Reason Roundup

Rule Change on Abortion Referrals 'Creates Unreasonable Barriers' Says U.S. Judge

Plus: "we need a president who recognizes sex work as work," says Mike Gravel; how kid-friendly pot paraphernalia killed decriminalization; more...

|

A rule banning health clinics from referring patients for abortions if they receive federal family-planning funds has been blocked nationwide, per a new U.S. District Court ruling.

The Thursday order from Judge Stanley Bastian puts a temporary injunction on a rule change issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in March. HHS had barred any group that gets certain federal funds from "promoting, encouraging, or advocating abortion" in any way or from providing patients with specific information about where they can obtain one.

In addition, such entities would have to maintain a "clear physical and financial separation" from any related entities that perform abortions, a move meant to strike a blow at Planned Parenthood.

Under the long-standing rules of Title X fundingwhich theoretically supports reproductive health and family planning services for low-income Americansusing this money to perform or support abortion services was already off limits. But with the March HHS policy, doctors and other staff at places that received Title X funds would also be prohibited from referring patients to abortion providers or offering information about the procedure in a way that seemed to condone it.

"The Department believes that, in most instances when a referral is provided for abortion, that referral necessarily treats abortion as a method of family planning," the HHS guidance states. Thus "such a referral makes the Title X project or clinic a program one where abortion is a method of family planning, contrary to the prohibition against the use of Title X funds in such programs."

In his decision, Judge Bastion says the rule change "reverses long-standing positions of the Department without proper consideration of sound medical opinions and the economic and non-economic consequences." He found it likely that the change runs afoul of the Affordable Care Act and "likely violates the central purpose of Title X, which is to equalize access to comprehensive, evidence-based, and voluntary family planning."

Bastian also found that the change would likely be considered "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Banning referrals and certain sorts of talk around abortion, he adds, "creates unreasonable barriers for patients to obtain appropriate medical care; impedes timely access to health care services; interferes with communications regarding a full range of treatment options between the patient and their health care provider, restricts the ability of health care providers to provide full disclosure of all relevant information to patients" and "violates the principles of informed consent and the ethical standards of health care professions."


FREE MINDS

Porn story riles school paper. A high-school journalism teacher in Stockton, California, is fighting administrators over a school newspaper story on an 18-year-old student who appears in porn films. "This young woman has quite a story to tell," says the teacher. "She has every right to tell her story, and we have every right to report it."


FREE MARKETS

How kid-friendly paraphernalia killed legal pot. Smithsonian magazine looks at how the 1970s momentum toward decriminalizing marijuana failed:

I remember the first time I saw them. I was in the Library of Congress, looking through old issues of High Times magazine. The advertisements for certain products—like the BuzzBee Frisbee (with a special pipe so you could literally "puff, puff, pass"), "You're the Dealer!" board game, and pictures of clowns hawking rolling papers—seemed both charmingly representative of the mid-1970s as well as pretty blatant in their appeal to kids. The ads also spoke to the enormous paraphernalia market that had risen as a result of a dozen states decriminalizing the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana between 1973 and 1978. The numerous ads that lined the pages of High Times (as well as the existence of the magazine itself) give some insight into just how vast the marketplace, and its clientele, was at the time.

That booming paraphernalia market, however, would also prove to be decriminalization's undoing.


FREE MOVEMENT

The relationship between U.S. border patrol agents and paramilitary groups is a little too cozy, according to an article in The Washington Post. Border authorities mostly let the vigilantes do their thing, even when that thing is impersonating actual law enforcement agents.

"The apparent cooperation of federal border agents and civilian militias is a disturbing sign that President Trump's open disregard for what he calls America's "very stupid" immigration laws is taking hold in perilous ways," the authors suggest. "A fusion of vigilantes and the state is a particular threat to the Constitution and one of the signs of rising authoritarianism that historians warn democracies to guard against."


ELECTION 2020

"We need a president who recognizes sex work as work." Here's independent 2020 presidential candidate Mike Gravel after writer and porn actress Sydney Leathers announced that she's supporting him:


QUICK HITS

  • Click through to the screenshots of JetBlue's comments about its facial recognition program for some truly terrifying stuff:

  • "The U.S. economy grew at a solid 3.2% annual rate in the first three months of the year, a far better outcome than expected," reports the Associated Press.
  • The New York Attorney General's Office is opening an investigation into Facebook's email harvesting practices.
  • Some news about Reason's old friend Preet Bharara:

  • Moral panic for the win:

  • Yes, please:

 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

311 responses to “Rule Change on Abortion Referrals 'Creates Unreasonable Barriers' Says U.S. Judge

  1. <i.She has every right to tell her story, and we have every right to report it.

    If a story is about violence, sure, she can tell it all she wants. But sex?

    1. Lack of a preview button strikes again.

      1. Is it the HTML tag snafu you’re worried about, or the lack of a second “T” at the end of “But”?

        1. Don’t mind if I do.

      2. If only knew how easy it is to allow that function

      3. This new format is just awful. The page jumps to different articles all the time, or tries to reload and crashes the page.

        It’s just the worst.

    2. Hello.

      “The U.S. economy grew at a solid 3.2% annual rate in the first three months of the year, a far better outcome than expected,”

      Wasn’t there supposed to be an economic calamity?

      This is all because of Obama anyway.

      1. It’s the curreny president that is directly responsible. The dial for the economy is under the desk in the Oval Office. Trump tweaks it every day. It’s been set to 3.2% for a while now.

        1. If the economy was tanking, I think it is a pretty good bet you and a lot of other people would be blaming Trump. Given that fact, I can’t see how it is wrong to give him some credit when it isn’t.

          Moreover, Trump is responsible for a significant reduction in regulations. Is it your position that reducing regulation doesn’t help the economy? If it isn’t, and I imagine it is not, doesn’t Trump deserve some of the credit for this for doing that?

          1. Stop with the facts and the freedom talk John, they’re only here to insult the Orange Man

      2. See below where I put this 3.2% number into context for Trump retards like yourself and John.

        1. Economy and stock market were stagnant under the last six years Obama was in office but the moment heed out, it takes off like a rocket. Yeah, that was toats Obama.

        2. “Trump retards” . Awesome.

          Are those supporters or haters? The term works either way lol

        3. Context!!! It must be put into context so I can attack him properly!!!

        4. Context? You probably make use of some kiddie porn links to make your point. Which is how much you love kiddie porn.

          Sick piece of shit.

      3. How did Obama NOT get a Nobel in Economics?

        I mean this economy looks exactly like it did during Obama’s tenure- TARP bailouts, massive cash payouts to Iran, massive unemployment for Americans, nationwide expansion of the regulatory state, interest rates set by the Fed at 0%….

    3. I was disappointed that the news article didn’t give the name of the alleged actress. How am I supposed to form an opinion without reviewing the primary data?

  2. Click through to the screenshots of JetBlue’s comments about its facial recognition program for some truly terrifying stuff:

    no thanks, i’m still furious from when the computer asked me if i was checking the bags under my eyes

    1. I always have to check my testicles.

      1. I thought TSA did that.

  3. Click through to the screenshots of JetBlue’s comments about its facial recognition program for some truly terrifying stuff…

    Will it be able to pick up the bloodshot eyes of a trouble passenger in the making?

  4. The relationship between U.S. border patrol agents and paramilitary groups is a little too cozy

    this seems like a blanket statement

    1. My girlfriend issues a blanket statement every night.

      1. Is that anything like a Dutch Oven?

    2. I’m a little confused, perhaps because I don’t know much about these groups…

      But would we say that “the relationship between the police and neighborhood watch groups is a little too cozy?” That relationship seems an awfully lot cozier than border patrol militia groups and the border patrol.

  5. Judge Shelley Richmond Joseph and the now-retired court officer, Wesley MacGregor, are accused of helping the defendant, an undocumented immigrant, slip out the back door of Newton District Court while an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent waited to arrest him on a federal detainer in April 2018.

    Mass. Judge And Retired Court Officer Charged With Helping Defendant Evade ICE

  6. The U.S. economy grew at a solid 3.2% annual rate in the first three months of the year, a far better outcome than expected…

    WHAT KIND OF TERRIBLE ECONOMIC SOOTHSAYERS DO WE KEEP LISTENING TO? Can we for once just reach expectations?

