Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Abortion

Dems Urge Debate Moderators to Ask Clinton and Sanders About Abortion

Both are broadly pro-choice, but Democrats want more specifics about their views and policy proposals.

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 3.9.2016 2:45 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Large image on homepages | schoeband/Flickr
(schoeband/Flickr)
schoeband/Flickr

A number of reproductive-rights groups and prominent feminists are pushing for Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders to be questioned about abortion during the Democrats' televised presidential debate Wednesday. While Republican candidates have been questioned about abortion several times during their debates, none of the seven Democratic debates so far have featured an abortion question. 

"Yes, we have two pro-choice candidates in this primary," said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, in a March 7 statement. "And voters want to hear more than principles—we want to hear a plan to address the obstacles real women face every day in determining what's best for our families. And the place to vet those plans is on a debate stage." 

Clinton and Sanders were finally asked directly about abortion during a Democratic town hall Monday. Their "differing answers … showed why it's important to ask candidates about the issue, even pro-choice Democrats," suggests Emily Crockett at Vox.

Here's how Sanders responded when asked by Fox News anchor Bret Baier whether he could "name a single circumstance at any point in a pregnancy in which [he] would be OK with abortion being illegal?" 

SANDERS: It's not a question of me being okay. This will – thank you for the question, but I happen to believe — and let me be very clear about it. I know not everybody here will agree with me. I happen to believe that it is wrong for the government to be telling a woman what to do with her own body.

I think, I believe, and I understand there are honest people. I mean, I have a lot of friends, some supporters, some disagree. They hold a different point of view, and I respect that. But that is my view.

And I'll tell you something which I don't like in this debate. There are a whole lot of people out there who tell me the government is terrible, government is awful, get government off our backs. My Republican friends want to cut Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare – Medicaid, education.  But somehow on this issue, they want to tell every woman in America what she should do with her body.

BAIER: I guess the genesis of the question is that there are some Democrats who say after five months, with the exception of the life of the mother or the health of the baby, that perhaps that's something to look at. You're saying no.

SANDERS: I Am very strongly pro-choice. That is a decision to be made by the woman, her physician and her family. That's my view. 

Similar questions were later posed to Clinton; here's how she responded:

CLINTON: Well, again, let me put this in context, because it's an important question. Right now the Supreme Court is considering a decision that would shut down a lot of the options for women in Texas, and there have been other legislatures that have taken similar steps to try to restrict a woman's right to obtain an abortion.

Under Roe v. Wade, which is rooted in the Constitution, women have this right to make this highly personal decision with their family in accordance with their faith, with their doctor. It's not much of a right if it is totally limited and constrained.

So I think we have to continue to stand up for a woman's right to make these decisions, and to defend Planned Parenthood, which does an enormous amount of good work across our country.

BAIER: Just to be clear, there's no — without any exceptions?

CLINTON: No — I have been on record in favor of a late pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother. I object to the recent effort in Congress to pass a law saying after 20 weeks, you know, no such exceptions, because although these are rare, Bret, they sometimes arise in the most complex, difficult medical situation.

BAIER: Fetal malformities and…

CLINTON: And threats to the woman's health.

BAIER: Sure.

CLINTON: And so I think it is — under Roe v. Wade, it is appropriate to say, in these circumstances, so long as there's an exception for the life and health of the mother. 

As with many subjects, "Sanders came across as more unwavering and moralistic, but also less specific," notes Crockett. "Clinton came across as more cautious and equivocal, but also more interested in nuance and policy." 

Interestingly, Sanders seemed to oppose a 20-week abortion ban of any sort, while Clinton seemed to indicate that she would be OK with one as long as there's an exception for the life and the health of the mother. But when questioned after the town hall by Vox, the Clinton campaign replied that "Clinton is on record and continues to oppose 20-week abortion bans, which are a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and therefore unconstitutional." 

Clinton "also recognizes that Roe v. Wade provides that restrictions are constitutional later in pregnancy so long as there are clear exceptions for the life and health of the woman," the email continued.  

Under Roe v Wade, the government cannot ban abortion until the point of fetal viability (that is, when the fetus can survive on its own outside of the womb). Medical consensus previously held that this was around 24-25 weeks, but scientific advances are upping the chances that babies born even earlier can survive. This has led for calls among anti-abortion activists and legislators to start banning all abortions after 20 weeks pregnancy. Twelve U.S. states have already passed 20-week bans. In places where these laws have been challenged, courts have repeatedly found them unconstitutional. 

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Giancarlo Ibarguen, R.I.P.

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.

AbortionElection 2016Hillary ClintonBernie SandersDemocratic Party
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (237)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Libertarian   9 years ago

    Moderator: Ms Clinton/Sen Sanders: Do you believe that a woman has sole control over her body, and therefore her reproductive rights?

    Sanders: Yes.

    Clinton: Of course!

    Moderator: Then, obviously, you would support the availability of the "morning after" pill, if a woman would want to choose that path?

    Sanders: Yes, a woman's body is her own!

    Clinton: Yes, no one should be able to tell a woman what to do with her own body.

    Moderator: Well, then, may I assume that you are in favor of legalizing all drugs, since a woman has sovereignty over her own body, and it is her right to put into it what she wants?

    CRICKETS.......................

    1. Fist of Etiquette   9 years ago

      HOW DARE YOU

    2. Certified Public Asshat   9 years ago

      Sanders: Let me clarify, we're talking about one, and only one morning after pill?

  2. Just say Nikki   9 years ago

    Wow, Hillary really is running to the right. Interesting.

    1. Fist of Etiquette   9 years ago

      Did you expect her to try to move left on Sanders? The only room there as far as I can tell is in gun control.

      1. Just say Nikki   9 years ago

        Not in general, no, but I didn't expect her to be to his right on abortion specifically.

        1. Fist of Etiquette   9 years ago

          I see, but again I don't think there's much room to the left of Sanders on abortion. Plus, I think Ms. Clinton is probably running for president at this point, not for the nomination.

