Reason Roundup

Arkansas Governor Hopes Abortion Ban Will Trigger Roe v. Wade Challenge

Plus: Wisconsin may approve microschools, what will Biden Title IX guidance look like, and more...

|

Abortion ban "is not constitutional," governor tells CNN. Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said Sunday that he hopes the state's new, near-total ban on abortion will trigger a Supreme Court challenge to Roe v. Wade.

The law bans abortion "in all cases except to save the life of the mother in a medical emergency." Hutchinson signed it into law earlier this month, instituting fines of up to $100,000 and up to 10 years in prison for anyone who performs an abortion on someone whose life is not at risk.

Hutchinson told CNN's State of the Union on Sunday that he knows the new Arkansas abortion law "is not constitutional under Supreme Court cases right now."

However, the Republican governor "signed it because it is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. That is the intent of it," he said. "I think there's a very narrow chance the Supreme Court will accept that case, but we'll see."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas has promised to challenge the ban.

Meanwhile, in South Carolina, a federal court has put a temporary halt to a measure, signed into law in February, that would ban most abortions there.

The South Carolina law bans abortion after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which can occur as early as three-and-a-half weeks after conception. "But before the governor's pen hit the paper, Planned Parenthood and other groups filed a motion against the state and Attorney General Alan Wilson to stop the law from taking effect," notes WLTX.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Mary Geiger Lewis issued a temporary restraining order against enforcing the South Carolina ban. Judges have responded similarly to so-called heartbeat bills in a number of other states.

"Similar bills have been passed by other states and are tied up in the courts," WLTX points out. "In passing the law, some South Carolina Republican lawmakers had hoped that the new conservative majority at the U.S. Supreme Court might take a look at their law and others like it."


FREE MINDS

Biden and Title IX. During his tenure as Barack Obama's vice president, now-President Joe Biden was behind many of the administration's worst interpretations of Title IX (the law governing sex discrimination—and these days, a whole lot more—in schools). Some of the problems with Obama-era interpretations were remedied in more recent years. But with Biden's executive pledge to revise Title IX interpretations once again, can we expect a return to the worst Title IX guidance? Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) suggests on Twitter that we will not.

"Given Biden was the public face of the Obama Title IX guidance, we were concerned about a major rollback of the reforms. Two weeks ago, he issued an executive order for ED to consider rescinding the regs," tweeted Lukianoff. "However, I will be surprised if he tries to reinstate the Obama-era Title IX policies."

Lukianoff gives two reasons: Public opinion has changed, and the legal landscape has changed.


FREE MARKETS

Wisconsin may approve "microschools." A new bill in the Wisconsin state legislature would add microschools to the options parents can choose "to satisfy the compulsory school attendance requirement." The bill defines a microschool as "an instruction program provided to a child by the child's parent, or a person designated by the parent, that is provided to 1) two to five family units; 2) no more than 20 children; and 3) participating children at a physical location."

"Under current law, an instruction program provided to a child by the child's parent, or a person designated by the child's parent, that is provided to more than one family unit does not qualify as a home-based private educational program," the legislation notes.

"While 2020 brought this lack of options to light, they've always existed and we should be looking to give more parents more options even if we don't think that our families would use that option currently," said state Rep. Shae Sortwell (R–Two Rivers), who sponsored the bill. "Even if you don't think it's necessary for your family now, you never know how life's circumstances are going to change."


QUICK HITS

• The Biden administration continues to botch the handling of unaccompanied minors at the border. "The U.S. government on Saturday was housing approximately 15,500 unaccompanied migrant minors, including 5,000 teenagers and children stranded in Border Patrol facilities not designed for long-term custody," a CBS News review of federal data found.

• A Chicago public school reportedly called the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services on a mother for being less than 10 minutes late picking her child up from school.

• "Texas lawmakers' plan for stopping social media firms from blocking or banning certain ideas or speakers has just one itty, bitty problem—it's flagrantly unconstitutional," writes Jared Schroeder, a Southern Methodist University journalism professor and author of The Press Clause and Digital Technology's Fourth Wave.

• Indiana Republicans are fighting for the right to charge more teenagers as adults.

• The city of Evanston, Illinois, is instituting a "narrow and targeted" reparations program for black residents whose families were affected by historically racist and discriminatory housing policies, reports Reuters.

• Utah jails must allow prisoners to continue with medically prescribed birth control.

NEXT: Dump Pandemic-Era Authoritarianism and Let Capitalism Rebuild Prosperity

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.

  1. Biden and Title IX.

    If it’s anything Biden can’t stand, it’s contact without consent.

    1. If she takes the candy, she retroactively consents to the sniffing.

      1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings SDSD are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

      2. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings ASD S are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

    2. My Uncle Brayden just got a new cream Chevrolet Camaro Convertible by working part time off of a macbook air…

      view……..Visite Hereᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵ

    3. Sniff sniff

      1. It’s Monday.

    4. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and BVG even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page….. Visit Here

  2. “However, I will be surprised if he tries to reinstate the Obama-era Title IX policies.”

    The president knows he’ll be giving graduation addresses… and all those coeds… and their hair right there under those caps… with those tassels…

  3. The bill defines a microschool as “an instruction program provided to a child by the child’s parent, or a person designated by the parent, that is provided to 1) two to five family units; 2) no more than 20 children; and 3) participating children at a physical location.”

    I don’t want my tax dollars diverting from the essential if empty public schools to these functioning microschools!

  4. “The Biden administration continues to botch the handling of unaccompanied minors at the border.”

    Any “problems” at the border should still be blamed on Drumpf. Remember, Orange Hitler had 4 years to wage his draconian war on immigrants; it’ll take more than a few weeks for Biden to completely transform our immigration system into one worthy of Charles Koch’s seal of approval.

    #LibertariansForBiden

    1. Day one!

    2. According to Mexican government data, the average years education in Mexico is 7.2. About three quarters of the undocumented children being held in the US are male, between the ages of 14 and 17. They have probably been out of school and working full-time for a year or four in Mexico.
      This means that these young people have had the experience of leaving Mexico believing they were men and entering the US as children.

      1. I was under the impression that this bunch came from Honduras and Guatemala.

    3. Regardless of the truth and facts just blame ol joes incompetence on President Trump. Even without the wall he worked with other countries south of our border and had brought illegal immigration under control but we can just pretend he didn’t. We still don’t understand why after Biden said don’t come now the surge is getting worse. The cartels are high fiving and thriving on the policies of ol joe’s.
      A libertarian for Biden is a confused leftist. Koch is a true libertarian. The crisis at our border has nothing to do with immigration. Immigration is a legal process which allows people from other countries to become American citizens.
      Orange man bad is beginning to be orange man no so bad after watching Biden stumble and bumble.

  5. The Biden administration continues to botch the handling of unaccompanied minors at the border.

    And the government usually has such a great track record dealing with children in general.

    1. Biden says they will be held until he can snif each child’s hair.

      1. I hope they aren’t at the top of a tall staircase.

    2. I am really at a loss to figure out what botched means here? The situation is not good but I a not really hearing any good alternatives. I would also note that the major reason we have a problem on the border is that the Republican Party is not making much progress on any other attacks on President Biden. People like the Covid19 Recovery Act and people seem pretty happy with President Biden. There is a real need to find some silly issue to blow up the situation and RP is hoping this is it.

      1. Yeah, the Democrats would NEVER use a crisis to their own political advantage–like, say, killing their economies to get a Republican president out of office.

        1. Republicans killed their economies by trying their very best to make a pandemic as bad as possible.

          If we had faced the thing head on in the beginning, and done the difficult but correct things to do, we could have been partying this whole last year like Australia, Vietnam, Singapore, S. Korea, Japan…

          But no. The leader of the most powerful personality cult on earth decided to tell his cultists that the virus would “go away, like a dream” and politicized the very basic and unchallenged science behind control measures.

          So we had a viral outbreak spread across the nation, completely uncontrolled, and killed over half a million, necessitated partial or total economic shut downs to prevent hospital capacity from being over run (it still was in some of the more square-shaped, shit hole GOP backwaters).