    1. Exports rose 3.7% in the first quarter, while imports decreased by 3.7%. Economic growth also got a lift from strong investments in intellectual property products. Those investments expanded by 8.6%.

      Reason has repeatedly assured me that buying cheap shit from overseas was the only way to economic prosperity. How can this be?

      1. That statement is very high in entropy.

        1. If trade deficits are good, and that is the party line, then increased exports and decreased imports is bad right?

          1. For my entire life the definition of good and bad economic news (at least as reported in the media) has been entirely dependent on who is in power and not on what the actual numbers are.

            There has never been any consistency. If they want it to be bad news, 6% economic growth means the economy is overheating and a disaster is impending. And if they want it to be good news, 1.3% growth means the economy is “growing at a steady rate”, and inflation fears and recession fears are unfounded.

            1. >>>who is in power and not on what the actual numbers are

              this.

            2. Trump is president. So for the media, anything he does is ‘orange man bad’. Even if it were exactly the same thing Obama did that they praised him for.

          2. If trade deficits are good, and that is the party line

            The “party line” is not “trade deficits are good,” it’s “trade deficits don’t matter.” The corollary there is “trade surpluses also don’t matter” not “trade surpluses are bad.”

            The point being, jockeying around with your trade balance is a red herring.

      2. Well, we still buy plenty of cheap shit from overseas, so it could still be true. If that were a claim they ever made.

        1. The economy should be getting worse Zeb. And the claim is made every time the free traders say that the trade deficit is good and any concern over it is counter productive. The point is that they believe buying things is trade and trade is always valuable and trade is the way to prosperity. Ergo, buying cheap shit from overseas is the key to prosperity.

          1. I can make up strawmen too.

            Be it known,
            John likes Trump’s tariffs. John is in favor of a command economy as long as the guy commanding it is Donald Trump. Ergo, John is a Socialist.

            1. You give John too much credit. He is not so much a socialist as he is a tribalist. He is for whatever the Republicans are for, regardless of underlying principles.

              1. Wait… I thought Trump was NOT a Republican, so how can John be only for Republican principals?

                The fact that Trump’s strategy on the economy happens to mostly correspond to John’s idea of what should be going on—zoom right over your heads.

                It is funny to see your posts though.

              2. Chipper you are an imbicile. I am sorry but your parents appearently didn’t have any children that lived.

            2. Yelling strawman doesn’t refute the point. If you claim that is not what you think, then explain what is your position. The fact that you can’t do that and just yell invective is pretty strong evidence that this is in fact your exact position.

              1. I have and you always tend to correct me on what my position is.

                1. Again, explain what your position is. You have had to chances to do it and still can’t. So, what reason is there to believe that it is any different than what I say? You own your position. If I am wrong about it, explain what it is.

            3. I can make up strawmen too.”

              That’s been obvious for a while.

          2. “The point is that they believe buying things is trade and trade is always valuable and trade is the way to prosperity”

            It’s also a libertarian value because in that case people are free and acting freely. You know, some people prefer liberty.

            1. Good for you. If that is your belief, fine. What is not fine is pretending that there is no downsides to implementing your belief.

              1. We can’t be free because there might be downsides to it? Is that your belief?

                1. I am not free to murder you am I? We are not free to do lots of things. Beyond that, the free trade position is that there are no downsides to it and anyone who claims otherwise is just a bum who deserves what they got. Sorry, but you need to get your boot off of my face.

    2. Economists are no more knowledgeable about macroeconomics than the average person, they just have a jargon that better masks their ignorance.

      1. That, and the fact that macroeconomics is just plain wrong, makes predicting where the chicken bones will fall quite hard.

        -An Economist.

  7. The New York Attorney General’s Office is opening an investigation into Facebook’s email harvesting practices.

    Someone wants to be governor.

  8. http://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/26/gdp-q1-2019-first-read.html

    The economy grew at 3.2% last quarter. In the two years before 2017, the economy grew more than 2% in one quarter. This quarter represents the 8th consectutive quarter that the economy has grown faster than 2%.

    Say it together kids; TRADE WAR!!!

    1. Don’t you read Palin’s Buttplug’s posts? Face it — Drumpf has destroyed the amazing economy he inherited from Obama.

      1. I thought the narrative was ‘the good economic data was because of Obama and his super-genius policies!’

        Get used to 1% growth pal!

        1. Much as Pres. Obama destroyed the great economy he inherited from the conservatives?

          Carry on, clingers. For about another two years, anyway.

          1. Economy was in free fall when Obama entered office. I don’t think anyone is denying that. The bleeding stopped, things improved from dire to stagnant, and things remained like that until he left office.

            1. Some might even argue that the TARP bailouts by Bush and Obama and government micromanagement of the economy lengthened the economic malaise.

              A quick painful recession would have reset the market and punished all those who sucked up to the government and ignored moral hazard.

              1. Just like the New Deal, which was a catastrophe

                1. The New Deal, by many accounts, extended the Depression by about seven years.

                  The 1920 crash was about as bad and was done in about a year. The government doing nothing is usually better than the government trying to help.

                  1. A better example is the 1907 crash (pre-Fed), which was arguably worse than the 1929 crash but whose recession lasted less than a year.

                    The 1920 crash was the first post-Fed crash, and that one is actually held up by Fed supporters as an example of when the Fed does its job well (i.e. just about matches what the market would have done on its own).

                    Milton Friedman even suggested that the Fed’s success in the 1920’s fueled the hubris that led them to ignore the warning signs in 1928-29.

                    1. The worst downturns in American history were 1893, 1871, and 1837. All three of those were much deeper than the 1929 downturn. The 1929 crash is only remembered as “the Great Depression” because it lasted so long after the government stepped in to “help”.

                    2. The 1929 crash is only remembered as “the Great Depression” because it lasted so long after the government stepped in to “help”.

                      It’s exactly like when in the late 19th century the government decided it needed to “help” with the “Opium Crisis.” I have often wished I could go back in time and show late-19th century prohibitionists the orders-of-magnitude worse problems that resulted from their attempts to help.

                      “You think you have an opium problem now?

              2. Many economists do argue just that.

          2. (R) totes caused *everything* before O … everything.

    2. Are you attributing that growth to the tariffs (tax increases) or to the tax cuts? If tariffs can boost the economy, why stop now? Imagine what we could do with 60, 70, 80% tariffs on all imports!

      1. No,. I am saying that you and those like you who predicted doom because Trump dared to offend the trade Gods were full of shit. That data shows that.

        You don’t have to take this as the growth being caused by the tarriffs. Correlation isn’t causality. But it does show that at the very least the economic effects of them are orders of magnatude lower than you thought.

        Lastly, the decline in imports and increase in exports is another problematic fact for the believers. I thought we were going to have a trade war that was going to destroy our access to foreign markets? It is almost like negotiating from a position of stregth rather than telling the entire world our markets are open to anyone no matter what might give other countries and incentive to open their markets. Big if true.

        1. I didn’t predict doom. I think tariffs are stupid. I think they depress growth. We can argue about the magnitude of any specific tariff, but surely you don’t think they aren’t putting negative pressure on economic growth right? In the face of economic theory?

          There’s nothing in this data that says they don’t depress growth, because there have been many other pro-growth levers pulled by this administration. Sure we had net growth. Maybe it could have even been better without the tariffs, or maybe they’re minor impact, but they most certainly aren’t positive in the long-term.

          1. “I did’t argue”

            That hardly defines the majority position on the “Trump is starting trade wars” stage. Among that crowd there was universal condemnation and near universal agreement that this was a disaster for the economy – not only for the US, but for the entire world.

            The only way it could go was tit-for-tat trade war escalation. We are not at the end yet, but it looks like Trump actually is winning a few concessions and improving the freedom of trade, despite his reliance on tariffs and insistence on “keeping jobs here”.

            1. Reason has shown several examples where his tariffs are taking money directly out of the US economy. It’s going to take a lot of conversation for you to convince me that the government taking money out of the economy is a good thing.

              You guys seem to be making this a black and white argument. If tariffs are bad, we can’t have economic growth. If we have economic growth, tariffs can’t be bad. There are so many other factors at play in economics that the evidence is never going to be conclusive to a black/white. Sure we had 3.2% growth which is great. The argument has always been that without the tariffs we would almost certainly have more growth than with them, because all economic theories worth their salt suggest that.