          1. Just say Nikki   9 years ago

            I don't see why she needs to differentiate herself from him on abortion. But I assume the answer is your second sentence.

    2. Mr. Flanders   9 years ago

      People in the Dem party will see it as her being disingenuous if she does makes any obvious moves leftward. The challenge for her is to change people's perceptions of her being dishonest, so she has to be extra careful about blatantly shifting left to try to get Sanders' supporters.

    3. Tman   9 years ago

      Do you think she would sign off on a 20 month ban once elected president?

      There is no room to the left with Hillary and abortion as far as I can tell.

      1. Just say Nikki   9 years ago

        I don't really think she would, but I also didn't think she'd say anything to make me think she was less than 100% pro-choice.

        1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   9 years ago

          Her husband was famous for "the third way".

        2. Tman   9 years ago

          Kinda splitting hairs though isn't it? She was trying to make herself sound different from Bernie but there is about as much room between the two on abortion as the room between the blocks of the Great Pyramids.

          1. Just say Nikki   9 years ago

            Except now as far as I'm concerned Hillary would allow restrictions after 20 weeks, which is a huge difference.

            1. robc   9 years ago

              Its very european of her. Which I thought was Bernie's schtick.

            2. Tman   9 years ago

              I think she screwed up at the debate in answering the question when in reality she wouldn't oppose full abortion rights at ANY point of gestation.

      2. The Last American Hero   9 years ago

        If she doesn't she's a monster. Most people in this country are against the murder of 11 month old children.

    4. MJGreen - Docile Citizen   9 years ago

      "Look, I love abortion, okay? I am an abortionado. But I would go pro-life in a fetal fucking heartbeat if it meant winning."

    5. mad.casual   9 years ago

      Wow, Hillary really is running to the right.

      Figuratively really, like when I say, "I really will be your right-hand man." and then step to your left and go do whatever the hell I please whether you like it or not.

      1. LarryA   9 years ago

        running to the right.
        Yeah. She moved all way from 2 to 3 on a scale of 10.

    6. grrizzly   9 years ago

      Hillary really is running to the right. Interesting.

      Well, she was the Secretary of State, traveled thousands of miles around the globe. Perhaps she figured out that from the point of view of civilized European countries the current legal regime in the US with respect to abortion is extremist.

  3. Mr. Flanders   9 years ago

    [I]Sanders: ...I happen to believe that it is wrong for the government to be telling a woman what to do with her own body.[/I]

    But people's wallets are fair game.

    1. Mr. Flanders   9 years ago

      God damn tags... Sanders: ...I happen to believe that it is wrong for the government to be telling a woman what to do with her own body.

    2. R C Dean   9 years ago

      The other natural follow up is

      "Mr. Sanders, if your position is that the government shouldn't be telling a woman what to do with her body, are you in favor of legalizing prostitution?"

      1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   9 years ago

        Abortion is a singular issue of choice held in a pure vacuum. After abortion, everything else is negotiable.

        1. lap83   9 years ago

          I assume, by negotiable, you mean fytw

      2. Juice   9 years ago

        the government shouldn't be telling a woman what to do with her body

        People use their bodies to pay taxes and buy health insurance, right?

    3. mad.casual   9 years ago

      Men's Non-pregnant persons' bodies are fair game.

      Pregnancy is apparently, the 'get out of socialism free' card.

  4. R C Dean   9 years ago

    "Clinton is on record and continues to oppose 20-week abortion bans, which are a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and therefore unconstitutional."

    Roe specifically allows for abortion bans after viability. Here's the summary from the case:

    (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

    (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

    (c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-.....0/113.html

    She's actually right that a no-exceptions ban on abortion after viability is not consistent with Roe v Wade. It would be nice if she were to say "with no exceptions", but her stated position on post-viability bans with exceptions is actually pretty much where I am.

  5. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   9 years ago

    As with many subjects, "Sanders came across as more unwavering and moralistic, but also less specific," notes Crockett. "Clinton came across as more cautious and equivocal, but also more interested in nuance and policy."

    That's how I read it. Clinton seemed to address the real question here, which was the barriers to abortion being erected in various localities. I suspect that pro-choice voters liked Clinton's answer more.

    I have to add:

    And I'll tell you something which I don't like in this debate. There are a whole lot of people out there who tell me the government is terrible, government is awful, get government off our backs. My Republican friends want to cut Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare ? Medicaid, education. But somehow on this issue, they want to tell every woman in America what she should do with her body.

    You're right, Bernie. Now if only there was a position that saw the problem with keeping the government involved in every personal decision except abortion, and why when you justify the former, you're always in danger of getting the latter.

    1. Just say Nikki   9 years ago

      I suspect that pro-choice voters liked Clinton's answer more.

      Well, I'm probably not a voter, but not me.

      1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   9 years ago

        I re-read her statement a couple more times and I'm now dithering. I think it depends what traditional pro-choice democratic voters want to hear. The first part of her statement seemed to directly address the Republican attacks on access to abortion-- that's the part that I heard the loudest. Then the muddled and nuanced followup didn't seem to take a clear position.

        Unfortunately, I can't predict what the electorate for whom abortion is a key issue will latch onto.

        1. Just say Nikki   9 years ago

          Neither can I, as some of them have shifted to "access" meaning "pay for it."

          But for myself...yeah, the stuff she said about R attacks was okay, but I basically need to hear someone say no ban at any time, period. Anything with "exceptions for the life/health" isn't really cutting it for me. Especially for a fucking Democrat, considering this is their only selling point.

          1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   9 years ago

            considering this is their only selling point.

            What's ass sex, chopped liver?

          2. R C Dean   9 years ago

            I basically need to hear someone say no ban at any time, period.

            So, abortions on demand up until the baby crowns? Draws it first breath? The umbilical cord is cut?