          You can disagree with this, but this is the story that the history books will tell in 50 years. This is the mainstream, global narrative.

          No one outside of the cult thinks any different.

          1. What exactly do you think Japan did that “stopped” the virus?

            Why on earth do you not know your own data?

            1. Easy. They only classified covid deaths as those with respiratory issues and used the correct PCR thresholds.

              Stolen Valor is one of the idiots in the poll below.

              1. “Easy. They only classified covid deaths as those with respiratory issues and used the correct PCR thresholds.”

                Right, and global warming is entirely due to the urban heat island effect skewing the data, not that temperatures have been actually increasing.

                If it is just a matter of how deaths are classified, and that there haven’t been large numbers of people dying that wouldn’t have died anyway, then the total number of deaths in the country from all causes would be closer to historical trends. If COVID really was causing all of those people to die when they otherwise would have lived, then we’d expect to see a lot more deaths than the historical trends. So, how does the data look?

                https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

                Hmm. How do you explain that, Jesse?

          2. So we had a viral outbreak spread across the nation, completely uncontrolled,

            States didn’t take their own measures?

            1. Yes. Very early florida and Washington were tracking and tracing cases, quarantining people who were exposed.

              New York? Not so much. Their cases were probably out of control before we really detected the influx on cruise ships.

              So what happened? New Yorkers began fleeing to Florida in large numbers. So Florida moved to stop them. DeSantis asked the fed’s for help.

              Cuomo worked to stop them and threatened lawsuits.

              Cases in Florida jumped from hundreds to thousands over a weekend as New Yorkers fled.

              1. So, it may not have been the failure of a single individual?

            2. Note that DOL can’t account for the massive spike in COVID cases during the normal flu season (which said spike started at the beginning of October), and instead copes by blaming people who didn’t wear masks rather than considering that the mask mandates completely failed to stop the spike:

              Here is when states put in their mask mandates:
              Alabama: July 16th
              Arkansas: July 19th
              California: June 18th
              Colorado: July 17th
              Connecticut: April 20th
              Delaware: May 1st
              Hawaii: April 17th
              Illinois: May 1st
              Indiana: July 27th
              Kansas: July 3rd
              Louisiana: July 13th
              Maine: April 30th
              Maryland: April 13th
              Massachusetts: May 6th
              Michigan: April 24th
              Minnesota: July 25th
              Nevada: June 26th
              New Hampshire: November 20th
              New Jersey: July 8th
              New Mexico: May 16th
              New York: April 15th
              North Carolina: June 26th
              Ohio: July 23rd
              Oregon: July 1st
              Pennsylvania: July 1st
              Rhode Island: May 8th
              South Carolina: August 23rd
              Texas: July 2nd
              Utah: November 9th
              Vermont: August 1st
              Virginia: May 30th
              Washington: June 8th
              West Virginia: July 6th
              Wisconsin: August 1st

          3. Great. Now do Europe.

          4. “Republicans killed their economies by trying their very best to make a pandemic as bad as possible.”

            A very true statement. Countries around the world used different approaches with different levels of success. We did about the worst because the former administration whole plan can be summed up by “we hope it will go away”.

            1. A very true statement.

              Yes. “Republicans caused this disaster on purpose” is a totally moderate statement. And “We did about the worst” is a totally true, not at all partisan conclusion to come to.

              1. No Republicans did not cause the problem on purpose they caused it by incompetency. In a time that called for leadership they failed to do anything close to leadership.

                1. You’re an idiot.

          5. So, how do you account for the same thing happening in every country in Europe despite the complete lack of Republicans and Donald Trumps?
            A small number of Republican governors were the only politicians not to act like complete retards and those states are no worse off than the others who did implement economy killing proposals and are far better off than the states that had the harshest restrictions and interventions.
            You are totally full of shit here.

          6. Republicans killed their economies by trying their very best to make a pandemic as bad as possible.

            I realize being around other shitlib faggots has made you think like a shitlib faggot, but that’s not what happened.

            If we had faced the thing head on in the beginning, and done the difficult but correct things to do, we could have been partying this whole last year like Australia, Vietnam, Singapore, S. Korea, Japan…

            Or like Europe….

            (it still was in some of the more square-shaped, shit hole GOP backwaters).

            Yes, I remember you parroting that USA Today article. It was full of shit, too.

            You can disagree with this, but this is the story that the history books will tell in 50 years. This is the mainstream, global narrative.

            If it’s the story, it will mainly be due to hysterical fairies in blue-voting shitholes.

            1. No one outside of the cult thinks any different.

              Fuckin’ LoL. That you actually, unironically typed this without any trace of self-awareness was the best part of your onanistic response.

          7. Didn’t you welch on a bet?

      2. Don’t encourage a mass border surge by promising amnesty and weakened border enforcement. It’s not that difficult.

        1. Except the Biden administration did not do any of this. What changed is people are being treated more humanely.

          If people in Central America are getting the wrong impression its because the Fox News staff and Republican politicians are all saying that the border is open.

          1. “They’re not kids in cages. Their youth in fenced enclosures. Totally different!”

            Your issue seems to be that Biden told them to surge the border in 2019.

          2. Biden literally called for a surge in asylum seekers, and supported free healthcare for them during the campaign you ignorant leftist.

            1. I must have missed that. When exactly did candidate Biden call for asylum seeker to come to our borders? And are you asserting the people are coming for free health care?

              1. 2019 debates idiot. It is on video.

                1. Did not see it. Did see calls for more humane treatment of people is that what you are referring to? Are we overdoing the being humane part?

      3. Should we just ignore the fact we are in a pandemic and people are pouring across out border with many being infected? There are more children in cages at the present time then in history. Just ignore it? Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy said he “fought back tears” during a visit to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facilities where he said hundreds of children were “packed into big open rooms.” In a corner, I fought back tears as a 13 yr old girl sobbed uncontrollably explaining through a translator how terrified she was, having been separated from her grandmother and without her parents,” he tweeted. Children separated from families no big deal as long as Biden is responsible and not orange man? You apparently voted for this and are responsible. You own the misery and pain of the young Hispanic children being dragged across countries and deserts by the cartels and trafficked into the US. Every child has parents and family they are being separated from. Are you ok with it?

  6. I’m sorry but the Constitution is absolutely clear on the legality of abortions. “The right of women to maim and extract fetuses shall not be infringed”.

    1. No, the actual words are “clumps of cells”.

    2. Babies aren’t constitutionally persons until the 45th trimester.

      1. Did you decide that on your own? Every pregnancy is a complete human of specific DNA that is unique to that child never to be duplicated exactly again. Humans go through developmental states from conception until death. DNA testing can tell sex and who is related to a baby within weeks of conception.

        1. “Every pregnancy is a complete human of specific DNA that is unique to that child never to be duplicated exactly again.”

          Wrong. Identical twins are a thing.

          “Humans go through developmental states from conception until death.”

          Right. Are you saying that the zygote is a human person with a constitutional right to live that means that a pregnant woman must support it against her will?

          (Side notes: A zygote is the single cell that is the product of conception, for those that don’t remember the vocabulary from high school biology. It will be several days before it might implant in the uterus, after it has undergone many cell divisions, but will still be a literal “clump of cells” if it does. There is a lot of uncertainty in the chances of implantation, but something around half of all fertilized eggs fail to implant. This means that about half of all conceived humans don’t even make the woman pregnant at all. Then there are estimates of up to 20% of established pregnancies failing for various reasons, resulting in miscarriage. Talking about “life beginning at conception” ignores the reality that many, if not most, of the conceived are never born, even without abortion.)

          Also, think of this: We don’t even legally require people to be organ donors, when tissues from their bodies could otherwise save the lives of other people. No one is required to put their life at any significant risk to help another person, even if that other person would die without their help. In the United States, it is even the case that most states do not have a legal duty to provide aid to someone in peril when there is no risk, with the possible exceptions of individuals that are the cause of another person being put in peril or that they have some other legal duty to them.

