Social Media

Texas Abortion and Social Media Laws Are a 'Contradictory Mess'

Plus: More bad news for free speech online, Fauci on booster shots, and more...

|

Bad Texas regulations could be at odds with each other. The new Texas abortion ban may contradict the mandates of social media regulation passed by the Texas Legislature. Under the mandates of the two statutes, social media platforms could be required to both take down and leave up information about abortion, Techdirt's Mike Masnick points out.

The social media law—House Bill 20—was passed by the Texas Senate on Wednesday (the same day Texas' new abortion law took effect).

Similar to a law that was passed—and blocked—in Florida, H.B. 20 is designed to treat social media platforms like common carriers (such as phone and cable companies).

A "blatantly unconstitutional bill," H.B. 20 "tries to prevent social media websites from moderating content," writes Masnick. "While the bill does include some language to suggest that some content can be moderated, it puts a ton of hurdles up to block that process."

Meanwhile, the new Texas abortion law (Senate Bill 8) prohibits "knowingly engag[ing] in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise."And it allows civil lawsuits against those suspected of helping someone get an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.

The aiding and abetting provision could be construed to prohibit providing information about where to get an abortion, abortion pills, how to get funding to travel out of state for an abortion, etc.

While S.B. 8 does say "that the aiding and abetting rule should not apply to 1st Amendment protected speech," Masnick doesn't see that "making much of a difference in the long run because (1) the 1st Amendment already protects such speech so you don't need a law to say that and (2) it's unlikely to stop people from suing over speech that they claim is aiding and abetting…"

The digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) also has concerns that the Texas abortion law could target speech about abortion. "In addition to the drastic restrictions it places on a woman's reproductive and medical care rights, the new Texas abortion law, SB8, will have devastating effects on online speech," warns EFF:

The law creates a cadre of bounty hunters who can use the courts to punish and silence anyone whose online advocacy, education, and other speech about abortion draws their ire. It will undoubtedly lead to a torrent of private lawsuits against online speakers who publish information about abortion rights and access in Texas, with little regard for the merits of those lawsuits or the First Amendment protections accorded to the speech. Individuals and organizations providing basic educational resources, sharing information, identifying locations of clinics, arranging rides and escorts, fundraising to support reproductive rights, or simply encouraging women to consider all their options—now have to consider the risk that they might be sued for merely speaking. The result will be a chilling effect on speech and a litigation cudgel that will be used to silence those who seek to give women truthful information about their reproductive options.

So what happens if someone posts to a Texas Facebook group about how or where to get an abortion after six weeks?

"Until the courts actually rule on this, we don't just have a mess, we have a contradictory mess thanks to a Texas legislature (and governor) that is so focused on waging a pointless culture war against 'the libs' that they don't even realize how their own bills conflict with one another," Masnick writes. As it stands,

Under Texas's social media law—remember "each person in this state has a fundamental interest in the free exchange of ideas and information"—Facebook is expected to keep that information up. However, under Texas' anti-choice law—remember, anyone can sue anyone for "inducing" an abortion—Facebook theoretically faces liability for leaving that information up.

So who wins out? Well, it should be that both bills are found to be unconstitutional, so it doesn't matter. But we'll see whether or not the courts recognize that. Section 230 should also protect Facebook here, since it pre-empts any state law that tries to make the company liable for user posts, which in theory the abortion law does. The 1st Amendment should also backstop both of these, noting that (1) Texas' social media law clearly violates Facebook's 1st Amendment rights, and (2) the broad language saying anyone can file civil suit against anyone for somehow convincing someone to get an abortion also pretty clearly violates the 1st Amendment.

In other news related to the Texas abortion ban…

• "An activist has made a script to flood a Texas website used to solicit information on people seeking abortions with fabricated data, according to a TikTok video from the developer and Motherboard's test of the tool," Vice reports.

• The Cato Institute's Walter Olson riffs on some of the elements of the Texas abortion ban and how few of "these ways of turbocharging litigation…are new techniques." Twitter thread starts here:

• Dating apps Bumble and Match "are creating relief funds for people affected by a Texas law that bans abortion from as early as six weeks into pregnancy," reports The Texas Tribune.

• "The Texas abortion ban could force tech to snitch on users," warns Protocol.


FREE MINDS


FREE MARKETS

Amazon's web hosting wing may start cracking down on the kinds of content it hosts. The company "plans to take a more proactive approach to determine what types of content violate its cloud service policies, such as rules against promoting violence, and enforce its removal," Reuters reports.

Over the coming months, Amazon will hire a small group of people in its Amazon Web Services (AWS) division to develop expertise and work with outside researchers to monitor for future threats, one of the sources familiar with the matter said.

It could turn Amazon, the leading cloud service provider worldwide with 40% market share according to research firm Gartner, into one of the world's most powerful arbiters of content allowed on the internet, experts say.


QUICK HITS

• "I would not at all be surprised that the adequate, full regimen for vaccination will likely be three doses," top COVID-19 adviser Anthony Fauci said at a White House briefing yesterday.

• A lawsuit accusing Twitter of sex trafficking can move forward, says a federal court. The case could portend a dangerous expansion of how courts define "sex trafficking."

• The South Carolina Supreme Court says Columbia city schools and daycares can't make students and staff wear masks.

• The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has made feeding peacocks a crime punishable by up to six months in jail and/or a $1,000 fine.

• An NBC News poll conducted August 14–17 finds 54 percent of respondents think abortion should be legal always or most of the time. Thirty-four percent say it should be illegal with exceptions, and 8 percent say it should be illegal without any exceptions.

• The World Health Organization is monitoring a new variant of COVID-19, dubbed the "mu" variant.

• The Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood, and Oklahoma abortion providers are challenging five new abortion restrictions passed by the state this year.

NEXT: As Twitter Sex Trafficking Case Proceeds, Platforms Face an Impossible Dilemma

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. Amazon’s web hosting wing may start cracking down on the kinds of content it hosts.

    Stay away from putting your eggs in the AWS basket.

    1. My Company did just that….we use Azure. Reasonable cost, good functionality, good security. AMZN pricing is, how shall I say, predatory.

      1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19,632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.FDe simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

        Try now………………. VISIT HERE

      2. Good thinking, Microsoft would certainly never use predatory pricing or exert editorial control over the websites and web services hosted on its platform

        1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home.ACd Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

          You can check it out here……….. VISIT HERE

      3. Lina Khan already made Amazon the offer they can’t refuse.

        Moderate content the way we want and maybe that antitrust suit we’re bringing against you disappears.

        Senator Corleone, Governor Corleone….there just wasn’t enough time.

        1. Google pay 390$ reliably my last paycheck was $55000 working 10 hours out of consistently on the web. My increasingly youthful kinfolk mate has been averaging 20k all through continuous months and he works around 24 hours reliably.TRk I can’t trust how direct it was once I attempted it out. This is my essential concern…:) For more info visit any tab on this site Thanks a lot …

          GOOD LUCK………….. VISIT HERE

    2. Hopefully, this is a business opportunity for Epik and other alternative hosting services. There’s always running your own servers, as well.

      1. bUiLd y0ur oWN iNtErNeT

      2. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home.JYt Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

        You can check it out here……………. VISIT HERE

    3. The totally private company just got a $10 billion contract with the NSA. Just a coincidence, I’m sure. Maybe a “consolation prize” after they “lost” that Defense Department $10 billion contract.

  2. I would not at all be surprised that the adequate, full regimen for vaccination will likely be three doses…

    Until it’s four doses. And then five. It pretty much all depends on how much Big Pharm needs to add to the bottom line.

    1. Fauci is a criminal.

    2. Let’s say that, worst case, we end up having a regular COVID-19 shots just like we currently have flu shots. What is so awful about that.

      1. Because they’ve made their opposition to this vaccine their entire personality and now can’t fathom that it’s perfectly fine.

        They’d have to admit they were wrong and that’s too much for them to handle.

        1. Reality proves you’re projecting, dull-witted faggot

        2. And you’ve made your compulsive and voracious consumption of child pornography your entire personality, shreek. You should shut your degenerate child molesting fucking mouth and be grateful the parents of the kids you fucked haven’t taken you out to bite the curb like you bite the pillow you pathetic disgusting child fucker.

          1. Wow Rolando. You should probably chill the f out before you pop a blood vessel or something. You seemed to go 0-to-crazy in 1.5 seconds.

        3. What has the medical establishment done in the past year and a half to earn this level of trust?

          1. Endorsed fascism. Shreek is a fascist, so that was enough for him.

          2. Released several studies that show vast reductions in hospitalizations and deaths among the vaccinated.

            1. Your citation fell off. Correlation does not imply causation. Natural immunity and the fact that this virus has already made its way through the global population makes more sense don’t you think?

              1. We’re not permitted to regard natural immunity.

                1. I keep hearing this brought up. I don’t think anyone is saying that you cannot think about natural immunity, they are just leaving that out of the conversation, either because they are trying to keep the conversation simple or they forget to include that group of people when talking about whether it is worthwhile to get vaccinated or not.

                  1. Leaving it out of the conversation when part of the conversation is immunity passports and herd immunity is a pretty big omission. Forcing through various means of coercion vaccination that comes with risks (however rare) on those who potentially (or likely, IMO) see no benefit suggests that it might not all be about public health. Let’s not completely discount the fact that there is a huge financial windfall on the line for many of the players in this.

                    1. No one ever discusses the obvious conflict of interest in all of this. We must all trust our betters and never-mind the billions of dollars in taxpayer money being dolled out to the well connected. Natural immunity doesn’t make rich people richer so what the hell good is it?

                    2. “Let’s not completely discount the fact that there is a huge financial windfall on the line for many of the players in this.”

                      As someone else (I think it was chemjeff) pointed out recently, that is the kind of anti-pharma talk we usually hear from progressives, which conservatives often criticize them for engaging in. Now, we are hearing that same thing from conservatives.

                      Pharma pulled off a modern miracle and deserve to make some profits.

                    3. Pharma pulled off a modern miracle and deserve to make some profits.

                      You’re misrepresenting the opposition. The complaint is not about capitalism but about crony capitalism. Most free market adherents are likely fine with corporations earning a profit, but that all changes when the power of the state is wielded to bolster those profits.

                    4. Yes, crony capitalism is bad. I agree about that. It’s the first time you’ve made the distinction in any of your comments.

                  2. Shorter White Mike: The State loves you. Just bend over and relax.

            2. Personally I believe that the COVID-19 vaccinations are likely helping reduce severe cases, but I also believe there is a concerted effort to overplay the risks of infection and to hide/underplay the risks of these vaccines. How would we know if there wasn’t? Open debate is all but forbidden. Journalists, social media platforms and the FDA/CDC/medical experts have truly earned their public mistrust.

              1. The truth is that the mRNA “vaccines” are completely unnecessary, not to mention dangerous. The small percentage of the population that is at risk from this virus has other effective treatments available. Antivirals and anti-parasite meds are proven effective. Take a look at Africa and their mortality rates. This has turned into a complete cluster fuck and is nothing but a power and money grab.

        4. How fucking retarded can you be? Many if not most of the people here opposing pushing the vaccine on people have been vaccinated. It’s possible (and reasonable and moral) to think that it’s good that the vaccine is available and that it’s bad to require people to take it.

          And FDA approval doesn’t mean it’s “perfectly fine”. Many drugs that went through much more thorough trials have been recalled for being dangerous.

          1. Nobody in this thread mentioned mandating vaccines.

            1. Reading comprehension is hard.

            2. Just to be clear White Mike, I’m referring to your comprehension of Zeb’s comment.

          2. They ***HAD*** to get the FDA “approval” stamp in order to innoculate the Troops …

        5. They’d have to give up their free dumb, Mike. Geesch, libruls are dumb.

          1. Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully with this book, I’m gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

      2. Nothing, as long as they aren’t forced onto people. No one has ever asked me, my flu vaccination history and has never been a requirement in life. So when people stop trying to force medical procedures on me, I’ll stop jeering them.