            1. Just say Nikki   9 years ago

              Are you asking what an acceptable position for a politician is, or my own?

              1. R C Dean   9 years ago

                Your own.

                1. Just say Nikki   9 years ago

                  I believe it is a woman's moral responsibility to terminate a pregnancy before the fetus can suffer.

                  1. Tak Kak   9 years ago

                    "I believe it is a woman's moral responsibility to terminate a pregnancy before the fetus can suffer."

                    Is suffer an objective term here? As it seems like it's suffering as soon as it comes into existence.

                    1. Just say Nikki   9 years ago

                      As it seems like it's suffering as soon as it comes into existence.

                      Not before it's sentient.

                    2. Tak Kak   9 years ago

                      "Not before it's sentient."

                      Yikes, I think we've just gone further away from any idea of objectivity here.

                    3. Just say Nikki   9 years ago

                      Considering objectivity, if it exists, is totally inaccessible, that doesn't seem like a problem.

                    4. Tak Kak   9 years ago

                      "Considering objectivity, if it exists, is totally inaccessible, that doesn't seem like a problem."

                      No, it doesn't. We'd still have to meet at some level if we're to communicate and that's probably not going to happen anytime soon. A concept like "sentience" let alone "suffering" might just be too difficult.

                    5. Just say Nikki   9 years ago

                      Well, you can never really tell if someone or something else is sentient, can you? You can't even tell if they're real. You just have to take a gamble with your conscience on that.

                    6. Tak Kak   9 years ago

                      "Well, you can never really tell if someone or something else is sentient, can you? You can't even tell if they're real. You just have to take a gamble with your conscience on that."

                      Yes exactly. I'm taking what (I think) is the safest bet and gambling on "always suffering" here. Knowing full well that "suffering" has multiple meanings and there are zero stakes.

                  2. R C Dean   9 years ago

                    I'm with you on the moral responsibility.

                    Should it ever be banned? Your statement above about bans makes it seem like abortion on demand until some point during, I guess, the delivery process. I'm just curious at what point?

                    And, why that point? Abortion on demand until delivery seems to be based entirely on the mother's ownership of her body, and doesn't seem to me to take personhood of the fetus into account (unless you believe personhood is conferred during the birth process?), so I'm just poking at the underlying reasoning, is all.

                    1. Just say Nikki   9 years ago

                      Sorry, RC, but you misunderstand me. I believe abortion is the moral choice.

                      And it seems like you are asking me about laws, but if you want to understand my views, laws are irrelevant. The only relevant thing is everyone's own personal conscience?what else is there? It's all just individuals making their own moral choices.

                    2. R C Dean   9 years ago

                      Sorry, Nikki. I didn't quite catch that you believe that its a moral obligation to terminate every pregnancy, just so you do it before the fetus can suffer.

                      The only relevant thing is everyone's own personal conscience?what else is there?

                      OK. Got it.

                      Do you think its immoral to kill a person?

                      If so, at what point would it be immoral to kill a baby or fetus?

                  3. robc   9 years ago

                    I was going to make a mocking post with that as your view, but you made it first seriously.

                    That is a view held only by insane environuts and you.

                    1. Just say Nikki   9 years ago

                      I am not the only non-environut anti-natalist.

                    2. Pat (PM)   9 years ago

                      How awesome would it be if you lived the courage of your convictions and fucking killed yourself? God you're an insufferable cunt. You're like every high school freshman reading babby's first nihilism.

                    3. Tak Kak   9 years ago

                      "It is not worth the bother of killing yourself, since you always kill yourself too late."

                    4. Tak Kak   9 years ago

                      "That is a view held only by insane environuts and you."

                      I don't think Jim Crawford is an environut. I can think of quite a few who at least haven't expressed an environmental argument.

                  4. jarflax   9 years ago

                    So giving birth is immoral?

                    1. jarflax   9 years ago

                      Oh wow I thought I was making a joke about a sloppily worded statement that women should abort, if they are going to, before the fetus is sentient. You actually think women should always abort?

                      I had been feeling sorry for you when the other commentators made nasty comments.

                      I apologize to the rest of you. Nikki is in fact the worst.

                    2. The Elite Elite   9 years ago

                      When I first started coming here, I thought the "Nikki is the worst" comments were a running joke referencing something I never saw. I did not know until reading this story's comments that it was in fact, extremely serious. I'm not sure I have words to express what I just read from her.

            2. grrizzly   9 years ago

              For Nikki extremism in the defense of abortion is no vice! But what would you expect from the worst?!

              1. Tak Kak   9 years ago

                "For Nikki extremism in the defense of abortion is no vice! But what would you expect from the worst?!"

                You can go further, libertarians - well, one famous one - have defended infanticide in the past.

                1. 0x90   9 years ago

                  At the end of the day, it's just your preference, what you call morals. Whether a society would survive, given the adoption of a given set, is another question. But don't pretend there's some universal standard written somewhere, because there isn't -- even those who believe there is, well, their particular standard is only one of many they could've chosen.

                  1. Free Market Socialist $park?   9 years ago

                    at the end of the day, it's just your preference

                    I'm with this guy.

            3. robc   9 years ago

              Algebra. Always go full pkd when the opportunity arrives.

          3. The Last American Hero   9 years ago

            Where can I get a Gosnell 2016 bumper sticker?

            Relax, I'm only half joking.

            1. Azathoth!!   9 years ago

              Well, yeah--the other half is in a jar in the fridge.

  6. mad.casual   9 years ago

    I object to the recent effort in Congress to pass a law saying after 20 weeks, you know, no such exceptions, because although these are rare, Bret, they sometimes arise in the most complex, difficult medical situation.

    At first, I thought I missed a vote on an abortion bill. Because even Walker's notoriously onerous 20 week law made exceptions for difficult medical situations. Then I remembered the universe we live in and that HRC is lying out of her ass.

    1. Just say Nikki   9 years ago

      I guess you missed a vote on an abortion bill.