          Now, that latter exception includes parents. A parent can be held legally responsible for negligence if they do not render aid to their children in distress, but that does not include putting themselves at significant risk to do so. (These cases are like when parents don’t call for a doctor or other help when a child is sick or injured, for instance. I couldn’t find any instances of parents being prosecuted for not running into a burning building to rescue their kids, for example.)

          But in the case of a child, there is a human person that was born and a parent that has acknowledged (at least implicitly) their legal responsibility of care. A developing pregnancy involves an embryo or fetus that is well short of being a person capable of experiencing thoughts and emotion. I simply do not see that as being sufficient to legally require a woman to put herself at significant risk to her life, when we do not require even much less risk to people in order to aid someone that does have consciousness and that will have an established life, hopes and dreams, and loved ones.

          Maternal mortality in the U.S. is about 1 death for every 6000 live births. Are you okay with being legally required to take a 1 in 6000 chance of dying in order to keep a potential human being alive for up to 9 months?

          1. You know what the difference is between a baby and clump of cells? Whether the parents actually want it.

            Also, there’s a lot more to the stages of human gestation than just the zygote stage, but not having kids, I can see why that would confuse you.

            1. “You know what the difference is between a baby and clump of cells? Whether the parents actually want it.”

              Yeah. That is the point of abortion. It wouldn’t hardly be an issue at all except for women that don’t want a child and thus wouldn’t want to be pregnant. There would still be the issue of medical need or the ethics of what to do regarding a fetus that shows abnormalities, but if you get rid of unwanted pregnancy in the first place, you get rid of the vast majority of the demand for abortion.

              By the way, while these anti-abortion laws purport to make exceptions for the life of the woman being at risk, there then is the question of how much risk is enough to trigger the exception. Simply being pregnant carries non-trivial risk, so when does a medical emergency become serious enough to allow for an abortion under these proposed laws? See the case of Savita Halappanavar in Ireland in 2012.

              “Also, there’s a lot more to the stages of human gestation than just the zygote stage, but not having kids, I can see why that would confuse you.”

              Uh, I am not confused by human development. What are you trying to say with this?

              1. Yeah. That is the point of abortion.

                Which hardly has anything to do with science.

                Uh, I am not confused by human development. What are you trying to say with this?

                That you’re fine with killing babies.

                1. No, I am not “fine with killing babies.” A baby, by definition, has been born. You know very well that people call it a “baby” prior to birth, even at the earliest stages, based on wanting to have a child. So they project their hopes about what it could become, instead of thinking about what it is at that moment.

                  Rather than continue down this road of insisting that abortion is the murder of a “baby”, why don’t you address the basis of my argument? That banning abortion would be forcing a woman to take a risk for a potential human life in a way that we simply do not require of people in any other context where someone’s life is in peril? You say that I am “fine” with “killing babies”, but by avoiding what I am saying here, you make it seem like you are fine with letting women die in the hopes that a zygote/embryo/fetus will be allowed to finish developing and become a baby. And that women would be forced to take that risk regardless of what they want.

                  Savita Halappanavar even wanted a child, but they had quickly determined that there was no chance of saving the pregnancy (it was at 17 weeks), but Irish law at the time prevented doctors from considering moving the miscarriage forward by inducing labor as long as the fetus had a detectable heartbeat. Several days later, her condition had deteriorated to the point where they were finally willing to do induce labor. That is, her risk was high enough and immediate enough to overcome that law that put the fetus’s life ahead of Mrs. Halappanavar’s life. It was too late, though, as her body had finally started to expel the doomed fetus on its own, but she had become septic and died a couple of days later. The formal inquest included testimony from just about all experts involved in the case that she would likely have survived if they had induced labor (essentially an abortion, since it was too soon for it to survive outside of the womb) when it was first considered and Mrs. Halappanavar had requested it.

                  This is what banning abortion would mean. You’d be putting the potential baby’s life ahead of the pregnant woman and require her to take a 1 in 6000 risk of death in the hopes of fulfilling that potential. When you are willing to legally require people to donate blood and their organs if they become brain dead so that a person that already has a life can be saved, legally require people to aid others in peril directly, even when they are put at some risk themselves, then maybe you can require women to remain pregnant against their will.

                2. No, I am not “fine with killing babies.”

                  Except you outright admitted that the only difference for you between a baby and a fetus is if the parents actually want it or not.

                  So yes, you’re fine with killing babies. Thanks for admitting it.

    3. Actually abortions, gay marriage, and any man in a dress is a woman is in the constitution. However the letters are not necessarily adjacent, it takes a highly educated Harvard or Yale lawyer to find them.

      1. But… what if I want to wear a dress and stay a man?

        1. You are still a male biologically but not a man socially. Real men don’t wear dresses.

    4. Actually the Constitution does not much address medical issues. I am pretty sure that the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution considered issues between a doctor and patient to be private. I am also quite sure that any issues with pregnancy were consider women matters. Midwifes and sisters likely help women with pregnancies. Including termination of unwanted pregnancies. It is likely that men did not much become interested in children until they could do chores and then only boys.

      So why not take an originalist position and leave issues of abortions to women to decide.

      1. It would’ve been left to STATES to decide under originalism. It’s the Left that demanded a federal answer.

        1. Why the STATES, why not leave medical decision in the hands of women and their physicians?

          1. You’re an idiot.

          2. why not leave medical decision in the hands of women and their physicians?

            Because there is a third party. One with a unique heartbeat and brain waves and no voice. Some of us believe the state has the moral obligation to protect them not abet their destruction.

            I sure do wish progressives were as militant about “keeping laws off my body” when it comes to virtually every other law that actually involves my body.

            1. That a third party exists is not the question, the question is who is in the best place to make a medical decision regarding the pregnancy. Those who insist they have the right to make the decision for the woman want little more to do with the situation other than impose their will. Your suggestion is not to give voice to fetus but rather to take the voice from the woman and hand that to an outside group (typically men) that has no interest in the matter.

              1. Except the majority of abortions are done for reasons of birth control, not medical issues.

                1. “Except the majority of abortions are done for reasons of birth control, not medical issues.”

                  Well, then it is great that anti-abortion activists are also strongly in favor of women using actual birth control so that they won’t ever want an abortion. Hmm, or have I been looking at alternate universes again?

                  1. Well, then it is great that anti-abortion activists are also strongly in favor of women using actual birth control so that they won’t ever want an abortion

                    Your parents definitely should have practice birth control when it came to you.

                    1. “Your parents definitely should have practice birth control when it came to you.”

                      Oooh, I am sooo burned by this. I am just shamed beyond belief that you would say that I should never have been born.

                      You are exactly the reason why I finally gave up on any hope that the Republican Party or libertarianism would be a reasonable alternative to Democrats. You have nothing in the way of rational thought to contribute to political debate in this country. To repurpose a line from Groucho Marx, any political movement that accepts people like you as members can’t be any good. To quote him directly, the next time I see you, remind me not to talk to you.

                    2. Oooh, I am sooo burned by this. I am just shamed beyond belief that you would say that I should never have been born.

                      The world definitely would have been a better place.

                2. Birth control is a medical issue. Women need prescriptions for hormonal birth control, birth control devices are inserted in clinics, and gynecological texts address birth control. If your a woman your reproductive system is part of your body and part of your health concerns.

                  1. Except in cases where you stick a pair of scissors into the fully-formed skull of a fetus and crack it open.

              2. rather to take the voice from the woman and hand that to an outside group (typically men) that has no interest in the matter.

                Who is voiceless in the following two scenarios?

                1. Man – I don’t want a baby right now. It doesn’t fit my life plan.
                Woman – I don’t care. I’m keeping this kid. I also want a portion of your earnings for the next 26 years and if you don’t agree the government will help me collect it.

                2. Man – The baby is half mine. You carry the baby to term and I will take care of him/here/zer for the rest of its life. Also, you should help me out financially for the next 26 years because we are both parents.
                Woman – Are you crazy. What is this, the Handmaid’s Tale? I’m not carrying this baby for you for 9 months and I am damn sure not signing up to be financially responsible to you after the kid is born.