        1. Leftist idiots keep attempting to equate an opposition to a forced medical procedure, with opposition to all medicine — while pretending not to see the difference.

          This make them evil and ripe for burial.

      3. Fascist bootlicking subhuman cunts like you never made participation in society contingent on a flu shot you disingenuous sack of monkey shit.

      4. “Let’s say that, worst case, we end up having a regular COVID-19 shots just like we currently have flu shots. What is so awful about that.”

        I don’t think there is anything awful about the actual vaccine. It is the preening assholes who only a few months ago were screaming that we just had to get the jab so we could get past this, and who are now saying, “Well, just sign up to a lifetime of shots, so we can get out of this. That ain’t so bad!”

        Not necessarily saying you were one of these preening assholes, since you all have kind of merged into one faceless RHEEEE-Swarm, but they exist. And the fact that they will turn on a dime from the “Just get the jab so we can be done” to “Just get jabbed yearly so we can never be done” without even a hint of contriteness makes this whole situation singularly awful in my opinion.

        1. One lie paves the way for the next and you are not allowed to look back or notice that you are standing on a mountain of bullshit.

          That is what is going to get all these motherfuckers shot, eventually.

          1. Wait, we’re planning on shooting these motherfuckers? Damn, I guess I’ve gone and stockpiled all this piano wire for nothing.

          2. Heard a funny montage on the radio the other day of dem politicians, including potus, vp, speaker pelosi, and the retarded governor of WA all saying they would not trust a vaccine developed during orange mans administration.

            And yet……. Haha.

        2. lets not forget that many of these people – including the President and VP – were *against* the Trump vaccine because the didn’t trust *Trump*.

      5. considering that for 99% of the population it isn’t needed and there fore should not be required yet they are making laws to limit people who haven’t taken something they don’t need. How would you feel if they said eat an apple a day or else you can’t go out in public. its not needed its not harmful so why not, but why require it? Control and money thats why

        1. Or if you are fat you cannot enter a restaurant.

        2. Not being vaccinated is potentially harmful to others. It increases the odds of deadly variants arising by mutation within the unvaccinated population. It also uses up hospital beds that others could be occupying.

          1. That’s not how it works.
            – Natural immunity is much better than any induced immunity
            – Ineffective vaccines promote mutations
            – Viruses mutate to become more transmissible and less deadly
            – The mRNA shots, by definition, are not vaccines
            Why do you even come on this site? All I ever see you do is shit post and spread misinformation. You’re just another idiot in love with the state.

            1. Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully with this book, I’m gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

            2. “Natural immunity is much better than any induced immunity”
              – ok, you can make that same argument against any vaccine. We’re you also against the polio vaccine?

              “Ineffective vaccines promote mutations”
              Wrong. The overwhelming evidence shows the opposite is true.

              “Viruses mutate to become more transmissible and less deadly”
              Not really sure what your point is here.

              “The mRNA shots, by definition, are not vaccines”.

              They are literally by definition vaccines. The arrogance in your ignorance is truly astounding.

      6. We don’t force anyone to get the goddamn flu shot.

      7. Because I don’t want want to get poked with needle every year. Get sciency and make it a pill, drink, or inhaled and maybe I’m back on board.

        1. Jeff and Tony are waiting for the COVID vaccine suppository.

        2. So, are you saying it’s about your needle phobia?

      8. If they are treated like flu shots, no problem. No one has ever asked me if I have had a flu shot. And nobody is accusing people who don’t get them of killing people. If people won’t accept that it’s a private and personal decision, or you need to get them to be allowed to participate in society, big problem.

      9. Let’s say that, worst case, we end up having a regular COVID-19 shots just like we currently have flu shots. What is so awful about that.

        What’s so awful?

        The fact that everyone still needs to mask and distance so that the vaccinated don’t catch or spread some ‘variant’.

        Because the vaccination seems to be good for maybe reducing the severity of the illness.

        They are literally demanding that people get vaccinated so that they don’t infect vaccinated people.

        Understand what that says about the effectiveness of the vaccines.

    3. Or it will be annual like a flu shot.

      1. But, but, but….big pharma! And lies! And…something something Fauci.

        1. How do those boots taste, lefty shit pile?

        2. I’m with Harris/Biden: I won’t take a vaccine rushed to development by that fascist real estate scammer Donald Trump. Oh fuck, wait, we’re not doing that anymore are we?

          Stick to posting child porn you drooling retarded faggot.

        3. None of your business. Anything after is just something something.

      2. Just shelter in place for a couple weeks, it aint so bad.
        Just wear a mask, it aint so bad.
        Just wear two masks…
        Just shelter for 18 months
        Just get the jab
        Get two jabs
        Get jabs forever

        It is like Darth Vader is running our health care policy- “I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it further”- and you guys will forever be there to insist each nibble at our freedoms ain’t so bad, while ignoring the massive change that has occurred between Jan 2020 and today.

        1. And show your passport to enter a restaurant.

        2. It seems like we’re all running headlong towards the point where the laws keep getting more insane because the compliance is rapidly atrophying. I’m sure that the pervasive disrespect for governing authority that’s being encouraged will have no negative consequences whatsoever.

      3. Lockdowns and masks and vaccine passports are the new TSA grabbing your junk and confiscating your nail clippers.

        1. We’re all frogs in yet another pot but those noticing the bubbles slowly forming just like before are conspiracy theorists.

    4. It’s the ultimate stimulus…they just transfer all the newly created MMT money directly to the Pfizer, Moderna and J&J accounts…the multiplier takes care of the rest.

    5. Who in their right mind believes anything that comes out of Fauci’s mouth?

      1. I’ll take “who is no one?” for $400.

  3. A lawsuit accusing Twitter of sex trafficking can move forward, says a federal court. The case could portend a dangerous expansion of how courts define “sex trafficking.”

    It’s almost as though they’ve discovered that they can milk manufacture crises for all their/they’re worth.

    1. “A lawsuit accusing Twitter of sex trafficking can move forward, says a federal court. The case could portend a dangerous expansion of how courts define ‘sex trafficking.'”

      If Twitter is found guilty of sex trafficking, how many blue checkmarks will delete their accounts? Or will they continue to support a known sex trafficker?

  4. What happened to zeta, eta, theta, iota, kappa?

    1. You jest, but some of those are on the list already:

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variants_of_SARS-CoV-2

    2. They were found but died out or weaker, so we don’t hear about them

      1. I can’t believe there isn’t an organized group of protesters claiming to be offended by their use of the Greek alphabet. The Greeks should be known for their yogurt, their philosophy, and fucking little boys but their association with a strain of flu goes too far.

        1. The Greeks invented the threesome. But it was the Romans that introduced a woman into the activity.

    3. Is “nu” the prevalent strain in Israel?

    4. There are none. There is no ‘lambda’ either.

      The ‘delta’ in ‘Delta variant’ refers to the Delta region of the Ganges, where it originated.

  5. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/pandemic-australia-still-liberal-democracy/619940/

    People in South Australia will be forced to download an app that combines facial recognition and geolocation. The state will text them at random times, and thereafter they will have 15 minutes to take a picture of their face in the location where they are supposed to be. Should they fail, the local police department will be sent to follow up in person. “We don’t tell them how often or when, on a random basis they have to reply within 15 minutes,” Premier Steven Marshall explained. “I think every South Australian should feel pretty proud that we are the national pilot for the home-based quarantine app.”

    1. Be proud that your society moved fastest from more or less free to total police state.

      1. But it’s ok, zeb, right?
        It totes can’t happen here.
        Yep, best to just do nothing and our relatively more free conditions will totes remain the same as they are now.

        1. Not what I said. What do you want me to say? For all I know you are an FBI agent trying to get people to say something incriminating.

          1. Because I ask for names, addresses, dates, orders of operation, etc?
            If you’re scared to speak in generalities on an anonymous comment board, what does that tell you about the state of things and where it’s headed?

            All of which is beside the point, as there’s a vast difference between making specific plots, general discussion of what the future holds if various approaches are taken, and shitting on any proposal that isn’t completely passive.
            It’s not like you have to advocate anything to avoid doing the latter, but you do you. I’m going to keep pointing out passivity is the path to hell though.

      2. But as long as earnest, caring people are in charge, its OK, right?

    2. What if you don’t have a smart phone?

      1. Woah! For a modern human, that’s like not having opposable thumbs.

        1. I know people who have down graded to flip phones again. No need for the smart phone

          1. The day I retire my smart phone is going in the trash.

        1. But Australians are already in Australia. What now?

    3. A telescreen that fits in your pocket. Technology sure has advanced since 1984.

      1. But we’ve got free porn and you can pay a 400% markup for legal weed in 5 jurisdictions! FREEDOM BABY!

        1. Excellent substitute for Victory Gin.

    4. Seems like a good time to send a crotch shot.

    5. misplaced post

      https://twitter.com/Alpha_Mind7/status/1433385841179643910

      The Australian federal government is planning to de-anonymize the internet to introduce a social credit system to combat “online abuse” – police will have access to individuals’ social media accounts, which will be linked to people’s passports.

      1. “Give up your guns. We have the police, after all.”

        “Austrialia” should be the immediate answer to every stupid leftist talking point about the Second Amendment being an anachronism with no purpose in contemporary society.

        When the sadists in blue risk catching a bullet to the face enforcing stupid laws, there tends to be less stupid laws or, alternatively, less enforcement.

      2. Really, other than the different funny accents and skin color, Australia is becoming indistinguishable from China at this point. Did Xi somehow manage to replace the Australian government with CCP operatives?

        1. No, just funded their schools and let the little Maoist loose on their society.

          https://spectator.com.au/2021/04/exposed-the-chinese-communist-party-and-australias-universities/

    6. That this magazine doesn’t have near-daily updates on the downright frightening regime being stood up in Australia in the name of public health, a closer cousin to us than anywhere except Canada, is amazing.

      Honestly, I expect to see a positive twist on this by Bailey at some point.

      1. I can see it now: The Libertarian Case For Exchanging Liberty For A Little Temporary Safety

      2. Australia also now has “quaranten” prisons. They are twins joined at the hip now

    7. They need a Crocodile Tears Hunter

    8. This sounds like Beria’s wet dream.

    9. The state will text them at random times, and thereafter they will have 15 minutes to take a picture of their face in the location where they are supposed to be.

      Oh, FFS! How about changing ‘The state’ to ‘Any South Australian’, since ‘We are all in this together’?

    10. That line in the sand? This is all the way over on the next fucking dune.

      No, absolutely not, and you’re about to have a bad time for being the kind of fascist fuck that would be comfortable publicly advocating this.

      I wonder when (not if) it’s going to be rolled out here?

    11. Lefties…this is where gun control leads you to.

      1. Most of them just got a lady boner reading that.

    12. Even if I was home I wouldn’t answer and would make them show up. Sorry I was taking a nap.

      Weird that they have this much manpower to send cops out like this, isn’t it?

      1. The wretched place started out as a Penal Colony …
        What comes ’round, goes ’round …

  6. The South Carolina Supreme Court says Columbia city schools and daycares can’t make students and staff wear masks.

    In the battle between mandates and bans, the bans finally score a hit.

    1. And California will retaliate by banning all non-essential govt travel to SC.

  7. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2021/09/03/media-blackout-afghanistan-story-n2595263

    Earlier this week, Reuters reported on a bombshell phone call between President Biden and his Afghan counterpart in July, where the commander in chief urged President Ashraf Ghani to focus on the “perception” problem around the world about the Taliban’s strength.