      1. mad.casual   9 years ago

        You mean the one that literally reads;

        Prohibits an abortion from being performed if the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child is 20 weeks or greater, except: (1) where necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury, excluding psychological or emotional conditions;

        Is it not some other bill?

        1. mad.casual   9 years ago

          I mean, the literal first sentence makes exceptions that HRC says it doesn't make.

          1. Derp-o-Matic 5000   9 years ago

            Yeah, but she claims it doesn't, and that's enough for the media.

        2. Just say Nikki   9 years ago

          My bad! I don't know if there is another bill, but GOPers do talk about them all the time.

          1. mad.casual   9 years ago

            I don't fault you. As I said, I forgot the "She is most probably lying." axiom for a moment as well.

            1. Just say Nikki   9 years ago

              I will say, though, that this isn't much of an exception from my POV:

              (1) where necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury, excluding psychological or emotional conditions

              What if her life isn't in danger, only her health? This is why Hillary should not be up for this shit.

              1. mad.casual   9 years ago

                What if her life isn't in danger, only her health?

                I think things would get excessively onerous if we pin it all down to the handful of pregnancies/abortions that happen every year that threaten health but not life. Especially considering the 99.999% of us who aren't pregnant/aborting and/or under the given conditions in the first place. Not to mention the fact that having kids is generally documented as being detrimental to your health while prolonging lifespan.

                "Corner cases make bad law/policy", as it were.

                1. robc   9 years ago

                  2 sigma rule.

                  Decide principles based on middle 95%. Worry about exceptions later.

                2. Just say Nikki   9 years ago

                  Yeah, unfortunately if you are one of those corner cases, that's going to be all you care about.

      2. JWatts   9 years ago

        That bill also includes exceptions if the mothers life is at risk due to medical complications:

        "The bill, passed by a 242-to-184 vote, would prohibit abortion after 20 weeks?approximately halfway through a pregnancy?with exceptions for victims of rape or incest, or if the life of the mother is at risk."

        http://dailysignal.com/2015/05.....-20-weeks/

        1. Je suis Woodchipper   9 years ago

          knight jumps queen!

        2. lafe.long   9 years ago

          You'd think that a victim of rape or incest would know before 20 weeks.

      3. JWatts   9 years ago

        That bill also includes exceptions if the mothers life is at risk due to medical complications:

        "The bill, passed by a 242-to-184 vote, would prohibit abortion after 20 weeks?approximately halfway through a pregnancy?with exceptions for victims of rape or incest, or if the life of the mother is at risk."

        http://dailysignal.com/2015/05.....-20-weeks/

  7. colorblindkid   9 years ago

    The Democrats' official position of abortion at anytime until birth is just as extreme as the Republicans'. The vast majority of people, including women, are in a middle ground, believing that abortion is morally abhorrent but sometimes necessary, and also that it should be illegal after 20 weeks. The left dropped "rare" from their platform and instead has been trying to present abortion as something to be celebrated. That attitude turns moderates off just as much as the righties who are against rape victim abortions.

    1. Drake   9 years ago

      They are definitely a bridge-too-far on this issue - why they don't want to discuss it.

    2. Pat (PM)   9 years ago

      Their insistence on taxpayer funding probably turns off some people as well. The vast majority of people are basically "live and let abort", but plenty of them also don't want to pay for it.

  8. Fist of Etiquette   9 years ago

    SANDERS: I Am very strongly pro-choice. That is a decision to be made by the woman, her physician and her family. That's my view.

    So, then, greeting with a power drill a full term whatever as it's crowning is acceptable? Which is more ludicrous? Arbitrary (if someone science-informed) time frames for viability or rigid until-it's-all-the-way-out stances?

    1. mad.casual   9 years ago

      Which is more ludicrous? Arbitrary (if someone science-informed) time frames for viability or rigid until-it's-all-the-way-out stances?

      I thought the new line was when the cord is literally and figuratively cut, around the 104th trimester?

    2. kbolino   9 years ago

      her physician

      Abortion is specifically forbidden by the Hippocratic Oath. And I don't mean some modern version of it, either. Anyone who performs abortion is not a physician.

      1. Free Market Socialist $park?   9 years ago

        Interesting, I just read the original and modern versions of the oath and did not see the word "abortion". Do you have a double super-secret version?

        1. kbolino   9 years ago

          Nor shall any man's entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so. Moreover, I will give no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child.

          Hippocratic Oath, Wikipedia

          Maybe scanning an ancient text for a modern word is not the best strategy to read for comprehension, no?

          1. Free Market Socialist $park?   9 years ago

            So you linked to a page that you didn't fully read? Well done.

            Maybe scroll down a little to the "Abortion and the Hippocratic Oath" section.

            1. kbolino   9 years ago

              Hooray, you've graduated to the sophistry stage. Yes, if you intentionally modify the document to remove parts you don't like, then it doesn't contain those parts.

              1. Free Market Socialist $park?   9 years ago

                So do you believe that anywhere in the world anyone is still using the original oath? You're sticking with the "No True Physician" argument?

                I didn't modify the document at all so I'm not sure how I'm a sophist. Which is a pretty silly charge from someone who calls atheism a religion.

                Do you also call public schools prisons and claim that parents with children in public schools should be charged with child abuse? Because that's a cute argument too.

                1. kbolino   9 years ago

                  Do you want to have a discussion about the merits, or do you want to fling unrelated shit around?

                2. kbolino   9 years ago

                  More on point:

                  The original oath said no abortion. Modern medical cultists changed the oath because they didn't like that part. Most people use the new oath because they're intellectually lazy and/or they agree with the revisions. In a practical sense, the Hippocratic Oath is irrelevant anyway since medical doctors do what gets them paid, not what some Greek guy who lived millenia ago said they should. But a physician is an adherent of the oath, judged not by the title on their business card or the license some state issued them, but by their actions.

