.
>> 
>> In a letter accompanying the request, her doctor said that because
>> K.S. is 'not completely on the 'feminine' end of the spectrum' it was
>> important for her to have a vagina while maintaining her penis,
>> adding that the Crane Center for Transgender Surgery in Austin,
>> Tx.,'has an excellent reputation' for gender-affirming surgery, 'and
>> especially with these more complicated procedures.'

Doctors who encourage this kind of silliness have crossed the line.  They 
are abusing the mentally ill.

>> The appeal court ruled that the divisional court did not err in
>> holding that the requested vaginoplasty is listed in the Schedule of
>> Benefits, with or without an accompanying penectomy.
>> 
>> 'The existence of different techniques to perform a vaginoplasty does
>> not affect this conclusion,' the appeal court's written decision
>> reads. 'It was open to the drafters of the Schedule of Benefits to
>> describe each specifically listed service in broad or narrow terms.
>> 
>> 'Here the description chosen, vaginoplasty,' is broad enough to
>> encompass different techniques,' the court said.
>> 
>> 'As the (Health Services Appeal and Review) Board put it, a
>> vaginoplasty without a penectomy is an insured service because it is
>> still a vaginoplasty, a specifically listed service.'
>> 
>> The World Professional Association for Transgender Health's standards
>> of care, the appeal court added, also 'expressly refers to 'penile
>> preserving vaginoplasty' as a surgical option for some non-binary
>> people and also note that vaginoplasty 'may include retention of
>> penis and/or testicle.'' 
>> 
>> Ontario has until June 23, 2025, to seek leave to the Supreme Court
>> of Canada.
>> 
>> 'As this matter is within the appeal period, it would be
>> inappropriate to comment further,h said a spokesperson for Ontario's
>> Ministry of the Attorney General.
>> 
>> In dismissing OHIP's appeal, the court ordered Ontario to pay K.S.
>> $23,250 in costs.
>> 
>> Gender-affirming surgeries at the Texas clinic range from US$10,000
>> to $70,000, depending on the procedures performed.
>> 
>> https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ohip-coverage-penis-sparing-
>> vaginoplasty
>> 
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660980

slothe <slothe@netcom.com> wrote:
>On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> posted some
>news:qiOOP.2639593$OrR5.2009332@fx18.iad: 

>> Simply amazing!
>> I want it all!
>> I want it both ways!
>> And I want all of you to pay for it!
>> ---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
>
>That's ridiculous.  


They may have accidentally done the right thing.  This particular
surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be the wish of the
person acquiring it - I could never advise anyone to modify their
genitals but if they choose that they choose with free will to pretend
that God screwed up and it requires a knife to the balls.

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660982

On 2025-04-25, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
> slothe <slothe@netcom.com> wrote:
>>On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> posted some
>>news:qiOOP.2639593$OrR5.2009332@fx18.iad: 
>
>>> Simply amazing!
>>> I want it all!
>>> I want it both ways!
>>> And I want all of you to pay for it!
>>> ---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
>>
>>That's ridiculous.  
>
>
> They may have accidentally done the right thing.  This particular
> surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be the wish of the
> person acquiring it - I could never advise anyone to modify their
> genitals but if they choose that they choose with free will to pretend
> that God screwed up and it requires a knife to the balls.
>


Looks like the insult "go fu%k yourself" has taken on a whole new meaning.

ROTFLMAO! 

-- 
pothead
Liberalism Is A Mental Disease
Treat it accordingly
<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14512427/Doctors-reveal-symptoms-Trump-Derangement-Syndrome-tell-youve-got-it.html>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661040

On 25 Apr 2025, pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> posted some
news:vugo4c$mcc9$1@dont-email.me: 

> On 2025-04-25, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>> slothe <slothe@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> posted some
>>>news:qiOOP.2639593$OrR5.2009332@fx18.iad: 
>>
>>>> Simply amazing!
>>>> I want it all!
>>>> I want it both ways!
>>>> And I want all of you to pay for it!
>>>> ---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
>>>
>>>That's ridiculous.  
>>
>>
>> They may have accidentally done the right thing.  This particular
>> surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be the wish of the
>> person acquiring it - I could never advise anyone to modify their
>> genitals but if they choose that they choose with free will to
>> pretend that God screwed up and it requires a knife to the balls.
>>
> 
> 
> Looks like the insult "go fu%k yourself" has taken on a whole new
> meaning. 
> 
> ROTFLMAO! 