    Biden told Ghani “there is a need, whether it is true or not … to project a different picture.” He went so far as to offer aid if Ghani could make this happen.

    Conservatives were quick to point out that former President Trump was impeached over a phone call, and this conversation also “sounds like an impeachable phone call.”

    1. Funny how ENB has nothing whatsoever to say about that. I seem to recall her being very energized about a call between a certain POTUS and Ukraine. We were treated to weeks of Roundup blather about that call.

      1. That’s like totes different and stuff.

        Not remotely hypocritical.

        No blatant double standard.

        And, haven’t you heard? HANDMAID’S TALE!!!!!!111!!!!

      2. But remember, she’s definitely not a Democrat. “Most libertarian person ever” according to Gillespie.

        1. Stalinism wasn’t real communism either!

    2. https://twitter.com/Alpha_Mind7/status/1433385841179643910

      The Australian federal government is planning to de-anonymize the internet to introduce a social credit system to combat “online abuse” – police will have access to individuals’ social media accounts, which will be linked to people’s passports.

      1. Yesterday Hong Kong; today Australia; tomorrow the world?

        1. CCP is clearly a master of RISK.

    3. It’s a criminal act.

    4. What a load of horseshit but who expects any different from you?

      Trump was pressuring a foreign head of state to interfere in our elections. Biden was wanting them to not look like cowed idiots that will fall at the drop of a hat.

      Monumental difference but I can’t imagine your pea-sized brain could comprehend it.

      1. Trump was pressuring a foreign head of state to interfere in our elections.

        No, you’re thinking of Biden again. Remember when he bragged on video about how he threatened to withhold a billion dollar aid package unless an investigation into his crack addict son’s 10 million dollar a year board position in a foreign energy company when he has no training, education, skills or abilities in the energy sector was dropped? That was an example of pressuring a foreign head of state to interfere in our elections. Trump never did anything resembling that, and the transcript of the call that was released in full to the public proved it. But hey, since you’re still lying about the time you posted hardcore child pornography at Reason.com and got yourself banned, it’s hardly surprising you’re still lying about a 2 year old talking point that got stuffed up your faggot ass already with your pathetic failed impeachment attempts.

      2. “Trump was pressuring a foreign head of state to interfere in our elections.”

        TDS-addled lefty assholes think that repeating a lie often enough will somehow make it ‘true’.
        Hint, TDS-addled lefty asshole: tell us how you can interfere with an election if the party being investigated is not a candidate for office at the time.

      3. Except Trump wasn’t, the transcript and the Ukrainian president exonerated him, but Team Blue went ahead with the farce anyway.

        You know who was actually implicated by transcripts twice for exactly the same thing?
        Your beau Biden.

        1. “Except Trump wasn’t, the transcript and the Ukrainian president exonerated him, but Team Blue went ahead with the farce anyway.”

          Well yeah, they had to keep going with the lie. Most of the time they flat-out ignored the transcript, and whenever the Ukrainian president was brought up, they’d say “Of course he’d say that so Trump would keep benefitting him!” It didn’t matter how great the evidence against their claims was, just so they could get the Big Bad Orange Man.

        2. I see what you did there.

      4. “Trump was pressuring a foreign head of state to interfere in our elections. Biden was wanting them to not look like cowed idiots that will fall at the drop of a hat.”

        Biden tied foreign aid directly to lying. Trump did not.

        But nobody expects consistency out of you.

        Or thought.

        Inhaling oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide seems to be the extent of your usefulness.

  8. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has made feeding peacocks a crime punishable by up to six months in jail and/or a $1,000 fine.

    Toxic masculinity.

    1. Why must the peacocks go hungry?

      1. I see wild peacocks around where I live from time to time. Bastards block traffic, and are disappointingly not all colorful

        1. Those are actually called geese.

          1. A Canadian goose can be quite frightening when you realize just how damn big they are and how formidable those antlers are. Wait, I may be thinking of a moose.

            1. Antlers? Those are called “Mounties”

              1. No, Mounties have a hump and horns, not antlers, and roam the prairies in large herds.

                1. Horns and Humps? No that’s hippies.

                  1. No, hippies are what you get when you swim in stagnant water.

          2. I see geese too. Assholes. They like to loiter like a freaking 50s greaser gang in my cul-de-sac.
            No, we also have wild peacocks. Big ass mostly brown birds. The peacock crossing road signs are pretty funny though. Not something I realized was a thing until I moved down here.

            1. Haven’t seen a damn gator yet, but I’ve seen peacocks and armadillos, and hung out with some dolphins (which is more to be expected) while kayaking, then saw a ray shoot up out of the water and do a flip (something else I did not realize was a thing). Also there is some split tailed bird that I see from time to time.

              1. Have not seen any manatees either, though we have signs about those too.

                1. Hit the power plant in Apollo Beach – especially in winter, they like the warm discharge water.

                  Another good spot to see manatees, if you like kayaking, is the Weeki Wachee – It’s a spring, so warmer in the winter than the surrounding waters, and too cold for gators.

        2. But do they BBQ well?

    2. The word “cock” is right there in the name. If that is not male patriarchy, then what is?

      1. We just haven’t heard the peacunt feeding proposal yet.

    3. Title IX asks what about peahens?

  9. An NBC News poll conducted August 14–17 finds 54 percent of respondents think abortion should be legal always or most of the time.

    Thank fucking Gaia we have added abortion back onto the pile of bullshit we’re all fighting about.

    1. I guess COVID, climate, BLM, equity, and Trump were starting to lose media clicks (and donations).

    2. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Abortion

  10. The World Health Organization is monitoring a new variant of COVID-19, dubbed the “mu” variant.

    Because if you wear a mumu it’s going to hit you bad.

    1. Monitoring? What aren’t they fighting it?

      1. There’s more money/control in letting it spread?

    2. we’re lambda lambda lambda and … omega mu

      1. Call me when I can catch the Pi Delta Pi

    3. Mu Mu Land, Mu Mu Land…All bound for Mu Mu Land.

    4. When the left talks about having a big tent, turns out they were referencing Joy Behar’s mumu.

  11. Sixth Circuit rejects Cleveland official’s claim that immunity protects him from First Amendment retaliation suit…

    When it’s just words immunity becomes very qualified. When state actors bust down your door, steal your money and/or shoot you and your dog, immunity is all but absolute.

  12. Over the coming months, Amazon will hire a small group of people in its Amazon Web Services (AWS) division to develop expertise and work with outside researchers to monitor for future threats, one of the sources familiar with the matter said.

    Translatiion: Amazon will hire some social justice warriors fresh out of college who will work with the SPLC to quash ideas the government doesn’t like. In return, the government won’t harass Amazon like it does other businesses. Muh free markets indeed.

    1. In return, the government won’t harass Amazon like it does other businesses.

      Yeah, because they were just about to come down real hard on the company running the cloud computing platform for the entire CIA and NSA on a decade-long multi-tens-of-billions-of-dollars contract. Amazon’s take of the DoD budget would put it in the top 10 defense contractors.

  13. The Texas social media law allows the banning of illegal content. As one would expect if one were more than trolling.

    From the relevant Texas law:
    (b) social media platform ’s acceptable use policy must:
    (1)reasonably inform users about the types of content
    allowed on the social media platform;
    (2)explain the steps the social media platform will
    take to ensure content complies with the policy;
    (3)explain the means by which users can notify the
    social media platform of content that potentially violates the
    acceptable use policy, illegal content, or illegal activity,

    1. Yeah but ENB has never had a thought that went any deeper than her cunt, so.

    2. This is a really weak gotcha argument even if that exception didn’t explicitly exist. I expected better from Ms Brown

      1. Why? I’m not a reflexive basher of this place, but Tulpa’s assessment of her work is crudely accurate. If it’s not about sex work then she’s just running with her Twitter feed’s talking points.

  14. https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1433447575445725184

    The Taliban just announced that China will be their gateway to international markets along the One Belt One Road Initiative

    1. Gee, no shit? You’d almost think that Beijing Biden deliberately caused an international disaster and left behind hundreds of billions of dollars worth of American equipment, IP and intelligence explicitly to benefit the Chinese benefactors that have been lining his family’s pockets for half a motherfucking century.

      1. Beijing Biden

        Chou Bai Den

    2. Cool, sounds like the Taliban gives two shits about the Muslims getting erased and reprogrammed in China. I wonder how long that indifference will last?

    3. Going to be interesting then, considering the Panjshir sits between the most likely Chinese road route and the rest of Afghanistan.

      I’m sure something will be worked out.

      1. I wonder if there’s anything in the DNC infrastructure bill set aside for it

    4. China ‘invading’ with mining companies and wads of cash.

  15. If we’re denying health care to the unvaxed, can unvaxed women be denied abortions?

    https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/1433250041314136067

    As promised— here is the email from the rabid activist declining to give me a test, plus my response to her. She clearly isn’t stable enough to work in health and is a danger to the Aspen community.

    1. How about denying natal care to women who refuse abortions? Those selfish women, thinking they have the right to bring a life into this world. Thier kid will also probably grow up to spread COVID.

    2. I mean, I don’t have a problem with a private enterprise self selecting it’s customers, but the shear hypocrisy of the retarded leftist on Twitter is something to behold.

      Like when they are trying to compare it to baking the cake. Completely ignoring the fact he would actually bake the cake, he just wouldn’t decorate it. Or the fact Owens isn’t Pershing charges for discrimination and racism.

  16. Reddit is full of women who seem to be worried about getting pregnant for the first time. They are asking about IUDs and pregnancy tests.

    It’s as if abortion was an active part of their birth control strategy.

    1. Well, it was a fallback if things failed or went unexpectedly.
      With the fallback gone, they want more lines of defense than a single layer of latex.

      1. Yeah I am sure that if it was legal, knocking off my loan officer would be in my fallback strategy for paying my college loans, too.

      2. Perhaps there is no right to care-free sex.

        1. The demand for a right to care free sex very often goes hand in hand with a resentment for having to do productive work (that other people want) to earn their living.

      3. Or maybe it’s just a concerted gaslight effort.

    2. Yeah and twitter too. These are weird takes. And don’t really help the pro position much IMO.

      Regardless, I’m sick of abortion everyone just stand down and relax. If you have to drive a couple hours to get your abortion I’m not shedding any tears.

      1. That’s what the no restrictions crowd is so afraid of – people not getting riled up.

        Hence the concerted and sustained effort to get everyone riled up.

        YOU WILL BE MADE TO CARE.

        1. But I don’t want to…

          1. Hey, you don’t have to, it’s a fre-

            Nevermind.

    3. I know. We’ve been ASSURED that abortion was not basically after-the-fact birth control…yet the reactions prove otherwise.

  17. The biggest story of the day is Joe Manchin’s op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, announcing that he won’t vote for the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill.

    “Why I Won’t Support Spending Another $3.5 Trillion”

    Amid inflation, debt and the inevitability of future crises, Congress needs to take a strategic pause.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/manchin-pelosi-biden-3-5-trillion-reconciliation-government-spending-debt-deficit-inflation-11630605657?

    While this doesn’t necessarily mean the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill is dead, the bill is limping and the buzzards are circling overhead.

    Biden’s incompetent withdrawal from Afghanistan appears to have cost him a tremendous amount of political capital, and there may not be enough to get the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill over the hump anymore. Here I thought the nine moderate House Democrats who forced Pelosi to promise a vote on the infrastructure bill come September 27, come hell or high water, were the most serious threat to seeing the reconciliation bill passed, but if Manchin won’t vote for it in the Senate, that alone may be enough to blow it up.

    The Democrats may try to dial it back at a much smaller number, to make it more palatable, but Bernie Sanders is now the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and he was originally insisting on $6 trillion. I don’t think the progressive wing of the party will budge. Again, the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation is almost entirely Green New Deal spending and the expansion and creation of new entitlement programs. It’s a progressive dream come true, and they aren’t likely to enjoy control of the whole government anytime soon after November of 2022.