  9. Kristen Bids No Trump   9 years ago

    I happen to believe that it is wrong for the government to be telling a woman what to do with her own body.

    What if she wants to sell a kidney to the highest bidder? What then, Bernie?

    1. Citizen X   9 years ago

      It's already known that he makes an exception for the fruits of whatever labor she chooses to use her body to enact.

      1. Kristen Bids No Trump   9 years ago

        Never even mind the $$, let's take that out of the equation. I'm pretty sure he's into a more "fair" solution of centrally-managed waiting lists, and that nobody can farm out their own organs as they please. Like, he would probably be opposed to my saying "I don't want the #1 recipient on the waiting list to get my kidney, and instead I'd like to to go to the first person on the list named Balthasar."

        So, he only believes in "my body, my choice" when it comes to uteruses. Other organs need not apply.

    2. Fist of Etiquette   9 years ago

      I don't think it's right when there are children going hungry in this country for people to have a choice of a right or left kidney.

      1. Swiss Servator   9 years ago

        I made SURE I gave my left one...If it would have been a testicle, instead of a kidney, I would have said "right"...I would want to be able to still say "I'd give my left nut to..."

        1. Crusty Juggler   9 years ago

          I laughed. Also, your propensity to give away organs is the sole reason I try to stay on your good side.

        2. lafe.long   9 years ago

          Don't think about it so hard...

          Even if you gave away your left nut, you'd still only have one nut left.
          Therefore, one left nut to give.

    3. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   9 years ago

      Money is changing hands. No can do.

      1. JWatts   9 years ago

        No, DRP, get with the times. The government reserves the right to regulate a product even for your own consumption. So, if money could have changed hands it's still regulatory fair game.

        Regulatory socialism for the win.

      2. R C Dean   9 years ago

        So, no more selling fetus parts?

  10. Mr. Flanders   9 years ago

    Do Republicans ever urge their party to discuss specific policy proposals? "Yes, I understand that you want to bomb brown people, Mr. Republican - everyone here agrees with you - but what kind of bombs would you use?"

    1. Princess Trigger   9 years ago

      The carpet-bombin' kind of bombs.

    2. The Last American Hero   9 years ago

      Did you miss the first few debates where there was a literal comparison to see who had the biggest warboner?

    3. mad.casual   9 years ago

      Do Republicans ever urge their party to discuss specific policy proposals?

      We haven't talked about Trump enough. Whether you love him or hate him, when there's an article about HRC and Bernie Sanders, we all really should be thinking about how we can talk about Trump some more. I think it's pretty apparent that if the Republican debates started taking suggestions, for the leading candidate Donald Trump anyway, policy proposals would be at the bottom of the list. However, I'm sure in his discussion of all things Trump which bombs Trump would use on which brown people and where would be implicitly, if not explicitly covered.

    4. Swiss Servator   9 years ago

      +1 GBU-12/Mk 82?

      1. jarflax   9 years ago

        But which Brown people. Jerry? James? Ron? or go for old moldering John?

  11. lap83   9 years ago

    Is there any issue democrats are pro-choice on besides abortion?

    1. Just say Nikki   9 years ago

      Ass sex.

      1. grrizzly   9 years ago

        Not when it involves a slut with a mattress.

        1. Just say Nikki   9 years ago

          I'm pretty sure sluts are allowed to choose ass sex.

          1. robc   9 years ago

            Apparently they are allowed to call it rape the next werk too.

            1. Millennial Hipster Vanguard   9 years ago

              I werk too hard myself.

              *starts twerking*

      2. mad.casual   9 years ago

        Ass sex.

        In the context of 'yes means yes' compulsory speech, er, yes.

    2. Notorious UGCC   9 years ago

      They're *not* prochoice on abortion, they want to subsidize it.

      1. Notorious UGCC   9 years ago

        with tax dollars, that is.

        Not much choice there.

      2. Just say Nikki   9 years ago

        Yeah, we're only allowed to subsidize one side of the abortion question, for fairness.

    3. brokencycle   9 years ago

      Which public bathroom you can use.`

      1. Notorious UGCC   9 years ago

        And *every* bathroom is a public bathroom.

  12. Hugh Akston   9 years ago

    Under Roe v. Wade, which is rooted in the Constitution,

    Weird that she feels like she has to say that.

    1. Swiss Servator   9 years ago

      It is in Article XVIII, Section 13!

  13. Notorious UGCC   9 years ago

    I think there's a reason the Democratic candidates don't want many abortion questions.

    Democrats do best when they avoid discussing abortion, or fold it into a discussion of contraception or free mammograms.

    They don't do so well when explaining to people outside their bubble why they want legal late-term abortions - with a "health exception" so wide you could drive a fleet of Mack trucks through it.

  14. Swiss Servator   9 years ago

    That is a decision to be made by the woman, her physician and her family.

    Oh? "Family" gets a say do they?

    1. Notorious UGCC   9 years ago

      Ha ha, no, not really.

    2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   9 years ago

      I think in this one narrow case, "family" may be a rabid pack of NARAL activists.

    3. Mickey Rat   9 years ago

      Well, like a GOP controlled Senate gets a says on a Democrat President's Supreme Court nominations. Just rubber stamp it.

    4. lap83   9 years ago

      family = village, i.e. It takes a village to abort a fetus

  15. Microaggressor   9 years ago

    Under Roe v. Wade The Second Amendment, which is rooted in the Constitution, women people have this right to make this highly personal decision with their family in accordance with their faith, with their doctor gun dealer. It's not much of a right if it is totally limited and constrained.

    A man can dream, can't he?

    1. Millennial Hipster Vanguard   9 years ago

      Staple that to every politician's mother fucking forehead.

  16. Jackand Ace   9 years ago

    Everyone is getting concerned about topics being avoided in the debates.

    21 mayors in Florida cities have begged the moderators of the next Republican debate to finally ask eac participant about climate change. Their concern being real life of course because of sea level rise.