                1. Except that in many cases men just walk away if they are not interested in the baby.

                  1. Even if a man walks away it is not without consequence if the woman decides to involve the Gov. Wages can be garnished and he can be jailed at any time once the wheels are set in motion.

                    Also, you didn’t really answer my question just provided a third scenario. Unless you are saying the first man has a voice because he can walk away and become a criminal. Is that your point?

                  2. Except that in many cases men just walk away if they are not interested in the baby.

                    And what is their recourse if they are?

                  3. Except that in many cases men just walk away if they are not interested in the baby.

                    You mean like in America’s finest minority ghettos?

  7. A Chicago public school reportedly called the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services on a mother for being less than 10 minutes late picking her child up from school.

    Those are nine extra minutes that child could have had to infect a teacher!

    1. I took it to mean you are supposed to be more than ten minutes late.

      1. I don’t care for the implications of that policy.

  8. Although I would have voted for Bernie Sanders if he had been the Democratic nominee, I’m glad it didn’t come to that. Here’s his latest economically illiterate tweet:

    Maybe it’s a radical idea, but I believe a job should lift workers out of poverty – not keep them in it.

    This fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between employers and employees. In fact, a job should accomplish exactly one thing — make the employer even richer, especially if that employer is a billionaire like Reason.com’s benefactor Charles Koch.

    #InDefenseOfBillionaires

    1. We often forget the other side of the coin. The First Amendment also protects us from compelled speech. The government cannot make us speak or publish ideas. The government cannot force me to put a sign in my yard supporting a candidate I do not support.

      So you’re being forced to publish, though you’re not a publisher. Seems legit.

      The compelled speech defense is probably one of the dumber routes to take in this controversy.

      1. How the fuck did this get up here?

        1. Alcohol; the solution to and cause of all of life’s problems.

          1. Drunk at 11 AM on a Monday? What is this, Russia?

            1. Just sarcasmics household.

    2. This is exactly why I refuse to get a job – if it’s not going to support me in the lifestyle I’d like to become accustomed to, what’s the point?

      1. Exactly. My time is too valuable to be wasted on working.

    3. That’s why Bernie Sanders never had a real job. Socialism pays Baby, and HOW!

  9. “In passing the law, some South Carolina Republican lawmakers had hoped that the new conservative majority at the U.S. Supreme Court might take a look at their law and others like it.”

    Conservative majority?

    There is exactly one conservative on the Supreme Court, and that is Justice Clarence Thomas. And when I used the term “conservative,” what I mean is “a person who is capable of reading the text of the Constitution.” Anybody capable of reading the text of the Constitution will be surprised to find a startling dearth of any references or allusions to any “penumbras” that mystically generate positive rights from the ether.

    Abortion is a complicated issue. There is nothing in the Constitution that imbues the federal government with the power to take sides in the dispute. As such, any question pertaining to the legality of abortion is a matter within the exclusive purview of the States.

    1. There’s 8 corporatists that will do anything to empower the oligarchy

    2. “There is nothing in the Constitution that imbues the federal government with the power to take sides in the dispute.”

      Well, except that whole “Privileges and Immunities Clause” and other provisions where the rights of individuals are protected from state and local government actions that would deny them their rights, yeah. The whole “but it doesn’t say anything about abortion or privacy in the Constitution” argument is so against the history of the Constitution’s drafting and ratification that it should be dismissed out of hand.

      Make jokes all you want about “penumbras”, but Madison was sure that it was obvious that listing rights in the Constitution would not be an excuse to limit the people’s fundamental rights to just those written down. He included in his draft of the Bill of Rights what became the Ninth Amendment to spell it out as a way to counter those Federalists that objected to having a bill of rights at all out of concern that government would eventually use a list as an excuse to gain power over things not listed.

      While the Constitution adopted at the Founding included the Bill of Rights only against the federal government, it was clear by the time of the Civil War and its aftermath that the federal government, especially its courts, would be needed to secure the rights of individuals against state and local governments as well. It was, of course, the failure to be strong enough in this regard that led to Jim Crow and a century of oppression of the otherwise freed slaves and their descendants. Only slowly over time would the SCOTUS and other federal courts “incorporate” the Bill of Rights and other protections of liberty against the states adequately.

  10. Abortion is absolutly a state issue. The feder Gov has no authority to make a ruling on abortion. I’m pretty sure there isn’t a single medical procedure mentioned in the constitution

    And my name is Rev kuck it has been 15 days since I last clicked a sullum article

    1. “I’m pretty sure there isn’t a single medical procedure mentioned in the constitution”

      Incorrect. Access to abortion care is definitely in there. You must have forgotten to consult the penumbras formed by emanations.

      #SaveRoe
      #SUPER-PRECEDENT

    2. See my reply to Geiger above. Love the whole Constitution and its history, not just the parts you like. When one of the main arguments by Federalists against having a bill of rights was the concern that listing right might lead a future government to claim power over things not listed, this ‘but that isn’t in the Constitution’ argument is exactly what they were talking about.

      1. Love the whole Constitution and its history, not just the parts you like.

        Now do the Second Amendment.

        1. You first.

          1. Thanks for admitting you don’t actually love the whole Constitution, shitlib.

  11. The bill defines a microschool as “an instruction program provided to a child by the child’s parent, or a person designated by the parent, that is provided to 1) two to five family units; 2) no more than 20 children; and 3) participating children at a physical location.”

    But the fun *really* begins with the definition of a “nanoschool”!

    1. Picoschool

      1. Fish school? Don’t fish already have their own schools.

        1. Separate but equal has been destroyed; you speciest need to get over it!

          1. Unfortunate that you couldn’t be bothered to work a fish pun in there. Something about Governor George Walleye and the Stand in the Schoolhouse Door maybe.

  12. Texas lawmakers’ plan for stopping social media firms from blocking or banning certain ideas or speakers has just one itty, bitty problem—it’s flagrantly unconstitutional…

    Suddenly that’s supposed to matter?

    1. Private companies!

    2. They must protect free speech by allowing democrats to collude with SV to block free speech.

  13. Indiana Republicans are fighting for the right to charge more teenagers as adults.

    Prosecutors and prison unions need customers!

  14. The Biden administration continues to botch the handling of unaccompanied minors at the border. “The U.S. government on Saturday was housing approximately 15,500 unaccompanied migrant minors, including 5,000 teenagers and children stranded in Border Patrol facilities not designed ………
    I understand cages work.

  15. The city of Evanston, Illinois, is instituting a “narrow and targeted” reparations program for black residents whose families were affected by historically racist and discriminatory housing policies, reports Reuters.

    [City officials leaning back at their desks] “And that should be the end of that.”

    1. A sudden burst of racial harmony sweeps across the city..

      HA Ha Ha

    2. What about the reparations to Jews from Egypt?

      1. I’m of Scottish decent, how much does England owe me?

    3. Are there black people in evenston?

      1. I’m sure they didn’t have to allocate a significant portion of their budget to this program.

      2. For many, many years.

    4. If Illinois has money for BS like this, then they surly don’t need any federal bailout money right?

  16. The U.S. government on Saturday was housing approximately 15,500 unaccompanied migrant minors

    “Approximately”?! These are *people*, not statistics! SAY THEIR NAMES!!

    1. Juan, Rosalita, Jesus, and Maria, according to the song.

  17. “not constitutional under Supreme Court cases right now.” and “not constitutional” are two entirely different concepts.

    They don’t even overlap very much these days.

    1. Right. Because what is or isn’t constitutional is best understood as being entirely what politicians and activists say is constitutional, rather than established court precedents. I say that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to tax me at all. I am a Sovereign Citizen! Prove me wrong!

      On the other hand,

      This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

      It is both a practical and matter of legal principle that what is or isn’t constitutional is based on the text and existing precedent interpreting that text, and it remains so until the SCOTUS changes precedent. People can express whatever opinions they want disagreeing with these precedents, declaring unilaterally that precedent is wrong and that their opinions about what is constitutional are what is right and true, but their opinions have no force of law.