    Some people are talking about how the Democrats might give those entitlement programs an expiration date to make it look like the reconciliation bill will cost less–even though everyone knows that entitlement programs, once created, are almost never allowed to expire. The problem with that strategy is that the reasons various moderate Democrats are giving for opposing the bill aren’t necessarily telling the whole story.

    It isn’t really about inflation or spending or taxes or anything like that with the moderate Democrats. It’s about not wanting to lose their seats in November of 2022. Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, and other Democrats in deep blue seat (like AOC and Bernie Sanders) expect the moderate Democrats to commit political suicide. The fact is that the Green New Deal and socialism are extremely unpopular in the red states and the red districts those moderate Democrats represent, and they see voting for it as political suicide. You don’t change that by watering the bill down with budget tricks.

    If they thought having Biden or Harris coming to campaign for them would help them keep their seats in 2022, they might be more willing to stick their necks out, but at this point, they might be begging the Biden administration and the Democratic to stay as far away from their states and districts as possible. They were sunk by Afghanistan. It’s never over until it’s over, and some of this may we wishful thinking on my part. However, at the moment, the moderate Democrats appear to be jumping off the U.S.S. Biden Reconciliation Bill like rats off a sinking ship.

    Don’t celebrate yet, but be ready.

    1. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is literally blaming Senator Manchin, over this, for killing the victims of Hurricane Ida.

      “Manchin has weekly huddles w/Exxon & is one of many senators who gives lobbyists their pen to write so-called “bipartisan” fossil fuel bills.

      It’s killing people. Our people. At least 12 last night. Sick of this “bipartisan” corruption that masquerades as clear-eyed moderation.”

      —-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

      https://www.npr.org/2021/09/02/1033766935/manchin-democrats-pause-3-5-trillion-budget

      Some of you may remember the other day, when I was arguing that the best way to deal with the stupid and awful things people say isn’t to censor them but to hand them a microphone and put them on camera.

      I’m sure that schtick plays well in the Bronx, that she represents. In places like West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, you might not be able to get a better endorsement than AOC accusing you of being willing to murder people in New York to save local jobs.

      The enemies of socialism everywhere should pray that she becomes the next Speaker of the House. She might be able to do more to hurt socialism in the eyes of the American people than we could ever do. Keep typing AOC. I’ll defend your right to say stupid shit on Twitter forever!

      1. Probably the best thing about Cortez is that she has no filter and was relatively honest. She said exactly what her Green New Deal would do, and people recoiled, saying that it was madness. However, it was the only proposal that was even on the right order of magnitude for the CO2 cuts that the left had been demanding for decades, but that no politician had the stomach to actually propose

        1. She has nothing to lose and a lot to gain by rattling Pelosi’s cage.

        2. CO2 is necessary for plant life.
          OAC want to kill all the plants on the planet.

          (is that how to do it?)

      2. Manchin’s op/ed in today’s WSJ impressively called for significant spending cuts in the $3.5 trillion budget bill.

        But I totally disagree with Ken that we should hope AOC becomes the next Speaker of the House, which isn’t going to happen (as Dems are still unlikely to retain control of the House next year (although the abortion ban in MS, TX and other red states will help Dems in swing districts) and because moderate Dems in the House aren’t that stupid (if they are lucky enough to hold the House).

        1. “Dems in the House aren’t that stupid”

          What I was saying, half tongue in cheek, is that I wish the Democrats were that stupid.

          And I agree that the Democrats are almost sure to lose control of the House in 2022, which is why the moderate Democrats are revolting. They’re the ones whose political careers Pelosi wants to sacrifice on the altar of climate change and entitlements.

        2. Trump will run and be elected to the house from his Florida district.
          As is usual, the republicans will take the house and senate.
          To poke a finger in the democrat’s eye, the new majority will elect Trump speaker.
          The new house will vote to impeach Biden and Harris.
          The new senate will convict both.
          Trump will become acting President.
          Heads will explode.

          1. As is usual for mid-terms – – –

          2. Not that I think that is very likely, but that would be fucking hilarious.

      3. I’m sure that schtick plays well in the Bronx, that she represents.

        I think her last name and good looks had a lot more to do with her gaining her august position than her ideology ever did. But now that she’s the incumbent she’s as much of the machine as Crowley ever was.

        1. She’s like Donald Trump in drag.

          1. Didn’t he already say good looks?

        2. Eh, I remember when she started out. The looks and name were certainly big factors, but she hustled too, while her opponent did literally nothing.

      4. The best thing we could do for AOC and the Bronx would be to set them free.

      5. AOC is a member or the Democratic Socialists of America. For sheer unbounded buffoonery, check out their 2019 national convention.

        https://youtu.be/bHRxu3XrsHg

    2. Joe Manchin is the Mitt Romney of the D side?

  18. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/09/02/something-missing/

    Just a short note of something rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things….

    We are told by the powers that be – that approximately 6,000 to 7,000 American citizens were rescued by daring efforts of the U.S. State Department and U.S. military in evacuations from Kabul airport. Okay, fair enough… that’s a good outcome. Happy to hear it; we can debate the other 116,000 at a later time.

    However, it seems a little odd now that there’s no videos of the survivors of the Afghan crisis arriving at airports. No crowds or families greeting the extracted American residents; no human interest stories and local broadcasted news coverage of relieved Americans, husbands, wives, daughters or sons arriving back in their hometown…. nothing.

    Six to seven thousand Americans saved from the clutches of the Taliban, and not a single story of those Americans arriving home to the waiting arms of their loving family.

    1. Interesting.
      I’d assume, and did so prior to this post, that any evacuated Americans have been strongly “encouraged” to reject media requests/appearances

    2. The government-media-big tech-military-industrial complex wants to bury the story of Biden’s resounding success in withdrawing the US from Afghanistan, so it shouldn’t be surprising to not hear any of that from “reliable” sources.

    3. If Americans comprised 5% of those airlifted from Kabul, and if Afghans with visas (i.e. who worked with/for America) comprised another 5%, just who were/are the other 90% of the 120,000 who were airlifted?

      I suspect that at least several thousand of them are Muslim extremists who will commit crimes wherever they are relocated, especially if they are relocated to the US, which Biden appears to be doing.

      1. Feature, not bug. The next terrorist attack will be the perfect crisis to use to advance gun control.

    4. Also missing, the difference between the 15,000 Americans initially reported as in Afghanistan, and the 6 or 7 thousand reported as “rescued”.

      1. They aren’t missing. They are abandoned in Afghanistan. Thanks Biden.

  19. God the world devolved to it’s default setting faster than I thought it would.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJPiDcTQH-4

  20. It looks like Texas is taking the lead in protecting inalienable constitutional rights like the right to life and free speech.

    All you communist fuckwits opposing constitutional rights should be packed up and shipped out to whatever shithole would have you.

    1. The only thing that is communist is reporting on your neighbors. But hey, I think it’s perfectly in line for “conservatives” to want to be fascist like the Stasi or others.

      1. Every accusation by a leftist is a confession

      2. The only thing that is communist is reporting on your neighbors.

        You mean like calling the cops on people walking outside in a park for not wearing a mask? Like that you fascist pedophile?

      3. Communism doesn’t recognize that rights are inalienable. That they apply to individuals. That they cannot be given or taken away.

        Communists among us think that we can give away or sell our rights to private interests because they just don’t understand.

        Wherever people are invited to speak, like every social media platform does, they carry with them their inalienable right of free speech.

        If you deny this, you deny the constitution. Just like communists do.

  21. So 92% of the population oppose the Demicrat/ACLU/Planned Parenthood position of any abortion, anytime, anywhere.

    Kind of explains why the issue does not go away.

    1. Someone should just buy ENB a stuffed fetus pillow she can punch to relieve stress, and leave the real ones alone.

  22. “Texas Carlson” would be a good name for the Libertarian Emmanuel Goldstein.

    1. The Roundup became her Two Minute Hate back during the Trump era.

  23. • An NBC News poll conducted August 14–17 finds 54 percent of respondents think abortion should be legal always or most of the time. Thirty-four percent say it should be illegal with exceptions, and 8 percent say it should be illegal without any exceptions.

    Ultra Conservative Republicans in Texas, Mississippi and other red states appear poised to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in next year’s US House and Senate elections, along with several gubernatorial and state legislative elections.

    If the Texas and Mississippi abortion bans aren’t overturned by the courts, the same suburban women voters who voted for Biden instead of Trump in 2020 in swing districts and states will likely vote for Democrats in next year’s election (as the right to abortion services has been among their top priorities when voting during the past 40 years).

    The only good news is that Pelosi has finally decided to introduce and run a bill in the House that would codify the rights to perform abortion services that are stipulated in Roe v Wade as a federal statute (which would preempt state laws that aren’t as protective).

    This should have been done decades ago when Clinton (and then Obama) were President and the Dems controlled the House and Senate.

    To attain the necessary 60 votes in the the US Senate, the legislation will likely be altered (from allowing abortions up to 24 weeks after gestation) down to perhaps 22 weeks, or 20 weeks or perhaps even 18 weeks, while exemptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother will likely remain in the legislation.

    A Congressional legislative deal can and should be made to finally protect American women’s right to have abortions (technically it would protect the services of abortion service providers).

    Over time, such a federal law would actually benefit Republicans, as many voters who oppose tax hikes and excessive regulations, and support free markets and most other GOP policies have voted for Democrats in state and federal elections (for the past 40 years) in order to preserve the women’s right to legal abortions.

    Unfortunately, even if Congress enacts an abortion rights law this session, these theocratic abortion bans by ultra Conservative Republicans in Texas, Mississippi and other red states will only help Democrats in swing districts and states in the 2022 elections.

    1. Was very disappointed that Tucker Carlson staunchly defended Texas’ abortion ban last night and demonized everyone who is pro choice.

      Abortion is an issue that has driven a wedge between Conservative Christians and Libertarians. Enacting a federal statute to protect women’s right to abortion would reduce/eliminate that divide.

      1. “Opposing mass starvation is an issue that has driven a wedge between Conservative Christians and Marxists. Enacting a federal statute to protect the state’s right to starve its citizens to death would reduce/eliminate that divide.”

        Yeah, weird. Turns out that some people aren’t Marxist bootlicking faggot pieces of subhuman monkey shit like you, Bill.

        1. Abortion wasn’t/isn’t banned by the US Constitution, and the legal rights of women should always trump the legal rights of a fetus that cannot survive without its mother (especially when the legal rights for fetuses have been manufactured by male religious fundamentalists who insist upon controlling everyone else).

          And of course, I’ve been vehemently opposed to Marxists, Communists and Socialist ever since I went to Moscow in 1982.

          It appears that Rolando quickly resorts to ad hominem attacks whenever he cannot win a debate.

          1. Abortion wasn’t/isn’t banned by the US Constitution

            It didn’t need to be since it was banned in common law and also falls under the blanket prohibition against murder, which is a federal crime under 18 U.S. Code Chapter 51.

            and the legal rights of women should always trump the legal rights of a fetus that cannot survive without its mother

            So you also support infanticide up to the age of 5 or so, yes? We’ve seen already you’re a dishonest sack of shit, but do you have a nut in your sack to stand by your statement, or are you going to hedge around it because you’re too embarrassed to be seen as the bloodthirsty murderous amoral piece of shit you really are? Your god-king Northam had the balls. Do you? I doubt it very much.

            It appears that Rolando quickly resorts to ad hominem attacks whenever he cannot win a debate.

            I successfully snapped this one off in your asshole, did you have a different example you’d like to point to, you Marxist genocidal piece of shit?