              1. A) tariffs are bad
                B) taxes are bad
                C) wars are bad
                D) you can use the threat of A-C to get people to do things you want them to do.

                I think that is the argument being made on the other side.

          2. And what is really frustrating about John’s argument is that the costs of the Tariffs are documented fact. People have tallied up just how much more suppliers and consumers have paid for the new tariffs.

            One of the chief arguments that people have made about Tariffs is that they help one group while costing another group. So we help Steel workers by forcing all steel consumers to pay more for their steel. These GDP numbers don’t dispute that fact. Americans were forced to pay more for domestic goods (imports down!). So yeah, our growth is great, but that growth is being funneled to some special interests.

            1. No one knows what is the economic impact of any policy, although sometimes generalizations can accurately be made, as you’ve done. But isn’t it enough to say that tariffs decrease consumer choice, and as libertarians that’s a good enough reason to oppose them?

              1. Except we do know the economic impact- or at least have significant evidence. We know how much steel was bought and sold for a given time, and we know how much people were paying before and after the tariffs went into effect. Steel futures are up 42% since Trump won the election and started rattling the tariff saber. They spiked up almost 100% from pre-election levels when he actually announced the tariffs.

                Look, I am not a Trump hater. I am a big fan of de-regulation, school policy and title IX reforms. And I am a huge fan of how much he makes the left squirm. And I could care less about his bluster, and felt the Mueller report was wrong. That doesn’t keep me from criticizing the bad policy choices he makes.

                It boggles the mind to see people who were full on “trade is good” in prior administrations now act as if this was some leftist policy all along.

                1. No you really don’t. What you have is a lot simplistic guess that totally ignore second order effects and assume perfect knowledge of the economy. If your dumb ass calculations were the end all be all, the Keynsians and central planners would have a point, why couldn’t we manage the economy if we are so capable of understanding the full effects of a given policy?

            2. Yes, it is very frustating that the economy isn’t doing what your model predicts. Sucks dude. Maybe you should reconsider your assumptions? That is about as likely as the global warming cultists reconsidering. Free trade is a religion not a policy.

              1. And we didn’t have free trade to begin with. Just really one sided managed trade that as the status quo these fools treats as sacrilicious.

                God forbid the bad orange man meddle and potentially use a different tariff plan to leverage our trading partners into lowering THEIR trade barriers.

        2. How much did the economy grow with Trump’s deregulation and tax cuts, but without his restrictionist trade policy?

          1. You sound like a Keynsian. When their stimulus’ doesn’t work as predicted, they always claim “it would have been worse”. Same thing here. Your predictions didn’t come true and your defense is “it would have been better” as if appealing to an unknown counterfactual is persuasive.

    3. The trade war is a hindrance to growth, not a help. The growth is mainly from the tax cuts.

      1. The ‘trade war’ is designed to coerce trade partners into loosening their market restrictions. It’s no an end unto itself.

  9. Abortion is apparently a positive right now.

    1. A rule banning health clinics from referring patients for abortions if they receive federal family-planning funds has been blocked nationwide

      You may have confused the polarity on your rights.

      1. I am not buying your right to murder people.

        1. Where does your opinion fit within the narrative that the government has no business being involved in a conversation between you and your doctor? Remember when Republicans acted like they believed that?

          1. When the conversation involves killing another human being, it sure as hell does need to be involved. If I go to my doctor for advice on how to murder my wife, do you think the govenrment has no right to know that?

            Stop begging the question and just assuming everyone believes in the magic birth canal theory of life.

            1. Well then we should be charging these people with murder.

              1. we can stop paying for it w/tax money at the least.

              2. Yes. That’s exactly what should be happening. It’s time to stop pretending it isn’t.

          2. My understanding is that libertarians believe that the government has an obligation to protect the life, liberty and property of its citizens. I think abortion falls under the first one on the list.

          3. “Remember when Republicans acted like they believed that” No because they never have

          4. When the government is paying for it with money that is premised on not being used to facilitate abortion.

          5. “the government has no business being involved in a conversation between you and your doctor?”

            When you and your doctor are conspiring to murder a child I think the government should be involved.
            However, planning another phallus graft for your forehead is different and you can keep it between yourselves.

        2. “I am not buying your right to murder people.”

          If you have information regarding even a single murder, John, the sole sensible course for a decent adult would be to inform a relevant law enforcement authority without delay.

          If you have no such reportable information, the sole decent course for an ostensible adult would be to stop spouting nonsense and childish superstition and to stand aside while adults are attempting to engage in reasoned debate.

          Carry on, clingers. So far as superstition, bigotry, and backwardness can carry a bunch of anti-social, can’t-keep-up losers in modern America, that is.

          1. If anyone knows about modern losers, it’s Arthur L. Hicklib every time he and his progeny look in the mirror.

            1. Please tell me that there are no progeny. Please.

              1. I doubt anyone would fuck this loser, except maybe his drunken progtard daddy.

          2. “They’re murdering people in Buchenwald!” — People spouting nonsense and childish superstition.

            “Did you report it to the Gestapo?” — Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland.

        3. John has got the religious acorn=oak tree thing going. He believes all human DNA is sacred whether it has brain waves or not. Save your sperm John.

      2. The conclusion is that abortion clinics must be federally funded, that is, there is a right to taxpayer money in the performance of abortions.

        1. If you want to argue that clinics shouldn’t be federally funded, I don’t think you’ll get a lot of push back among libertarians. That’s not what is being argued here.

          If you want to argue that receiving federal funds means that the government gets to approve all medical advice, then that is something different entirely. But, back to my original point, it’s not a “positive right” in the sense that the argument is that government shouldn’t ban individual behavior among the clinic workers to make referrals.

          1. No one is saying that. They are saying taking federal funds means you can’t give advice that involves murdering people.

            1. An abortion is not a murder. You’re going full jihad on us.

              1. That’s the entire question, isn’t it.

                There’s no reason to think that abortion is not murder. It is a genetically distinct individual, after all. From the moment of conception, a new and distinct life form is created. You wouldn’t say “killing a caterpillar isn’t killing the butterfly”. It is the same insect, just in different phases of its life.

                On the other hand, there’s nothing to prove that abortion actually is a murder either. Simply having a genetically unique clump of cells isn’t enough to claim full personhood.

                It is a very difficult, maybe impossible question. The only relevant point, the one you’ve put your finger on, is the question of “what is a human life, and when does it begin”.

                For millennia that threshold was the moment of birth. (and maybe a short while after, if times were really tough) Now we have more medical capabilities and more scientific knowledge. And that threshold has moved for most people.

                But you cannot definitively state that abortion is not murder. (although you can point to passages in the bible that make a clear distinction between killing a baby in the womb and killing a person – murder. So maybe folks on that side will want to pick a different source).

                1. The question is whether abortion is murder. You’re arguing it in terms consistent with homicide. Many libertarians argue based on first principles, that an non-viable fetus which is unwanted is akin to a trespasser, and the woman can be justified in committing homicide. Justifiable homicide is not murder.

                  Abortion is not an easy topic, because at best we’re talking about competing rights. The idea of how you would enforce it is even more problematic, especially because there are many instances of miscarriage (unintentional or natural abortion) which would now be opened up to scrutiny under any restrictive law.

                  My view on abortion is that it is immoral, but that allowing it in the case up until the point of viability is the best compromise we can make to maximize individual liberty.

                  1. Why does reason.com attract so many authoritarian and bigoted conservatives? Are the yahoos unaware that faux libertarians are readily distinguished from genuine libertarians?

                    1. The only way to distinguish faux libertarians from genuine libertarians is for me to look in the mirror.

                      If I don’t see your face, you are not a genuine libertarian.

                      #noTrueLibertarian

                    2. Because to you ALL conservatives are bigoted and authoritarian.
                      (also, not all who use Yahoo are conservatives)

                  2. You realize that up to the point of viability means you are. a pro-life extremist?

                    US laws on abortion are about the most radically pro-abortion rights in the world, they do not accept any compromises on their position

                    1. Bad news, kids. A nine week gestation person survived in Japan.
                      No abortions after nine weeks now?

                  3. Many libertarians argue based on first principles, that an non-viable fetus which is unwanted is akin to a trespasser, and the woman can be justified in committing homicide.