  18. Utah jails must allow prisoners to continue with medically prescribed birth control.

    Utah knows its male prison guards.

  19. 41% of liberals believe one in two covid patients require hospitalizations. This is largely due to media coverage of covid.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/americans-overestimate-hospitalization-covid-study

    Showing…
    A) liberals are fucking stupid
    B) liberal media is an effective propaganda stream
    C) liberals media is not reputable even though jeff thinks they are
    D) liberals will succumb to authoritarian impulses at the slightest hint of fear.

    1. It’s the deadliest disease Evah!

    2. The same liberals that think 30% of the population is gay, and that it’s also 40% black.

    3. I’m surprised they don’t think 2 out of every 1 patient needs hospitalization

      1. How do you explain the people in hospitals without COVID, then?!

    4. Tony could not be reached for comment.

    1. Steve Guest
      @SteveGuest
      ABC’s Martha Raddatz to illegal alien who crossed the border: “Would you have tried to do this when Donald Trump was president?”

      Illegal alien: “Definitely not.”

      Raddatz: “Did you come here because Joe Biden was elected president?”

      Illegal: “Basically”

      1. She deserves reparations for the way Trump treated her.

      2. They’ll all be fans of Uncle Joe until they end up slaving on one of Charles Koch’s gristmills for pennies and a handful of middlings a day.

        1. That’s why we need a $20 dollar minimum wage.

          1. Hell, make it a $1000. It’s not like Charles is going to hire legal immigrants and have to worry about that nonsense.
            Open borders baby!

        2. Yes. Reaching into an automated five ton press to wipe dust off of the surface lest the steel smasher degrade .0000000000001% earlier

    2. 4 billion of tax payer money will go to illegal immigrants. disoriented tourists.
      Try to keep up.

    3. “4 billion of tax payer money will go to illegal immigrants.”

      Maybe the federal government would have the money to give those illegals if Republicans hadn’t worked to gut IRS enforcement budgets for the last 20 years.

      https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/15/irs-falls-short-policing-the-wealthy-for-tax-evasion-watchdog-claims.html

      1. Yeah! ‘Cause if there’s one thing American tax payer money should go to, it’s people from other countries who break the law. That’s what I call well spent money focused solely on American interests.

        /sarc

  20. Woke vs woke.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/NicXTempore/status/1373691318208245764

    Nic Rowan
    @NicXTempore
    Really wild stuff downtown. A Stop Asian Hate rally is clashing with a Pro-Uighur drive by. The pro-Uighur group is shouting “F— China!” The Asian rally is responding by calling them “racist.”

    1. More like “Lacist “ . Amirite?

    2. Looks like there are some chinks in the armor of the anti-Asian hate front.

      1. That’s a different slant on the issue.

        1. You guys are heading down a slippery slope.

    3. There’s a lot of contemporary progressives that must really hate themselves over all the Free-Tibet stuff they did back in the day.

    4. How is it racist to dislike *China*? They aren’t shouting “Fuck the Chinese”.

      1. And if they *were* shouting “Fuck the Chinese”, maybe they’re just being supportive of the massage parlor workers!

        1. After all, they are always willing to give a hand.

      2. Isn’t it racist to think all Asians are Chinese?

        1. Or that “Chinese” is a race at all.

          1. Good point.

    5. Looks like the Uighur’s are about to lose their twitter accounts.

  21. Did ENB ever admit she was wrong for echoing Aaron Rupert dishonest framing of the cop excusing the masseuse parlor shooting as a bad day? Because China is now using the same propaganda.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/XHNews/status/1373570752004390913

    China Xinhua News
    @XHNews

    China state-affiliated media
    8 lives taken, 6 of them Asian. And the killer was just “having a bad day”! #StopAAPIHate #FightRacism

    1. “Did ENB ever admit she was wrong”

      That’s not how propaganda works.

    2. dishonest framing = deliberate lie.

      Goebbels is so jealous.

  22. “Arkansas Governor Hopes Abortion Ban Will Trigger Roe v. Wade Challenge”

    That’ll scare the living shit out of the Roberts court. They do everything that they possibly can to avoid controversy.

  23. The Biden administration continues to botch the handling of unaccompanied minors at the border. “The U.S. government on Saturday was housing approximately 15,500 unaccompanied migrant minors, including 5,000 teenagers and children stranded in Border Patrol facilities not designed for long-term custody,” a CBS News review of federal data found.

    He isnt batching it. That was his open plan. See 2019 debate. He wanted to flood the border with amnesty claims. Now new crossets are being released in country without court dates.

    1. Someone could use an edit button this morning.

      1. Yeah. Phone before coffee is never good.

  24. “Texas lawmakers’ plan for stopping social media firms from blocking or banning certain ideas or speakers has just one itty, bitty problem—it’s flagrantly unconstitutional,” writes Jared Schroeder, a Southern Methodist University journalism professor

    Nothing screams constitutional expert like a journalism prof.

    1. Hush. You’re supposed to be impressed by his unrelated credentials.

      1. Journalists are part of the higher caste.

      2. He had me at itty bitty

    2. It will not be unconstitutional is the supremes as it is constitutional.
      Asset forfeiture, anyone?

      1. as = say

        (will one of you who learned to code put in an edit function?)

    3. Jeez, he can learn to code without even leaving the building.

    4. Florida’s Gov. Ron “I’m like Trump, but smart” DeSantis has a similar plan to force social media to leave up whatever bullshit politicians post. The analysis by legislative staff expressed its expert view that the law was likely to be unconstitutional, but, of course, it is getting votes from Republicans anyway.

      “Brevard County Republican Rep. Randy Fine was the one noted the bill would thrill “Nazis and child molesters and pedophiles” who could fill out two pages of paperwork to run for an office and get a license to spew unchecked filth. “A bill this long and this complex has to be thought through and has to be considered for unintended consequences” Fine said … right before he voted for it.”

      1. If it hurts you and your allies, it can’t be all bad.

  25. Abortion ban “is not constitutional,” governor tells CNN.

    I guess the national eviction moratorium hasn’t reached Arkansas.

    1. Goddamn but it’s always good to see you around, Fist. I really needed this laugh. 😀

      1. You better be laughing at me instead of with me!

  26. Free To Choose

    In a modern prison, the prisoners are quickly conditioned to have a reason for everything when asked by a guard. They are prisoners and they have no freedom, so they need permission for everything. On the other hand, prisoners have a lot of time to work the system, so they get good at the rules. With the help of lawyers on the outside they hold the prison system to their own rules. As a result, everyone working in the system knows they need a reason for everything they do.

    The prison is the ultimate expression of a world without choice. This is a thing to keep in mind when looking at what is happening in America. It is no longer acceptable to say “because I want to” when asked about a preference or choice. You have to have a reason for your choices. The sources of authority are the prevailing dogma on human relations or science, which is just another word for the dogma. Science has become a deity of sorts for the true believers of the modern age.

    1. This beggars and belies a a total misunderstanding of science and of rationality.

      Science is not a dogma and nobody who practices science worships science. Science is quite simply the only game in town for understanding the only “town” there is i.e. The Natural Universe. So-called “Scientism” is not a thing.

      And while rational people certainly have reasons for doing what they do, having those reasons does not equal automatically having to give those reasons to any chance guard of a Laogai, Gulag, or Death Camp. Rationality works by choice, not force.

  27. “Texas lawmakers’ plan for stopping social media firms from blocking or banning certain ideas or speakers has just one itty, bitty problem—it’s flagrantly unconstitutional,” writes Jared Schroeder, a Southern Methodist University journalism professor and author of The Press Clause and Digital Technology’s Fourth Wave.

    So compelled speech violates the First Amendment as well. Someone tell our resident right-wing wingnuts.

    1. You bet, TDS-addled lefty shit.

    2. The companies are claiming they aren’t publishers, so they aren’t the ones speaking dummy.

      1. It’s their property. The government would be forcing them to carry speech that they don’t want to carry, even if they didn’t write the words themselves. Still wrong.