    "It would be unconscionable for these issues of grave concern for the people of Florida to not be addressed in the upcoming debate you will be hosting in the state."

    Oh, and there are Republican mayors who signed the letters. It seems they just don't find it satisfactory for the 2 GOP leaders to consider climate change as a hoax, or pseudoscience. Not when it impacts them in such a harmful way.

    1. Jackand Ace   9 years ago

      Link

      http://mobile.reuters.com/arti.....EC34J7GI77

    2. R C Dean   9 years ago

      What harmful impacts has Florida suffered as a result of "climate change"?

      Given the ongoing lull in major hurricanes coming ashore, I see Florida reaping some real benefits, but I'm fuzzy on the harms.

      1. Jackand Ace   9 years ago

        From Florida's Dept. of State

        "Even at today's rate, sea-level rise is causing dis- cernable effects in natural coastal ecosystems around Florida and presents everyday chal- lenges to those responsible for maintaining drainage systems, recreational beaches, coastal highways, and emergency preparations. Stresses caused by today's rate of sea-level rise are more pronounced in southern Florida than in the Panhandle; but as the rate of sea-level rise accelerates, nearly all of the state's coastal ecosystems and infrastructure will be challenged as never before."

        You see benefits? Those mayors don't.

        1. mad.casual   9 years ago

          Stresses caused by today's rate of sea-level rise are more pronounced in southern Florida than in the Panhandle;

          SCIENCE!

        2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   9 years ago

          but as the rate of sea-level rise accelerates, nearly all of the state's coastal ecosystems and infrastructure will be challenged as never before."

          I need a date on that. Barring that, a decade. Barring that, a century.

          1. Jackand Ace   9 years ago

            You might need an exact date on that. Those Florida mayors don't.

            1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   9 years ago

              Of course they don't. There's no way they'd tie federal funding to actual results.

              1. Jackand Ace   9 years ago

                It's just a question they want asked, as it has meaning to their constituency. No harm in that. Solutions are being implemented right now...those candidates may want to say they aren't prepared to support any. Maybe such an answer will resonate with Florida residents, no?

                1. Tornado16nb   9 years ago

                  What are these solutions being implemented now?

                  1. Jackand Ace   9 years ago

                    If there are none, you have nothing to worry about. Keep ignoring.

                    1. Tornado16nb   9 years ago

                      Well you said there were solutions being implemented now. Curious to what those are? Since you made the claim should be easy for you to say and how have you assessed the impact of those solutions?

            2. Michael Ejercito   9 years ago

              Yes, they do.

        3. Tornado16nb   9 years ago

          How much is the sea level rise and how did you determine it was due to AGW? How much will it rise...what is challenged as never before?

          1. Jackand Ace   9 years ago

            How goes it today, Tornado?

            1. Tornado16nb   9 years ago

              Can't you answer the question?

              1. Jackand Ace   9 years ago

                No interest. How goes it?

                1. kbolino   9 years ago

                  No interest

                  You have no interest in discussion the topic that you brought up because "somebody had to do it".

                  Do you know what the definition of intellectual dishonesty is?

                  1. Jackand Ace   9 years ago

                    Exactly. Tor asks me every time to prove AGW, or now future sea level rise, in the Reason comments thread. Once I pointed him to an AAAS explanation, and that's not good enough. So far be it from me to try.

                    No interest. It's just tedious. How goes it for you, kbo?

                    1. kbolino   9 years ago

                      It's just tedious.

                      Obviously not. You are more than happy to engage in a long threaded discussion about it.

                      The part you find tedious is actually the part that matters, namely of proving or at least substantiating your claims and defending them from criticism.

                2. Tornado16nb   9 years ago

                  So why do you post things like that? You really aren't doing a good job of convincing people. Perhaps you are a troll?

                  1. Jackand Ace   9 years ago

                    I could not care less if you are ever convinced.

                    1. kbolino   9 years ago

                      I could not care less if you are ever convinced.

                      Then STFU and go away.

                    2. Jackand Ace   9 years ago

                      Nope. But here is a solution for you and Tor. If my comments are so off base, don't read them. Problem solved!

                      Heaven knows unless you are responding to me, I don't read either yours or Tor's.

                    3. kbolino   9 years ago

                      Heaven knows unless you are responding to me, I don't read either yours or Tor's.

                      All the more reason for you to fuck off.

                    4. Tornado16nb   9 years ago

                      So you got nothing...got it.

                    5. Jackand Ace   9 years ago

                      Good!

                    6. Tornado16nb   9 years ago

                      Never change jack never change. You have convinced me to embrace climate change fo sure

        4. Tornado16nb   9 years ago

          This isn't really all that specific. Challenges to those maintaining things? What are those challenges?

          1. Tornado16nb   9 years ago

            JACK???

        5. R C Dean   9 years ago

          Even at today's rate, sea-level rise is causing discernable effects in natural coastal ecosystems around Florida

          Discernable effects are not necessarily harm.

          everyday chal- lenges to those responsible for maintaining drainage systems, recreational beaches, coastal highways, and emergency preparations.

          I have a really hard time believing that an increase in the sea level of a few inches is, as we speak today, wrecking drainage systems, beaches, etc.

          Its funny, when you look into it, that the alarmists like to point to a rise of several inches over the last few hundred years. Apparently, the sea level was rising before AGW could have possibly been a factor, raising the question of how much is due to AGW, no?

          More recent data is this:

          According to one study of measurements available from 1950 to 2009, these measurements show an average annual rise in sea level of 1.7 millimetres (0.067 in) ? 0.3 millimetres (0.012 in) per year during this period, with satellite data showing a rise of 3.3 millimetres (0.13 in) ? 0.4 millimetres (0.016 in) per year from 1993 to 2009.[4]

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

          Doing the math, the sea level increased by 100 mm from 1950 to 2009, or a grand total of less than 4 inches. And I'm supposed to believe that 4 iches over sixty years is fucking drainage and beaches and stuff?