                    By that logic, any child that couldn’t survive on its own, regardless of which stage of its life it’s at, could be considered justifiable homicide.

                    That’s why the New York and Virginia abortion bills were so controversial–its proponents flat-out admitted that they allowed post-Magic Birth Canal Trip babies to be aborted.

                    1. By that logic, any child that couldn’t survive on its own, regardless of which stage of its life it’s at, could be considered justifiable homicide.

                      A child which is already born is viable without a parent, even if it can’t survive on its own. If in the extreme hypothetical a parent decided to evict a child from his house there are many ways in which the child could go on living with other family, as a ward of the state, etc.

                      An unwanted fetus is trespassing on a mother’s very person. “Eviction” would result in death, because that’s the definition of non-viable, which is why the distinction is important. An unwanted fetus past the stage of viability could simply be delivered (evicted) and become a ward of the state.

                    2. You know how you don’t have an unwanted fetus? Don’t have sex. Not that difficult, people do it all the time. Just because you chose to have sex and create a human child doesn’t mean the child “trespassed” on you — as if the child had a choice or did something wrong. The obvious exception would be conception as a result of rape, which its obvious that the rapist is the trespasser and caused the child to trespass on the woman’s body. That’s more of a gray area I’m willing to give on — but its appalling to me that you are blaming unborn children for crimes of trespass. You have twisted yourself into knots to arrive at that position.

                    3. A child which is already born is viable without a parent, even if it can’t survive on its own.

                      Except we now know that a child doesn’t need to come fully to term to be viable outside the womb. Your argument doesn’t even take into account preemies, some of whom are born weeks or even months ahead of their due date. Some don’t need to be in the NICU, a great many do. What makes them “viable” versus another “fetus” at the same stage of development that hasn’t made the magic birth canal trip?

                      That’s the problem with pro-abortion absolutists–there’s really no nuance or room for considerations of scientific understanding within your worldview. The only difference between “a fetus” and “a baby” at this point for you is whether or not the mother wants to carry it to term. Sorry, but biologically you need to show some consistency.

                  4. “The question is whether abortion is murder. You’re arguing it in terms consistent with homicide. Many libertarians argue based on first principles, that an non-viable fetus which is unwanted is akin to a trespasser, and the woman can be justified in committing homicide. Justifiable homicide is not murder.”

                    But assuming it is not rape (which comfortably north of 90% of abortions are not for the reason of rape) — how is the fetus an intruder?

                    If you let somebody in your house and later want them to leave — you’re not entitled to kill them unless they begin threatening you. If they are just sitting on the couch and you shoot them…you’ve murdered them. Even if you really wanted them to leave.

                    1. If I let someone in my house and then tell them to leave at a later time, they are in fact intruding. This happens all the time when people are “asked to leave” the premises based on behavior. That they were at one time welcomed doesn’t change the fact that they are unwelcomed at the time of interest.

                    2. If I let someone in my house and then tell them to leave at a later time, they are in fact intruding. This happens all the time when people are “asked to leave” the premises based on behavior. That they were at one time welcomed doesn’t change the fact that they are unwelcomed at the time of interest.

                      What a hilariously autistic statement.

                  5. Many libertarians argue based on first principles, that an non-viable fetus which is unwanted is akin to a trespasser,

                    No. I don’t think this is the case.

                    You can’t call someone a trespasser when you forced them to come into your house.

                    And you can’t evict them when you’ve made it impossible for them to leave on their own unharmed.

                  6. Many libertarians argue based on first principles, that an non-viable fetus which is unwanted is akin to a trespasser, and the woman can be justified in committing homicide. Justifiable homicide is not murder.

                    And they would be called morons. If it is okay to murder the “nonviable”, then it is okay to murder anyone on lifesupport. They are not vialble either. And even if the tresspass theory there true, tresspass doesn’t justify murder unless the tresspasser threatens your life or limb.

                    The fact that you would resort to such a stupid argument shows how badly the magic birth canal side has lost this argument.

                    1. If it is okay to murder the “nonviable”, then it is okay to murder anyone on lifesupport. They are not vialble either.

                      Would it be permissible for me to walk away from someone who is non-viable or would you require me to provide them with what they need to live?

                      That’s the distinction between positive and negative rights. If you believe that you have a positive right to life, then I can think of several scenarios that you probably wouldn’t accept as a requirement for me to support your right. For instance, should I be required to do everything within my capacity to support your life, including providing you with food, medical care, etc as a right? That sounds like a position that Bernie Sanders might be willing to support.

                    2. “should I be required to do everything within my capacity to support your life, including providing you with food, medical care, etc as a right? That sounds like a position that Bernie Sanders might be willing to support.”

                      Yes, parents are required to provide all of these things to the best of their ability. Family units are socialist.

                    3. What Trip K said. The woman created the baby that is living inside her and she is responsible for it. You seem to love freedom but not responsibility. Sorry but one comes with the other.

                    4. Ok now imagine that this positive right to life extends not just to a cute baby, but a giant welfare queen. Do you still support the state to compel others to support her right to live? She needs food, shelter, medical care to live. By extension of her positive right to life, the state should be justified to use force to compel an unwilling provider to provide her the “womb” she needs to live… right?

                    5. Ok now imagine that this positive right to life extends not just to a cute baby, but a giant welfare queen.

                      I don’t really have to imagine that you made a stupid analogy there.

                2. Arguing over when we can ethically kill an innocent, non-participating human is the most ridiculous of “forest for the trees” arguments a libertarian can get into.

              2. An abortion IS a murder, you sociopathic ghoul.

                1. Says you. If you’re not willing to even debate this, then why comment?

                  1. My understanding is you think that people’s rights to sex > unborn baby’s right to live.

                    You argue this on the grounds that fetus is trespassing on the mother. Can’t trespass when its the mother that forced the fetus to be in her body (obvious exception is rape). So your argument is retarded and your shits all fucked up.

                    1. Trip,

                      How dare you accurately describe Leo’s views. That is just a strawman. He doens’t believe that. He believes something esle that he can’t seem to explain.

                    2. I’ve explained it several times, and not once have I invoked this so-called right to have sex.

                      I believe a woman has freedom over her own body and that is equal to a persons right to live. Because those rights conflict in this case, we have to compromise. I don’t believe in positive rights, meaning your rights can’t compel action on my part.

                      To me the natural compromise, given this set of beliefs is to draw the line at viability, which is the point after which a fetus’s (negative) right to life no longer requires resources (a womb) it can’t get without compulsion from the state to an unwilling mother.

                    3. To me the natural compromise, given this set of beliefs is to draw the line at viability,

                      Except a lot of preemies require weeks in an incubator to survive. By your logic, we should post facto terminate any baby that makes the magic birth canal trip before their due date.

                      You’re trying to come off as reasonable here and hilariously failing because you’re actually an abortion absolutist.

                    4. “I believe a woman has freedom over her own body and that is equal to a persons right to live. Because those rights conflict in this case, we have to compromise.”

                      Brutally murdering the baby is Leo’s idea of compromise.

              3. OP, yes, it is. The concept is simply beyond your limited progressive comprehension.

            2. Now who’s begging the question?
              At the moment it’s a legal medical procedure that we are talking about.
              Seems to me the question is whether receiving federal funds means that the feds can regulate the types of advice or referrals you can give people.

              1. Sure it is legal. But that doesn’t make it right that it is legal. Both sides of this debate are just talking past each other.

                1. Both sides are talking past each other.

                  One side has been winning the culture war in America throughout our lifetimes, however, and is positioned to continue to effect American progress against the wishes and efforts of slack-jawed conservatives throughout the remainder of our lives.

                  1. Progressing towards irrational nihilism, yes.

                  2. Right up until hicklibs get the full Kent State treatment.

                    1. Open wider, Red Rocks. Your betters have some more liberal-libertarian progress to shove down your obsequious, whiny, right-wing throat.

                      Be nicer, clinger, or they may decide to position that progress sideways before shoving.

                    2. How many times do we need to tell you that this form is not the proper place to post your sexual fantasies, Reverend.

                    3. Sorry, hicklib, your betters will be shoving you out of helicopters in the near future, unless you shut up and sit down like the good little cuck you are.

              2. It is a procedure that has it’s own rights, as some judges would have it, unlike any other procedure performed by medical professionals. I do not think they there is any that cannot be regulated the way abortion cannot be.