Oh Canada! 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661044

pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>On 2025-04-25, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>> slothe <slothe@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> posted some
>>>news:qiOOP.2639593$OrR5.2009332@fx18.iad: 
>>
>>>> Simply amazing!
>>>> I want it all!
>>>> I want it both ways!
>>>> And I want all of you to pay for it!
>>>> ---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
>>>
>>>That's ridiculous.  
>>
>> They may have accidentally done the right thing.  This particular
>> surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be the wish of the
>> person acquiring it - I could never advise anyone to modify their
>> genitals but if they choose that they choose with free will to pretend
>> that God screwed up and it requires a knife to the balls.
>
>Looks like the insult "go fu%k yourself" has taken on a whole new meaning.
>
>ROTFLMAO! 


They would need a partner, not being able to use the penis to
penetrate their own makeshift vagina.  I say if a person is delusional
enough to think they're bigender and should literally have surgery to
have both parts, let them.

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661051

In article <8fcq0k5c7bs7uvje0fnqqrpfud9ba079ag@4ax.com>,
Joel  <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>>On 2025-04-25, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> slothe <slothe@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> posted some
>>>>news:qiOOP.2639593$OrR5.2009332@fx18.iad: 
>>>
>>>>> Simply amazing!
>>>>> I want it all!
>>>>> I want it both ways!
>>>>> And I want all of you to pay for it!
>>>>> ---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
>>>>
>>>>That's ridiculous.  
>>>
>>> They may have accidentally done the right thing.  This particular
>>> surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be the wish of the
>>> person acquiring it - I could never advise anyone to modify their
>>> genitals but if they choose that they choose with free will to pretend
>>> that God screwed up and it requires a knife to the balls.
>>
>>Looks like the insult "go fu%k yourself" has taken on a whole new meaning.
>>
>>ROTFLMAO! 
>
>
>They would need a partner, not being able to use the penis to
>penetrate their own makeshift vagina.  I say if a person is delusional
>enough to think they're bigender and should literally have surgery to
>have both parts, let them.
>
>-- 
>Joel W. Crump
>
>Amendment XIV
>Section 1.
>
>[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
>abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
>United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
>life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
>nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
>protection of the laws.
>
>Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
>liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

What does this have to do with Canadian Politics?
-- 
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ;
Canada -Save the Nation from Donald Trump - Vote Liberal!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661056

doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>In article <8fcq0k5c7bs7uvje0fnqqrpfud9ba079ag@4ax.com>,
>Joel  <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>>>On 2025-04-25, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> slothe <slothe@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> posted some
>>>>>news:qiOOP.2639593$OrR5.2009332@fx18.iad: 
>>>>
>>>>>> Simply amazing!
>>>>>> I want it all!
>>>>>> I want it both ways!
>>>>>> And I want all of you to pay for it!
>>>>>> ---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's ridiculous.  
>>>>
>>>> They may have accidentally done the right thing.  This particular
>>>> surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be the wish of the
>>>> person acquiring it - I could never advise anyone to modify their
>>>> genitals but if they choose that they choose with free will to pretend
>>>> that God screwed up and it requires a knife to the balls.
>>>
>>>Looks like the insult "go fu%k yourself" has taken on a whole new meaning.
>>>
>>>ROTFLMAO! 
>>
>>They would need a partner, not being able to use the penis to
>>penetrate their own makeshift vagina.  I say if a person is delusional
>>enough to think they're bigender and should literally have surgery to
>>have both parts, let them.
>
>What does this have to do with Canadian Politics?


Are there not trans people in Canada, as it happens?