            1. I’ve consistently (since the 1970s and in many posts here at Reason) supported a women’s right to an abortion in the first 24 weeks, and for cases involving incest, rape and the health of the mother.

              Perhaps Rolando can explain why he desires millions of more unwanted (and fatherless) babies/children in America, who are far less likely to graduate high school, and who are far more likely to remain poor, commit crimes, be incarcerated.

              And of course, federal, state and local taxpayers would pay for or subsidize the housing, food, education, healthcare and childcare for these unwanted babies (as they grow up).

              1. While you’re probably a penniless waste of skin living in your parents basement, those expensive sneakers they bought you could bring a couple of dollars on eBay.

                If your right to life is contingent upon the cost/benefit of letting you live, I’ll take the cash.

      2. a wedge between Conservative Christians and Libertarians

        I have never understood the authoritarianism of conservative Christians. This is a group who has been promised that God will punish the wicked, while simultaneously being told that their own judgements will damn them. You would think they would be a little more mindful of their own doctrine.

        I find Christianity not just to be compatible with Libertarianism, but essential to it. When people are prevented from making moral choices by law, their personal responsibility for the moral choice is negated.

        1. This is a group who has been promised that God will punish the wicked, while simultaneously being told that their own judgements will damn them.

          Neither of these is true. There’s a wikipedia article on Christianity you could have consulted before you made yourself look like a total and complete cock.

          “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man”. God’s punishment of the wicked is by way of… wait for it… the righteous.

          “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” Gee, does that sound like judging? If it does, it should. Because every book of the new testament reiterates the obligation of believers to judge for the purpose of correction and instruction. Turns out Jesus wasn’t actually a postmodernist dopehead you theologically and culturally illiterate asswipe.

          1. God’s punishment of the wicked is by way of… wait for it… the righteous.

            So Nebuchadnezzar was righteous?

          2. Yeah, a couple of verses from Genesis totally disproves what he said about Christianity. How about these that were actually spoken by Jesus (might be a little more relevant to Christianity):
            udge not, that ye be not judged.

            2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

            3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

            or
            Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: [39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

            Not saying that’s definitive either, but selective quotes from the Old Testament are not what defines Christian doctrine.

          3. Because every book of the new testament reiterates the obligation of believers to judge for the purpose of correction and instruction.

            The commandment is to judge false doctrine, not people. Only appointed judges are supposed to judge people. Something about having sin and casting stones…

            Whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, “Raca!” shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, “You fool!” shall be in danger of hell fire (Matt 5:22).

            Christ was pretty clear on the matter.

          4. Turns out Jesus wasn’t actually a postmodernist dopehead you theologically and culturally illiterate asswipe.

            Don’t worry, I won’t judge you for your unrighteous judgement. I will simply observe that you missed the unambiguously stated point of my post.

            When people are prevented from making moral choices by law, their personal responsibility for the moral choice is negated.

        2. Chuck wrote:
          “I find Christianity not just to be compatible with Libertarianism, but essential to it.”

          So no atheists, agnostics or believers of other faiths are allowed to be libertarian?

          Seems like Chuck doesn’t believe that Ayn Rand (who was atheist) was a libertarian either.

          1. I was writing quickly and said that backwards. The next sentence is what I was trying to point out. Freedom to make moral choices is essential to being a disciple as opposed to a just a follower.

      3. “Abortion is an issue that has driven a wedge between Conservative Christians and Libertarians”

        As a libertarian who is NOT christian and who believes Abortion to be a murder that violates the NAP, I find your objections to be pretty meh.

        1. Why is it that those who claim “abortion is murder” refuse to demand the death penalty for abortion service providers, and for the conspiring women?

          1. Because I don’t believe in the death penalty.

            Are you sure you know what a libertarian is?

            1. He couldn’t find his asshole with a funnel and a map. He wouldn’t know what a libertarian was if it came ’round his house with a key of coke and fucked him in the ass.

            2. So how long of a prison sentence and how big of a fine would Overt impose on an abortion service provider, and/or a women who aborted her fetus, and what about repeat offenders?

              BTW Most people who want to outlaw all abortions also support the death penalty.

              1. To be clear, are you conceding that Abortion is Murder so we just need to decide the price we are willing to pay to stop it?

                This isn’t my first rodeo, sweetheart. If you want to discuss abortion, at some point you are going to have to answer that question.

                1. I never considered abortion to be murder.

                  Seems like Overt won’t answer my questions about penalties for people Overt insists upon calling murderers, which is very typical of those who want to ban all abortions.

                  1. “Seems like Overt won’t answer my questions about penalties for people Overt insists upon calling murderers, which is very typical of those who want to ban all abortions.”

                    As I have stated below that, as a libertarian, I see no contradiction in recognizing the evil of abortion and yet understanding that greater evil could be wrought with an overly invasive and punitive government.

                    To be clear, I recognize that much of American society is morally confused about a whole host of things, including the fact that sticking a metal spike into an unborn child’s head and sucking out its brains is killing babies.

                    As a libertarian, I don’t believe you can PUNNISH HARDER a society into moral clarity. When you have such a broadly ingrained and sustained moral confusion, stringing up butchers and throwing women into prison isn’t going to solve the problem. 2500 years ago, Spartans would leave weak or disformed newborns on a rock to die. But today a mother doing that would be thrown in prison. It wasn’t imprisoning women that caused the change in moral clarity. It was the change in moral clarity that eventually changed what is considered punishable.

                    Unfortunately, there is a huge contingent of amoral ghouls who want the national conversation to be on anything EXCEPT the morality of killing babies. They (not you, I’m sure) recognize that as soon as society broadly recognizes that unborn children are still people, late term abortions *will* in fact go the way of Spartan baby killing. So instead of focusing on that crucial question, they would rather demote a baby to “a clump of cells”, appeal to the empathy for poor women, or demean their opponents as disingenuous for declining to string up butchers or as tyrants if they do.

                    1. Yet again, Overt refuses to answer my questions.

                      Anyone who believes that abortion is murder should at least be consistent and suggest actual penalties for these so-called murderers, including the mothers who have abortions (something anti abortion fanatics vehemently oppose, even as a misdemeanor).

                    2. Absolutely!

                      Put the murdering cunts and every member of the murder industry in jail.

                    3. “Yet again, Overt refuses to answer my questions.”

                      Wow, way to skate in 20 hours after my reply. But, uh, bullshit.

                      I specifically said my priority is on educating the masses that sticking spikes in babies’ heads and sucking out their brains is, um, murder. You want me to demonize morally confused mothers because that will make your life easier.

                      You are unwilling to discuss the morality of baby killing because it is hard.

                      For the benefit of the thread, everyone observe as Godshall skips past the actual moral argument and instead goes to a pragmatic argument. I said that I don’t believe a morally confused society should treat mothers today the same that we would treat Spartan mothers in this day and age. But that isn’t acceptable to him.

                      No, Godshall wants to skip right to punishment. Perhaps that is a telling example of folks like him. They don’t believe people can be convinced, only punished. I have, dare I say, a more christian view. We can reason with one another and understand that murdering babies is wrong. And only once broader society accepts such a basic truth, then we can punish the few who violate the truth.

                    4. Uh, I think that every woman knows she is murdering a baby when she chooses abortion.

                      Every member of the murder industry also is well educated in their craft.

                      This genocide of abortion is convenient and lucrative. People who know what they’re doing won’t change their minds with education or psychology.

                      They need to have a reason to make a better choice, not to murder, like punishment.

              2. “BTW Most people who want to outlaw all abortions also support the death penalty.”

                And also, BTW: the biggest organized group against abortion, Catholics and their church, in fact do not support the death penalty.

                1. The Catholic church also has a long track record of denying and opposing many rights of women, just not as harshly as Muslims.

                  1. And the Catholic church also has a history of protecting child molesting priests throughout the world.

                    1. He keep shifting those arguments, Bill, no one will notice.

                      “Abortion is popular…well I mean, it drives a wedge between christians and libertarians…I mean, Pro-lifers are hypocrites because they don’t give baby killers the chair…Well I mean most of them want the chair sometimes…well I mean those Catholics who don’t want the chair are still bad because something something crusades…pedo…something..”

                      Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

          2. Besides that, this really seems like a bad faith form of argumentation. Rather than discuss why abortion is or is not moral, this argument tries to attack the motives of the arguer- as if they really aren’t genuine in their belief that abortion is murder.

            I find this regularly from the Pro-murder side. They don’t want to discuss whether or not Abortion is murder- they want to skip to the costs of protecting innocent humans from murder, as if demanding that we put mothers to the knife (or the other cute one, “Well you pay for the baby then”) somehow ends all discussion. It is especially funny coming from purported libertarians (not sure if you are one or not, Godshall) because the NAP and libertarian theory is not generally based in pragmatism. That is, we respect the NAP not because the cost-benefit analysis results in net benefit, but because it is a violation of natural rights to break it.

            Suffice it to say, as a libertarian, I find nothing inconsistent with the belief that Abortion is murder and should be illegal, and that there is only so much that a limited, libertarian-based government can do about it. I believe killing your 2 year old is also murder, but I am not willing to establish a surveillance state to prevent it.

            1. as a libertarian, I find nothing inconsistent with the belief that Abortion is murder and should be illegal

              Correct. If you believe abortion is murder. Which is the precise point in dispute, and is a matter, as you say, of belief.

              1. Not in this case.
                Well, murder (being a legal term to designate unlawful homicide) is being disputed. So you are correct.
                However, what is not being disputed is the fact of homicide and personhood, which Bill admits to when he states that he places the rights of a pregnant woman over those of the child she is carrying.

                1. what is not being disputed is the fact of homicide and personhood

                  Disagree.

                  What’s being asserted here is “heartbeat” = “personhood.” I personally would be more inclined to go with some sort of cognitive activity, but nevertheless the precise point of disagreement is in fact when “zygote” becomes “child.”

                  If a vegetarian eats a fertilized egg, is he no longer a vegetarian?

            2. I don’t think that abortion is an issue that libertarian theory can settle. Seems to me it comes down to axiomatic assumptions about the nature of rights and when one person’s rights supersede another’s. The whole question of the moral status of the fetus and whether abortion if properly considered the killing of a human being is best avoided because it’s ultimately irrelevant to the larger question. It comes down to whether or not a woman’s right to control what goes on in her body supersedes the right of the fetus to continue to exist, whatever the nature of that right may be.

              1. No, it comes down to whether the fetus is a person or not who is allowed rights.

                If the unborn baby is a person due natural rights then there are very few cases where the mother’s rights override the baby’s.

                Consider that in MOST cases where abortion is considered, that baby is not a parasite- it was put there through consensual actions of a mother and father. The mother has helped place that baby in a position where it is dependent on her to survive. She cannot kill that baby for being where she put it any more than I would be justified killing you if I invited you to my house and decided I didn’t want you there any more.

                When parents through their own actions create a baby, it is their obligation to ensure that baby is cared for. They placed a human life in a position of peril and by doing so they are aggressing if they try to alter that position without the baby’s consent.

                So again, the moral questions are quite clear as soon as you define the point when the baby has become a “person” with natural rights.

                1. Suppose your child was in an accident that required very expensive life support to maintain their life. Does their right to life compel you to pay for that life support in perpetuity regardless of your ability to pay? Is it murder if you pull the plug and could the state compel you to pay for the life support in perpetuity because the child is unconscious and unable to consent to pulling the plug?

                  These questions get into the nature of rights as being negative or positive. It’s not that we have a right to life, that’s a misnomer. We don’t have a right to compel others to support our life, and that’s exactly what you’re asking an unwilling mother to do in the case of pre-viability abortion.