                1. “Transgender treatment” for kids is heading down that route.

                  1. Another reason to cleanse America of the progressives.

      3. It might be time for Trump to tell the court to go pound sand and limit their decision to ONLY their district and limit the impact to the specified defendant ONLY.

        We have circuits for a reason. These are not national courts.

        And if it is ALREADY illegal…why would this limitation be illegal?

    2. “”Abortion is apparently a positive right now.””

      Not just that, but a right greater than the 2nd one enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

      1. Those penumbras and emanations are powerful if insubstantial things, greater than actual text.

    3. depends who’s asked ha. why doesn’t NAP apply to the unborn?

      1. It does, but you have to equally apply it to the mother. It’s a classic case of conflicting rights.

        1. So children demanding to be fed is theft and infringes on the parents’ rights? Parents should be allowed to leave their children in the woods (off their property, off course, because they’re stealing rent) and tell them good luck to you?

          1. It’s not a person, it’s just an organism with human DNA. I’m willing to say there are arguments for some fetal rights when it starts having more brain waves than a dead person. However, until then it’s just a parasitic organism with human DNA in a human person’s body. Arguing a six week old embroyo is a person like the theocrats are arguing is forcing your religious beliefs on women. Most abortions are in the first trimester. There is no way anyone with a lick of scientific rationalism would mistake those things for persons, fingernails or not.

            1. It’s a person the moment it achieves sentience.

            2. You didn’t answer my question. Your logic implies that parents can toss a child out in the middle of nowhere and drive off and there’s nothing wrong with it because the little snot was stealing rent from them.

              1. That’s exactly what he means. This kind of insane shit is part of why the LP gets no traction.

  10. “‘The U.S. economy grew at a solid 3.2% annual rate in the first three months of the year, a far better outcome than expected,’ reports the Associated Press.”

    Don’t be fooled by cherry-picked data. Actually, the economy is as terrible as it’s ever been under Drumpf. For example, Falling Mercedes-Benz Sales Are More Bad News for Auto Industry

    #DrumpfRecession

    1. I know you’re a parody, but if you read into the article, most of Daimler’s woes, and many other automakers, come from the mandated shift to EVs by socialist edicts in the EU, and so similar no sense here. Same as how the insane and unrealistic combined emissions and fuel economy fleet requirement s have forced. Ore and more automakers to cheat the regulators mandates.

      As usual, everything bad is the fault of progtards who should never be in charge of anything ever.

  11. Most sold weed.

    That’s even worse than being in a gang!

  12. “The U.S. economy grew at a solid 3.2% annual rate in the first three months of the year, a far better outcome than expected,” reports the Associated Press.

    learning from the countless times a republican presidential candidate is predicted to step on to the debate stage drooling from the mouth while the dem mops the floor, its hard to imagine why preparing the country for a russia-colluding president that will tank the economy would backfire

    1. The continued success of the economy shows that all that really matters is reducing the administrative state. The one big thing that Trump has accomplished is reducing regulation. That is why the economy is growing. Everything else is just a sideshow.

      1. Reducing the administrative state with tariffs, authoritarian immigration practices, micromanagement of abortion clinics, and torture?

        No wonder you no-count wingnuts have been getting stomped by your betters in the culture war.

        1. Uh, I’m not sure if you’ve noticed, hicklib, but only in New York has magic birth canal infanticide been approved.

        2. No wonder you no-count wingnuts have been getting stomped by your betters in the culture war.

          You need to let Uncle Joe Biden know about this. He doesn’t share your optimism, based on the video that went with his announcement that he’s running for president.

          1. Former Vice Pres. Biden knows that Democrats and the liberal-libertarian alliance have been making great progress, against the wishes and efforts of bigoted right-wing losers, throughout our lifetimes.

            He objects to the authoritarianism, bigotry, corruption, recklessness, mendacity, and vulgarity we have observed in the White House for a couple of years. He, like most Americans — the modern, educated, informed, accomplished, decent Americans, especially — wishes to replace the president.

            If you wish to argue that the slack-jaws have been winning the culture war in America during our lifetimes, try to make the case, clinger.

            1. I look forward to the tipping pint where all those people you hate rise up and put you and your pals to screaming agonizing deaths.

              Keep pushing progtard.

        3. I really don’t understand why you support the barbaric murder of people in cases that the enlightened, progressive people of Europe prohibit. When will you learn to abandon your superstition that human life begins at the passage through the birth canal?

          The enlightened people of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain all agree that abortions after the transition from embryo to fetus must be severely restricted. How dare you wallow in the Anglo-American barbarism of permitting fetal abortions except in the direst circumstances?

  13. We need a president who recognizes sex work as work.

    The current president stiffs non-sex workers more than sex workers.

    1. the current president clearly supports several sex workers, but he can’t afford to help them all.

    2. Define “stiff.”

      1. can’t define. know when see.

  14. http://twitter.com/pwafork/status/1121250132995895296

    Who are these “Christians” and why are they angry over the murder of “Easter Worshipers”?

    1. We’re Christians when we kill (usually in self-defence or retribution).
      We’re Easter Worshippers when killed by a centuries old Jihad.

    2. Intersectionality is hard when you have to remember what label to use on someone depending on where they are in the power/victimhood hierarchy that very minute. Its almost as bad as remembering everyone’s pronouns.

      1. “Its almost as bad as remembering everyone’s pronouns.”

        Yes, I agree with you… Or is it yew? Or xe, xu, znee, ye, bhe, gwee, or shmee? I do NOT mean to offend!

        1. Just in case yew-xe-xu-znee-ye-bhe- gwee-shmee would be sensitive enough to pay heed to my needs, I personally prefer to be addressed as Most Righteous Feelz, Master of Space, Time, Dimension, Energy, Matter, Quantum Gravitational Fux, and Supreme Gweebishness, and Arbiter Maximus of All Things Politically Correct!

      2. I think someone has a chart somewhere.

      3. It really isn’t.

        Intersectionality.Checker

        Public void string {

        axe.Grind = Victim.Group

        For Each Victim.Group call Woke.Twinkle
        If Victim.Group = White.Male call Down.Twinkle
        }

        1. Just add all the Woke.Twinkles up and that is how you keep track.

          Down.Twinkles = -10

    3. Diane Reynolds (Paul) linked “Easter Worshipers” yesterday. Did you see that?

      https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/485/140/089.jpg

      I described it as like referring to Jewish holocaust victims as something like “eastern Europeans”. It’s such a deeply offensive use of language.

      1. Yes it is. And it is a use that has never been applied to any other group. Are Jews ever described as “Passover Worshipers”? Muslims as “Ramadan Worshipers”? Never that I have seen.

        But Robby said this is just “Republicans pouncing”. Fucking assholes.

      2. When did all those lefties get together and coordinate using the same term? Is there a JournoList for politicians that we don’t know about? I mean, how fast did they call come up with the same meme in the wake of the bombings in Sri Lanka? At some point, somebody must have said, “Hey, let’s all use the term, “Easter Worshipers”.

        1. I see a possibility of 2 reasons:
          1. Drive the news cycle through “Republicans pouncing” because slow news week
          2. There are people who celebrate Easter that aren’t christian. Painting Easter eggs and hunting them down could be fun for anyone

          1. there are non christians who celebrate easter for fun but they are not easter worshippers they are just celebrants. words do have meaning and they had a purpose in the language they chose just like White Latino.

        2. Convergent evolution is a thing. But I’d more likely bet that once it was first tweeted, the reporters who all watch their phones for twitter updates saw and just unconsciously parroted the lines. I think this says more about Media’s unconscious bias than it does about some conspiracy.

          To the Media, they just do not see Christians as a *class* of victims. They see them as a *class* of oppressors. And so when they described the victims, their natural response was to find a term that fit with these biases. It is also why attacks on Christians in Egypt usually specifically calls them out as Coptics or Coptic Christians- because they see these people as their own class separate from the oppressor Christians.

      3. Very offensive.

        And I’m not much of a practicing Christian.

        Tell you what. If assholes like Barry keep this shit up…I may just begin.

        Classy uniter my friggin ass.