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661058

In article <25fq0k1jlvubo35m4lah3dmmagibvco3c2@4ax.com>,
Joel  <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>In article <8fcq0k5c7bs7uvje0fnqqrpfud9ba079ag@4ax.com>,
>>Joel  <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>>>>On 2025-04-25, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> slothe <slothe@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> posted some
>>>>>>news:qiOOP.2639593$OrR5.2009332@fx18.iad: 
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Simply amazing!
>>>>>>> I want it all!
>>>>>>> I want it both ways!
>>>>>>> And I want all of you to pay for it!
>>>>>>> ---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's ridiculous.  
>>>>>
>>>>> They may have accidentally done the right thing.  This particular
>>>>> surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be the wish of the
>>>>> person acquiring it - I could never advise anyone to modify their
>>>>> genitals but if they choose that they choose with free will to pretend
>>>>> that God screwed up and it requires a knife to the balls.
>>>>
>>>>Looks like the insult "go fu%k yourself" has taken on a whole new meaning.
>>>>
>>>>ROTFLMAO! 
>>>
>>>They would need a partner, not being able to use the penis to
>>>penetrate their own makeshift vagina.  I say if a person is delusional
>>>enough to think they're bigender and should literally have surgery to
>>>have both parts, let them.
>>
>>What does this have to do with Canadian Politics?
>
>
>Are there not trans people in Canada, as it happens?
>
>-- 
>Joel W. Crump
>
>Amendment XIV
>Section 1.
>
>[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
>abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
>United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
>life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
>nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
>protection of the laws.
>
>Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
>liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

And US laws have no implication in Canada.
-- 
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ;
Canada -Save the Nation from Donald Trump - Vote Liberal!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661062

On 26 Apr 2025, doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted some
news:vujes1$1d9n$2@gallifrey.nk.ca: 

> In article <25fq0k1jlvubo35m4lah3dmmagibvco3c2@4ax.com>,
> Joel  <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>>In article <8fcq0k5c7bs7uvje0fnqqrpfud9ba079ag@4ax.com>,
>>>Joel  <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>>>>>On 2025-04-25, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> slothe <slothe@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> posted some
>>>>>>>news:qiOOP.2639593$OrR5.2009332@fx18.iad: 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Simply amazing!
>>>>>>>> I want it all!
>>>>>>>> I want it both ways!
>>>>>>>> And I want all of you to pay for it!
>>>>>>>> ---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's ridiculous.  
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They may have accidentally done the right thing.  This particular
>>>>>> surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be the wish of the
>>>>>> person acquiring it - I could never advise anyone to modify their
>>>>>> genitals but if they choose that they choose with free will to
>>>>>> pretend that God screwed up and it requires a knife to the balls.
>>>>>
>>>>>Looks like the insult "go fu%k yourself" has taken on a whole new
>>>>>meaning. 
>>>>>
>>>>>ROTFLMAO! 
>>>>
>>>>They would need a partner, not being able to use the penis to
>>>>penetrate their own makeshift vagina.  I say if a person is
>>>>delusional enough to think they're bigender and should literally
>>>>have surgery to have both parts, let them.
>>>
>>>What does this have to do with Canadian Politics?
>>
>>
>>Are there not trans people in Canada, as it happens?
>>
>>-- 
>>Joel W. Crump
>>
>>Amendment XIV
>>Section 1.
>>
>>[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
>>abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
>>United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
>>life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
>>nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
>>protection of the laws.
>>
>>Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
>>liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
> 
> And US laws have no implication in Canada.

It would be a better 51st candidate state if they did!

You moose-kissers get a free pass for Marie-Pierre Bouchard
because she's funny and looks good in a swimsuit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661073

In article <a90b43efb9.1745699073@wpghu.xg>,
Tyler Coop  <tcoop@uraniumone.com> wrote:
>On 26 Apr 2025, doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted some
>news:vujes1$1d9n$2@gallifrey.nk.ca: 
>
>> In article <25fq0k1jlvubo35m4lah3dmmagibvco3c2@4ax.com>,
>> Joel  <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>In article <8fcq0k5c7bs7uvje0fnqqrpfud9ba079ag@4ax.com>,
>>>>Joel  <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 2025-04-25, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> slothe <slothe@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> posted some
>>>>>>>>news:qiOOP.2639593$OrR5.2009332@fx18.iad: 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Simply amazing!
>>>>>>>>> I want it all!
>>>>>>>>> I want it both ways!
>>>>>>>>> And I want all of you to pay for it!
>>>>>>>>> ---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That's ridiculous.  
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They may have accidentally done the right thing.  This particular
>>>>>>> surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be the wish of the
>>>>>>> person acquiring it - I could never advise anyone to modify their
>>>>>>> genitals but if they choose that they choose with free will to
>>>>>>> pretend that God screwed up and it requires a knife to the balls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Looks like the insult "go fu%k yourself" has taken on a whole new
>>>>>>meaning. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>ROTFLMAO! 
>>>>>
>>>>>They would need a partner, not being able to use the penis to
>>>>>penetrate their own makeshift vagina.  I say if a person is
>>>>>delusional enough to think they're bigender and should literally
>>>>>have surgery to have both parts, let them.
>>>>
>>>>What does this have to do with Canadian Politics?
>>>
>>>
>>>Are there not trans people in Canada, as it happens?
>>>
>>>-- 
>>>Joel W. Crump
>>>
>>>Amendment XIV
>>>Section 1.
>>>
>>>[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
>>>abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
>>>United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
>>>life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
>>>nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
>>>protection of the laws.
>>>
>>>Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
>>>liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
>> 
>> And US laws have no implication in Canada.
>
>It would be a better 51st candidate state if they did!
>
>You moose-kissers get a free pass for Marie-Pierre Bouchard
>because she's funny and looks good in a swimsuit.
>

