To me, it depends who v**ed her into the Student Senate.
She is there to REPRESENT HER CONSTITUENTS, not to run things her way, based on her beliefs, religious or otherwise.
If she ran on a conservative platform and was v**ed in by conservatives with the same beliefs as her, then she STILL should set aside HER beliefs on any subject and be a voice for her constituents...that's what they v**ed her in to do; represent THEM, not rule them with HER beliefs.
If she ran on a liberal platform and was v**ed in by a majority of liberals that want this bill, then yes, she should resign for the same reason.
It's not about the issue, it's about the rules.

Interesting isn't it, how the Dem.s said Jane Doe shouldn't be made to wait 11 days to have an a******n (when she was about 10 weeks pregnant) because, as they argued, the closer she got to 24 weeks, the more dangerous it is for a woman to have an a******n. But now, when they want a******ns up to and AFTER birth, the risks to the woman (I won't call them "mothers") is almost 80% higher than at 24 weeks. The Left doesn't give a crap about women OR babies.…they just want to be "dead right".

Actually, there's no mention of a******n at all in the Constitution, anywhere.
Don't you find it interesting that the 2nd specifically mentions arms and specifically says "shall not be infringed", yet the Dem.s and Left regulate the s**t out of gun ownership to the point that financial burdens make it almost impossible for poor people to own guns...and think it's constitutional? Yet a******n was NEVER mentioned in the C, and the ruling was based on privacy and said that while states can't make them illegal, they can regulate them as long as those regulations aren't prohibitive to the point of causing a (poor) woman an "undue burden" that prevents her from being able to have one...and they want it SO UNREGULATED that it can result in a newborn infant being left to die.
Medically, no infant is "viable" if it is not fed or cared for after birth...even healthy infants...that makes it murder. Are hospitals now a "sanctuary" for murderers, seeing that if a mother were to take that same baby HOME the next day and decide to make it comfortable but not feed it and it died, she would be going to prison for murder? How FAR are the Left going to take this...to the point where decent people on BOTH sides push it back to the SCOTUS and revisit it...because THIS, this k*****g of newborns, will do it.

Ah yes...Corey Booker. He's gonna make a GREAT lunch for the men hating hyenas in white when his time comes.

That's because you're a grown-up and those babies still need pablum because they'd choke on the t***h.

Exactly. Once again President Trump shines a bright light on the narcissism of these toxic feminist Dem.s for the world to see.
They sat and scowled with the news of the lowest unemployment rate in our history for women, b****s and Hispanics (all of which were represented in the group) in the PRIVATE sector, but jumped up clapping, cheering, high 5ing each other like teenage girls when they were mentioned.

Apparently so, and while wearing all white🙄 Pretty ironic when you consider it was the Republicans that sent the first two women to the Democratic National Convention to bolster the fight for women's suffrage and the Democrats that fought so hard against it. What a slap in the face of Republican women who fought so hard for them to even be SITTING in that chamber, much less v****g to put them in office.

Some would argue that there is, but honestly (and I used to be bipartisan and v**ed for a Democrat ONCE but shall never be decieved again) I don't think there's been a difference since WWII.

I agree with you up until your assessment of Justice Kavanaugh and blame the biased opinions of MSM "journalists" for the reason so many people share the same opinion as you. I've researched this extensively and offer the links to the official written opinions and dissents to those opinions for you or anyone else to make your own decision with all the actual facts and arguments between the judges.

Kavanaugh dissent, Garza v. Hargan, 2017:"The en banc majority has badly erred in this case. The three-judge panel held that the U.S. Government, when holding a pregnant unlawful immigrant minor in custody, may seek to expeditiously t***sfer the minor to an immigration sponsor before the minor makes the decision to obtain an a******n. That ruling followed from the Supreme Court’s many precedents holding that the Government has permissible interests in favoring fetal life, protecting the best interests of a minor, and refraining from facilitating a******n. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Government may further those interests so long as it does not impose an undue burden on a woman seeking an a******n.