        1. No, it isnt their property. It is property operated by someone else under terms of the contract issued to the creator.

          You can choose one or the other, host or publisher. You dont get both.

          The landlord doesn’t own the business operations of the tenants business, just the brick and mortar. Likewise SV if acting as a host owns the back end infrastructure, not the speech of those being hosted.

          1. You really are a moron. “Property” includes more than just physical buildings. It also includes everything that the company owns. So you are even denying that they own what they genuinely own. Are you against property rights too now?

            1. So I don’t have to serve blacks at my lunch counter?

            2. If you put up an racist message in the trailer you rent, can someone sue the trailer park? Yes or no dummy?

            3. Love how JesseAz and this other guy cannot stick to discussing social media companies and are trying to drag an entire debate about civil rights legislation into it.

              1. Yeah, totally not related.

                1. May have some relation, but certainly no relation if you frame everything to be about contracts, as JesseAz wants to.

                  Nobody has a contract to eat at a lunch counter.

                  1. But businesses have a contract with the SV companies on what they host. Shocking, I know.

                    Do you ever try to think deeper than the surface?

                    1. So, then why bring up lunch counters?

                    2. You’re actually asking? JFC how stupid are you?

                    3. Dee is quite dumb.

                    4. Where did I bring upinch counters idioy?

                    5. Damn…

                      Where did I bring up lunch counters idiot?

              2. Yeah, it’s not like I didn’t get sarcasmic to ultimately admit that allowing social media to restrict speech on “freedom of association” grounds means that the 1964 Civil Rights Act ultimately needs to be repealed.

              3. LOL. Wow you’re an idiot. I was literally posting about host vs publisher, not civil rights. God damn.

            4. Since when do social media companies own our speech, you fat sack of shit?

          2. This debate is too abstract to be meaningful. Which company are we discussing? What level of Internet infrastructure/service?

            The Texas laws supposedly concerns “social media firms”, but you are delving into taking about “SV” (Silicon Valley?) hosting … something.

            What property is the “it” being discussed? The servers, the item of speech (i.e. a social media post?), the user account?

            1. Servers aren’t speech, they are infrastructure. This isn’t esoteric except for idiots.

              1. Where did I imply servers are speech?

                I asked what kind of “property” is being discussed, so the only thing I implied is that servers and/or speech could be considered to be types of property.

                You throw around words like “idiot” and “dummy”, but you often seem incapable of parsing the logic in plain English sentences.

                1. Caw caw bird.

                2. Because you seem to be too stupid to understand the difference between host and publisher as pointed out by your comments above.

                  1. too

                    1. nope dumbass

            2. You have to build up a case why the server itself is speech before you try and say it is.

              1. I didn’t say servers are speech. That is JesseAz not being able to read.

                1. You’re right. I read it the same way as Jesse, but you did delineate, so I apologize.

                  1. Apology accepted.

        2. Do you think your cell phone provider likes every thing you say, text, or post on their network?

    3. We often forget the other side of the coin. The First Amendment also protects us from compelled speech. The government cannot make us speak or publish ideas. The government cannot force me to put a sign in my yard supporting a candidate I do not support.

      So you’re being forced to publish, though you’re not a publisher. Seems legit.

      The compelled speech defense is probably one of the dumber routes to take in this controversy.

      1. These companies are reaching for ever-more esoteric defenses because they know that even their CIA funding streams aren’t going to protect them from anti-trust actions forever.

        They should take a lesson from what Microsoft did when they were getting targeted for the same thing–start up a news network and make it a 24/7 propaganda network for the Democratic party.

        1. They started that in 2016.

    4. Go fuck yourself Lying Jeffy.

      1. World-class debating skills this one has.

        1. I suppose he could do the Lying-Ass Dog methodology that you’ve become an expert at.

        2. wait, you’re pretending you debate, Jeff?

          AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAJA

  28. San Francisco school board member Alison Collins used slur to describe Asian Americans in tweets
    […]
    The vice president of the San Francisco Board of Education once wrote a long Twitter thread accusing Asian Americans of using “white supremacist thinking to assimilate and ‘get ahead,'” and comparing them to a “house n****r” (she added the asterisks and did not spell out the word).
    […]
    Where are the vocal Asians speaking up against Trump? Don’t Asian Americans know they’re on his list as well?…”
    https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Alison-Collins-San-Francisco-school-Asians-tweets-16038855.php

    She’s ‘black’ (one drop rule) and is upset that Asian kids get good grades, while black kids from single mom families get courtesy Ds. And she’s even more upset that people mention cultural differences between the two.

    1. We need more people like her in positions of authority.

      1. And if you’d like a whole pile of baffle-gab, just ask her to define “white supremacist thinking”.

  29. Jesse, you didn’t tell us you were taking a trip to LA.

    Man drives through Diamond Bar protest against Asian American hate crimes

    https://ktla.com/news/local-news/man-drives-through-diamond-bar-protest-against-asian-american-hate-crimes/

      1. Ha ha. I have only been to San Francisco twice, I think. I don’t particularly like it. It has decent weather (sometimes) and good seafood, but it’s rather dirty, and VERY expensive. Whenever there is a business convention or meeting in San Francisco, I find ways to try to get out of it. I do have a friend who lives in the Bay Area though, I should probably go see him some time once this pandemic is over. But he is not in SF proper, though, so maybe the trip won’t be so bad.

        1. Too many hills.

          Just be honest.

          1. It’s funny because Jeff admitted he’s fat.

    1. Wow. Infantile and just purely stupid. Let me go find a picture of any obese person at a buffet for you.

      I mean. If you can find one post where I own a truck, live in LA, or support hate speech you’d almost have something. But no, you’re just an idiot. So congrats?

      1. Jesse, you spew hate speech here on a daily basis. And don’t Asians vote more for Democrats? I wouldn’t put it past you to plow through a rally, in order to “pwn the libs”.

        And besides I thought everyone in the MAGA crowd owns a pickup truck. With a nice shiny gun rack.

        1. ‘…i wouldn’t put it past you to plow through a rally, in order to “pwn the libs”…”

          Why do TDS-addled lefty assholes NEVER argue against facts, but instead invent some strawman or other nd argue against that?
          Pretty sure Ken got this asshole’s number a while back: Yes, he’s dishonest, but more to the point, he’s so abysmally STUPID he really isn’t capable of separating his fantasies from reality. In fact, there’s a good chance he doesn’t understand there IS an objective reality.

          1. Facts are the broccoli of Jeff’s mind. Can’t let them in ever.

          2. So your saying that every protest ever is exactly the same?

        2. Such misinformed cloudy thinking must make your life a living hell.

        3. Citation on one piece of hate speech. I’ll wait.

          And no, not every trump voter has a gun rack and truck you biased fuck.

          You are fat though. You’ve admitted to it.

        4. I wouldn’t put it past you to plow through a rally, in order to “pwn the libs”.

          Depends, are you in the crowd?

          1. You know Jeff’s to fat to attend a rally.

          2. I wouldn’t want to destroy my “Truck’s” front end hitting that fatty.

        5. I’ll take “Things that only a leftist would say for $1,000 Alex”.

        6. “hate speech”

          Jeff actually believes in hate speech.

          Because he’s evil.

          1. That’s funny. JesseAz also used the term, hate speech, so apparently that makes him evil, too.

            1. I’m not advocating for 10 years in jail for a meme like jeff is idiot.

              1. He hasn’t advocated for ten years in jail for hate speech any more than you have.

    2. Funny how that got your attention, and not several weeks’ worth of black people targeting Asians.

      1. He’s got a narrative to push, and that’s not part of it.

    3. “Jesse”

      Well we know who has been making Jeff cry the most lately

  30. Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said Sunday that he hopes the state’s new, near-total ban on abortion will trigger a Supreme Court challenge to Roe v. Wade.

    Now that the Democrats are safely in control of Washington, it’s safe for Republicans to go back to pretending to give a shit about abortion, fiscal responsibility and big government.