burn in Hell Yank!
-- 
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ;
Canada -Save the Nation from Donald Trump - Vote Liberal!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661087

The Binky Doctor wrote:
> In article <a90b43efb9.1745699073@wpghu.xg>,
> Tyler Coop  <tcoop@uraniumone.com> wrote:
>> On 26 Apr 2025, doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted some
>> news:vujes1$1d9n$2@gallifrey.nk.ca:
>>
>>> In article <25fq0k1jlvubo35m4lah3dmmagibvco3c2@4ax.com>,
>>> Joel  <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>> In article <8fcq0k5c7bs7uvje0fnqqrpfud9ba079ag@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Joel  <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-04-25, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> slothe <slothe@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> posted some
>>>>>>>>> news:qiOOP.2639593$OrR5.2009332@fx18.iad:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Simply amazing!
>>>>>>>>>> I want it all!
>>>>>>>>>> I want it both ways!
>>>>>>>>>> And I want all of you to pay for it!
>>>>>>>>>> ---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's ridiculous.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They may have accidentally done the right thing.  This particular
>>>>>>>> surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be the wish of the
>>>>>>>> person acquiring it - I could never advise anyone to modify their
>>>>>>>> genitals but if they choose that they choose with free will to
>>>>>>>> pretend that God screwed up and it requires a knife to the balls.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looks like the insult "go fu%k yourself" has taken on a whole new
>>>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ROTFLMAO!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They would need a partner, not being able to use the penis to
>>>>>> penetrate their own makeshift vagina.  I say if a person is
>>>>>> delusional enough to think they're bigender and should literally
>>>>>> have surgery to have both parts, let them.
>>>>>
>>>>> What does this have to do with Canadian Politics?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are there not trans people in Canada, as it happens?
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Joel W. Crump
>>>>
>>>> Amendment XIV
>>>> Section 1.
>>>>
>>>> [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
>>>> abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
>>>> United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
>>>> life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
>>>> nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
>>>> protection of the laws.
>>>>
>>>> Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
>>>> liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
>>>
>>> And US laws have no implication in Canada.
>>
>> It would be a better 51st candidate state if they did!
>>
>> You moose-kissers get a free pass for Marie-Pierre Bouchard
>> because she's funny and looks good in a swimsuit.
>>
> 
> burn in Hell Yank!
> 
 >
How's life in your mammy's basement, binky?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661094