                  1. “Suppose your child was in an accident”

                    Like she just slipped and fell on some sperm that magically made its way inside to her eggs?
                    If a woman fucks of her own volition, she has the responsibility for the consequences of her choice to do so.
                    Your argument is the exact same as the argument that a woman can voluntarily decide to have sex with someone, then later declare that the voluntary sex she participated in is now retroactively rape.
                    Do you want to live in that world?
                    The implications go way beyond questions of fucking.

                    “We don’t have a right to compel others to support our life, and that’s exactly what you’re asking an unwilling mother to do in the case of pre-viability abortion.”

                    So the “pre-viable” has no rights whatsoever?
                    Because otherwise you’ve just declared that it’s okay for the unwilling mother to compel the unwilling life she’s created to support her by dying.
                    And wtf is an unwilling mother? Did she choose to have sex? If so, her later willingness doesn’t matter. She willingly chose to act in a way that could result in pregnancy. If you’re willing to jump out of a plane midair, and do just that, your willingness to descend through the sky is irrelevant.

                    Leo, you can’t make a legitimate morally absolute case here. You either think everyone has the exact same rights and value, or your morals are based on personal convenience.

                    1. Tangential thought that came to mind when thinking of what pronoun to use (I went with “it”) above:
                      Let’s make the cutoff for viability sex determination. If the life is male, female, or hermaphrodite, it’s viable.
                      That would be fun, wouldn’t it?

                    2. So the “pre-viable” has no rights whatsoever?

                      At the fear of being crass, no, none that come to mind. It’s not a viable natural right to compel a mother to house you in her womb and provide you with nutrition from her own body.

                    3. “Suppose your child was in an accident”
                      Like she just slipped and fell on some sperm that magically made its way inside to her eggs?

                      By the way, this comment makes me think that either you didn’t read or comprehend my post. In my analogy the child that had the accident is the pre-viable fetus. You seem to be comparing the child to the mother? That bit of rambling makes zero sense as a response to my analogy. Go back and reread my post.

                    4. “Suppose your child was in an accident that required very expensive life support to maintain their life. Does their right to life compel you to pay for that life support in perpetuity regardless of your ability to pay?”

                      Sorry this is a terrible analogy. You are comparing an unexpected event beyond the control of the parent (some accident) to an act that the parent did (sex). You are also equating taking an active negative act (aborting an unborn child) with an active positive act (intervening to save a child’s life). The better analogy is, “Suppose a mom and dad had a baby and that was inconvenient to them. Does the right to life compel them to refrain from stabbing that baby in the head with a spike and vacuuming out its brains?”

                      It is telling to me that Pro-Abortionists always want to speak in this double speak as if Abortion is just some clinical version of changing the locks to your body as opposed to, you know, causing so much catastrophic trauma to the baby’s tissues that it suffers brain death.

                    5. Talk about an Overt appeal to emotion.

                    6. Where is the appeal to emotion? Is my analogy incorrect in some way? But here, for the sake of your delicate emotions, I’ll rephrase.

                      “The parents of a baby no longer want their baby. Does that baby’s right to life mean they can’t just leave it outside to die? Does it mean that they cannot kill the baby? Or do they have an obligation to care for the baby or find someone who will accept that obligation?”

                      If somehow the parents have an obligation to care for the baby or refrain from killing it when it is outside the womb, why don’t they have an obligation to care for it and refrain from killing it while INSIDE the womb?

                      You see, it isn’t about the rights to your body. It is about the obligation you create when by your own action you create a new human being that is dependent on you.

                    7. The better analogy is, “Suppose a mom and dad had a baby and that was inconvenient to them. Does the right to life compel them to refrain from stabbing that baby in the head with a spike and vacuuming out its brains?”

                      If the method of abortion were different would you have a different opinion on the rights in conflict here? Otherwise, feels like a feel to emotion to me.

                      And you didn’t adequately explain why the analogy is terrible. I set up a realistic scenario where a right to life is at odds with another right. Certainly the property rights of the parents aren’t greater in your mind than the child’s right to life. So why would this child’s right to life be any different than the fetus’s?

                    8. The parents of a baby no longer want their baby. Does that baby’s right to life mean they can’t just leave it outside to die?

                      Once the baby is born there is no longer the mother’s rights in conflict. The baby can simply be given up as a ward to the state and its life isn’t violated. That’s the distinction between viability and not.

                      If there were a way to extract the fetus in an unwanted pregnancy and it could be supported with its life being maintained then that would certainly be a better option than abortion. In this case there would be a justifiable argument to banning abortion, in my opinion. Until then, you can’t get over the issue of your position defending a positive right to life.

                    9. “And you didn’t adequately explain why the analogy is terrible”

                      I absolutely did. I specifically pointed out that your analogy had a child in danger through no fault of the parents where they need to intervene in order to prevent death. That is fundamentally different than a child who is created by the *direct* action of the parents, who are intervening to cause its death. The cause of the actions and the result of ACTING are polar opposites.

                      That is why my analogy is better. In both cases, you have a child who is dependent on the parents *because of their actions* (in both cases the baby was conceived by the parents). In both cases the parents have decided they don’t want the baby. And in both cases, their direct action will kill the baby. And I even threw you a bone by asking if it is ok to just neglect to care for the baby- which is closer to the pro-abortion club’s description of aborting kids.

                      “Once the baby is born there is no longer the mother’s rights in conflict. The baby can simply be given up as a ward to the state and its life isn’t violated.”

                      You are saying that a parent’s obligation to not kill their kid starts only when there is a third party to relieve them of the child. It is such an incoherent framework that breaks down under so many conditions as to be absurd on its face:

                      1) Of course the mother’s rights are still in conflict. Let’s say the state is going to take a week to pickup the kid and she is obligated to care for the kid until they can do that. But she wants to go out and party. Her rights are infringed! She is enslaved because she cannot do what she wants to do! During both pregnancy and during that week, the ask is for her to use her body to support a baby. Why is the baby being outside the womb different?

                      2) What if there is no State, or the State doesn’t want the baby? If there is no state or other party willing to take the child, does that make it morally acceptable for the parents to kill the child?

                      3) What about the state? Does the state have an obligation to care for the child? What if there is no one who the state can transfer the baby to- does the lack of this third party mean the state can kill the child if it doesn’t have the budget?

                      4) Indeed, it isn’t really clear where the obligation comes from here. Why would a state or third party be obliged to take a kid that the parents created. It was their action that had the baby, isn’t that what created the obligation to support the child?

                      A better, more coherent, framework that makes “individual rights tantamount” recognizes that sometimes our actions can lead to obligations to avoid doing harm. When your actions put someone into a situation where they are dependent on you, you have created an obligation. We can conceive of numerous examples of this happening- you adopt a child. You take your niece out to the movies. You jump-scare a buddy and they start to fall over a railing and grab your arm.

                      In all of these cases, your direct action caused the person to be dependent on your action, so you can’t suddenly claim “My individual rights! This is slavery!” You cannot do that, because you VOLUNTARILY entered into a contract, where you created an obligation.

                      So if parents have created a life, their action has created an obligation to ensure that life does not come to harm. There is no tension with the mother’s rights because it was her rights that allowed her to create this obligation.

                2. So again, the moral questions are quite clear as soon as you define the point when the baby has become a “person” with natural rights.

                  Sure. But that in no way resolves the controversy, since that’s exactly what the controversy is about.

                  Your moral outrage at the baby murderers is sidestepping this.

                  1. “But that in no way resolves the controversy, since that’s exactly what the controversy is about.”

                    Says who? Because according to Leo the controversy is the child’s rights vs the mother’s rights. Indeed Zeb (who my original quote responded to) was saying, “Seems to me it comes down to axiomatic assumptions about the nature of rights and when one person’s rights supersede another’s.” According to others, it is the mother’s privacy. According to others, we don’t care about the rights, we care about the ickiness of arresting teenage moms for trying to “correct a mistake”.

                    These are all distractions. Once you settle on when the baby is a “person” it is all simple, high school level moral deduction to realize that killing a child that was put under your care by your own action is murder, and has nothing to do with rights in tension or ickiness.

                    1. I can’t speak for either Zeb or Leo, but I do think Leo is making a more radical argument than I would vis a vis parental obligation.

                      As I’ve said, I agree that on some level it comes down to

                      Once you settle on when the baby is a “person” it is all simple, high school level moral deduction to realize that killing a child that was put under your care by your own action is murder

                      but with all due respect, as I think you’re one of the smarter people here, on this particular issue you’re cutting straight to the high school level moral deduction and skipping the steps that get you to settling on when the baby is a “person.”

                    2. “but with all due respect, as I think you’re one of the smarter people here, on this particular issue you’re cutting straight to the high school level moral deduction and skipping the steps that get you to settling on when the baby is a “person.””

                      Bah, I’m skipping nothing. It’s called playing coy! 😉

                      Look, Leo was the one trying to claim that the punishments to mothers are more than even Pro-Lifers are willing to admit to. That demonstrates that he is trying to steal a base- he doesn’t want to answer whether or not the baby was a person if people just accept that the punishment is unacceptable either way.

                      Later, it is Leo who argues that there is some tension between the mothers’ rights and the baby’s rights that settles the question. And to be fair, this is the terrible logic used by SCOTUS and many self described libertarians. So I didn’t “skip” to the highschool-level moral deduction- they did.

                      I warned people at multiple steps of this conversation that there is really no question about whose rights win the day. The only way to allow an abortion (in the majority of abortion cases) is to argue that the baby being killed is not a person.

                      I’ll admit that it is a bit dirty on my part, because- as I’ve said- this isn’t my first rodeo. The last thing that pro-abortion folk want to do is nail down the point where the “clump of cells” becomes “a person”. Even if they have not rationalized in their head, they know that it is a subject fraught with danger. And that is why they want to skip to different arguments instead.

                      *shrug*

                  2. “Leo was the one trying to claim that the punishments to mothers are more than even Pro-Lifers are willing to admit to.”

                    Ugh, Leo- reading back through the comments, I realize this was not your argument but Godshall’s. I’m sorry for attributing this argument to you.

                3. Overt wrote
                  “Consider that in MOST cases where abortion is considered, that baby is not a parasite- it was put there through consensual actions of a mother and father.”

                  Wrong.

                  Fathers are not involved in most abortion decisions (and have no legal say), and most abortions prevent fatherless and unwanted children.

                  Blacks (who comprise 13% of US population) have a majority of abortions in America, while 75% of black children are already fatherless.

                  Fatherless children have much higher crime rates, which is the key reason why violence is far more pervasive (and growing) in black urban areas.

                  Unfortunately for individual freedom, abortion banners have zero respect for women’s fundamental rights.

                  1. “Wrong.

                    Fathers are not involved in most abortion decisions (and have no legal say), and most abortions prevent fatherless and unwanted children.”

                    Learn to read, Godshall- and maybe join the convo a little earlier.

                    There is nothing wrong about the fact that when babies are conceived, it is overwhelmingly consensual acts between the father and mother. That Fathers are assholes who abandon the mothers is a huge problem, that is- in fact- exacerbated by easy abortions.

                    Your “blacks are likely to commit crimes because they are fatherless, therefore they should be aborted” argument is, frankly, repugnant and should be discarded as the racist clap trap that it is. A lot of problems result in children of single mothers. The idea that the solution is murdering those children borders on pathological. But given Godshall’s arguments to far, that might explain a lot.

              2. My personal opinion is that abortion can be resolved if one thinks about negative and positive aspects of rights.

                Right to life as a positive right means requiring a mother to support a fetus prior to viability. But the implication to that would mean that there are other circumstances that would require the state to compel people to support someone’s right to life, for instance forcing medical providers to provide services against their will.

                Thinking about the right to life as only a negative one is consistent with supporting abortion, at least prior to viability. That is to say, your right to life ends at the point that you need to compel something from someone to support it… for example requiring the use of another person’s womb against their will or requiring someone to perform a life-saving operation (my earlier example).