        1. You pussy-ass snowflakes are always offended by something.

          1. irony! ha

          2. Especially bet-welching and kiddie-porn links!

          3. You’re a pedophile.

          4. PB, you rape children. You need to die a screaming agonizing death. You really need to kill yourself.

      4. I wouldn’t be offended if someone described a massacre during Yom Kippur as a massacre of Yom Kippur worshipers. I think everyone would know they were Jews. If there was a massacre of Ramadan worshipers I think everyone would know they were Muslims. I think this is a bit of Christian snowflakism.

    4. If Christian Sri Lankans are attacking random Muslims in retribution for the Easter bombings that is a bad thing. However, Muslims blowing up Christian churches for being Christian is at least an equally bad thing, but the NYT and other leftists cannot seem to bring themselves to say that as directly.

      1. Those churches were bombed as retaliation for an attack on mosques, according to the Sri Lankan government.

        Superstition — ostensible adults fighting over fairy tales, especially — contends with disease, natural disaster, and bigotry among the worst things in our world.

        Choose reason. Every time. Be an adult. Or, least least, try.

        1. Don’t suppose you’ve got some links to go with that? Maybe some timelines as reference?

        2. There is nothing wrong with honoring Jesus and the sacrifice of the first of his thirteen lives when he ‘died’ on the cross. Triggering his first regeneration a few days later.

          Since then he has travelled time and space battling all manner of evil. Including Hillary Clinton’s villainous plot to subjugate humanity in 2016, and a similar one by Chelsea in 2042.

          1. Don’t forget Pizzagate!

    5. This entire bullshit “Easter worshippers” nonsense is willful misunderstanding and self-adopted persecution.
      “Easter worshippers” is no more problematic than “Christmas shoppers.” Just as the latter does not imply, let alone insist, that people are out trying to buy Christmas, the former does not imply, let alone insist, that people are worshipping Easter.
      It takes a very special kind of snowflake to manufacture this kind of faux outrage.

      1. Go fuck yourself Shirley. Show me where an equivelent term has ever been applied to another religion. Moreover, the fact that they can now say the word “Christian” when it is something negative shows that the term was used dishonestly.

        Telling the truth and pointing out lies is not being a snowflake you stupid fucking cow.

        1. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/10/nyregion/tragedy-in-israel-and-vandalism-here-darken-yom-kippur.html

          After some duck duck going I found this from a while back that says “yom kippur worshipers. Not like it matters.

          1. 19 years ago. Interestingly enough, it involves Jews being murdered by Muslims. I am sensing a trend here.

      2. You’re a giant, colossal, moron.

        1. He’s a giant, colossal, moron.

          You’re a superstitious, bigoted, stale-thinking, anti-social, on-the-spectrum loser.

          Everybody has problems.

      3. I think you’re missing the point.

        Progressive outrage is all about identifying a preferred victim class, and then hyping the bunny with big sad eyes. In this case, they’re trying to deny victim status to actual bombing victims because the victims aren’t part of their list of preferred victims.

        This is why discussions with average progressives about why the white, blue collar, Christians of the rust belt think that Democrats hate them so often morphs into a polemic from progressives about why white, blue collar, Christians should be hated by everybody. It even bleeds into the media narrative. “Easter Worshipers” speaks directly to the heart of a big part of what is wrong with the left.

        They will not accept disfavored groups from enjoying the benefits of victim status. Victim status is the whole ball game to them. It is central to their take on every issue. Don’t worry about logic, reason, argument, etc. Just concentrate on the victim bunny with big sad eyes. We can’t have freedom of association, gun rights, a capitalist healthcare system, accused rapists confronting the witnesses against them, or people using their free speech rights to hurt the feelings of others on campus–not if it’s bad for their preferred victim bunnies with their big sad eyes.

        1. Incidentally, I favor legalizing prostitution for a number of reasons, that it will lead to less people being abused, less underage prostitution, are among those reasons, but those aren’t the only ones. It isn’t about the victim status.

          In fact, I don’t care if you call them prostitutes, street walkers, disease incubators, professional sluts, sex workers, or bunnies with big sad eyes–I think legalizing prostitution would be better for society and lead to a freer society no matter what progressives or people in the media call them.

          If only the Democrat candidates for president would grant them a preferred victim status by using the preferred language, I’m sure we could make a big difference!

          Fuck that noise. This is why Trump gets so much support for not speaking in those terms. They’re not “illegal aliens”; they’re “undocumented”? What is libertarian or rational about such distinctions? Incidentally, libertarians support the free speech rights of dickheads, fuckfaces, and dipshits.

        2. if they were trans easter worshippers we’d never hear the end of it

      4. I think you missed the part where they instantly transformed from “Easter Worshipers” (a phrase not in common use prior to this, but used by those “in the know” on the left in this instance) to “Christians” when there were allegations of mob violence against Muslims.

        These are the same people talking about the same place and the same religious groups.

        It is very revealing of the mindset of the people who are playing these word games.

        And sure, it tells you something about those who are talking about the word games. But it isn’t really unusual to point out such an odd and awkward turn of phrase being used almost universally and simultaneously by so many on the left. You could try to make it all about the guy who noticed it, but it really isn’t possible to claim that all these people independently thought of using this phrasing to describe these killings. The phrase is so unique and it appeared so simultaneously across such a wide swath of plugged-in democrats, it really does make it seem like there is a back-channel for disseminating marching orders on these issues.

        That’s what everyone is noting. Not simply “Easter Worshiper”.

        1. It is also noteworthy that the news services bent over backwards to bury the lead that the Easter attacks were perpetrated by Muslims. In article after article, they started off saying “Worst attack in Sri Lanka since the Tamil Tigers” and then would have tons of explanation about the Tigers, rather than pointing out that in fact this attack was perpetrated by Muslims.

          I remember reading the first reports and at first actually thinking it was a Tamil Tigers attack. It was only when I read that a couple of the attackers were suicide bombers that I realized the con at play. At the very bottom of the report I was reading, they did not say the attack was suspected to be perpetrated by Muslim Extremists, but instead added some throw away line like “Tensions between Christians and Muslims have been high since…”

          1. Yeah, here in the west it was quite a while before the nature of the attackers was reported. Even after the Sri Lanka government announced the identity of the attackers, the US media questioned that characterization and underplayed it. Heck, they even questioned the claim of credit by the islamists a day or two later.

      5. I recently purchased Christmas. You can all have some too, but it will cost you.

  15. “Banning referrals and certain sorts of talk around abortion, he adds, “creates unreasonable barriers for patients to obtain appropriate medical care; impedes timely access to health care services; interferes with communications regarding a full range of treatment options between the patient and their health care provider, restricts the ability of health care providers to provide full disclosure of all relevant information to patients” and “violates the principles of informed consent and the ethical standards of health care professions.”

    I’m not convinced it does any of those things. Rather, it seems to put conditions on the acceptance of taxpayer money. Providers can do all of these things if they don’t accept taxpayer money. Why is it necessary for the taxpayer to pay for everything? Religious institutions abide by this principle all the time. If you choose to teach creationism or other religious doctrines, then you’re ineligible for taxpayer money. Why should that river only flow one way?

    1. The Constitution says the left has a right to your money.

    2. Banning referrals and certain sorts of talk around abortion

      Not too long ago, to “talk around something” meant to avoid the topic. But now, thanks to millennials and their language fads, to “talk around something” means to talk about the topic.

      It roasts my kiester.

      1. You forgot to close with “And stay off my lawn!”

        That’s how you signal that you aren’t totally out of touch…. by using a 3 decade old meme.

  16. With the trauma of the Notre Dame cathedral fire still burning fresh in the nation’s collective mind, Le Monde appeared to change direction, daring to publish the findings of a government report that determined that in 2018, France saw another dramatic increase in the number of anti-Christian attacks, including the desecration and destruction of churches and cemeteries.

    In 2018, France recorded 1,063 anti-Christian attacks compared to 1,038 the previous year. This is 1,000 attacks per year, Le Monde emphasized in its report, meaning an average of three per day. This is in contrast to the reported 541 antisemitic and 100 anti-Muslim incidents reported in the same time period. The report notes that in a majority of these incidents it was Christian structures and statues that were desecrated, though there were also a few dozen break-ins and incidents of property theft at churches across the country.

    Wow

    https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/04/24/after-notre-dame-france-breaks-its-silence-on-radical-islam/

    1. John, ‘hate crimes’ against Muslims (and in general) are up 15% in America and a whopping 47% in Canada according to the CBC!