In article <183a1db3cfb0e0ec$114750$1602464$64dd6e6a@news.thecubenet.com>,
Rudy Canoza  <rudy.c@kone.net> wrote:
>The Binky Doctor wrote:
     ^^^^^<-Peadophile talker Rudy Canoza noted
>> In article <a90b43efb9.1745699073@wpghu.xg>,
>> Tyler Coop  <tcoop@uraniumone.com> wrote:
>>> On 26 Apr 2025, doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted some
>>> news:vujes1$1d9n$2@gallifrey.nk.ca:
>>>
>>>> In article <25fq0k1jlvubo35m4lah3dmmagibvco3c2@4ax.com>,
>>>> Joel  <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>>> In article <8fcq0k5c7bs7uvje0fnqqrpfud9ba079ag@4ax.com>,
>>>>>> Joel  <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-25, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> slothe <slothe@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> posted some
>>>>>>>>>> news:qiOOP.2639593$OrR5.2009332@fx18.iad:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Simply amazing!
>>>>>>>>>>> I want it all!
>>>>>>>>>>> I want it both ways!
>>>>>>>>>>> And I want all of you to pay for it!
>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's ridiculous.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They may have accidentally done the right thing.  This particular
>>>>>>>>> surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be the wish of the
>>>>>>>>> person acquiring it - I could never advise anyone to modify their
>>>>>>>>> genitals but if they choose that they choose with free will to
>>>>>>>>> pretend that God screwed up and it requires a knife to the balls.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looks like the insult "go fu%k yourself" has taken on a whole new
>>>>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ROTFLMAO!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They would need a partner, not being able to use the penis to
>>>>>>> penetrate their own makeshift vagina.  I say if a person is
>>>>>>> delusional enough to think they're bigender and should literally
>>>>>>> have surgery to have both parts, let them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does this have to do with Canadian Politics?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are there not trans people in Canada, as it happens?
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Joel W. Crump
>>>>>
>>>>> Amendment XIV
>>>>> Section 1.
>>>>>
>>>>> [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
>>>>> abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
>>>>> United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
>>>>> life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
>>>>> nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
>>>>> protection of the laws.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
>>>>> liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
>>>>
>>>> And US laws have no implication in Canada.
>>>
>>> It would be a better 51st candidate state if they did!
>>>
>>> You moose-kissers get a free pass for Marie-Pierre Bouchard
>>> because she's funny and looks good in a swimsuit.
>>>
>> 
>> burn in Hell Yank!
>> 
> >
>How's life in your mammy's basement, binky?
                                      ^^^^^<-Peadophile talker Rudy Canoza noted


-- 
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ;
Canada -Save the Nation from Donald Trump - Vote Liberal!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661119

On 26 Apr 2025, doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted some
news:vuk11o$e9u$10@gallifrey.nk.ca: 

> In article <a90b43efb9.1745699073@wpghu.xg>,
> Tyler Coop  <tcoop@uraniumone.com> wrote:
>>On 26 Apr 2025, doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted some
>>news:vujes1$1d9n$2@gallifrey.nk.ca: 
>>
>>> In article <25fq0k1jlvubo35m4lah3dmmagibvco3c2@4ax.com>,
>>> Joel  <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>>In article <8fcq0k5c7bs7uvje0fnqqrpfud9ba079ag@4ax.com>,
>>>>>Joel  <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On 2025-04-25, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> slothe <slothe@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> posted some
>>>>>>>>>news:qiOOP.2639593$OrR5.2009332@fx18.iad: 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Simply amazing!
>>>>>>>>>> I want it all!
>>>>>>>>>> I want it both ways!
>>>>>>>>>> And I want all of you to pay for it!
>>>>>>>>>> ---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That's ridiculous.  
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They may have accidentally done the right thing.  This
>>>>>>>> particular surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be
>>>>>>>> the wish of the person acquiring it - I could never advise
>>>>>>>> anyone to modify their genitals but if they choose that they
>>>>>>>> choose with free will to pretend that God screwed up and it
>>>>>>>> requires a knife to the balls. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Looks like the insult "go fu%k yourself" has taken on a whole new
>>>>>>>meaning. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>ROTFLMAO! 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They would need a partner, not being able to use the penis to
>>>>>>penetrate their own makeshift vagina.  I say if a person is
>>>>>>delusional enough to think they're bigender and should literally
>>>>>>have surgery to have both parts, let them.
>>>>>
>>>>>What does this have to do with Canadian Politics?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Are there not trans people in Canada, as it happens?
>>>>
>>>>-- 
>>>>Joel W. Crump
>>>>
>>>>Amendment XIV
>>>>Section 1.
>>>>
>>>>[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
>>>>abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
>>>>United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
>>>>life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
>>>>nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
>>>>protection of the laws.
>>>>
>>>>Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
>>>>liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
>>> 
>>> And US laws have no implication in Canada.
>>
>>It would be a better 51st candidate state if they did!
>>
>>You moose-kissers get a free pass for Marie-Pierre Bouchard
>>because she's funny and looks good in a swimsuit.
>>
> 
> burn in Hell Yank!

Throw in Marie wearing the pink bunny costume and I'll risk it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZT84thPfkw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661063

doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>In article <25fq0k1jlvubo35m4lah3dmmagibvco3c2@4ax.com>,
>Joel  <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>>
>>>What does this have to do with Canadian Politics?
>>
>>Are there not trans people in Canada, as it happens?
>>
>>-- 
>>Joel W. Crump
>>
>>Amendment XIV
>>Section 1.
>>
>>[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
>>abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
>>United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
>>life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
>>nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
>>protection of the laws.
>>
>>Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
>>liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
>
>And US laws have no implication in Canada.