    1. The GOP is back, baby!

  31. The tongue lashing the Chinese gave the Biden administration in Anchorage may be most notable for emulating the rhetoric of American progressives. In extoling the advantages of “Chinese style democracy”, they claimed that the whole world was losing faith in American style democracy, citing a list of progressive grievances including Black Lives Matter.

    Here are some highlights from the speech by the Chinese delegation.

    “China’s per-capita GDP is only one-fifth of that of the United States, but we have managed to end absolute poverty for all people in China.”

    “The United States has its style — United States-style democracy — and China has the Chinese-style democracy. It is not just up to the American people, but also the people of the world, to evaluate how the United States has done in advancing its own democracy.”

    “On human rights, we hope that the United States will do better on human rights. China has made steady progress in human rights, and the fact is that there are many problems within the United States regarding human rights, which is admitted by the U.S. itself as well . . . . And the challenges facing the United States in human rights are deep-seated. They did not just emerge over the past four years, such as Black Lives Matter.”

    —-Chinese delegation to bilateral talks in Anchorage

    https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/US-China-tensions/How-it-happened-Transcript-of-the-US-China-opening-remarks-in-Alaska

    My point here isn’t that the Chinese use progressive rhetoric against us. That isn’t really what’s happening here underneath the surface. My point is that American progressives and the Chinese Communist Party have certain shared values and share a way of looking at the world. The whole point of progressivism is to use the coercive power of the government to force individuals to make sacrifices for the common good as progressives see it. This is not far from the way the Chinese Communist Party sees its own mission.

    American progressives wish they had the kind of power to change things the way the Chinese Communist Party does. And plenty of the policies the Democrats are advocating are largely the same as those actually being implemented by the Chinese government–from the social credit system, to monitoring social media, and regulating what people can and can’t say online, to preventing and putting down protests–on down the list. The Chinese government is more or less what the Democratic party wishes they could be.

    If only the Democrats could have won another senate seat or two!

    1. Chinese-style one-party rule is on the horizon, too. They’re already discussing the legal framework.

      “Majoritarian Democracy” is the buzzword. You’re not against Democracy, are you? What, are you some kind of traitor?

      1. “How can you be against fortified elections?”

      2. As witnessed by Elizabeth Warren decrying the Senate filibuster as being undemocratic and steeped in racism – despite the fact that she herself has filibustered. Substitute “the Constitution” for “the filibuster” and you can make the exact same argument, and if you don’t think the Democrats don’t fully intend to make that argument, you’re a moron.

        1. They don’t even need to do that. They can stretch the Constituion itself for these purposes.

          The GOP is a racist institution, so it is Congress’s duty to not seat any representatives from states whose elections their party members control. Democracy!

    2. More impressive was our response.

      “I’m not seeing that. What I’m hearing is that people are very happy that America is back.”

      My typing really doesn’t do it justice. You have to see him deliver it live.

      Pathetic.

  32. “Pentagon working to root out extremist groups in US trying to recruit members within the military”
    […]
    “WASHINGTON (AP) – The U.S. military is focusing on identifying extremist organizations in the United States that are trying to recruit members from within the armed forces. A top official compared the recruitment effort to that undertaken by international terrorist groups trying to lure the support of servicemembers.
    Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman Ramón Colón-López said Thursday that the Defense Department is talking with federal law enforcement agencies as they develop databases on domestic extremists groups, in the wake of the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. Military leaders are intent on developing training for troops that makes clear they should not get involved with such groups….”
    https://www.fox5dc.com/news/pentagon-working-to-root-out-extremist-groups-in-us-trying-to-recruit-members-within-the-military

    Pretty sure it’s an AP feed, but they misspelled “protest”.

    1. The training is about as bad as you would expect- maybe worse. According to a family member who’s currently serving, it starts with a required 30 minute presentation that the commander MUST deliver- cannot be delegated. Followed by “small group break out sessions” that must be AT LEAST and hour. So you can’t even just sit in the back and wait till it’s over. You’re then forced to participate in small-group struggle sessions, where remaining anonymous and silent is nearly impossible.

      1. “…You’re then forced to participate in small-group struggle sessions,…”

        Hmm, sounds familiar…
        “…Wielded with often violent results in the days when Mao Zedong was China’s paramount leader, “criticism and self-criticism” sessions have been resurrected by President Xi Jinping as “the most powerful weapon” for rallying the Communist Party and the Chinese people behind his push to liberalize the economy while fortifying the party’s control over this nation of 1.3 billion people…”
        https://cn.nytimes.com/world/20131221/c23criticism/en-us/

  33. Oh look. These guys are getting to the bottom of MASSIVE FRAUD in Arizona. Is Jesse the anti-satanism activist, or is he the treasure hunter?

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/a-treasure-hunter-a-satanism-expert-and-mike-lindell-fight-to-overturn-biden-win-in-arizona

    1. Man, I must have pissed off fatty badly yesterday.

    2. Oh, look! TDS-addled asshole posts one more comment claiming some one who has called him on his bullshit is ‘bad’!
      Asshole, by the time they reach 15, most people understand that they are not the center of the universe.
      How much longer do we have to wait?

    3. What you’re doing is called flailing, chemleft, and it’s no way to fight. A hundred million Americans think the election was a fiddle, you’re going to find rocket scientists and anti-devil treasure hunters among them.

    4. Daily Beast. LOL

      1. IT IS REPUTABLE. That is what he said yesterday.

      2. The fat tard actually cited Buzzfeed to bolster one of his arguments.

    5. Speaking of flailing: chemjeff, if you didn’t see it before, Mother’s Lament totally flailed trying to defend Trump’s blatant lie that Dominion made political contributions to the Democratic Party. I clearly showed that the true story is a few small donations from a couple of non-executive employees from the IT department, and Mother’s tried to save face by flat out denial:

      https://reason-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/reason.com/2021/03/03/science-based-policy-means-decriminalizing-sex-work-say-hundreds-of-researchers/?amp&amp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#comment-8789616

      1. Gee, did you win a horsehoe match yesterday also?
        Asshole, by the time they reach 15, most people understand that they are not the center of the universe.
        How much longer do we have to wait?

        1. No, but I did lose a chess game. Thank you for asking.

          1. Do you castle king side or queen side?

            1. Wouldn’t you decide based on how the game is going?

              1. Which is my approach but I sort of inferred from blogs and articles that more than a few players prefer kingside. But generally players rook as the last part of their development which tends to be before the mid game begins, rather than as a reaction to their opponent moves

          2. Still waiting for the answer to when you start acting as if you’ve reached age 15.

            1. He’s pretending to ignore you because you mad him mad.

              That’s pretty “15”

              1. I was also out grocery shopping, so there’s that.

                1. Found the food stamps?

      2. “Mother’s Lament totally flailed trying to defend Trump’s blatant lie that Dominion made political contributions to the Democratic Party”

        Which actually 100% happened but White Knight decided to ignore some, and decided that the others weren’t important enough to count.

        Here’s the relevant thread folks:
        https://reason-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/reason.com/2021/03/03/science-based-policy-means-decriminalizing-sex-work-say-hundreds-of-researchers/?amp&amp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#comment-8789571

        I leave it to you all to judge whether I, or our resident Sicknick Cerebellum Detective, was the one telling the fibs.

        1. You lie. I don’t think you ever even looked at my sources.

        2. Here’s the article that lists the names. This article was Mother’s own citation:

          https://thenationalpulse.com/exclusive/dominion-dem-donors/

        3. If you look up the two names from the embedded chart, Tomas Bellinghausen and Samuel McGraw, they are employees that work in IT/programming at Dominion.

          Furthermore, the total amount contributed was $1,241.15. If Mother’s incorrect claim that the donations were made by Dominion execs were true, it would be sadly small donations from someone with an executive salary.

          Either way, Trump was lying like a rug when he said that Dominion was making political donations to Democrats.

        4. LOL, the Canadian CACLL ran away.

    6. chemjeff, how was the secret Zoom meeting with George Soros and the gang last night?