      And we’re supposed to care about Worshippy things and buildings?

      Get real.

      1. Someone looked funny at a woman in a Burka. Let’s keep our priorities straight Rufus.

  17. https://nypost.com/2019/04/24/princeton-valedictorian-gets-engaged-to-her-71-year-old-former-professor/

    Princeton-valedictorian-gets-engaged-to-her-71-year-old-former-professor. She is kind of funny looking but if you are some 71 year old guy, she would do.

    1. Hell of a thesis defense on her part.

      1. She earned her degree the old fashioned way; on her back.

    2. 71? Heck, by the age of 50, most anything under 25 and within 15 pounds of target wait comes under the heading of “would”.

      As you get older, that bar gets a lot older. I look back at all the girls I wasn’t interested in during college… jeez, what an idiot..

      1. And really, google.. Target wait? Has anyone ever used that phrase? Thanks for that…

      2. Yeah, but she has crazy eyes. Always beware the crazy eyes, no matter what your age.

        1. go for the crazy eyes and wear leather jackets so it’s harder to be stabbed

          1. Just tie them up.

  18. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/joe-biden-says-he-wants-to-make-america-straight-again

    Joe Biden wants to make America straight again. Biden seems to be the one candidate willing to take falling fertility rates head on.

    1. Fertility rates have to be increased.

      Or else you end up like Europe in a trap then forced to import, well, all those poor “refugees” fleeing shit holes.

      Low birth rates, low growth and cucked isn’t a way to drive a civilization.

      1. Uncle Joe is on the problem Rufus. He is going to make America straight again.

  19. So it turns out Barri Weiss of the New York Times dated some lesbian chick who is now on Saturday Night Live in college. Barri is kind of homely but knowing she plays on both teams makes her much more attractive.

    1. OK, so if you put more than one link in a post, it waits for moderation. It is invisible to other posters. As are any child comments.

      So look for the most brilliant post ever to appear here in a few days when they get around to moderating it.

    2. >>>Barri is kind of homely

      understatement. and kate mckinnon was funny for like seventeen minutes ten years ago. should be shot for her role in Chick-Ghostbusters

  20. The paraphernalia history article kinda sucks. Perhaps the historian’s book length treatment covers it better? I was at ground zero having bought glam and punk records at Oz Records where they had quite the kid-friendly paraphernalia superstore. See Sue Rush and DeKalb Families In Action for where this all began.

    1. The pictures of clowns selling rolling papers and stuff were a joke. They were not actually trying to sell small children pot. They were to use the modern term, done ironically.

      1. We know how well irony translates outside of the people who agree with us. Sometimes being too much of a smartass muddies your message.

  21. Peak GDP growth (annual) since the Financial Collapse hit 2.9% in 2015 (Obama) and 2.9% in 2018 (Trump).

    Now the Con Man is trying to move the goalposts:

    Instead of annual 2018 growth, the White House emphasized a different growth measure comparing growth from the fourth quarter of 2017 to the fourth quarter of 2018.

    By that measure, the economy grew 3.1 percent. But Obama, too, reached 3 percent growth on a four-quarter basis four different times.

    Where Obama failed to enjoy 3 percent annual growth was on the BEA’s official annual number. His 2015 peak was 2.9 percent, like Trump’s for 2018. Thursday’s preliminary 2.9 percent figure could later be revised, although economist Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics said the most likely direction would be down.

    CNBC

    Trump and GOP promised economic growth much better than Obama’s. That’s not what happened
    PUBLISHED THU, FEB 28 2019 • 8:52 AM EST UPDATED THU, FEB 28 2019 • 6:31 PM EST

    Peanuts suck at Econ 101.

    1. How has this effected the market for child pornography on the dark webs? You need to work this subject into a topic that you are an expert in.

      1. Stop trying to change the subject. I told you he’d explain the abysmal state of the economy.

        #DrumpfRecession

        1. I think Shrike could privide some real expertise on the subject of child pornography. He ought to share it.

        2. Sad to say but the economy is the same fucking economy it was in Jan 2017.

          The numbers back that up. Trendlines have been improving since 2009.

          It’s almost like the POTUS does not matter.

          1. But don’t forget Orange Hitler caused Sam’s Club to close a bunch of stores.

      2. I thought The Dotard’s GDP was going wild because REGULASHIONS AND SHIT, you fucking liar?

        All you wingnuts have are lies.

        1. Did the economic growth make child porn less available and that is why you are so angry?

          1. The last refuge of a scumbag like yourself is lying.

            1. You are the guy who got banned for putting up instructions for how to obtain child porn on the dark web. That is a known fact. I doubt you obtained that knowlege by accident. So, has the booming economy hurt your access to that and that is why you are so angry?

              1. No one banned me, you stupid fuckstick. Same screen name for years now.

                The Buttplug.

                1. Sarah Palin’s Buttplug
                  April.26.2019 at 10:40 am
                  “No one banned me, you stupid fuckstick. Same screen name for years now.
                  The Buttplug.”

                  Right, turd, that’s the reason you were ‘moneyshot’ for several weeks until you managed to get un-banned.
                  Did you promise not to link more kiddie-porn?

                2. You were banned for posting instructions on how to access child porn. Everyone knows it. And the more you lie about it the guiltier you look.

                  You will never be able to post on here without having that thrown in your face. Get used to it.

                3. No one banned me, you stupid fuckstick. Same screen name for years now.

                  Right, that’s why you came back as “moneyshot” for a brief time until you figured out how to change the screen name on your latest email burner account.

                4. “Same screen name for years now.”

                  No liar. Even your current screen name is relatively new. You used to go by “Palin’s Buttplug” and are apparently stupid enough to think we forgot.

                  But we didn’t forget that, or your kiddie porn linking, or your bet welching.

                  1. No surprise he enjoys raping toddlers. I really hope someone gets revenge on him, like in ‘Law Abiding Citizen’.

        2. Sarah Palin’s Buttplug
          April.26.2019 at 10:13 am
          “I thought…”

          One more lie, turd; that’s all you got.

    2. Do you think a Biden Presidency might return us to the prosperity of the Obama years?

      Biden is far from my first choice but he was VP during the strongest 8-year run in the history of our economy. I imagine that will be a major theme of his campaign.

    3. “U.S. Economy Grew at 3.2% Rate in First Quarter”

      —-Wall Street Journal

      Updated April 26, 2019 9:48 a.m. ET

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-economy-grew-at-3-2-rate-in-first-quarter-11556281892?

      1. So what?

        Obama hit these quarterly numbers:

        5.1%, 2Q2014
        4.9%, 3Q2014
        4.7%, 4Q2011

        You act like 3.2% is something amazing.

        1. I didn’t act like anything. No commentary whatsoever. I just posted a fact that came out 45 minutes before I posted it.

          Here’s another fact without commentary:

          Annualized GDP growth by president:

          Obama: 2.1%

          https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-08-01/ranking-presidents-economic-records-by-gdp-growth

        2. In the years 2015 and 2016, the economy grew at a 3% rate exactly once. This is the third time the economy has done that in the two years and one quarter since.

          In 2015 and 2016, the economy grew less than 2% in five quarters. Since that time, it has done that once, the first quarter of 2017. This represents the 8th consecutive quarter that the economy has grown over 2%. In the two years before 2017, it grew at over 2% in one quarter.

          My guess is that low growth equals more child porn and the last couple of years have been really hard for you and you have had to rely more on your existing stash rather than new materia.

          1. There’s an interesting question to ask about what Obama did that sparked economic growth.

            Was it ObamaCare that grew the economy?

            Heaping regulation on the banking industry?

            Stimulus?

            Cash for clunkers?!

            What was it Obama did that made the economy grow? Let Obama’s defenders explain why Obama’s policies made the economy grow.

            I attribute the growth we’re seeing under Trump, largely, to deregulation and the tax cuts.

            Now, that’s just straight GDP growth. If you want to talk about employment growth, that had a lot to do with Trump’s deregulation and tax cuts, too, but I wouldn’t completely discount the effects of immigration dropping and the trade war either. I have no qualms saying that the trade war is bad for employment numbers over the long run–but in the short run, yeah, you can get a short term uptick in employment by making it more expensive to import things.