You're referring to my sig as if it's part of my argument about trans
rights in Canada?  What gives?

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661074

In article <uvgq0klhkeuu3dg7h1q8nr2kaqutghch30@4ax.com>,
Joel  <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>In article <25fq0k1jlvubo35m4lah3dmmagibvco3c2@4ax.com>,
>>Joel  <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>What does this have to do with Canadian Politics?
>>>
>>>Are there not trans people in Canada, as it happens?
>>>
>>>-- 
>>>Joel W. Crump
>>>
>>>Amendment XIV
>>>Section 1.
>>>
>>>[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
>>>abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
>>>United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
>>>life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
>>>nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
>>>protection of the laws.
>>>
>>>Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
>>>liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
>>
>>And US laws have no implication in Canada.
>
>
>You're referring to my sig as if it's part of my argument about trans
>rights in Canada?  What gives?
>
>-- 
>Joel W. Crump
>
>Amendment XIV
>Section 1.
>
>[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
>abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
>United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
>life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
>nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
>protection of the laws.
>
>Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
>liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

That law has nothing to do with Canadian Politics.
-- 
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ;
Canada -Save the Nation from Donald Trump - Vote Liberal!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661090

doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:

>>>US laws have no implication in Canada.
>>
>>You're referring to my sig as if it's part of my argument about trans
>>rights in Canada?  What gives?
>>
>>-- 
>>Joel W. Crump
>>
>>Amendment XIV
>>Section 1.
>>
>>[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
>>abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
>>United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
>>life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
>>nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
>>protection of the laws.
>>
>>Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
>>liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
>
>That law has nothing to do with Canadian Politics.


I was talking about something other than my sig, you are ignoring
that.  So your response has nothing to do with any post in any group
in this thread.

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661095

In article <dr5s0kt8p4bi3uldqmho0e0pk2v4a5lvgj@4ax.com>,
Joel  <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>
>>>>US laws have no implication in Canada.
>>>
>>>You're referring to my sig as if it's part of my argument about trans
>>>rights in Canada?  What gives?
>>>
>>>-- 
>>>Joel W. Crump
>>>
>>>Amendment XIV
>>>Section 1.
>>>
>>>[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
>>>abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
>>>United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
>>>life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
>>>nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
>>>protection of the laws.
>>>
>>>Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
>>>liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
>>
>>That law has nothing to do with Canadian Politics.
>
>
>I was talking about something other than my sig, you are ignoring
>that.  So your response has nothing to do with any post in any group
>in this thread.
>

Then why bring up US Law in can.politics?

>-- 
>Joel W. Crump
>
>Amendment XIV
>Section 1.
>
>[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
>abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
>United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
>life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
>nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
>protection of the laws.
>
>Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
>liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.


-- 
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ;
Canada -Save the Nation from Donald Trump - Vote Liberal!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#661101

The Binky Doctor wrote:
> In article <dr5s0kt8p4bi3uldqmho0e0pk2v4a5lvgj@4ax.com>,
> Joel  <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>> doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>
>>>>> US laws have no implication in Canada.
>>>>
>>>> You're referring to my sig as if it's part of my argument about trans
>>>> rights in Canada?  What gives?
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Joel W. Crump
>>>>
>>>> Amendment XIV
>>>> Section 1.
>>>>
>>>> [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
>>>> abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
>>>> United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
>>>> life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
>>>> nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
>>>> protection of the laws.
>>>>
>>>> Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
>>>> liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
>>>
>>> That law has nothing to do with Canadian Politics.
>>
>>
>> I was talking about something other than my sig, you are ignoring
>> that.  So your response has nothing to do with any post in any group
>> in this thread.
>>
> 
> Then why bring up US Law in can.politics?
> 
>> -- 
>> Joel W. Crump
>>
>> Amendment XIV
>> Section 1.
>>
>> [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
>> abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
>> United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
>> life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
>> nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
>> protection of the laws.
>>
>> Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
>> liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
> 
> 
This is cross posted to six groups, binky, you stupid fuck.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | can.politics

csiph-web