          Puh - lease.

          1. robc   9 years ago

            Especially considering how pre construction, barrier islands were transient at best.

          2. Jackand Ace   9 years ago

            It's a concern to those mayors.

            1. R C Dean   9 years ago

              It's a concern to those mayors.

              So? The question is, should it be?

              1. Jackand Ace   9 years ago

                Of course. But it's up to them. And they made their concerns known.

            2. jarflax   9 years ago

              not all concerns are warranted.

              1. Jackand Ace   9 years ago

                Whose the judge of that?

                1. jarflax   9 years ago

                  reality

                2. R C Dean   9 years ago

                  Whose the judge of that?

                  Each of us. Unless we abrogate our responsibility to Top. Men.

                  1. kbolino   9 years ago

                    Unless we abrogate our responsibility to Top. Men.

                    But which Top Men?

                    At some point, you must either admit you don't know and thus stop arguing altogether, or else you must admit that you think yourself as smart as the Top Men you are citing, but can't be bothered to demonstrate as much.

                    You can't say "Bob's right because he's smart" unless you are as smart as Bob and can independently verify what Bob says. In which case, why do you even need to cite Bob in the first place?

                  2. Jackand Ace   9 years ago

                    Correct! And if it's up to the mayors, they want the question asked!

                    1. kbolino   9 years ago

                      ... when somebody points out that appeal to authority is a fallacy, your response is to appeal to an appeal to authority.

                      If arguing with one degree of separation from any understanding of the underlying issues is bad, then how is arguing with two degrees of separation better?

          3. mad.casual   9 years ago

            Doing the math, the sea level increased by 100 mm from 1950 to 2009, or a grand total of less than 4 inches.

            Right, but it rose further closer to Florida's urethra than it did closer to the scrotum, because global warming.

      2. Jackand Ace   9 years ago

        Link

        http://www.dep.state.fl.us/oce.....l_rise.pdf

        1. Michael Ejercito   9 years ago

          An American was killed by Palestinian terror recently.

          That adds to the reasons to wage thermonuclear war on Gaza.

          And we all know how thermonuclear war affects the climate...

    3. Princess Trigger   9 years ago

      They should probably sell their houses to some suckers and move to high ground.
      THAT is the rational action if they believe in the Warmining.

    4. Notorious UGCC   9 years ago

      Are you calling President Obama a liar?

      1. jarflax   9 years ago

        always

    5. Millennial Hipster Vanguard   9 years ago

      Wow. 21 whole mayors out of the 3rd most populous state in the union. That's unprecedented. I'm really concerned now.

    6. Notorious UGCC   9 years ago

      I think Jackand Ace is suggesting that, to balance for asking the Democrats embarrassing questions about abortion, we should ask the Republicans some embarrassing questions about climate change.

      He seems to be aware that asking about abortion would be awkward for Dems and benefit Republicans, so he would like to counteract it.

      1. Jackand Ace   9 years ago

        Oh no. I hope they are asked. Everything on the table.

  17. SugarFree   9 years ago

    "No one needs 27 different colors of infants."

  18. Irish Breaks Up W/ ESB   9 years ago

    I have a new rule that I am not to read abortion threads for the sake of my sanity. Is this abortion thread up to H&R's usual insane standards or is it safe to read?

    1. Notorious UGCC   9 years ago

      It's OK, Jackand Ace started a discussion of global warming.

      1. Jackand Ace   9 years ago

        Someone had to do it.

        1. Michael Ejercito   9 years ago

          In your opinion, how would a full scale thermonuclear war on the Gaza Strip affect global warming.

        2. Michael Ejercito   9 years ago

          In your opinion, how would a full scale thermonuclear war on the Gaza Strip affect global warming.

        3. Michael Ejercito   9 years ago

          In your opinion, how would a full scale thermonuclear war on the Gaza Strip affect global warming.

        4. Michael Ejercito   9 years ago

          In your opinion, how would a full scale thermonuclear war on the Gaza Strip affect global warming.

        5. Michael Ejercito   9 years ago

          In your opinion, how would a full scale thermonuclear war on the Gaza Strip affect global warming.

        6. Michael Ejercito   9 years ago

          In your opinion, how would a full scale thermonuclear war on the Gaza Strip affect global warming.

        7. Michael Ejercito   9 years ago

          In your opinion, how would a full scale thermonuclear war on the Gaza Strip affect global warming.

        8. Michael Ejercito   9 years ago

          In your opinion, how would a full scale thermonuclear war on the Gaza Strip affect global warming.

          1. Irish Breaks Up W/ ESB   9 years ago

            IT'S A SQUIRREL HOLOCAUST

          2. Millennial Hipster Vanguard   9 years ago

            What was the question?

            1. Swiss Servator   9 years ago

              How many squirrelz would it take to nuke Florida?

              1. Millennial Hipster Vanguard   9 years ago

                2. One to push the button and one to hold his nuts while he does it.

              2. R C Dean   9 years ago

                How many squirrelz would it take to nuke Florida?

                Pakistani squirrelz? Or Russian squirrelz?

        9. Citizen X   9 years ago

          [citation needed]

      2. Irish Breaks Up W/ ESB   9 years ago

        Well, it makes sense Joe would be really concerned about global warming since if sea levels rise more than half an inch he'll be completely underwater.

    2. mad.casual   9 years ago

      Spoiler Alert: Bernie's an ideologically inconsistent socialist and Hillary's hard to pin down because she lies.

      1. Derp-o-Matic 5000   9 years ago

        Wait, I thought that was the point of the other---....oh, I see what you did there.

      2. jarflax   9 years ago

        and Nikki is the worst

    3. Millennial Hipster Vanguard   9 years ago

      It's not that bad this time.

      1. Notorious UGCC   9 years ago

        Yeah, go ahead and read the thread, you know you want to!