                1. Yea, but your personal opinion is logically inconsistent, convenient bullshit.

                  1. Explain why in terms of negative and positive rights. You certainly don’t believe that your right to life extends to someone being forced to support you, does it?

                    The definition of viable is that if the mother were to birth the baby it would be able to live with normal medical care. A pre-viable baby has no ability to live without the mother’s womb, by definition. So your logic is that in this case and presumably ONLY this case it’s ok to compel the mother to support someone else’s life.

                    And you didn’t answer my question above about whether or not the state can compel you to keep life support for your child in perpetuity. That’s the closest analogy to a pre-viable fetus that I can think of.

                    1. Let’s say I sneak into your house one night while you sleep and then drag you over to my house. The next morning you wake up, strapped down to my couch and I am standing above you with a knife. “Sorry, Leo, old chap, your right to life doesn’t extend to my supporting you on my property. Seeing as how you are in no condition to leave on your own volition, I’ll be scooping out your brains now.”

                      Do you see how my act of putting you in that position has a bearing on who has obligations to whom?

                    2. Do you see how my act of putting you in that position has a bearing on who has obligations to whom?

                      Where was the baby before it got dragged into the womb?

                    3. Just because abortion is morally reprehensible (and I think it is by the way) doesn’t mean it fits in a world view where individual rights are tantamount.

                    4. “Where was the baby before it got dragged into the womb?”

                      Nowhere. The baby didn’t exist. Are you saying that this has some sort of bearing on the situation? The baby’s non-existence wasn’t the cause of that baby being in a position where it was dependent on the mother. The proximate cause of that baby being attached to the mom was her conceiving it.

                      “Just because abortion is morally reprehensible (and I think it is by the way) doesn’t mean it fits in a world view where individual rights are tantamount.”

                      Of course it does. In a world where individual rights are tantamount, we would say that killing a child 1 minute after birth is as unacceptable and morally reprehensible as killing a child 1 minute before birth. You just refuse to accept that framework for some reason, and have retreated from arguing your framework to just insisting that it won’t work.

                    5. Nowhere. The baby didn’t exist. Are you saying that this has some sort of bearing on the situation?

                      It’s important and why your analogy falls apart. I existed and had rights before you trespassed on my property and kidnapped me.

                    6. “It’s important and why your analogy falls apart. I existed and had rights before you trespassed on my property and kidnapped me.”

                      No it doesn’t. My analogy doesn’t depend on me having kidnapped you against your will. I could have invited you on a plane trip and made the same argument to you while at 40,000 feet. I could of conceived you and made this argument 1 minute after your birth. I could have adopted you and made this argument 1 minute after you entered my house. We could get all Frankenstein and say I made you in a lab, or PK Dick and envision creating you from a scan of the original Leo.

                      In all of these cases, it doesn’t matter what your state was prior to coming under my care. And in all these cases, whether you were 30 seconds old, or 30 years old is immaterial. The only thing that matters is that RIGHT NOW you are alive, you have rights, and MY actions have put you in a situation where you are dependent on me.

                      Just pick one- how about the airplane. We both consented to you being dependent on me. Natural rights would say that the plane is my property, and it is my choice to keep flying or to bail out and parachute away- it is my body after all. If I do so leaving you to die, is it my fault you cannot fly? How can you expect me to fly against my will? Isn’t that slavery?

                    7. Nowhere. The baby didn’t exist. Are you saying that this has some sort of bearing on the situation?

                      Yes, because you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too by suggesting that the baby came from some other place and some prior existence and some set of a priori rights that potential beings have.

                      The mother is not hosting the baby – she’s creating it. On Day 1, it isn’t anything worth thinking about, and a miscarriage on Day 1 will go unnoticed. On Day 250 it’s pretty freakin’ close to being a baby and most people in the world are going to go to heroic lengths to save it under any circumstances, often even sacrificing the mother in the process.

                      You’re acting like the moment of transition is a known quantity, and that anyone who doesn’t agree with you on exactly where it is is a moral monster.

                    8. “Yes, because you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too by suggesting that the baby came from some other place and some prior existence and some set of a priori rights that potential beings have.”

                      Wait wot!? In fact I have argued in multiple ways that the prior state of the individual doesn’t matter. By my construction you have three basic necessities- There is a baby with rights, there is a mother with rights, and the baby is dependent on the mother due to her action. None of that depends on a priori rights.

                      “The mother is not hosting the baby – she’s creating it.”
                      Yes. YES! And are we not responsible for our creations?

                      “On Day 1, it isn’t anything worth thinking about,”

                      This is a question of personhood. If on day one it is a person, then absolutely they are worth thinking about. This is an interesting question worth discussing more, and sadly that I get to in maybe 1% of abortion discussions.

                      ” and a miscarriage on Day 1 will go unnoticed.”

                      Sure, but that is an event that the mother doesn’t consciously cause. If you have followed my viewpoints on COVID, I describe a framework that distinguishes between natural events and those that are under our control. The mother cannot control if some chaotic and incomprehensible composite of temperature, chemistry and genetics makes the new life inviable. That was not her action. Likewise, if we have a child in the real world, we cannot control if some virus or a car jumping a car kills it- but we still bare responsibility for caring for the child.

                      “You’re acting like the moment of transition is a known quantity, and that anyone who doesn’t agree with you on exactly where it is is a moral monster.”

                      This is absolutely incorrect. Pro Baby Killers aren’t arguing the finer details of when a fetus becomes a person. They are arguing that EVEN IF IT IS A PERSON, IT DOESN’T MATTER. Leo’s first argument was to say “Those pro-lifers are unwilling to say what is an appropriate punishment for mothers” (Paraphrased). That isn’t arguing the point at which the baby is a person. It is a deliberate attempt to sidestep it. Then he tried arguing that the baby’s rights did not override the mother’s rights while in the womb. Again, this concedes that the baby is a person.

                      So yes, such people who have conceded that a baby is a person but still make arguments about the mother’s feelings or rights are- in my opinion- justifying murder. If they want to argue the point where a baby becomes a person, let’s have at it.

                    9. “Leo’s first argument was to say “Those pro-lifers are unwilling to say what is an appropriate punishment for mothers” (Paraphrased).”

                      Again, my apologies- this was Godshall’s argument, not Leo’s. Sorry.

              3. It throws a big ass wrench in your NAP.
                Ultimately, the “pro choice” side is admitting that it’s okay to aggressively kill another person if that person inconveniences you, despite it being 100% your responsibility (in like 99% of cases) that the inconvenient person exists in the first place.
                The pro life side is much more consistent in their principles, though much less pragmatic.

                And then there are some of us who are ambivalent, and to whom the issue is unimportant.

                But one can’t simultaneously be pro choice, or even ambivalent (probably), and value all lives absolutely.
                If taking a life is wrong, abortion is wrong.
                If abortion isn’t wrong, then you’re admitting some lives are okay to take. And once you’ve established that as your belief, the debate of whose life it’s okay to take becomes legitimate.

                I personally have no problem stating that I value life by proximity. Family and friends, neighbors and allies, countrymen and idols – these are all more valuable than enemy and abstract lives.
                The strongest argument I’ve come across, in a comment thread here years ago (don’t remember who made it), for the legality of abortion is that the government does not, or should not, have jurisdiction within the womb. Thus the unborn person occupies the same legal ground as a foreign non-citizen outside our borders.
                Of course, if you want to take this position we’ve already established that it is inconsistent with absolutely valuing human life, which it completely negates, but further it makes open borders advocacy based on the rights of the immigrant logically impossible as well.

                So have fun with that, moral idealists.

          3. Abortionists should get the death penalty. They are serial killers.
            The mothers… well, they should be punished if their reasons are selfish, but it shouldn’t be by the state and shouldn’t go further than COVID style bullying. With the goal of making sure the irresponsible idiot doesn’t have another unwanted aborted pregnancy.
            And for the record, I’m all in favor of sterilizing men that don’t accept responsibility for their offspring or who pressure their mates to abort.

            1. So, hiring a hitman to kill your child shouldn’t be criminally punished?

            2. If it wasn’t part of a life saving measure, they should be treated like the skanks who beat their kids to death in a drunken rage.

              1. Why not like someone who hires a hitman to kill someone? That seems like the more parallel case if you believe that abortion is murder.

                1. Aren’t both treated the same way?

      4. “Abortion is an issue that has driven a wedge between Conservative Christians and Libertarians.”

        You misspelled leftitarians.

        1. And frankly I do not care where you fall on the human/person question.

          It is an issue that, absent a definitive answer to that, must be left to the states.

          1. Seems the most just way to do it.

        2. Learn what a libertarian actually is. Read Ayn Rand. Learn about libertarian values.

      5. and demonized everyone who is pro choice”

        Rightly so.
        There’s not a lick of difference between being pro abortion and being pro-holocaust or pro-human sacrifice. At least slavers don’t kill their victims and view their chattel’s health as an economic concern.

        And there’s nothing libertarian about killing people. You’re all so worried about the health of one party, but are happily willing to commit an assault on the life and liberty of the other. Every single human being has spent time in gestation, to be fine with killing people currently in that state is situational hypocrisy at the highest level.

        Fuck pro-abortionists. Fuck them to hell.

        1. You’re not getting the fact that a fetus is not the same as an actual human. Until it is capable of surviving outside the womb, it is at the mercy of its host. She has ZERO obligation to keep it.

          “You’re all so worried about the health of one party, but are happily willing to commit an assault on the life and liberty of the other.”
          There are not two parties prior to viability. There’s one woman and a fetus attached. If she wishes the fetus to no longer be in her body prior to viability, it’s her decision and hers alone. You need not be concerned with women you’ll never meet.

    2. So your contention is that a local law that will be overturned immediately upon challenge to the state and federal courts will cost national Republicans the election a year and a half from now, but the image of Afghans falling to their deaths from the landing gear of American planes in the midst of a ISIS-and-definitely-not-CIA-false-flag terrorist attack that killed the last 13 Americans in Afghanistan since February of 20fucking20 will be zapped from the public consciousness like the neuralyzer from Men in Black? I mean props on getting out ahead of the propaganda so that you can justify the 50-state 100% electoral sweep for Democrats after they federalize the illegal, unconstitutional election chicanery gifted them by the Pennsylvania supreme court last year, but maybe you should have saved it for closer to election day. How does that 80 year old man gooch taste btw? Tasty?

      1. I’m not aware of any local abortion bans, and I specifically referred to state abortion bans.

        Thanks to the Democrats $$$$$$$$$ and to left wing news media and social media, preserving a women’s right to abortion will trump most American’s concerns about Biden’s massive screw up in Afghanistan.

        While the Democrats and their left wing media allies have been unable to change the news coverage away from Afghanistan for the past month, the Texas GOP has come to rescue Biden and the Democrats.

        1. Just because you fell for it doesn’t mean everyone else did.

      2. It hasn’t been overturned. The American public is ALREADY no longer talking about Afghanistan. Also, there were 4 deaths in Afghanistan since Feb 2020 but prior to Aug 2021.

        Counting ballots is chicanery? Here’s the deal, there’s one party trying to stop people from voting because they know that when everyone votes, they lose. That’s not a good or effective way to operate. They need to win elections honestly by pushing popular policies.

    3. So, it’s almost like the (potential) demise of Roe v. Wade and its offshoots will spur democratic responses that may prove more durable and less contentious. Good riddance.

      1. Interesting commentary from you guys on this.

        1. I’m a pro-choice federalist. Roe v. Wade is a gong show legally and politically even though I mostly agree with the policy framework it uses. Its imposition totally screwed up the politics of both the issue at hand and the country as a whole.

          1. Yup. But I don’t think either side want’s it to be settled in law.

            1. Coathanger battle royale?

    4. “An NBC News poll conducted August 14–17 finds 54 percent of respondents think abortion should be legal always or most of the time.”