      1. Why do TDS-addled lefty assholes NEVER argue against facts, but instead invent some strawman or other and argue against that?
        Pretty sure Ken got this asshole’s number a while back: Yes, he’s dishonest, but more to the point, he’s so abysmally STUPID he really isn’t capable of separating his fantasies from reality. In fact, there’s a good chance he doesn’t understand there IS an objective reality.

      2. Stop putting on airs. We all know the useful idiots aren’t invited to the Zoom conferences.

        1. I am not invited to them. Only chemjeff is. Thanks for rubbing it in.

          1. Wow even they don’t want you around.

          2. Of course you’re not invited to them, your just chemjeff’s sock.

            1. If that were true, then, logically, I’d be invited, since chemjeff is invited. Duh.

      3. Probably discussed how a non-existent fire extinguisher killed a cop.

    7. https://twitter.com/zoetillman/status/1374100890181902340?s=21

      “Sidney Powell has moved to dismiss Dominion’s defamation lawsuit. She argues that when she accused Dominion of being part of an election-rigging scheme with ties to Venezuela, ‘no reasonable person would conclude’ those ‘were truly statements of fact’”

      1. This seems to be the new defense against defamation allegations that the right has adopted. “We are so clearly engaged in propaganda and disinformation that no reasonable person would believe what we are saying.” What does this say about the Republican voters that do believe all of this bullshit?

        1. It’s being called the “Tucker Carlson Defense”. Some people claim, though, that it was first used by Rachel Maddow.

  34. The Biden administration continues to botch the handling of unaccompanied minors at the border.

    Cut them some slack, they’re having to build a program to welcome millions of illegal immigrants into the United States from scratch because that inept, unqualified, brain-dead moron Trump neglected to build one.

    And it’s not like Trump neglecting to build a program to welcome illegal immigrants was his only failure, he also neglected to build a program to restrict the right to keep and bear arms, to expand Obamacare, to raise taxes, to ensure the election of Democrats, to promote transgenderism in the military – so many things that asshole neglected to do, and now Biden’s got to do what Trump failed to do.

  35. Thanks for your input. Was a good write up, please check out https://roidsgenix.com for anabolic steroids and Human Growth Hormones (HGH).

  36. Check out https://edgepropharmacy.com for anabolic steroids and Human Growth Hormones (HGH).

  37. Very interesting and elaborate write-up, Check out https://medicaroids.com for anabolic steroids and Human Growth Hormones (HGH).

  38. Great write-up. Please check out https://medileaves.net for High grade Cannabis products.

    1. Finally, libertarian spam.

  39. Check out the flag tab.

  40. Indiana Republicans are fighting for the right to charge more teenagers as adults.

    If they’re mature enough to vote, mature enough to choose their gender, mature enough to get an abortion, surely they’re mature enough to be held responsible for the consequences of their actions. Unless they’re Democrats, Democrats are never responsible for the consequences of their actions, only their intentions.

    1. But they can’t buy beer and smokes until they are 21.

      1. Which leads to the self-contradictory sounding “charged as an adult with possession of tobacco”.

  41. https://twitter.com/antihero_kate/status/1373989684167213056?s=19

    Words matter. Calling a virus from China a China virus will cause violence. Meanwhile….everything is white supremacy and whiteness. Frauds. Absolute frauds.

  42. “• The Biden administration continues to botch…”

    Pretty much everything, right? But no mean tweets, so it’s good.

    1. Actually, a LOT of their tweets are really, really mean.
      But just to those who value freedom.

  43. Gov. Hutchinson says the Arkansas law is unconstitutional under current SCOTUS jurisprudence. That being said the current abortion jurisprudence starting with Roe v. Wade is arguably an unconstitutional example of SCOTUS usurping legislative authority away from the states. This has always been the problem with using the courts to impose policy on the nation independent of federal legislation or a clear constitutional mandate.

  44. https://twitter.com/GadSaad/status/1374000096975654917?s=19

    No I agree with you. This is why I think that Chamberlain would have been much better in defeating the Nazis. He was so gentlemanly and his tone was nice unlike that “racist ogre” Churchill.

  45. https://twitter.com/irishspy/status/1373839410576252929?s=19

    George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth wasn’t this blatant in 1984.

  46. Hey Jesse, you’re dumb. Hahaha!

    1. Damnit, this one really hurt.

  47. I have no understanding of Republican strategists. Why in the world do they think this is the moment to attempt to overturn Roe V Wade.

    We have an agressively authoritarian coalition of the DNC, the media and the tech giants…. And this is the fight you want to have?

    Idiots.

    1. Conservatives control the SCOTUS.

      1. In Unicorn Dream Land maybe…

  48. From the article about Utah providing contraceptives to female inmates:

    “if the medication is stopped, when the individual is released, the protection of the medication is gone and won’t be regained for at least another month back on the closing,” Dailey-Provost previously wrote on Twitter. “There are literally dozens of health conditions, besides pregnancy prevention, for which hormonal contraceptives are used.”

    Really strange conflation of issues in that quote.

    Many women use the pill to regulate heavy periods or battle other cycle related ailments. I cannot imagine why they would not be provided such medication in prison.

    At the same time “if they get released it takes a month before they are safe from pregnancy” is a bizarre bedfellow for the medical use.

    1. One wonders, is there some issue with unprotected sex involving inmates in Utah?

    2. Unless the medical use is a red herring that they care little about.

    3. Many women use the pill to regulate heavy periods or battle other cycle related ailments. I cannot imagine why they would not be provided such medication in prison.

      I disagree. Yes, the medication blocks some cycle related ailments. None are life threatening and the idea that they’re more prevalent than being denied Hep C treatment or mental illness medications or being subjected to sub-human living conditions in general is specious at best.

      Moreover and possibly more importantly, I refuse to believe that not relieving a natural condition in such a manner consitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

      1. Well, that is hardly the standard, is it? We don’t deny medication as punishment.

        And we certainly should not deny treatment for mental illness or hepatitis. That is just plain stupid.

  49. Like freedom of speech, if you can still have an abortion in your backyard, in the dark when no one notices, then have your abortion rights really been threatened?

  50. I know MSMdotcom is at a little bit slanted but I was not expecting this.

    There is no crisis at the border. The reason is that there is no border, it is now called a frontier. And Biden is going to the frontier to check it out soon as this direct quotation from the link below assures us. “Biden himself now plans to travel to the frontier as pressure builds to address the situation.”

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mehdi-hasan-dan-crenshaw-clash-on-open-border-as-democrats-condemn-deportations/ar-BB1ePMhQ?ocid=msedgdhp

    1. Isn’t “frontier” just French for “border”?

      1. French doesn’t count. Gendered language isn’t allowed in the HOR, but nobody bats an eye when someone says chaffeur, connoisseur, or masseuse.

  51. So it’s ok to murder babies to save someone’s life?

    1. It’s not murder if it’s OK.

  52. The question is at what age is it morally and ethically accepted to murder a human. The Constitution is based on the ideal that all men have certain unalienable rights endowed by our Creator which is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    I believe this is what our founding fathers spoke of in our Declaration of Independence when they wrote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
    It is not up to men to decide when life starts. That is left to our Creator. Our founders that it was “self-evident” and needed no further explanation or interpretation. Everyone knows we are created at conception. It is just inconvenient to admit.

    1. So if this is so, why wasn’t abortion outlawed as murder from the beginning of the United States of America?

      And by the bye, you are conflating The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution. The latter makes no mention of a supernatural Creator as the source of individual rights. It only implies in Amendment 9 that individual rights predated the writing of the U.S. Constitution.

      1. By following these simple steps on this website, you can bring from $4000-$7000 of extra income every month… All you need is a computer and an internet connection and you are ready to start. Learn how to make a steady income for yourself on following web address…. Detail of work

  53. Let’s hope he succeeds in getting Roe/Wade overturned. Federal government out of it. Turn it over to the states as would be proper under constitutional law.

  54. It’s the better choice for users that want the best possible camera experience.

    Download Akpan and Oduma Comedy

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.