Today’s majority decision, by contrast, “substantially” adopts the panel dissent and is ultimately based on a constitutional principle as novel as it is wrong: a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. Government detention to obtain immediate a******n on demand, thereby barring any Government efforts to expeditiously t***sfer the minors to their immigration sponsors before they make that momentous life decision. The majority’s decision represents a radical extension of the Supreme Court’s a******n jurisprudence. It is in line with dissents over the years by Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun, not with the many majority opinions of the Supreme Court that have repeatedly upheld reasonable regulations that do not impose an undue burden on the a******n right recognized by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade".

Kavanaugh said the government was “merely seeking to place the minor in a better place when deciding whether to have an a******n.”

It was even possible the minor — who would have been 16 or 17 weeks pregnant at the end of those 11 days — would have been allowed to have the a******n if a sponsor had not been found, he said. (Texas outlaws a******ns after 20 weeks.)

Notably, Kavanaugh didn’t go as far as Judge Karen Henderson, who said unauthorized immigrant minors don’t have the right to an elective a******n.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/kavanaugh-files-a******n-rights/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brett-kavanaugh-raped-immigrant-a******n/

https://harvardlawreview.org/2018/04/garza-v-hargan/

And if you're like me, you'll want to read the actual legal court decision, which are online in .PDF form on the government website.

The country wasn't ready for Rand Paul after Obama. But after the first year as President, I've been pretty optimistic that Trump is laying the groundwork for Rand to run successfully in 2024. He's a strong Constitutionalist/Libertarian and after 8 years of "light shining" on the dark depths of the swamp, and it will be proven how much better America does, for every American, we will be ready to continue v****g for candidates that mean it when they swear to uphold the Constitution. I believe Rand Paul is one of them.

I've heard Trump talk about changing E-VERIFY, but any reasonable change would be seen as "r****t" to the rabid Left. So Trump, as usual, waits until the Left screams to high heaven about things they have no knowledge of (even in this group...how many people have read the requirements and restrictions and taken the course to certify them to run E-VERIFY? None, unless you are a small business owner in a state where it's mandatory...about 16).
As with the outcry with the separation of children from their parents at the border, he enforces a law that's ALREADY in the books, then when the Liberals scream about it, he agrees and INVESTIGATES, showing that 85% have no family relationship which means...massive human trafficking of children for YEARS...that's a humanitarian crisis in itself...right?
He's a brilliant strategizer, well studied in not only "Law of Nations" and "The Art of War" philosophies but psychology and human nature as well. PLUS he has a huge backing of Patriot men and women who have either sworn an oath to uphold our Constitution with arms if needed or pledged allegiance 5 days a week for 12 years to protect our Nation. These L*****t malcontent minorities don't stand a CHANCE if/when the rubber hits the pavement.

I remember (that's about the time I joined OPP) and I agree 100% with your assessment... patience is a virtue we have to relearn and endure because human nature likes to RESIST change ("if something is not outright k*****g me, it means I'm surviving and at least I know it's "safe" so I'm not going to change it").

No, it means that if that much is being smuggled into the country on any given day at one point of entry and there are hundreds of unmonitored (unofficial) points of entry along the border, imagine the amount crossing that we DON'T catch.
You either care about the overdose deaths from these drugs, or you don't. Liberals care enough about people being overweight and/or diabetic and think nothing of passing legislation to limit the amount of soft drinks everyone in their state can buy at one time to prevent it (or change the meals in EVERY school across the country), but not do something that only stops the people bringing these deadly drugs INTO our country? C'mon...that just doesn't make sense, meaning the Dem politicans are feeding their v**ers bulls**t.
The world needs do-gooders, just focus on what helps and protects the people of OUR country, not others at our human expense.
Read "Law of Nations" http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm and see thousands of years of successful (and failed) societies and nations to see where BOTH our parties have led us towards destruction, not success.

"Even"? She, as First Lady, started this agressive march to Marxism and the utter destruction of the American family with her "it takes a village" bulls**t.