        1. Millennial Hipster Vanguard   9 years ago

          I read it. It has devolved into too much of a shit show, yet.

          1. Millennial Hipster Vanguard   9 years ago

            Has not

            1. Citizen X   9 years ago

              [citation needed]

              1. R C Dean   9 years ago

                Oh, there's been much worse.

              2. Swiss Servator   9 years ago

                C'mon X, you've seen waaaaay worse than this, surely!

                1. Millennial Hipster Vanguard   9 years ago

                  Right?!?

      2. Restoras   9 years ago

        Meaning, it's much less fun.

  19. Derp-o-Matic 5000   9 years ago

    happen to believe that it is wrong for the government to be telling a woman what to do with her own body.

    Just what to do with her money. And with whom she may associate or choose not to associate. Or when and how she can speak on political issues. Also, what to do with her body in non-abortion contexts.

    1. Irish Breaks Up W/ ESB   9 years ago

      Every time a politician says she supports whatever a woman chooses to do with her body, the follow-up should be 'so you support full prostitution decriminalization, correct?'

      1. Just say Nikki   9 years ago

        Only if the next follow-up is "so you support full legal access to heroin, correct?"

        1. Millennial Hipster Vanguard   9 years ago

          And plasma rifles in the 40 watt range.

          1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   9 years ago

            Just what you see here.

    2. Mickey Rat   9 years ago

      Or sell your labor at a price that is acceptable to you (if that price is less than $15 or hour).

  20. Trigger Hippie   9 years ago

    *peeks at the comments section*

    Ah, the inevitable shitstorm that is an abortion thread. I'll take the over on at least 400 posts before everyone wears themselves out. Carry on.

    *respectfully bows out*

  21. Irish Breaks Up W/ ESB   9 years ago

    I think abortion should be illegal during pregnancy but completely legal until a child is 7 years old.

    Discuss.

    1. Millennial Hipster Vanguard   9 years ago

      I think 7 is the age you should be able to rent out your genitals.

      1. Crusty Juggler   9 years ago

        I will give you $17 dollars to rent my genitals.

        1. Millennial Hipster Vanguard   9 years ago

          Like as a finder to fee, to find someone who wants to use your genitals?

          1. Crusty Juggler   9 years ago

            Sure.

            1. jarflax   9 years ago

              Do you commit to allow the use? *goes looking for a rabid wombat

      2. Free Market Socialist $park?   9 years ago

        Just rent or is selling off also an option?

        1. Millennial Hipster Vanguard   9 years ago

          I guess you could sell them, but like they say "you can shear a sheep many times, you can slaughter it only once.".

  22. Crusty Juggler   9 years ago

    Only Fox News asked these two about abortion? Nice job.

  23. Notorious UGCC   9 years ago

    As Jackand Ace underlined with his "but what about climate change?" posts, pressing the Dems about abortion would be awkward.

    To the NARAL people, of course, it's vital that the public know about the urgent necessity of protecting the right to abortion throughout pregnancy.

    But Dem candidates know that they have to be more careful speaking to the public at large than if they were just sending a fundraising email to committed prochoice advocates.

    To the advocates, of course it seems oppressive that Republicans want to ban late-term abortions. That's just one more bullet point in a list of War On Women measures the other side is adopting.

    But bear in mind that the general public isn't quite as advanced as this. While large numbers of poll respondents say they want abortion legal in certain cases, the idea of abortion at any stage of pregnancy and for any reason still doesn't have majority support.

    That's why non-insane Democrats - those who want to win elections outside of New York and California - steer clear of the kind of questions NARAL wants asked, and focus on things like pregnancies resulting from rape, or birth control, or how Planned Parenthood gives women mammograms and free puppies.

  24. Rockabilly   9 years ago

    The democrats are only pro-choice about abortion.

    Everything else - only Central Committee knows what's best for you - a mere serf.

  25. Sigivald   9 years ago

    "But somehow on this issue, they want to tell every woman in America what she should do with her body."

    Well, you know, they sort of think that's because that fetus is a person and it's murder to abort.

    I can understand people not sharing that opinion (hell, I about 85% don't), and thinking they're wrong about it, and arguing for different policy, stridently.

    I'm pretty sick of people who ought to know better pretending that that's not the reason for their position, though.

    Does Sanders really not know that almost all abortion opponents are so because they think abortion is immoral because of fetal personhood beliefs, or does he just pretend to be ignorant because he thinks so little of the Democratic base and their ability to accept being told that about the opposition?

    1. Derp-o-Matic 5000   9 years ago

      But how would that whip progtards into a frenzy over TEH WOR ON WOMYNZ?

  26. R C Dean   9 years ago

    I have to say, this has been the most civilized abortion thread I can remember.

    1. jarflax   9 years ago

      Shut up!

      1. jarflax   9 years ago

        Sorry had to

  27. Careless   9 years ago

    Under Roe v. Wade, which is rooted in the Constitution,

    lol

  28. jarflax   9 years ago

    Aha!

    The elusive Hihnflower sprouts amid the feti

  29. kbolino   9 years ago

    No free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater.

    Here's my shocked face that Michael Hihn is in favor of jailing draft protestors.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

The 'Big Beautiful Bill' Will Add $2.4 Trillion to the Deficit

Eric Boehm | 6.4.2025 5:05 PM

Anti-Israel Violence Does Not Justify Censorship of Pro-Palestinian Speech

Robby Soave | 6.4.2025 4:31 PM

Belated Republican Objections to the One Big Beautiful Bill Glide Over Its Blatant Fiscal Irresponsibility

Jacob Sullum | 6.4.2025 2:50 PM

A Car Hit and Killed Their 7-Year-Old Son. Now They're Being Charged for Letting Him Walk to the Store.

Lenore Skenazy | 6.4.2025 1:30 PM

Everything Got Worse During COVID

Christian Britschgi | 6.4.2025 1:15 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!