      That poll is being used in an entirely ridiculous way. First of all, look at how the poll is structured:

      ” Which comes closest to your view on abortion–
      1) abortion should always be legal, (31%)
      2) should be legal most of the time, (23%)
      3) should be made illegal except in cases of rape, incest and to save the mother’s life, (34%)
      4) or abortion should be made illegal without any exceptions? (8%)
      5) Not sure (4%)

      So two key points here: 1) the plurality is actually EXTREMELY restricted. 2) the “Should be legal most of the time” is an extremely vague question.

      A person who believe a mother should be allowed to have an abortion FOR ANY REASON up to 8 weeks would probably choose “Should be legal most of the time” because they don’t have the option to talk about time preference.

      So another way to read that poll is that “65% of Americans believe that Abortion should be illegal or restricted in certain circumstances”.

      Indeed, when you actually poll people on abortion in a way that doesn’t try to create a consensus where none exists, you find that most of the country probably would support abortions restrictions that are more like Europe and not like the US at all (which are less restrictive).

      1. Plus the giant middle ground missing from the poll: “Abortion should be more restricted than it is currently while still being legal.”

        Hey guys, was:

        1. The best!
        2. Really good!
        3. Really Bad!
        4. The worst!

        What if it’s just ok?

      2. But since the Texas law bans virtually all abortions after 6 weeks (i.e. before most women even know they are pregnant), the 23% who answered 2) and the 34% who answered 3) should be added to the 31% who answered 1).

        Politically, 88% of the voters always win over 8%.

        1. No you are wrong.

          The way that question was worded “should be legal most of the time,” is put in opposition to “only allowed in cases of incest, rape and the mother’s life”

          So what if I believe abortion should be legal FOR ANY REASON for the first 6 – 8 weeks of life, after which point it should be illegal?

          The answer that “best represents my belief” is “Should be legal most of the time” because I don’t believe rape/incest/life is an acceptable restriction- during those first weeks.

          1. Agree 100%
            And further, should be legal for many reasons for the next 8ish weeks.
            And… birth control pills should be free and over the counter.
            And and and… if you don’t know you’re pregnant by 10 weeks, you’re a fucking retard and you having a kid in that state of retardation is one of the only reasons I support abortion at all.
            Aaaaand, the only exception after 14-18 weeks should be health of the mother. Report your rape and take the morning after pill (for free). Incest isn’t an accident or non consensual.

          2. To be a relatively neutral, rather than push, poll
            “should be legal most of the time,” should be put in opposition to “should be illegal most of the time” rather than “only allowed in cases of incest, rape and the mother’s life”

        2. (i.e. before most women even know they are pregnant)

          This smells like bullshit. My wife has gotten pregnant three times; she was aware within a week on each of them, before even taking a home test. Our friends and relatives report similar experiences.

          6 weeks is probably too short for most people (me included), but the “they can’t know by then!” pitch always seemed disingenuous.

          1. It’s more “don’t” or “are unwilling to accept” than “can’t” . When you are intending to get pregnant, you will probably be more honest with yourself.

      3. Seriously. Let’s make it 18 weeks and everyone can shut the fuck up.

        1. Seems like a fairly reasonable compromise.

    5. 54 percent of respondents think abortion should be legal always or most of the time.

      The only thing I’d say about that (and this was pointed out some months ago) is that this 54% is always an interesting framing. “legal always or most of the time“, meaning that between 0 and 54% of the public agree that there should be some limitations to abortion. I tend to stay out of the abortion discussions because while I am pro legal abortion, I have a very difficult time figuring out where the limit is. Ie, when is that unviable tissue mass no longer an unviable tissue mass? Perhaps Dr. Fauci can weigh in with The Final Science Word.

      1. The cutoff shall be the point of fetal sex differentiation.
        Boom.

    6. Too bad the people being murdered can’t defend themselves from you communist fascists voting away their inalienable right to life.

      1. Says the Holocaust supporter.

        1. Misek’s rarely right and Lord knows that I’ve fought harder against him that most. But he’s not wrong here.

        2. Liar, cite where I have ever supported the holocaust. Crickets.

          I refute what I deny.

          Bigot, you deny what you can’t refute.

          1. You openly support its goal even while you deny that it ever happened.

            1. You are a liar. I challenged you to cite where I have ever supported the goal of the holocaust story.

              Your silence demonstrates your lie.

              Do you think that your lying encourages people to believe you?

  24. The Texas law could only be aborted if done so within sox weeks of it being conceived.

  25. “Twitter thread starts here:”

    Interest in subject stops the same place. You’re a reporter; report.

    1. You’re a reporter

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    2. Assumes facts not in evidence.

    3. What happened to the real Sevo? The real Sevo would never accuse ENB of ‘reporting’ anything.

  26. Masnick doesn’t see that “making much of a difference in the long run because (1) the 1st Amendment already protects such speech so you don’t need a law to say that and (2) it’s unlikely to stop people from suing over speech that they claim is aiding and abetting…”

    The rabidly pro-choice crowd doesn’t care that 1 and 2 are incompatible, they are going to spin anything and everything as an outrageous offense against common sense. It does cost money to file suit, and while that will allow the process to become the punishment (which I absolutely believe to be wrong), I would suspect that pro-life groups will choose to fight the battles that might not get immediately thrown out on summary judgement.

    The left has their panties all in a twist, but SB 8 will be declared unconstitutional by the district courts and will make it back to SCOTUS before long. There might be one or two justices who will dissent, but collectively, they are not going to willingly forever be associated with having undermined Roe v. Wade.

    As always, I am on the side of more liberty. It is not incompatible to believe that abortion is an existential crisis while advocating it is not a crime that should be punished by society. In my opinion, the process is the punishment.

    1. I agree wholeheartedly. I, for example, do not support rape, but that’s a choice that should be left to the rapist and the rapee.

      1. It’s the raper’s body he should be free to do whatever he wants with it.
        Rapee’s are persons? Sure rapee’s and fetuses have brains, bones, organs, heartbeats, firing synapses, etc. but they’re not ‘persons’ so it’s okay.

  27. Easier to entrap someone if they think the communication comes from someone they know:

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/aug/25/australian-powers-to-spy-on-cybercrime-suspects-given-green-light

    A government bill to create new police powers to spy on criminal suspects online, disrupt their data and take over their accounts has been passed with the support of Labor.

    The identify and disrupt bill passed the Senate on Wednesday, despite concerns about the low bar of who can authorise a warrant, and that the government failed to implement all the safeguards recommended by the bipartisan joint committee on intelligence and security.

    The bill creates three new types of warrants to enable the AFP and Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission to modify and delete data, take over accounts and spy on Australians in networks suspected of committing crimes.

    1. I never pegged Australia to become the first neu-fascist state a la 1984, but just look at them go.

  28. how do they skip from delta to mu?

    1. Mew is fun to say.

    2. Lambda gets some play. I assume the other ones didn’t amount to much. Or they skipped the weirdo letters from the Greek alphabet.

      1. upsilon *is* strange

  29. It could turn Amazon, the leading cloud service provider worldwide with 40% market share according to research firm Gartner, into one of the world’s most powerful arbiters of content allowed on the internet, experts say.

    Zzz…

    1. Aren’t they ALREADY that?

      Reason did not seem to be concerned until this bill. Weird.

  30. “An activist has made a script to flood a Texas website used to solicit information on people seeking abortions with fabricated data, according to a TikTok video from the developer and Motherboard’s test of the tool, Vice reports.”

    Not to mention the hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of individuals posting false information to the site using false names and real addresses, which crashed their site a couple of times yesterday.

    Of note: apparently someone named Gregoria Abbot is planning go have an abortion, according to the “poster.” Her address is the same as the governor’s mansion.

    1. I’m surprised Lizzie didn’t suffer whiplash going from 100% support for COVID snitching to this wonderful blow for justice.

    2. this is a federal crime and could result in a very long prison sentence. ouch.

      1. I am curious, in what way would the feds get involved? It’s a privately-owned website.

    3. Governor’s side piece get preggers?

  31. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has made feeding peacocks a crime punishable by up to six months in jail and/or a $1,000 fine.

    Focusing on the important stuff I see

  32. >>The Texas abortion ban could force tech to snitch on users

    lol! force lolololol … don’t throw us in the briar patch!

  33. Just musing here: what if we considered having sex and pregnancy like a contract? People agree (with themselves) to exchange something they want now for a chance to have to pay later with something they don’t want to do. Should we support contract enforcement or abrogation?

    1. Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slaveryabortion, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.

      – paraphrased from some old white guy

    2. It’s already that way. The penalty for breaking the contract is paying for an abortion.

      1. the emotional penalty never ends.

      2. “The penalty for breaking the contract is paying for an abortion.”

        The penalty for being an innocent third-party to the breaking of that contract, is death.

  34. Jeff Kosseff –

    The First Amendment protections for anonymity might really get put to the test. I’m totes not ok with that for abortion but if it was giving up an unvaxxed person it’s cool because safety.

    1. That could almost be any of the usual trolls here.

    2. Unvaxxed may infect a clump of cells.

  35. … And it’s all starting to fall apart.
    As it has done historically hundreds of times before.

    Socialism DOESN’T WORK!!! Democratic doesn’t make it work!!!
    1. The Gov grows its Gun-Force *POWER*.
    2. The collecting *POWER* is used by criminals to steal.
    3. Those who are robbed try to use *POWER* against the criminals.
    4. EVERYTHING becomes about *POWER* instead of VALUE!
    5. Enter either authoritarian dictatorship or a massive civil war.

    Ton’s of blood is shed until people are reminded ONCE AGAIN; what’s ‘really’ important is to constrain the Gov-Gun *POWER* narrative to only pursuing Individual Liberty and Justice (i.e. Freedom for All).

    The *POWER* itself is the enemy; who holds that POWER is rather insignificant in the bigger picture. Every person should get their ‘fair’ share of will-power.

  36. Weird how Dipshit Dave Weigel (aka “Sarah Palin’s Buttplug 2” didn’t bring up the latest jobs report that came out. Gee, I wonder why??

    1. The last day or last two days they decided to do this. It was available on international news. Biden left a cache of other operational equipment for the Taliban. And cut wires may disable that vehicle but provides spare parts for the functional ones.
      A bunch = a fraction of the total largesse Biden supplied to the Taliban.

      1. Mike just can’t help himself…

  37. Giuliani fucks up again:

    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/09/giuliani-records-cameo-endorsing-case-against-his-own-client.html?utm_source=undefined&utm_medium=undefined&utm_campaign=feed-part

    “For 52 seconds, Giuliani reads an endorsement of several journalists and activists who have reported critically on, or campaigned against, Derwick Associates, the energy firm founded by Alejandro Betancourt, a Venezuelan businessman reportedly represented by Giuliani.”

    1. Did he kill any innocent Afghani children like Biden reportedly did? Because a war crime such as that would qualify as a fuck up.

      1. Reportedly did? Please show reporting.

  38. The U.S. Justice Department said Monday that it will not tolerate violence against anyone who is trying to obtain an abortion in Texas as federal officials explore options to challenge a new state law that bans most abortions.
    Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Justice Department would “protect those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services” under a federal law known as the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
    https://worldabcnews.com/u-s-justice-department-vows-to-protect-texas-abortion-seekers/

  39. It hasn’t been overturned. The American public is ALREADY no longer talking about Afghanistan. Also, there were 4 deaths in Afghanistan since Feb 2020 but prior to Aug 2021.

    Counting ballots is chicanery? Here’s the deal, there’s one party trying to stop people from voting because they know that when everyone votes, they lose. That’s not a good or effective way to operate. They need to win elections honestly by pushing popular policies.

Please to post comments