            I oppose trade barriers anyway, but I’m intellectually honest enough to admit when reality doesn’t necessarily conform to my preferred theory in the short run. If the employment numbers are great despite the downward pressure on profits from trade barriers, then that’s what they are. I certainly wouldn’t go around telling people that trade barriers are good for employment over the long term–because I like Trump better than Obama. And that’s basically what Shrike is doing only in reverse.

            How did Obama’s policies make the economy grow, Shirke? Or did the economy grow in spite of them?

            1. Tax cuts, Keynesianism, Regression to the Mean (all still happening with The Dotard).

              (first thing Obama did was cut taxes)

              1. There were no tax cuts of significance under Obama. Stop jerking off to child porn so much and maybe you will lie less.

            2. Uh, we had a trillion dollar stimulus, a trillion dollar bailout, and two trillion dollars in “quantatative easing.

              All of those things are supposed to be “immediate shot in the arm, but pain later” items.

              So if economic theory works, all the benefits were years ago and Trump should be seeing the downturn caused by all that “stimulus”.

              You could claim that this means that Obama artificially inflated his numbers and Trump’s numbers would be much, much better if he weren’t being dragged down by the downside of all that unpaid for spending.

              But I’m going to posit that this shows that “economic theory” is almost useless.

              1. But I’m going to posit that this shows that “economic theory” is almost useless.

                Bingo. It is all based on fantasy Keysnian assumption and a complete ignorance of psychology.

        3. Sarah Palin’s Buttplug
          April.26.2019 at 10:22 am
          “So what?
          Obama hit these quarterly numbers:
          5.1%, 2Q2014
          4.9%, 3Q2014
          4.7%, 4Q2011”

          You pathetic piece of shit, do you think anyone here is stupid enough to fall for your cherry -picking?
          And you constantly sort of ‘fail to remember’ that the equally dishonest POS Obo started from an econ nearly wrecked by the gov’t loan policies; even HE wasn’t able to keep if from rebounding, regardless of how hard he tried.
          Fuck off, turd.

          1. So you Trump Retards can cherry pick this 3.2% preliminary number but I can’t do the same with higher numbers?

            1. Do you have a link for your numbers, or are we supposed to take your word for it?

                1. So, you’re not including the economy’s performance while Obama was in office between 2008 and 2011?

                  1. During the Bush/GOP Financial Collapse?

                    GDP went negative – hardly his fault though.

                    1. The dems were in control of both houses of congress at that time.

                    2. It went negative 2 years after he took office and once in his 2nd term.

                    3. The dems were in control of both houses of congress at that time.

                      Meaningless since they passed no meaningful legislation until TARP when the crisis was in full blown mode.

                      Remember Paulson begging Pelosi to save the economy by spending $700 billion on bank bailouts? (Your guy Bush was too stupid to understand the situation).

                    4. The more I read about the financial crisis, the more I’m convinced that it would not have happened if not for Sarbanes Oxley. The CRA was the driving force toward bad decisions by the big banks but accounting rules in SO is what made it a disaster.

                    5. The more I read about the financial crisis, the more I’m convinced that it would not have happened if not for Sarbanes Oxley. The CRA was the driving force toward bad decisions by the big banks but accounting rules in SO is what made it a disaster.

                      That is a very interesting point. Can you give me some links to where you found that idea? I am not doubting you, I just don’t totally understand how that could be so and would like to know more about it because I suspect it might be true.

                    6. “”Meaningless since they passed no meaningful legislation until TARP when the crisis was in full blown mode.”‘

                      The housing / bark crisis was born from the dems wanting banks to give home loans to people that couldn’t really afford a home. I found the dems to be cruel with this because home ownership is a money pit. The cost of homeownership is not just the mortgage.

                  2. I would never ever click on anything that fucking pedophile links.

                    Probably just more sick shit after he got from his recent NAMBLA meeting.

              1. I should do buttplug’s work. Here’s a link. It also shows something else. Obama had three quarters that were in the negative. On average Trump is set to beat Obama hands down, if it continues. Also you can see the stability in the Trump years vs. the rollercoaster in the Obama years.

                GDP_2011_to_2018

                1. Btw, same link as butplug’s.

            2. “So you Trump Retards can cherry pick this 3.2% preliminary number but I can’t do the same with higher numbers?”

              Keep it up turd, it’s really amusing when you prove how stupid you can be.
              Hint:
              Reporting current results is not “cherry picking”, you stupid piece of shit.
              Picking three specific quarters over three years *IS* cherry-picking.
              Even a caveman knows that, so we’ll continue to recognize that you are both a constant liar and an ignoramus.

              1. It is clear by the chart provided that the economy is more stable under Trump than Obama.

                1. Which is utterly bizarre, given the unstable nature of the political class at the moment.

                  1. It shows how little the various drams in Washington actually mean.

                    1. I love that it is making Shreek lose his fucking pedo mind.

    4. PB, did you get all that in between walking it to violent kiddie porn?

      Kill yourself, you filthy pederast.

  22. http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=12146

    UCLA gets serious about teaching its students marketable skills and offers pole dancing class.

    1. And the classes they’re offering the female students are even weirder.

    2. Just remember, you cannot think any lewd thoughts about about a college age woman writhing on a pole.

      1. (extremely offensive ethnic joke deleted)

    3. Pole dancing class is more useful than anything anyone will ever learn in gender/ethnic studies courses.

  23. So this abortion judge was appointed by Obama, big surprise. I had to do a deep dive into Wikipedia and his judicial home page in order to find this out. The Republicans opposed cloture on his nomination then rolled over and confirmed him unanimously.

    “He found it likely that the change runs afoul of the Affordable Care Act”

    Remember when prolifers were paranoid for saying that Obamacare was pro-abortion?

    =

  24. The relationship between U.S. border patrol agents and paramilitary groups is a little too cozy, according to an article editorial in The Washington Post.

    FTFY.

  25. “we need a president who recognizes sex work as work,”

    Pro tip: If it feels like work, you’re not doing it right.

    1. Sometimes you have to do something that feels like work in order to get something that doesn’t. IYKWIM.

    2. Are you saying we don’t have a President like that now?

  26. >>That booming paraphernalia market, however, would also prove to be decriminalization’s undoing.

    politicians suck.

  27. new “voluntary” 1% tax on restaurant bills in Commifornia
    Some California restaurants will put another surcharge on their bills later this year — but this time, it won’t be for service or employee benefits. It will be to fight climate change.

    The initiative, announced Wednesday, is called Restore California Renewable Restaurants, and it will allow restaurants statewide the option of charging diners an additional 1%. They money would go toward California’s Healthy Soil Program, which helps farmers transition to methods that put carbon back in the soil.

    1. I would think that if it’s voluntary, then it’s not a tax.

      1. But it goes to the government. So what is it? A contribution?

        1. Yeah, pretty much. Sort of like all the different little bureaus and offices that are listed on your state tax return, except the restaurants are acting as the middle-man.

          Probably not too hard to find out where these are at and adjust your patronage habits accordingly. The bad part is when the state legislature decides to make it mandatory.

        2. It’s a fee which the restaurant will remove from your bill if you ask.

      2. The federal government also describes the income tax as voluntary. It does not mean to them what you think it should mean.

    1. I doubt the Philippines would prevail if they declared war on even just me.

  28. Women do have a choice.

    It is whether or not to participate in the only activity designed in nature to create new life.

    Since when is being accountable for your actions unfair persecution?

    You can’t recognize the baby’s humanity and justify abortion.

    The logical conclusion is that you just can’t justify abortion.

  29. The relationship between U.S. border patrol agents and paramilitary groups is a little too cozy, according to an article in The Washington Post. Border authorities mostly let the vigilantes do their thing, even when that thing is impersonating actual law enforcement agents.

    “The apparent cooperation of federal border agents and civilian militias is a disturbing sign that President Trump’s open disregard for what he calls America’s “very stupid” immigration laws is taking hold in perilous ways,” the authors suggest. “A fusion of vigilantes and the state is a particular threat to the Constitution and one of the signs of rising authoritarianism that historians warn democracies to guard against.”

    Yeah, we need to stop this vigilantism, but it’s not like left-wing strongholds don’t have neighborhoods where vigilantes keep out new arrivals. You know the neighborhoods in your local metropolitan area that other people avoid.

Please to post comments